AIBU to suggest it is time to stop the pretence that people can transition?

for me, no. for others - I think so yes, it’s a really huge deal for them.

It’s a huge scandal. The lies to children by adults on this.

In schools and institutions. I hope people are made accountable. Although there’s probably too many to do so.

"the lie they’ve effectively been sold as the answer to their problems."

I am horrified by what they have been led to believe.

And when you consider who the driving force behind medicalising children and young people is, it is deeply concerning. It seems to have always been male people who have been behind the drive to medicalise children or young people.

You have to look at who benefits also. I am sure that there are some other obvious ones, but to me some of the most obvious is validation of the decisions made by those mature male people about their life.

This is what I wonder. Does the commitment to the cause change anything?

No

Or are they a trans woman entitled to their own rights but not at the expense of women’s rights?

Yes

Does not having a penis and therefore the ability to rape make them safer for women to be around?

Not necessarily.

But it was the trans agenda which moved us all away from talking about single sex spaces to safe spaces to obscure the issue.

No space can be guaranteed 'safe'. As people like to repeat - if a man wants to rape a woman in a public loo, the picture on the door isn't going to stop him walking in.

Improved safety is one aspect but single sex spaces offer more than just safety from being raped!

Take this example.

A woman attends a lesbian social group in a local pub. Its a smallish group of around 15 or so but there's a wide range of women there. They're not interested in dating - that's not why they're there - it's just an opportunity to get together with other lesbians because, in the rest of their lives (work, family, friendship groups), many of the people they know are straight. These women range between early 20s to mid 60s. Some women are very feminine presenting others are quite butch. But all women.

Over the weeks, polite chat gives way to sharing dating experiences and occasionally they have a laugh about sex. Some will share sensitive personal information, childhood experiences etc. Others will talk about men's attitudes towards them (Inc "But how are you gay? You're so pretty!", sexualised remarks and problems at work because they work in an all male environment but the men have nothing to gain by being nice to them. So they're not).

Sometimes they discuss the general female experience - what a pain periods are, how period pants are a game changer, how they're so glad they've left all that beind them now they're in their 60s! Sometimes, they discuss films and TV programmes, books, what they cooked for dinner last night. Politics, music and how annoying their colleagues are etc. Just life stuff.

All in all, it's a great supportive environment where friendships are made. Some of the women meet up outside of the group.

And then, one day, a TW joins.

Some of the other women aren't happy about it but the organiser says they need to be inclusive. Some of them don't really care - BeKind, right?

So, they try, but it completely changes the dynamic of the group. Talk of dating and light hearted chats about sex are now off the table because this TW is far too interested and asks too many questions that feel intrusive. He also overshares about his own lesbian sex experiences that no one really believes but can't challenge. Some of his comments are sexualised and personalised towards individual members. He clearly fancies a couple of the younger, lesbians and tries to manoeuvre them away from the group to chat one on one. They don't like this and look towards the other women to bring them back into the group. This man is in his 50s and a fairly recent tranitioner. He's well practised at this behaviour and the (invariably) young women aren't and they don't quite know how to handle it without being perceived as being rude. So they stop going.

Some of the older women have had a lifetime of watching men behave like this and can't be arsed dealing with that shit anymore - esoecially not in a women's group. They know the organiser is in a difficult place - she now no longer wants him there, but he says he's a woman and TWAW and all that so her hands are tied. The older women start to meet up on their own and move on from the group.

The remaining women find they can no longer talk about the female experience because this TW always wants to share his own and he's not really interested in their boring actual female experiences and periods have always grossed him out a bit so he'd rather talk about how he's done his hair, his new make up, how well everyone tells him he passes and this lovely new dress he bought which accentuates his fake breasts.

He asks for reassurance that they look real and even invites the other women to touch them so they can also experience how real they feel. He really likes the fact that some lesbians are touching his breasts and being so accepting and it gives him an erection which is visible through his dress.

Slowly, over the weeks, the group dwindles and eventually the only people who are left are the organiser, the TW and a couple of women who always go. The women feel uncomfortable talking now. The TW doesn't seem to notice or care and always manages to dominate the conversation and turn it to himself, finding women sexually attractive or performative femininity. Because those are the only experiences of both being a 'lesbian' and womanhood he has and it's all he's really interested in.

A few weeks later, the group folds.

No one has been raped but a single man has managed to destroy a whole group intended to be for women simply by being male.

Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario but one very much based upon my experiences of men and the experience of my best friend who joined a lesbian social group that folded. The decent 'just want to get on with their lives' TW probably wouldn't do this and they're not the ones who have caused the issue but they are also still not women.

Once you've said yes to some men in women's spaces it would be discriminatory to exclude other men on the basis that they're not wearing a dress, still have a penis, still call themselves, John.

Since the ruling last week, the organiser would be able to say, "Sorry, this is a women's group. You can't join." The group continues happily for many years.

