Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
I'm probably missing something blatantly obvious, but why is one's choice of clothes so central to one's core sense of self that it automatically determines that person's gender? I ask as a person who is biologically female but who has worn men's underwear since I was old enough to buy my own underwear, and I used to wear it under men's pants back when I was less curvy and could fit into men's pants. I have never desired to wear a lacy thong or mini skirt. I have also never wanted to be male, though, nor wanted to be treated as a man (except in the practical sense of wanting things like equal respect and pay and privilege, etc.).
I've worn kilts (and even performed in them) and frequently wear yukata kimono, both of those things have been described as female clothing by males who seem to be troubled by their own sexuality. Similarly I've worn a 'shift' as part of a roman costume (very much like a really basic summer mini dress, but designed for a male physique.)
None of those things made me feel even the slightest bit feminine, so I'm also surprised by the idea that clothing can change who a person is.
If I did, that would probably be related to the aforementioned social expectations of masculinity or femininity. Without those gendered expectations, anyone who felt like it would just buy the thong and skirt without thinking twice about it, just as women don't think twice about sporting trousers these days.
I'm pretty sure right here is where we disagree, if "it" refers back to gendered clothing preferences. The reason I don't wear skirts (not even utilikilts) is because no one looks twice or asks annoying questions if I wear gym shorts instead. Even my traditional thobe tends to draw unpleasant scrutiny which I'd rather avoid in most social contexts; I mostly wear it when pottering around at home.
if we were in feudal Japan, where a manly man wore garments we would consider girly today, I think I would wear them anyway, just because the other manly men were doing it, and I guess my barometer is tuned in to the societal convention more than I thought.
I think that last part is true for most of us. The main reason I use the men's room is because other people's expectations will be violated if I step into the other one. I'll violate this convention if both rooms are one-holers, because I don't have to play along with that level of idiocy.
No, constantly calling a "transwoman" "he" is speaking truth to fantasy. He might call himself "she", but I am under no obligation to help him indulge in his fantasy.
"But what harm can calling a transwoman a her possibly do" I hear you ask. The harm is to truth and reality. Compliance is part of the TRA scheme to blur the lines between reality and fantasy - I refuse to participate. If we go along with these people's fantasies, we are denying reality. I flatly refuse to do that however unkind that might make me seem. I won't even call them "transwomen" unless I need to do so grammatically, its why I have put the words in quotes here. They are transgender identified males, and no matter what clothes they wear, no how much make up they put on in their efforts to mimic womanface, AFAIC, they will always be transgender identified males.
The girls' shower is not a matter of gender IMO, and sex is the operative term. I think sex discrimination laws should be caveated to exclude areas where nudity would be expected, and formally allow sex segregation to be legally enforced, under penalties falling under the wing of sexual assault. I don't want that Cox dude from Virginia in the changing room with my daughter, no matter what the ◊◊◊◊ he self IDs as.
Mark Dolan of "Talk TV" interviews Helen Joyce and Claire Pearsall regarding new Police data that shows mixed sex toilets and changing facilities are more dangerous for women that single sex spaces
The data is out, and it shows the truth about mixed sex changing rooms and spaces - they are far more dangerous for woman and young girls than single sex spaces. Women and girls are being sexually assaulted in mixed changing rooms across the country. New Police data shows that at least 16 rapes, 80 sexual assaults, and 65 acts of voyeurism were committed JUST in sports centers in 2023, equating to three offenses a week. This is all because of mixed sex changing areas. Is it any wonder that women self select out of these places and wont take their children there either
The arguments that transgender identified males only make up a minuscule proportion of the population so we should just "be kind"TM and accommodate them also doesn't wash. Helen reveals that in the case of just one man who the Women's Rights Network studied, when he was caught committing voyeurism, was found with over 7,000 indecent images of young girls on his phone (yes, 7,000! That's not a typo -and actually, the Norwich man Helen refers to was also found with more than 5,000 indecent videos of young children on his home computer as well (and yes, that's 5,000). Just one man, allowed to access these spaces because TRAs want everyone to "be kind"TM has caused a truckload of damage to hundreds if not thousands of people.
So, was this man actually a transgender identified male? It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - it is the situation we now find society in that he is able to access these places with impunity because of transgender SelfID - THAT is the issue. Its a very simple formula...
NO Self ID + NO Mixed Sex Spaces = Far greater safety for women and girls.
In a more innocent time, one of the novelty items you could find on sale in Scottish tourist tat shops was a cartoon showing a man in a kilt and a woman in jeans scratching their heads in front of toilet doors with the classic silhouettes of a beskirted and a betrousered person on them.
People, it was a joke. And the point of the joke was that the silhouettes are purely symbolic. We always knew who should use which facility irrespective of what they happened to be wearing.
One of the reasons we started using the word "gender" instead of "sex" is that when you ask teenage boys "Sex?" on a form, they all tend to say "Yes please!" That doesn't work when you put "Gender?" instead.
If I did, that would probably be related to the aforementioned social expectations of masculinity or femininity. Without those gendered expectations, anyone who felt like it would just buy the thong and skirt without thinking twice about it, just as women don't think twice about sporting trousers these days.
I'm not so sure. Cross-culturally, men have always adopted dress and mannerisms that were more butch, and women more dainty (for lack of being willing to come up with better adjectives). I think the standalone sense is more hardwired, and the specific cultural expression a lighter specific variant.
