Self ID of gender...can we discuss this?

I would say that's most of them but also include hospital wards, sports. To me that's like saying ginger men are less likely to hurt women. The differences between Male crime and female crime are very clear. If they are not why on earth would anybody be safer in womens spaces. In what way is Eddie Izzard less of a risk to women than say Jimmy Carr. As far as I am aware neither of them are dangerous I am just using them as an example.

Iam64 My apology that how I express myself has made you feel that way, it's not my intention to offend you. I'm aware that I irritate you, as your previous responses to me have indicated so with that in mind I will try to make my posts more palatable but as I can't please everyone maybe it would be better if you just roll your eyes and scroll on, or report me should you feel I'm being offensive? Up to you.

NellG

Are people conflating drag with cross dressing? Very, very different things for most.

All the trans women I've known have tended towards the dowdy if anything - I once had to seriously talk down a decision to buy American Tan tights.

Iam64 Definitely not saying all, or dismissing anything that was achieved, merely pointing out that there was a flip side. I was fairly active in women's issues and politics when I was younger - I got sick of being hit on by women at events because it was automatically assumed I was a lesbian because I was a feminist. That's how bad it got towards the end of the 2nd wave. It's not a condemnation, but an observation that the apparently retrograde confusion of the '3rd wave' came as no surprise.

Of course feminists in the wave from 60’s - 80’s weren’t all perfect NellG. I was there and remember as you do, getting sick of the assumption I was interested in casual sex, which seemed the focus of some women.
The tone of some comments seems lofty. An underlying assumption that the majority of posters need teaching how to suck eggs.

I didn't say there shouldn't be sex segregated places but I don't see how a woman who used to have a man's body or is in the process of changing that body is anymore of a threat to other women than some women born in a female body are.

I knew a woman who was murdered by another woman. The murderer wasn't transgender but was still a murderer and if she hadn't been caught her intention had been to murder other women.

As a matter of interest what should be sex segregated areas. I can see the logic of women's refuges, prisons and changing rooms that are one large room but I can't think of any other places.

I am blaming the site issues for my typos as well.

I think the issue is you believe transwomen are women, which is the crux of the issue. My belief is that whatever you do or dont do to your body you cant change sex. By your argument thereis no need for any sex segregated spaces after all we should just let the police deal with whatever problems occur.
On a seperate note the current site issues are beyond irritating.

I'm not 'woke' btw. I just had to look up the meaning . In fact I'm not even a feminist by some people's standards. I just don't see the problem with people being who they are as long as they don't hurt anyone what does it matter. If they do hurt someone then it's for the law to deal with them as in individual and not as a representative of a group.

I'm genuinely confused by some of the comments particularly about safe spaces for women.

I know I'm a woman. Not just by my body but in my head. I simply identify as a woman and can't imagine being a man. If a woman by some quirk/accident in the womb develops a man's body than surely she's still a woman. She will simply know (like I do) that she's a woman but her problem is that her body isn't the correct one. Fortunately today this accident in the womb can be repaired and she can have her body altered. OK she won't have a womb and ovaries but that won't make her any less female. After all some women born in female bodies fail to develop ovaries/wombs and no one says they're not women.

Why then would a transgender woman be a threat to any woman in a safe place? She's maybe in that safe place for a similar reason.

There are good and bad in all groups of people regardless of gender/sex, sexual orientation, race, religion etc. I don't see how a transgender person can be anymore of a threat than anyone else.

M0nica If we had a gender neutral society. Then the use of facilities could be done on a biological gender basis because that would be the only delimiter we had, so biological men could dress and have any lifestyle they chose.
And how exactly would that be done? there would be no evidence to show what gender any one was (I suppose you mean biological sex by the way). And as it is a gender neutral society all facilities must be open to all people.

MOnica for clarity can we establish that trans women are birth assigned males who live and identify as women and that trans men are birth assigned females who live and identify as men?

Not criticising, I understand it's confusing as the language around this is changing all the time, so please don't think I'm being rude.

Are people conflating drag with cross dressing? Very, very different things for most.

All the trans women I've known have tended towards the dowdy if anything - I once had to seriously talk down a decision to buy American Tan tights.

Iam64 Definitely not saying all, or dismissing anything that was achieved, merely pointing out that there was a flip side. I was fairly active in women's issues and politics when I was younger - I got sick of being hit on by women at events because it was automatically assumed I was a lesbian because I was a feminist. That's how bad it got towards the end of the 2nd wave. It's not a condemnation, but an observation that the apparently retrograde confusion of the '3rd wave' came as no surprise.

