The one thing I would like to add and this is not directed at anyone but just in general I get the feeling there are people that have the impression that there a matter of chose when it comes to Gender Identity.

There a number of research papers out there and medical studies that very much suggest Gender Identity is NOT a chose but is very much a foundational part of who a person is and can be seen by studying the physical make up of that individual brain. In other words in the old nature vs nurture debate, Gender identity is part of someone Nature.

Here a link of a short description of some of the science on the subject out there.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/

Ah thanks. Yes, that is also my (limited) understanding of the things. Your gender identity (as your biological sex) is innate.

I would add to that though, that gender specific roles are formed in a strong way by society and culture. Maybe not all of it, but a lot is assigned by nurture. You can see this in comparing gender roles in different cultures among the earth at different times.

I complete agree and sundin13 touched on this. Gender Identity or biological sex has nothing to do with the clothes you wear or the gender roles oppose on them by society.  Let me suggest this, People who identify as female do not wear certain clothes or makeup etc because they identify as female but rather because they identify as female they have a desire to be seen by society as female and therefore mimics the norms of that society expectations for females.

In other words Trans woman are just as much a victim of roles and expectations force on females by a Patriarchy then biological females.

In response to the first paragraph I've bolded above, I have made no attempt to hide my opinions about gender identity on this thread. I have plainly stated from my first entry here that I think gender identity is bullshit flat out. The only way to change my mind about that is to demonstrate exactly how being female (or male for that matter) is just a feeling. It needs to be explained concretely, convincingly, exactly what it means to "feel female". That is the task I set before you.

In answer to the second paragraph I've bolded above, I would point out that I have no objection to transmen accessing women-only spaces like shelters for battered women or playing on women's sports teams (provided they don't use drugs like testerone that would tend to give them a physical advantage). Transmen do, in fact, sometimes do these things and I have no objection to it because they are biologically female.

I'm not trying to put anyone in unnecessary danger here and I'm not afraid of trans people. I'm just a realist. To the extent that we collectively agree to render the term "woman" a meaningless one that anyone can claim, more and more men will claim it, and I don't mean with sincerity of heart but rather for predatory purposes and other social advantages over women.

To your first point, I don't really see any point going into that. I think your statements say all that need to be said. Those who are "gender critical" are simply transphobes who deny all transgender individuals their identity. That is basically the entire point I was making. Thanks for making it easy, I guess. If you want someone to explain how it feels to be trans to you, you probably shouldn't be asking me as a cis-man.

To the second, if we are to be concerned about women's feelings, why is it acceptable to have a masculine trans man in these spaces making them uncomfortable? If the issue was truly about the concerns and fears of women, why should it matter who exactly is causing them to be uncomfortable? Drawing an entirely arbitrary line here demonstrates to me that it is not about women's feelings of safety and concerns regarding how a woman might feel if a bearded individual walked into "their space", but instead just another lightly veiled means of denying trans identity and repressing trans individuals.

I asked you because you're the one asserting that gender identity is a real thing that exists objectively, not me.

Gender critical is also a broad term that encompasses women like me who take a hard line on gender identity, but also others (like J.K. Rowling) who don't, but at the same time recognized the socio-political significance of biological sex. Gender critical feminists could be conservatives, liberals, or radical feminists. It's a broad term. It even includes some transsexual women.

On the question of transmen and women's shelters, it's worth pointing out that you are speaking to a rape survivor. My experience with this tells me that what women in situations like these fear a lot in that moment is having to oh say spend the night with man they don't know, or someone they perceive as a man. It's not very easy for a transman to pass for a biological male, but if she is pulling that off in a way that causes fear to someone, then yeah, I think that should be addressed. But that's more of a marginal, exceptional phenom we're talking about here. The real, larger issue here is actual men wanting access to these spaces, and I don't just mean transwomen. To the extent that we collectively agree to render the term "woman" a meaningless one that anyone can claim, more and more men will claim it, and I don't mean with sincerity of heart but rather for predatory purposes and other social advantages over women.

The "real"ness of gender identity has not be a core part of my argument. I understand that to be a flashpoint, and as such, I have purposely made it so this conversation would not be about whether "gender identity is a real thing". I have my own personal beliefs, however I don't think it is necessary for me to bring them into this conversation at this time. To summarize, my three arguments are as follows:
1) Your speaker had several fundamental misunderstandings about transgender theory.
2) So called "gender critical" theory denies transgender identity as a whole.
3) The concerns about feelings of safety are valid, however the solution is fundamentally misplaced.