The reason I don't wear skirts (not even utilikilts) is because no one looks twice or asks annoying questions if I wear gym shorts instead. Even my traditional thobe tends to draw unpleasant scrutiny which I'd rather avoid in most social contexts; I mostly wear it when pottering around at home.
I'm not sure I've ever considered what I wear in light of what others might think, except in loose dress up/down. In the privacy of my home, where no one else can see me, I've never felt like putting on a nightie. Maybe the gender role is smashed in there so ddep that it's not registering as an option, I dunno.
I think that last part is true for most of us. The main reason I use the men's room is because other people's expectations will be violated if I step into the other one. I'll violate this convention if both rooms are one-holers, because I don't have to play along with that level of idiocy.
The main reason I do is that I don't want to alarm anyone by being perceived as a physical threat to another occupant. When a woman comes in the men's room at a dive bar, I'm not offended, just make an extra effort to keep the gene perpetuator out of sight.
Cross-culturally, men have always adopted dress and mannerisms that were more butch, and women more dainty (for lack of being willing to come up with better adjectives).
People tend to dress for the jobs/roles they have. Today I'm dressed like an office worker, but in the past I was dressed like a soldier. Back when women worked in "Rosie the Riveter" roles at the Douglas aircraft plant in OKC, they dressed like anyone else on the production line. Come to think of it, they still do.
My mistake, I thought you were somehow conflating your sense of manhood with an aversion to skirts and thongs.
(By the way, any form-fitting below-the-waist clothing not designed to take male wedding tackle into account are uncomfortable for those of us thus endowed. Try the nightie, though.)
ETA and tl;dr — I'm still unsure of what "sense of being a man" should be taken to mean when we aren't thinking about other folks' social expectations.
No, constantly calling a "transwoman" "he" is speaking truth to fantasy. He might call himself "she", but I am under no obligation to help him indulge in his fantasy.
Truth and reality are not affected by your beliefs and cowardly justifications. Your bald assertion that 'he' can only refer to sex, not gender (many languages want to have a word with you, as do many English expressions) is the cheapest of fig leaves.
Compliance is part of the TRA scheme to blur the lines between reality and fantasy - I refuse to participate. If we go along with these people's fantasies, we are denying reality. I flatly refuse to do that however unkind that might make me seem. I won't even call them "transwomen" unless I need to do so grammatically, its why I have put the words in quotes here. They are transgender identified males, and no matter what clothes they wear, no how much make up they put on in their efforts to mimic womanface, AFAIC, they will always be transgender identified males.
Within the practical contraints, sure. I recall Rosie pictured with an Aunt Jemima do-rag that I don't recall being trendy for the guys? If Rosie's work role practicality was foremost, she would have gotten a buzz cut. Her gender was first, the job behind it. I wonder how Rosie dressed in the off hours?
(By the way, any form-fitting below-the-waist clothing not designed to take male wedding tackle into account are uncomfortable for those of us thus endowed. Try the nightie, though.)
ETA and tl;dr — I'm still unsure of what "sense of being a man" should be taken to mean when we aren't thinking about other folks' social expectations.
I think that the sense of being a man runs independent of the surrounding culture's expectation of it's expression (like sex and gender, related but not synonymous). Were I to drop into feudal Japan, I would gravitate towards the dress of the samurai, not the geisha. Not because they expect it, but because it would jibe for the same reasons they gravitate towards it. It satisfies their sense of being a man, even though the expression is a little different.
Me too, but apparently for different reasons. It doesn't satisfy my sense of being a man so much as it's vastly less inconvenient in a society that coined "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
Truth and reality are not affected by your beliefs and cowardly justifications. Your bald assertion that 'he' can only refer to sex, not gender (many languages want to have a word with you, as do many English expressions) is the cheapest of fig leaves.
Truth and reality are not affected by whether you recite prayers or not. Any bald assertion that "The Lord" can only refer to a specific deity, not ones individual higher self or perhaps the laws of physics, is the cheapest of fig leaves. So there's no reason to object to public group recitation of the Lord's Prayer in every grade school at the start of the day, other than generic bigotry.
To some extent I can sympathize with this, in the sense of its being a workable world view with its own merits and perils. What it isn't is skepticism.
Morally? Would you think you were morally in the right to keep setting up a gay friend with women? A quadripelegic for rock climbing? It's not about appeasing a 'self-image'.
Truth and reality are not affected by whether you recite prayers or not. Any bald assertion that "The Lord" can only refer to a specific deity, not ones individual higher self or perhaps the laws of physics, is the cheapest of fig leaves. So there's no reason to object to public group recitation of the Lord's Prayer in every grade school at the start of the day, other than generic bigotry.
To some extent I can sympathize with this, in the sense of its being a workable world view with its own merits and perils. What it isn't is skepticism.
Do you object to euphemisms and figures of speech, too? Do we really have to be Mr Spock at every turn?
I call my wife stunning and gorgeous, and to me she is. Do I have to put that up to your approval for objective veracity, or do you 'get it', much like we all 'get it' when calling a transwoman a she?
eta: I get your point about being made to say something we don't personally believe. But how badly is your integrity really compromised by observing a social form of address? Do you regularly call people fat or ugly who inarguably are? No one thinks you are a liar if you tell a homely person they look great. They just think you're a nice person.
If we aren't talking about helping someone by playing along with their image of themselves as someone who fulfills the social role traditionally reserved to the opposite sex, then what are we talking about?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