And the TW? Well he starts a group for TW, which is very well attended. They also meet weekly in a local pub, are welcomed by the regulars and not one single person has spontaneously combusted into 'non existence'.

Having worked in higher education for many years in an area with a disproportionate number of students with autism, I have encountered increasing numbers of trans men and women in the past ten years, in all instances, there were mental health issues. A majority had surgery. Mental health issues persisted. No perceptible increase in happiness. These are vulnerable young people I have supported through, amongst other things, estrangement from their families, name changes witnessed by friends rather than family members, suspension of studies, accommodation reallocations due to post-surgery needs. I am nothing but kind and helpful, but I have my views on trans issues which, certainly, up until now I have not expressed except to similarly minded post-menopausal mothers in the office (ie colleagues who have lots of experience in being a woman), as we would be labelled trans phobic and not given the opportunity to express our views in a civilised discussion. I don’t feel threatened by this group of young people, but I do feel for them and the lie they’ve effectively been sold as the answer to their problems.

Of course, the notion that you can change sex is nonsense.

A lot of this is rooted in misogyny, and the idea that women are somehow lesser than men - sissy porn, the idea that men can know what it’s like to be a woman just by a feeling (cause it’s not that complicated, right?), the idea that man is the default so “not manly enough” equals woman rather than another variant of man, the incandescent anger that we could dare say no to them about anything, the enforced gender stereotypes of dresses, nurturing, pink, softness, frivolity, make up, crying, bloody “kindness” being for women only (so authority, power and control are reserved for men) and if a man adopts these other traits he’s really a woman, but somehow a better woman than an actual biological one, (with their messy, smelly, awkward biology) - eg Dylan Mulvaney and his sudden shoot to fame (he met the president for no apparent reason other than his fetish!) - all the “brave” men taking women’s spots in “woman of the year” magazine polls etc. while manipulating their male advantage and simpering that they’re just “one of the girls”.

It’s like Germaine Greer said, we have no idea how much some men hate us.

indeed.

To answer your questions.

"Does the commitment to the cause change anything?"

No. How would this work? Perhaps it helps to think about what other protected category causes there are and if someone who is not of that protected category wants to gain access to it, would that be acceptable. I cannot think of any. So why should this philosophical belief be treated differently.

"Or are they a trans woman entitled to their own rights but not at the expense of women’s rights?"

There is a discussion to be had about this point. They certainly need protection from being discriminated against where they are illegitimately discriminated against. Legitimate discrimination is, of course, exclusion where women's and girl's sex based rights should be prioritised.

"Does not having a penis and therefore the ability to rape make them safer for women to be around?"

No. It only makes them not able to sexually assault someone with their penis.

There are many ways to harm female people with male people being in female single sex spaces. Not just rape. When you consider that male people retain their strength and advantages, it reminds us that they are still male, just like all other male people - just male without penises.

But ultimately, penis or no penis, male people cause harm by entering female single sex spaces, through safety issues or privacy issues.

It’s funny as surely the whole basis of being trans is that your body does not dictate what gender you are (although of course by definition your sex is material reality – and this is again the entire basis for identifying as trans rather than cis).

This is what I wonder. Does the commitment to the cause change anything? Or are they a trans woman entitled to their own rights but not at the expense of women’s rights? Does not having a penis and therefore the ability to rape make them safer for women to be around?

I agree. The narrative that somehow one sub-group of male people who have had surgery have earned their right to be in female single sex spaces is inherently harmful.

It is repeated over and over again. The messaging must get picked up and influence some people. And it is fundamentally wrong.

No male people, no matter what they do, has done enough to be a woman. Brutal surgery does not earn them the right to use female single sex spaces. And yet people declare that the poor male person has finally done enough to need to be in female spaces. It seems to be out of pity, or out of ignorance of the fact they are still able to harm female people, or it is to comfort the person’s own needs to be kind or inclusive, whatever.

When really, there is no kindness there at all. It is unkind (horrific) to set such standards for the person. And it is still unkind to the many female people who need a space without that man in it, regardless of gender identity. Plus the added kicker, there is no kindness either in emotionally manipulating others to accept this man in female single sex spaces.

I agree that people should not feel pressure or incentivised to have surgery

Well the penis and testicles are removed

There's a delightful.documentary on one of the streaming services at the moment called The Eunuch Maker.

It's about a man who advertised himself as being able to remove the penis and testicles of men who hated them for a price. All streamed on the Internet. It's horrific tbh.

Every single one of those men is still a man - even those who underwent complete castration and total penectomy. They are referred to as men throughout the documentary. Nothing about the procedures resulted in any of those men becoming women. And that fact is not even questioned or raised once during the documentary.

So, no, having penis and testivles removed does not make a man a woman. And a boy without a winkle.is NOT a girl.

I think @Helleofaborepp makes sense. Why do you disagree?

I listened to an interview with a detranstioner once who went along with everything because he was terrified he’d lose access to his psychiatrist. He was just a gay kid from an extremely homophobic background who needed someone to talk to. Broke my heart. He should never have been out in that position, it should have been “well it’s fine if you don’t want to transition, lets figure out your other problems instead”.