As for your comment on safety, I think your statements about "passing" are fairly interesting from a feminist perspective regarding gender, but the core point I want to highlight is that you largely acknowledge that codifying sex based spaces in law does not address the fundamental concerns at hand. It simply does not work as a solution. As such, we should not act like these "women are scared of trans women" arguments have any sway in these discussions, yet your speaker still devoted a significant chunk of her talk to these anecdotes. They simply aren't relevant to this discussion.

The question regarding the abuse of the system is another interesting question, however, it is an entirely separate matter to what I was discussing and what I was speaking about from the video you posted. I see this as you moving the goalposts. I presented a criticism about one point from the video and once you lost the ability to defend it, you said "oh, that isn't what is important, look over here!". I find this very telling about the strength of the core philosophy here.

But to briefly address this question, it seems to be something more akin to fear mongering than anything based on reality. In areas which have seen bans on discrimination based on gender identity and allowed access to spaces based on gender identity, there has been no record of an increase in this behavior. cis-Men pretending to be women to gain access to women's spaces is something that has happened in the past, but unsurprisingly, it isn't correlated with the presence of these rights for trans individuals. Further, even if there are laws segregating spaces based on sex, a cis-man could claim to be a trans man and enter a woman's space. Not only is this a poorly supported fear, laws to address it would simply change the things that an individual would have to say to gain access to the space. It would not provide any significant additional protections.

On the other hand, transgender individuals are in very real danger when their access to these spaces is policed.

See, the issue here is that whatever biologically happens is irrelevant. And the fact that those hormones work almost the same in both sexes makes it even more obvious that the biology of a person is irrelevant.

The problem that you have completely glossed over is the human definition of "feminine" and "masculine". Thes definitions only include arbitrary traits that can be expressed in both sexes, be it through hormones, experience or genes. They can be expressed in both genders that are attributed to each sex, yet society firmly puts each definition on just one gender. Not only that, but society even actively discourages masculine behavior in women and vice versa. That of course leqds to a lot of stress and confusion in vulnerable people who begin to think that they are somehow belong to the wrong gender. That of course is ridiculous since we already know that any trait can be expressed in any sex.

This shows that transgenderism is neither biological or psychological. It is a normal human condition that just does not fit within the completely wrong societal norms. There is absolutely no need to accommodate humans to a gender, we need to accommodate societal norms to humans rather. Gender is a human construct that has always only served to oppress and control people and it's time for it to be discontinued.

However we live in the darkest timeline. Transgender people, who were the most oppressed by society and should be fighting against the stupid superficial norms, have taken the easiest route. Instead of fighting against it, they have weaponized it for their own gains and are using it to oppress others. So we have now gone from just one oppressor to two oppressors, one of which honestly believes to be fighting for the good.

First of all, again you seem to have conflated gender identity and gender expression. Under transgender theory, the two are not dependent on each other. Just as you can be a "masculine" cis-woman and still be valid, you can be a "masculine" trans-woman and still be valid. Transgender identity is not an embrace of societal norms. It is people accepting who they are and living in the way which they would like to live, which is in many ways the core belief behind the idea of rejecting the repressive nature of gender norms. While it would be nice if society would throw away gender norms, we shouldn't demand highly vulnerable trans people martyr themselves for the cause, and even if we were to exist in that society, I don't know how that would affect gender identity. I don't think anyone does, because we don't live in that society.

Further, you also seem to have largely ignored the non-binary and genderqueer individuals within the trans community. The trans community is one of the communities most accepting of individuals who live outside binary, restrictive gender roles. They are very much fighting against these norms. It is often those outside the community who insist the only way a trans individual can and should be accepted is if they have surgery and use hormones and transition...

I agree with a lot of what you said but come to some very different conclusion.  I agree that "feminine" and "masculine" are human definition and it is why I try to remember to put them in quotes when I use them.  I just have not come up with any better language to use when talking about this subject.  What trait fall into those 2 categories is largely cultural and society base but that being said there are certain traits that are much more likely to be found in biological males vs biological females because of genetics. 

Ideally having a gender-less construct for society might very well be the idea situation but it also not the reality we live in and anyone that believe that it going to happen any time soon is fooling them selves.  The reality is in a world where gender pro-nouns exist denying someone the right to use the ones that fits what there brain telling them on a structurally level where they fit in is both damaging and dangerous to there mental health.

My main point is in a society that do have constructs base on Gender, basing it solely on someone reproduction origins and ignore what structurally going on in there head is sentencing transgender woman to be oppressed by society.  If you live in a society where there no concept of gender roles then it a none issue to begin with.

Also saying that Transgender is oppressing anyone I find a great overstatement.  I not a fan of censorship and political correction generally speaking but putting pressure to change how stuff is talked about and put pressure to change how subjects are dealt with in art is far different then what real oppression look like.