Transwomen are male. That person flashing their penis didn't seem so scared. The many women and their young daughters running out in their robes seemed scared to me. My kindness in this situation is for them.

Far out. I don't care how lovely and kind your anecdotal trans friends are. Are you trying to say that being 'truly trans' means they're incapable of being jerks? Are you saying that no true trans would ever use their male genitalia to rape? Because I have some links for you. Creating a special class of sinless, untouchable people doesn't usually go well, and seems pretty patronising to trans people who are as human and flawed as the rest of us. It's not up to women and girls to discern the true soul of the male body in front of them. The unexpected, naked male body in what was supposed to be a safe, female only space. This person already crossed a boundary and already signalled his lack of respect or empathy with women. Are you saying that this business, just shouldn't exist because a) all naked bodies icky anyway or b) all naked bodies awesome! So again, women are supposed to just suck it up and lose another space because it is too hard to tell some males no.

Here's a YouTube link I think this woman is fierce! Good for her. I think the kind of male who would do this is a deliberate boundary pusher who obviously does not actually empathize with women. I think the man whose first response is to immediately come to the defense of a random penis person, to not even entertain the idea of listening to or protecting the multiple women and girls, is a smarmy mansplaining, misogynist. I think this whole situation is so bloody predictable. Now, apparently, the existence of indecent exposure relies on the inner feelings of the penis-haver. Which is, of course, much more valuable than the actual, material experience of the people we used to call women.😡

In highschool I went from being called frigid to sl*t in about 10 seconds flat. Talk about not being able to win!

All 4 of mine were late, spontaneous labours ranging from 1 to 5 days late.

Yeah, and leaving the clitoris off diagrams. Way to be sex positive - if by sex positive they mean 'available for use by a male'

I asked my mother in law something similar once too. We were looking at her wedding photo - she was married at 16 - and she said that she feels the same. She knows she looks older but she doesn't feel it. Now I'm a couple of decades older than my wedding photos and I get it. I still feel the same, objectively I know my face is more care-worn and my body is post-4-kids & chubby. The image I have of myself was set as a young adult. It's not a dysphoric experience for me, but I think I'm just naturally less observant than many 😄 I also still 'see' my dh as the boy I fell in love with, even though I can see the lines and less hair, it's like the image merges with the memory mirage and the collective history overlays it to boost the love feeling. I dunno, all that to say, self image is weird.

Wow, okay, I obviously didn't express myseld well because you seem to have understood the opposite of what I meant. I'm sorry for your experiences. Eta - to the bolded, it is not 'my side' arguing for 'gender neutral language' which conventiently turns women into menstruators, front holes, uterus havers, birthing persons etc. While of course, men get to still be men. I'll reconsider when I see ejaculators and sperm producers and prostate havers. I wasn't denigrating you, or saying you capitulated by wearing a dress. I was saying that the movement to opt out of the female box, and leaving the rest of us females to be stuck with the oppressive stereotypes, is capitulating to the same regressive and sexist bullshit we've been fighting forever and it's a cop out for all women. Eta 2 - look, faith, I tried to leave this I really did. But you have no idea what sort of person I am, no idea of what sexism I have faced. I am, frankly, angry that you seem to think you're a special case and that the rest of those females who didn't seem to put up as much of a fight just don't get it. Sexism, exploitation and discrimination based on our sexed bodies is a pretty universal female experience. You are like other women, by virtue of your female body not your clothes, whether you or I like it or not.

This is interesting to me. The word inclusive seems to be very full of meaning, I wonder if we could parse out some of that meaning. I have no objection to the guys/he being replaced by neutral. I'm interested to know if it makes a difference. Like, my male highschool maths teacher who didn't bother helping girls, would forcefully shaping his language shape his brain in a less sexist way? Maybe. I wonder if it's equally as likely to cause resentment. But maybe over time it becomes the new normal and is better for the next generation. Language is powerful, yes. Not more powerful than objective reality though, language describes. It can't create a uterus, but it can create and foster respect for women.

It's not just a fair minded mother calling her daughter beautiful - it's the ubiquitous barage from the whole culture that girls' worth is mainly in their looks. There were posts upthread about girls identifying as non binary because being a girl means being a pretty girl. I think it's an uncontroversial statement that women and girls are judged exponentially more on their looks.

I agree! But looking female or feminine shouldn't be seen as less professional either. Likewise, forcing femininity (heels + skirt) shouldn't be seen as more professional. You can teach physics in trousers or a skirt - what difference does it make? But you shouldn't have to pretend to not be female, to bind breasts or use neutral name/pronouns or never get pregnant, to be seen as professional either. I mean, this is feminism 101 isnt it? Eta - I don't want to have to trick people into respecting me.

