Transgenderism: the MNHQ position

I think there is a world of difference between a discussion that says "biological women are the female sex and transwomen are the male sex" and one that says to an individual poster "you're a man regardless of what you believe"

Precisely.

Great post Blistory.

I don't see what other stance MNHQ can take on this. To do any differently would effectively shut down one group or the other.

I think there is a world of difference between a discussion that says "biological women are the female sex and transwomen are the male sex" and one that says to an individual poster "you're a man regardless of what you believe".

But then my issue is primarily the rights of biological women and how they are in danger of being eroded. My view is that no transwomen or women should face discrimination or harm and that this will only be achieved by recognising the differences and accommodating them in society. Society is set up to distinguish, in certain instances, rightly or wrongly, biological sex. I know that doesn't make life easy for transmen and transwomen but I don't understand why the focus is on fitting into a system that doesn't work for them rather than asking for the system to be changed.

In addition to that, I think there's confusion around the transgender umbrella and what it really means. To me, as a woman and a feminist, there is a significant difference in a man being afforded rights as a woman simply because he identifies or dresses as one and offering access and rights as a woman to a transwoman who has undergone surgery, hormone treatment and counselling. I think the difference seriously colours ones perspective on this issue. I'm happy to support one group but the other one can sod right off but I don't have a shared language or consensus on terminology to express that without being accused of transphobia.

There's obviously a stigma in being a transwoman - I don't know how to work to remove that and to support transwomen to live freely and safely in society whilst not impinging on the rights of women. And I don't know whether removing all the stigma and discrimination would allow transwomen to live happily as transwomen or whether there would still be the need for transwomen themselves to have society believe that they are the same as biological women.

I suspect that many feminists like myself would happily work to erode barriers for transwomen and transmen but I cannot and will not erect those same barriers against women.

I'm sorry that Mumsnet is seen as hostile to transgender issues and genuinely sorry that I appear to contribute to that but I am also grateful that the discussion is allowed on here. I just wish it could move forward.

The thread has been derailed a bit about whether cis is offensive. It doesn't matter whether individual people can see that it is or not (although Ego has made it pretty clear that she does understand that it is offensive).

I am female. My cells are female. I've never not been female, so I don't know what other things make me female - biologically, and chemically, I have XX chromosomes and am female. I look female, I have boobs and feminine features and long hair, but I'm pretty sure that's a byproduct of being female, rather than what makes me female. I work in a "male" job, in a "male" industry, but that doesn't change things either - I'm still female.

I struggle to understand, therefore, how can you want to be female. It isn't really anything. Publicly, at least, CJ seems to equate being female with dressing glamorously and wearing women's clothes and lingerie, wearing lots of make-up, being flirty. I could name 5 women straight off that I've never seen wearking make-up or in a dress. The two don't equate, being a woman is more than that.

In any situation, it feels insulting if someone switches from the privileged side to fight with the underdogs, failing to recognise that they were privileged. Like pacifists who have others fight and die for them, and then proclaim that they were wrong, whilst enjoying the freedom that the fight won. It's not just a gender issue, in general, we're annoyed by this. I can't enter the paralympics because I'm able-bodied, I have chronic conditions and might well identify as a disabled person, but I'm not. They wouldn't let me race. I also can't enter the man's race, and I can't run for Germany, because I'm not German. These are facts. I don't meet the criteria so I can't do them.

It feels like these are the two most important facts in this argument. What is it to identify as female, and how is that possible without the XX chromosomes? There is no way to get those. Rationally and logically, the sense that something is wrong, that it doesn't fit, has to stem from something. You can't miss chromosomes that you never had. What is it to identify as female? How can it be anything but superficial, and how can that not offend women, who are much more than superficial?

And for people who do think that they don't belong with their biological gender, do they automatically become part of the side that they do identify with? That's not usually the case in life. I can't decide to become black, or Spanish, or run in the paralympics. I could set up a semi-lympics, I could move to Spain, but I can't join those groups because I'm not one of them. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a biological male being able to access some women's spaces, like women's wards - I've been on them hugely vulnerable and whilst I don't believe all men are attackers or rapists, if you're having gynecological issues, having men around is an extra complication - or rape centres. We had a women's only society at Uni to discuss the issues that affected us because of our biological gender - having a man there would be changed that. You can apply it to anything, from women's football teams to changing rooms and birthing classes. Women's prisons.

If our pronouns and spaces are taken over by people who don't identify as male, we are disadvantaged, again. I have no problem with people changing their own pronoun, or gender, or acting however they wish. I'm not sure that means that they can change my position, though, and branding me "Cis", or taking my pronoun, or using my spaces, does.

I am not cis. I am female, because biologically that is my classification, and I've never been anything else. I have no idea what it is to be male, apart from the obvious differences - I imagine careers are easier and having a penis could be fun, but I have no real idea.

Mumsnet is actually a brilliant example of this. Although it's an inclusive parenting site, it's aimed at Mums, at females who have reproduced. I don't fit into that category but I'm welcome here, as long as I respect the site. The same is true of the men here. But you'd expect that MN would stand up for it's core audience, wouldn't you? You can guarantee that if there was a MansNet, they'd be vocal about their issues and anything that they felt threatened them. Being women, we just take it, for the most part.

And that's before you debate whether it is actually possible to be wrong by referring to someone as their biological gender. It is a fact. That would, I believe, be enough in a Court of Law. You cannot libel or slander someone with a true fact.

So, no help and lots of waiting around before you are told no help and many hoops of different shapes and sizes to jump through.
A long, tough road.

No idea.
I've had a google and it all seems a bit uncertain. Taking hormones to change the external appearance of your body, backed up with counselling seems to be the basics.

"Some of the stuff on the Caitlyn Jenner thread is incredibly hard to read and I often wonder how that affects people's view of transwomen."

Not sure if I've seen that thread, but CJ seems incredibly vacuous, and I can't help but think she plays into the idea that transwomen are all about hair, makeup and pretty frocks. I would imagine she is no more representative of transwomen than Kim Kardashian is of women. In fact, both peddle a similar myth/stereotype. But both are popular with certain sections of the press so we'll keep hearing about them. Meanwhile, both women and transwomen have more important issues to contend with which are largely overlooked.

This isn't meant to be a rude question, but how will you/did you know when you are living as a woman? Thanks for the information btw

Egosumquisum you do realise most people on here do not know anything about you, so like me would just call you by your name.
you refuse to accept that cis is offensive to most women. so this will jsut go round and round.
I will live in hope that mn hq will grow up and stop letting women be sidelined yet again,

Sounds very...nebulous
So you have to prove somehow that you've used your chosen new name for a year?

Can anyone help with this? I've just been googling to try and find out what trans women have to do to prove they've been living as a woman but can't find anything. Can anyone link please? I'd rather ask here than start another thread!

I think for majority the word 'cis' is neither here nor there ego

Majority of us couldn't care less if it's used, it's not upsetting at all, it's a non issue!

Oh probably. But I'm old and confused and given to rambling. I often forget where I'm posting and just tend to have a conversation.
You are right, I'm in Site Stuff. Oops.