This is bullshit thread #3

Flora

No not at all. I have no issue with doing that at all. I agree with positive discrimination.

My point was that Oscar had said that we can't cheery pick what applies to TW and I was trying to understand what she meant.

I was just saying that it sounded the same as when people say things like "You can't argue that males and females should be treated just the same and at the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose." Not that I actually think that myself.

thanks for the answer Helen. I do understand - tbh I think it offends a lot of men, as well as mtt, as if it is a personal insult or slight on them. just based on discussions with my middle class white male colleagues (aka the ruling class but of course they are not!)

I was never part of that. I've gone to extreme lengths, both physically and emotionally to distance myself from that so I feel offended that all of that is simply ignored and doesn't matter

How is this different from a man saying NAMALT and taking offence at feminist class analysis?

You can't argue that makes and females should be treated just the same and st the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose.

This is an argument commonly made against feminism, that women are asking for "special treatment" not "equal treatment". Is that how you meant it?

why tw not tm who have a whole childhood and adolescence of being raised as second rate citizens for instance?

Sorry, I meant both.

Any sector of society who faces a particular difficulty should be given help with that difficulty (in a way that does not negatively impact other groups)

Fritz

Thanks for asking that because it makes me question myself.

I think I'll answer it in two parts. Firstly just why I find it personally offensive, but then to go on to look at it from a structural pov.

I suppose I find it offensive because it lumps me in with the class of people I feel massively uncomfortable with and desperately don't want to be part of. I hate the way men behave. I hate the way they treat women. I've seen the way men talk about women behind closed doors and it makes me sick. I was never part of that. I've gone to extreme lengths, both physically and emotionally to distance myself from that so I feel offended that all of that is simply ignored and doesn't matter.

I get that on a class level I'm male and male is the oppressor class but at an individuaal level that is so abstract. I can only relate to the world as an individual.

However, I also think that the biggest mistake of neo-liberalism is to concentrate solely on the individual and throw the class issues out of the window. I also see that the most vocal and influential TRA's are clearly part of that oppressor class and display zero empathy for women.

I would never want my individual feelings to derail the bigger picture so I'm sorry. But that doesn't stop me getting offended on the way.

Does that make any sense?

The daft thing here is that nobody even said it - I just preempted it being said

it surely depends on the discrimination faced. why tw not tm who have a whole childhood and adolescence of being raised as second rate citizens for instance? what are the facts in the uk that identify areas that need positive discrimination for tw in particular or both tm and tw and cover enough of the population to be statistically significant? in areas where there is proof yeah why not positive discrimination?

So why doesn't the same apply for TW?

If you mean positive discrimination I suspect it should - but that doesn't mean splitting eg women specific funding, it means having standalone TW specific funding.

Whilst there are things earmarked for women and there are women's protected spaces, I argue that a consistent approach is needed. Things are earmarked for women and protected spaces are there for women in recognition of the oppression women experience. Once that oppression is gone (oh happy day!), then yes, we can talk about doing away with all of it and opening everything up to everyone, including men.

How is it fair to say, well yes MTT you are women for the purposes of accessing these aspects of women's protected spaces and things earmarked for women, but not for others? I don't believe that this is fair to MTT. I believe it is unfair to say that you are 'woman enough' for certain things but not for others.

Why is it offensive? Dunno - good question. Let me think about that for a minute.

ItsAll Great image. I love that it's really clear.

why?

So why doesn't the same apply for TW?

And please don't start with "because TW are part of the oppressor class" because that's just offensive tbh.

Is it a fair comparison to say that you can't have equality and segregation at the same time? You can't argue that makes and females should be treated just the same and st the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose.

See attached image

western societies have used positive discrimination in many situations to even out inequalities so yes it is perfectly possible to 'pick and choose'. any argument to reduce positive discrimination is dubious when coming from the privileged group eg rich people arguing against positive discrimination at university for those from poor backgrounds - self interest wrapped up as equality?

I'm willing to stand up and broaden the bandwidth of what it is to be a man.

^" the answer is to broaden the bandwidth of what it means to be a man
"^

YY, this.