I hear you, I do! Can I ask, was the issue with the dress itself, or the sexist assumptions that the dress represented? I totally understand wanting to be seen and treated as a capable human instead of a walking uterus who can look pretty and do some tricks. What I don't understand it the capitulation, it's like saying, yes, fine, female is lesser, I'll get rid of any female markers I can and then I might be seen as 'one of them' by the real humans sometimes? I want to be seen as a full human, tits and tears and blood and milk and birth and all. Those things are just as much a part of me, a part of my body, as my brain is.

I really appreciate your willingness to converse here, thank you. I know this topic can get a bit prickly, please know that I am not trying to attack you, I'm trying to understand the thought process. You and others on this thread have given me a lot to think about! I Hear your point abput personal vs irrelevant. When I said irrelevant I meant 'irrelevant for how one should be treated in this interaction' I guess my question is, in a sexually dimorphic species we have many secondary sex characteristics which we naturally recognise. I wonder why or how that could realistically be personal information? And how did pronouns become the most relevant thing about interacting with a person? Please note - I haven't said a word about whether I personally would/would not use pronouns. I'm interested in the theory and the why at the moment.

Gender and dating, what do you mean by gender here? Surely sexual attraction and compatible personality are the main drivers. I can see using gender markers (gender here being the expected stereotypical accoutrements for each sex) to signal your interest - when I wanted to attract my partner I would wear more feminine clothes and maybe make up. Perhaps some males prefer to do the same thing? Things like gait, broadness of shoulders & pheromones add (or detract) from the attraction between two people. I don't think you can go very far down the dating path before sex becomes intensely relevant! Pronouns, well, I don't really understand. I don't think calling a female 'they' will override sexism - especially not for the rest of the female 'she's. Clothing selections, maybe. In the 'all girl clothing must be pink, frilly and impractical' sense then yes, I agree. We were those very annoying parents who refused to allow the pink/princess explosion. Anecdote: at about 3 years old my dd was a flowergirl in a wedding (dh's side of the family), and dh fought his mother tooth and nail on stupid, slippery, impractical, expensive for a one off occasion, shoes. Do you know what they compromised on? Pink (to match the dress) converse. I really liked the 'reverse sexist' article where all boys we're treated like a disney prince... of course I can't find it now! 😠 However, male and female bodies are different and clothing cuts to fit differently, accessible to deal with different body functions (menstruation and breastfeeding come to mind) and more or less flattering. We could all wear plain, loose clothing to equalize us, I suppose, but people will still notice the (mostly) smaller humans are the one who can be impregnated. If my son wanted to wear a dress, well I'd probably teach him to sew his own, because my sons aren't waif-framed and female cut clothing would look silly on his male shoulders! A lot of the time clothing is either (or both) functional or costume. Feminists have been fighting forever for female clothing to be more of the former and less of the latter - the great pockets revolution of the noughties! 😄 I guess what I'm saying is that the intersection of sex and what some might think of as gender is complex. I don't understand how one could both elevate gender but negate sex.

I agree, I think feminists have done a lot of work to make the point that where sex is irrelevant, it should be treated as irrelevant. I'm struggling to think of any situation where gender is relevant where sex isn't. Do you have an example?

My bold, because I find this an interesting point to jump off from: Economic status is irrelevant in how you treat students, but you could make educated guesses. You could make those guesses, I'm assuming, based on material facts that you happen to notice. You're not 'house blind' or 'sneaker blind' - you can tell the difference between the big house with styled furniture and a small apartment with a half-broken couch. You can tell the difference between sneakers from walmart just hanging together and sneakers from Nike that look like they haven't yet touched the floor. Because those things exist, because our brains recognize and categorize without trying. Now, there absolutely is prejudice against perceived poor people, and it sucks! It absolutely could be called dysphoria - a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life. Is it more helpful to recognize the actual economic state and give help in ways that meaningfully address the disadvantage? Or should we instead pretend there is no disadvantage, just make a rule to call all houses/apartments 'mansions'? How does that actually respect the persons lived experience, recognize their actual need, and potentially provide real life help? How much more so for sex!

Thanks for your thoughts! I don't disagree with you, and I do find the idea of trying a language shift to break through some of those last, sexist, walls interesting. Your 2nd paragraph though, I'm struggling to understand how you're using the word gender. Is it really your gender that you want to be irrelevant? Or is it your sex and therefore their sexist assumptions that you want to be irrelevant?

Reminds me of that case where the NB (female) person won an exemption from her workplace's sexist uniform policy - but only for themself. On the basis that they weren't a woman. And this is... progressive?

