New Trans thread as requested by HQs.

I agree with most of what you say LRD - but come to the opposite conclusion! All of the discussion is necessary to try and get to a happy place for all, imo.

What worries me about all this is, who is suffering here, and to whose advantage is all this?

I don't know anyone transsexual well enough for them to have told me much about it. I do worry, though, because I know a lot of people who are quite convinced that surgery is excellent and functional and simple. They believe that - sad though it must be to be 'born into the wrong body', the process is simple. They believe, because we are quite often told this, that there are distinctive, physical and mental qualities that define women or men.

There are, obviously: there are chromosomes and there are hormones and there are reproductive organs. All of these may function to a greater or lesser extent in an individual. For reasons I find dubious, all of these are discounted as definitive of femaleness or maleness. So, they say, there must be something else.

Is it then social or cultural - the experience of having lived as a female or male and been recognized as female or male? No, apparently that will not do either. Why?

Now, if someone believes there is 'something else', some distinctive quality that makes them identify as the opposite sex, I can't really deny their feelings and I'm not sure I'd want to. What worries me is, why are we throwing out all the other ways of defining 'woman' at the same time? Why is it that I am no longer supposed to say, well, I define myself as a woman because I am XX, or because I have a female reproductive system, or because I have lived my whole life labeled as 'female' in a society that cares hugely about this label?

So that's my first problem. I would be told by people I know this is 'cis privilege', that I am a 'cis woman', not a 'woman'. Why on earth would someone who wants to live as the opposite sex thank their activists for spreading terminology that sets the differences in concrete: 'trans woman' and 'cis woman'. Why? I am a cynic, but I can't believe this terminology is anything but stupid. It has no positive implications for anyone.

Anyway. When I've worried about definitions and words, someone will say it's easy to have surgery. But it's not, is it? And who does it help, to spread that lie? I don't have an argument with people doing what they like with their bodies, but it is utterly ridiculous to pretend that, in the current situation, someone who has gender reassignment surgery now has 'a woman's body' or 'a man's body'. I really hope they have a body they find more liveable with, but that's not the only issue.

Is it not problematic to say that something is deemed a successful replacement for a vagina just because it can be penetrated? Isn't saying that that is a vagina immensely disrespectful, not only to people with vaginas but also to the person who has surgery, who is being told this is what they get, this is how to make them feel like a woman?

If I knew someone were MtF transsexual, or FtoM, I would call them 'she' and 'he' respectively - because they're individuals and I think they're caught up in the same sorry mess we all are, and it's not a competition to see who's worst off. If I knew someone who was an orthodox Jew and didn't want to touch me, I wouldn't touch him. Same reasons. I know lots of women who wear coverings and I don't go round snatching them off.

Accepting individuals and accommodating their beliefs, even if I find the underlying premises of those beliefs insulting to me as a feminist, seems basic to me. But that doesn't mean that I don't get to disagree with these premises on a general level. Seeing this debate get shut down time after time (not just on MN), especially by people who seem to want to support a situation that benefits none of us, is misguided and I think this attitude will stop us as a society from making any progress with any side of the issue.

I was interested in the broader ideas beyond the mtf .v. women-only stuff so I have started a thread about that if anyone is vaguely interested.

The correct term for people whose bodies and personal identity match the gender they were assigned at birth is, by the way, cisgender.

I've not read all of this thread but much of what I've read has displayed a sickening transphobia. No wonder other threads on this topic have been deleted.

Why on earth shouldn't trans people use the toilets of their chosen sex? It's very insulting to a male-to-female transsexual to say 'No, you can't use the women's toilets coz how we can we be sure you won't rape somebody in there coz you have a penis?' The vast majority of transsexuals are surely, like the vast majority of people generally, decent people who wouldn't dream of sexually assaulting somebody.

If an MTF trans person can't use women's toilets does that mean lesbians can't either? Coz in theory they also might sexually assault somebody in there.

The fact is nobody is completely safe from violation in a public place. Just yesterday I read the story of a woman who was raped in the toilets of a pub by a man who'd followed her in there. Some time ago I read an article about a country in the Far East, I forget which one, which has a real problem with men setting up secret cameras in women's toilets for their sexual kicks. It reckoned in big cities most of the female population had been observed going to the loo at some point. (Makes you feel queasy, don't it?).