If we had a gender neutral society. Then the use of facilities could be done on a biological gender basis because that would be the only delimiter we had, so biological men could dress and have any lifestyle they chose.

And Alexa, I agree, transgender men more often than not adapt an archetypical, or is it stereotypical, possibly both, usually sexualised version of female culture. I agree with you to, GagaJo. There are men who do not adopt this sexualised stereotype. The late Jan Morris was one, and I have known others, but I think they are the minority.

Actually Alexa, the little Suffolk market town I lived in had a very subdued little grey, elderly trans/cross dressing/whatever woman. Very dowdy, M&S skirts, grey hair like my grannies. The only vaguely flamboyant thing about her appearance was dangly earrings. This was 10 years ago.

The trans woman who worked in the feminist bookshop in York a few years ago was equally unobtrusive. No make up. Boring pageboy haircut. Jeans. Trainers.

The thing is, unless one of these individuals is OTT, you probably don't even notice them.

Don’t dismiss all so called 2nd wave feminists as anti male, or worse behaving like men. As trisher often reminds us, every mi event has extremists/activists.

Do men cross dressers never dress up as elderly women wearing elderly women clothing? No. The cross dressing always is blatantly sexualised. Why is this?

NellG I remember 2nd wave- A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle!
M0nica if we had a gender neutral society then all facilities would be open to everyone to use and you simply wouldn't know if the person standing next to you was male or female. Its one of the reasons some are identifying as non-binary.
As it is the social constructs mean some people suffer harm.

I agree too. Although I am sure no one would believe it one of my major concerns in this whole debate is the seemingly poor level of care provided to transpeopke within the health service. I think gender non conforming people are entitled to the same level of care as everyone else, and I am not sure they are receiving it.

NellG my point was that sex & gender are not the same thing.
Treating them as if they are messes up the whole situation.
I agree with you that it is not being handled well at all, for anyone.

Ro60 Personally I think we are making a complete mess of how we deal with trans people - which is why the debate must continue and our understanding must evolve. If we shut it down and just stick with biological sex we are putting people like your young person at huge risk - equally by blithely accepting that any person who expresses gender associated issues is automatically trans and instantly medicating them ( in some case surgically altering them) we are putting them at sometimes greater risk. It's like Cass64 said, putting people in boxes causes a lot of damage.

The day we start seeing people, humans, - not genitalia, or skin colour or whatever else divides us will be the day we make true progress. It's why I support the discussion, the changes in language, the definitions and the acceptance of gender fluidity/identity etc.

So much this debate rests on how trans issues make people feel. You'd think being uncomfortable with how we feel would move us forward and allow us to understand just how powerful 'feelings' are as a motivator.

Sorry Ro60 - I'm rambling at you, but this issue is HUGE both in its affects and it's breadth as a topic. We're really talking about humanity.

I think I may need to step away and have a herbal tea...

"Can we discuss this?" - oh, let's not. It has been done to death and my brain has turned to porridge.

FarNorth or does it advice debate?

It's perfectly possible to accept that biological sex for the purposes of procreation is a fact, yet still be able to discuss gender identity with respect that trans people are real, effective human beings with rights too.

Some seem to cleave to that single biological distinction as an excuse to further marginalise an already vulnerable group of human beings in the belief that they can simply 'work on their feelings' I'm sorry, but having literally picked up some of the bodies from that misapprehension I can't rest on it as a satisfactory argument.

Interesting topic I'm still trying to understand. Haven't been on GN long so only seen the subject come up once in a thread not dedicated to this subject.
Through my work I've come across several people who fit (for various reasons) this group. The one thing they have in common is that they are all sensitive people. I appreciate this may not be the full picture.
The one that worried me was the young person who had hormone therapy for over a year when they were with a partner but stopped & completely reverted when the relationship ended.
People are people.

Biological sex is a fact.
Gender is a social construct.
Using the two terms interchangeably confuses the issue.

Gagajo Your comment there hooks into the debate I wish we'd had on the original feminism thread. There were elements of the 2nd wave that were so aggressive and so 'male' that they not only confused but alienated a lot of women, who rightly still wanted to feel like, present as and be feminine, 'traditional' women - they wanted respects and rights too, they just didn't want to have to grow their leg hair and stink of patchouli to do it ( massively simplistic representation I know, but I think the essence is relevant).

Bearing in mind feminism in the history of the world and the formation of what has always been a patriarchal society is pretty much still foetal - in that we've only just begun and a lot of the 4th wave ideas are disparate . As such, is it any surprise that the 3rd wave got a bit confused?

No worries Cass64 I just didn't want you to think I was adding to the problem. Absolutely no offence taken.