Society tells boys from a young age that if you don't conform to masculine ideas of what being a boy/man is then you're a girl. "Stop crying and being a girl about it" etc. If you hear something often enough then you start to believe it, and then society is splitting itself into categories of men and not-men. I can understand why men feel like they fall into the category of not-men, especially gay men.

It goes the other way as well, when girls are called tomboys. But even then, it's more acceptable (IME) to be a tomboy than to be the male equivalent, which I suppose would be a sissy. And even writing that, I know that boys are called sissy as an insult, whereas a tomboy is much more a neutral statement.

I never really realised how much our ideas about gender go way back into our childhoods.

Oscar I'm not sure I agree with being so absolutist.

Is it a fair comparison to say that you can't have equality and segregation at the same time? You can't argue that makes and females should be treated just the same and st the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose.

I'm not saying I believe that by the way, just pointing out how your argument sounds to me.

And it's not even just about protected spaces. It's about access to women's colleges, grants and other funding ear-marked for women. It's about access to women's sporting events. It's about equal opportunities stats. Either MTT are women in every respect and for every purpose, or they are not women in any respect at all. You can't cherry pick, and say yes, MTT are women in these circumstances, but not in others. That is both inconsistent and unfair.

Morning all

Just catching up.

To summarise my catching up.

-We need rules that can form part of legislation ie not based on whether someone passes or is subjectively one of the OK ones
-The real problem is male violence. This is why women don't want males in female spaces and it's why TW don't want to be in male spaces.
-TW are male, but society doesn't treat us as such. Depending on the situation we are treated as TW or women.
-It would be desirable to stand together against gender stereotypes and male violence
-individual cubicles are great for the toilet and changing room issue.

These are all noble aims but we also have to be realistic and see this as a journey.

I would love to wave a magic wand and live in a world free of gender stereotypes and male violence. But that ain't gonna happen.

I still need to pee. I would still need access to services if I got raped by a man. I still need to live and survive in our current society in the real world. The world is imperfect and so we have to live with imperfect compromise whilst constantly pushing toward the end goal. We can't do the journey in one step.

and to not make being gay so horrendous that cutting off parts of your body/binding is a better option

But surely that is an issue with how society treats the sexes. And the answer is to broaden the bandwidth of what it means to be a man

^just this^

And I disagree that the debate about access to women's protected spaces is about making sure that sex offenders are excluded. It is to the extent that for any given man, a woman does not know that he is not going to be a danger to her. That is (part of) the reason why we exclude all men from women's protected spaces, rather than only individuals that are proven to be known offenders (assuming that such a thing were possible).

If so, you can include all kinds of 'harmless' men in women's protected spaces. Gay men, disabled men whose disability is such that they would be unable to attack a woman no matter how much they wanted to.

If we agree that 'living as a woman' is bollocks - we don't 'live as women' we live as people with the sexed biological experiences we have.
If we agree that 'looking like a woman' is also bollocks - convincing display of femininity maketh not a woman.
If we agree that gender is also a load of bollocks, and than non-gender-conforming women (lesbians, butch women, just women with no make up, short hair and trousers) are women.
If we agree all of that and that women who do not 'live as a woman', 'look like a woman' or 'perform feminine gendered roles' are still women, then if any MTT is a woman, then all who profess to be are, as surely the same 'rules' for 'this does not make you NOT a woman' must still apply?
It is nonsensical to have two sets of rules:

1. The 'wrong' behaviour, presentation and dress does not exclude you from womanhood. Womanhood is by virtue of your biology. (Applies to women.)
2. The 'wrong' behaviour, presentation and dress does exclude you from womanhood. Womanhood is not by virtue of biology, it is by virtue of something else. (Applies to MTT.)

If you disagree that you can consistently have 1 and 2 together at the same time, then no MTT is a woman. If you agree that they can co-exist, then you collapse into having 2 categories of woman, transwomen and ciswomen. Both are equally women.

There is of course a third option - which is that you accept that 'wrong' behaviour, dress, presentation etc does not exclude you from womanhood, but further assert that womanhood does not reside in biology, it resides in an internal feeling and conviction. This is a different way of obtaining consistency and coherence, and you end up with Danielle Muscato and her female penis.

But surely that is an issue with how society treats the sexes

That is what we should be fighting.