The one thing I do see as potentially problematic is MTF trans people acting as rape counsellors for women born women. Like nyac basically said, some women are not going to be comfortable talking to somebody who has or has had a penis. But surely the answer is, rather than a blanket ban on trans people working as rape counsellors, letting these women themselves decide whether or not such counsellors are women to them and they can talk to them (and of course having access to another counsellor if they decide not, which they should have anyway, as there are many reasons why you might decide you can't work with one particular counsellor)?

I've never been violently raped so I can't say for sure but I don't think having a trans counsellor would bother me - I've always found LGBT people far less threatening than heterosexual men born men.

Good post catsrus

I promised I would stay away from this thread.

I'm going to say one thing.

From a legal perspective, it is disingenuous to use one case in Canada in 2002 and link that to the legislation as it exists in the UK in 2010.

They are completely different jurisdictions.

It's like me saying in France in 2002 this thing happened, and that is wrong because of the Equality Act 2010.

UK law does not apply in Canada therefore to link the case in Canada to the GRA 2004 is misleading.

They are never going to be fully functioning women , a trans female will never be able to have periods, carry a child etc, I can do those things because I was born a woman.

I don't feel any threat.

I have very mixed feelings on this one - I don't like what a lot of trans activists are trying to do, it does feel creepy and smacks of a 'dominant male power' trip, I have experienced mtf trans who behave in a very aggressive dominant male way while presenting as a 1950's housewife and I find it disconcerting. oTOH I have known two mtf transsexuals who present to me as female and want nothing more than to be left peace to live their wives as women.

I understand the rad fem POV about redefining what it is to be 'woman' and I too am uncomfortable about that - but I personally would not go down the chromosome line as that too is fraught with difficulties. I have a female friend that I had known for many years who discovered when she was in her 30s that she was "xy". She knew she was sterile and had her 'ovaries' removed at puberty because they were cancerous - and had regular hospital checks every year or so. On moving house and changing hospitals a new consultant just said in passing "well, as you know you are xy normal" ! It seems her parents may have been told this at the time but did not underestand what on earth "xy normal" meant. She then had to come to terms with this.

Just google "xy female" for all the biological detail (or Swyer syndrome) - but she was born with female genitalia, vagina etc and brought up as female. Her whole life experience has been as a woman but she has never experienced a period due to the removal of the cancerous gonads (ovaries/testes).

I would say, I think, that it is her life experience that makes her female, she believes she is a female and identifies with women. She is female on her birth certificate and has no desire to live as a male.

OTOH I also knew, many years ago, an XX male who finally chose to have gender reassignment to remove his male genitalia and live as a woman.

It's a minefield. So while i recognise a huge variation in what it is ito be male or female and I'm not happy about using chromosome type as an indicator of man / woman - nor am I happy with the notion that a man who feels like a woman should be treated as one and allowed access to women only spaces.

"Do I think VRR had science and logic on their side? Hadn't really considered it. Just thought it was notable that the judge stated they hadn't."

Could you provide a link please to this madwoman. I'd be interested to see that part of the judge's ruling.

"So Pan if you know the case very well, then why didn't YOU provide links? It wouldn't have been hard to do".

Well, it is such an extreme case (in a number of aspects utterly unique and highly unlikely to never be repeated) I would be very hard of thinking if I ever were to refer to it in a sensible debate. But don't let that stop you from doing so, and then try to gild this very poor lilly with couple few mistruths. (btw lots of other aspects of the reporting were inaccurate and lots of relevant facts left out. But there you go when you link to the DM, pandering to the conservative and reactionary amongst us.)

Oh, I know oil, I've always run not for profits, so I now exactly how heartbreaking it is to have to beg for funding and try to keep providing services. It's a constant battle for me.

I just popped back on to say that although nyac and I have butted heads over this topic before, that I do absolutely appreciate the need for some people to be bluntly single minded about their own particular group. Women need rad fems, and other oppressed groups need their own advocates.

I'm a feminist, but I'm not as single minded. If there's more than one oppressed group involved, be they women, trans, disabled, whatever, then I have to try and seek the balance. It shouldn't be necessary to pit one against another or come up with a hierarchy of vulnerability.

So, I do appreciate the singlemindedness of the rad fems who refuse point blank to consider anything but their primary concern. And I even sneakingly admire them for it. it doesn't stop me trying to introduce another pov occasionally, and I might get increasingly frustrated at the refusal to consider any other pov, but I do understand their single mindedness.