Your unit on conformity sounds fascinating, lewelma! I'd love to know some of the sources you used. Yes, the complete no debate is frankly scary. We couldn't always have this discussion here, the conversation has shifted from 5 years ago. No one has called me a bigot yet! #winning That is part of what caught my attention at first, how quickly this topic became unspeakable. I have never seen anything so censored. The internet, when it first started ~back in my day *chews on straw in my rocking chair*~ was all about free speech, power to the people etc. Now it's all banning, cancelling, even fricking 4chan banned aspects of this conversation.

Okay, these are some of my unformed thoughts jumping off of this: We as humans seem to feel safer with order and stability. We like categories, because it helps us filter and feel like we can understand something of this vast and complex world. One way we create this order is social norms. Sexual reproduction is an obvious touch point, because it effects how a person will move through the world - especially historically, pre effective birth control. Some of those norms were good/neutral/bad/we don't really know. Modern life has become increasingly unmoored. Kind of a baby/bathwater situation. We tried to get rid of the harmful norms, we created a vacuum. Kids are more anxious and have more confused senses of self. Kind of like decision fatigue, before they've even started the day. The vacuum will be filled. What is the modern teen's world norms? Online, avatars, filters, likes, p0rn, youth, and labels for everything. You're not a person who's interested in x, y, z, you're an x, y, z-er! The categories haven't gone away, they've multiplied, and why would you choose the boring box that your mum is in when you could be interesting! I'm not at all saying we should go back to harmful trad norms. I quite prefer living as a modern woman! But what some of us are trying to point out is that the new labels are just as restrictive as the old ones, just as ferociously fought over (have you seen a bisexual vs pansexual fight?!). Except now they're based almost entirely on the feelings of teenagers, and to try to claw them back to the material world is 'unkind.' None of this would necessarily be a problem if the grown ups in the room kept their heads. Define your terms before writing them into law, mammalian sexual dimorphic reproduction exists and matters, medical transition is not neutral and should have a level of gatekeeping... Eta - ksera's post below reminded me where I was going with this... Identity. Building an identity from scratch, with no input from social nor biological parameters, is frightening! Where on earth would you start?

Thank you for your thoughts KSera. I don't have time to fully reply right now but I'll be back. I note that we are back to language and vocabulary difficulties, and I'm reminded of something SWB says in her writing talks - writing problems are almost always thought problems. I'm interested in the thoughts, the reasoning, behind the emotions.

It's so hard, isn't it! We have a similar situation. Dd, nearly 16, lots of her friends have licences and cars and - being 18ish - much more freedom. We try to be not-too-controlling. I try to tether any issues more to dd's behaviour than her friends'. So, in your example, the not being forthcoming (that's the most generous interpretation) about where she is and with whom would need addressing in my house. It would be framed as 'abusing my trust is not mature behaviour, if you act in childish ways I'll be forced to treat you as a child' <- that is the same framing for things like staying up late on the phone. This also ties in things like keeping up with schoolwork and chores and just being generally a pleasant part of the family. I also would be checking the phone too, but we've had some issues there. I frame it as 'I'm not interested in snooping on your conversations (as if I have nothing better to do!) but if you give me reason to be suspicious - things like being secretive, hiding phone screens when I walk past etc - then it's my job as a mum to investigate. This is a delicate dance and I have occasionally overstepped, but we try to be open and honest. I have also found having dad being involved as much as possible to be immensely helpful, ymmv. My dd is a lot like her dad!

This is the part of the ftm trans spike that I really want people to not brush over. There is something going on here! Why, suddenly, are so many girls willing to consider cutting off breasts and taking drugs just to avoid being labeled woman. Do you know, KSera, what those negative connotations of 'woman' are, in their mind? What has woman come to mean to them, and where did this idea come from? I have my theories, and no doubt it's complex.

My boys are all in one big room. We built our house so this was by design. Their beds are cabin style beds, with a side desk and with most of their clothes storage underneath. There is also a rail for clothes hanging. One side of the room is the play room section. It has bookshelves & board game shelves and a couch. They have a lego building table, which is basically a repurposed tv unit - low and wide - with drawers underneath for aaaaaaall the Lego. I do not abide Lego outside their room for long, I threaten to vaccuum it up. They are just okay at keeping it clean, not great...

Well said maize! The huge comorbidity rate of things like, ASD, ADHD, OCD, anorexia, generalised anxiety (diagnosed), with a trans identity is suggestive to me. Also, recognizing and ameliorating distress through a social or medical transition, still doesn't actually negate the physical reality nor consequences of a sexed body. Is there any circumstance where sex segregation is important? I think yes, very, especially to females (whatever their gender identity) who are the more physically vulnerable sex class. Eta - one reason I keep harping on the prison question is because women have already been assaulted by the males (with a gender identity of 'woman') they have been locked up with. Those women didn't have the luxury of wondering about the esoteric gender essence as they were assaulted by a very familiar kind of male violence.