I believe this may be the same lad who had an 'opening' created by having his penis inverted and who lived with constant pain as a result.

Why? Because the hairs on his penis kept on growing and he had no way of addressing that and they scratched, dug in, caused infections and he was thoroughly miserable. And yes, he only went through with it because the therapist was so positive and encouraging and he was told he wouldn't be able to continue with the therapy if he didn't transition. And he really needed some therapy.

I've read accounts of female detransitioners who now hate the male secondary sex characteristics they acquired through their use of testosterone and have no way of undoing it because, despite what many will try to have you believe, the effects of testosterone on the body are not reversible.

An older (50s I think) man who fully 'transitioned' and found it left his in a social no man's land. He'd been led to believe that transitioning would have opened up a whole new world of acceptance, love and dating experiences but found that women didn't want to date him because he was a man and men didn't want to date him because he had an outward appearance that mimicked a woman. He had been almost completely single since transitioning aside from a few failed attempts and was looking forward to facing a lonely future because he felt he no longer fitted in anywhere. He deeply regretted it amd felt his only choice was to come to some sort of acceptance with what he had done to his body. It was an very sad read tbh.

What I've found from discussing this with a wide range of people of varying ages, educational and socio-economic and employment backgrounds is this.

The people who are fully on the trans side either a) haven't looked into it at all and are very unaware of even the basic facts and implications and so cant see the problem or b) know someone trans and they are a lovely person. Their attitude is one of "I'm not interested in the facts. All I know is that we should be kind to people who are struggling." Those things are not mutually exclusive.

The people who are fully on the side of women's rights generally have fact, figures, reports and evidence they can find at a moments notice because they've done the research. Unfortunately, the fact that the weak arguments of the former could be easily and robustly challenged upset some people and so words like 'hate' were/are thrown around. Some people really struggled with the idea of women standing up for themselves and saying no. Especially the men they were saying no to and the women who were all too used to prioritising everyone else over themselves.

I've.met many people who fell into the former camp who eventually migrated into the second (there have been some interesting accounts on here of women who've done just that over the last few days) but none who started in the latter group who have migrated into the former.

And there's a reason for that.

In my view the language is not vitriolic. The language used shows appreciation of the judgement as it confirms what the poster thinks that is not vitriolic. The posts of anything show hope that this ideology will pass.

What is the difference between a male person who has had their penis and testes removed due to injury or disease, and maybe on the same hormones for illness and a male person who has surgery to remove their penis and testicles for their gender identity (ie. a philosophical belief)

Still doesn't change their Sex. NOTHING does!

What with?

Well the penis and testicles are removed

This is my main concern around the trans agenda- aside from women's sports and refuges etc - it just feels so regressive. And I feel for the people who are made to feel they need to be trans to be who they want to be, rather than a non-gender conforming male or female. But maybe that's my lack of understanding as a straight cis woman 🤷‍♀️.

Disagree

I see there has been some posts about pronoun usage as well.

Expecting someone to use preferred pronouns over well established and accurate language is a way of demanding someone actively complies to your philosophical belief.

It really is that simple.

How is making someone agree to distort their own material reality to suit yourself ‘kind’?

And the only connection between the people who have transgender identities is their philosophical belief about themselves (and other people). Even the discussion around gender dysphoria, it is about what that person believes about themselves. There are no biological markers, despite many posters on other threads trying to say there is with no evidence at all.

Another way to consider the demands in language away from
established language is that those demanding use of pronouns, or someone who is stating people should use non-sex based pronouns, is that could also be said to be a political demand.

It can be argued that a person who wants to use non-sex based pronouns or wrong sex pronouns is making a political demand. But it is not limited just to the person making the demand about what they want for themselves. It also involves the people who then attempt to emotionally manipulate others to use those pronouns (ie not the person making the pronoun demand). They too are making political statements.

And what type of people demand or manipulate others to comply with a political demand that has not been democratically decided or decided by a democratically elected government? What type of people demand or manipulate others to comply with their philosophical belief.

The more and more these conversations are had, the more that the nature of these demands for language compliance become clear. It is not 'kind' to expect others to comply with your belief. It is not 'respectful' to demand that others contort their language to suit you by using language, that is either meaningless or using well established words in ways that mean the opposite to their original intention, to meet your philosophical belief.

And yet, that is what we see being demanded and declared righteous.

I’m wondering if any of this vitriol includes holding up signs showing a noose saying “kill TW” or a sign saying “we will make yiu
listen” with bullet holes or sending bombs threats to meetings being held by trans ppl or blockading their meetings screaming and banging on the windows or sebds v messages saying they can die in a grease fire??

no??

because we have receipts for all of the above happening only the subject being women

The vitriol shown towards trans people on here

Receipts, please.

The few derogatory remarks about trans people that I've seen have been rapidly deleted. Your comment indicates the place is full of really nasty ones. Examples?