It does make it a rather futile exercise, though. So now that I've collected dd2 from dance and the dinner is simmering nicely on the stove, I'm going to retire from the thread and get on with rl for a bit.

There are lots of things I don't understand about these issues. I avoided the other threads.

I'm perfectly happy to call a trans person (or anybody) by their chosen pronoun, am more familiar than your average Joe with gender variations and am sympathetic to 'wrong sex' syndrome. I comprehend why people want legal reassignment when they change their gender. Apologies if I'm using 'gender' when it should be 'sex'.

But I don't think the spectre of rape should be ignored. I realise that anyone can commit rape or assault by penetration on anybody; it's not a specifically XY on XX crime. If, however, a rapist wished to gain easy access to vulnerable women, and was suitably motivated, then 'becoming' a woman could grant him that access.

He could get it by other means quite easily, too. He could become a prison worker at a women's prison; teach; become a carer or health worker - to name just a few opportunities.

So I don't know whether my gut feeling of 'wrongness' about all this is just a remnant of bigotry or is realistic?

The whole business of defining womanhood is another big kettle. I don't really think a person is a "woman" like me unless they grew up as a girl, have menstruation and a lifetime of balancing the tightrope of sexism behind them. But neither do any of the trans women I've known! They don't think they're "women" like me, they are "women" like each other.

So that's another area where I'm not even sure I need a viewpoint?
Just hoping a few people might post some 101 type comments ...

HmmmThinking, if you're still here, I agree with your 12 00:47:37 post. Try as I might, I can't get my head round this area of complete inconsistency in some strands of feminist thought and the casual dismissal and imho cruelty towards those who actually have direct experience of trans people as human beings, not just the anecdotal monsters to be found in some quarters of the internet.

I completely understand why you feel the need to duck out for your own peace of mind. The duplicity of complaining about MRA's vilification of feminists based on embellished anecdotes and rare cases while perpetuating the same about trans people leaves a bitter taste in the mouth for me.

So if that means some folks think that means I'm not qualified to call myself a feminist, well the number of shits I give is zero!

Night night. Sleep tight.

I would agree that it is the main reason in the minds of most people, but from a legal perspective, one of the main reasons segregated spaces are provided is because we have a legal right to privacy and dignity.

I would suggest that the reason why rape is being brought up is because one of the main legal changes is access to segregated spaces. The main segregated spaces are:

Health services
Services for victims of crime
Prisons and police stations.
Changing rooms and toilets in public places

The main reason for segregation is a legal right to privacy and dignity; it is not primarily about safety from sexual assault. But, two of the main areas where segregation takes place are those for offenders and those for victims. I would say it is inevitable that when we talk about changing the basis on which groups are segregated, particular attention is then going to be on certain types of crime and the victims of it. There are very few reasons why a victim would end up naked in front of people collecting criminal evidence. Rape and sexual assault are one of the main reasons, so rape is always going to be something that is going to be relevant in a discussion of segregated spaces.

Protection from sexual assault is a concern for women in general and for trans people.

Seehouses, ok maybe better drop that one I was confusing myself and everyone else. My main thought was that I see someone as who they prtray themsleves to be. If I am being dileberetly mislead by a M pretending to be a F then I would be angry and upset, however to use the word pretending would not be accurate would it as the M to F believes themselves to be fgemal. Ok I know going round in knote leaving that alone now.

Why is every thread about transgender people always end up about mtf rapists?

And just generally making the suggestion within that, that there is a link between the two... Association fallacy. Aka prejudice.

Nuff said. I think it just about sums up.

Thing, is you might well deal with someone who is transgender regularly and have no idea and it won't bother you in the slightest as you simply don't know whats in their crotch.

Think it says more about some of the posters here and the fact that they have a problem with anyone with a penis than it does about anyone who is transgender.

I've had enough of this. I've tried to give a pov on the subject and I've tried to share v personal experiences. Stuff thats not always easy to say or admit to. I've not handled it as well as I would have liked. I wish I could have dealt / deal with it better.

But this is bollocks. Its not debating, its just being agressive and confrontational and trying to demonise even when people have made the point that this is a hard and sensitive subject for some people.

I haven't even the heart to report any more.

Congrats you've bullied me out of this one. Hope you are satisfied.