New Trans thread as requested by HQs.

Likewise, I wasn't deliberately trying to misrepresent you. I picked up a remark about exclusive women's groups want to discuss things like childbirth and infertility, saying that they were not relevant to trans women. As I posted, infertility would be very much part of a trans woman's gender. The rest of my post was an attempt to illustrate why focusing on reproductive equipment is a retrograde step for all women, inclusively.

Also I have been offended at various points in this thread by what looks like a merry assumption that real women have babies. I shouldn't have spoken personally but, well, it's personal to me - my grandfather and father thought I wasn't a real woman, for reasons stated. No feminist would want to be aligned with them, believe me!

"Some people feel that female body is part of their identity and will want to be only with other people who have that body in certain circumstances. "

And I'm saying that if they're that picky they might do with lightening up, unless the circumstances are truly exceptional.

Anyone else reminded of that gay marriage thread where the OP started off by saying it was fine but a bit pointless really, then eventually came out as a committed anti? This is reminiscent somehow.

I also must bow out for now, got work tonight #sigh#

I don't think your intention is to misrepresent me; I think it is probably unconcious prejudice on your part. I think you are simply conveying prejudiced sentiments to women who are not trans so consistently attempt to deny this group an identity or space while allowing other groups identities and spaces without comment.

Madwoman, because most of your arguments are not to do with trans people in particular, but you are framing them as discriminating against trans people.

When I suggested a group for women who were not trans, you objected to the exclusion of trans people. You did not object to the exclusion of men. That makes it seem as if you have a prejudice against women who are not trans.

The same applies to Annie's arguments.

You are comparing allowing women who are not trans to racial segregation. You are not comparing the segregation of men and women to racial segregation.

Your focus on not allowing women who are not trans to segregate on certain occasions while not commenting at all on not allowing all men into women's changing rooms etc makes it seem as if you have an issue with a particular type of woman.

Otherwise, can you explain why you are constantly singling out this group's spaces as prejudiced but not making the same comparisons to Enoch Powell, the KKK etc with other forms of gender segregation?

Well, today is disability rights chez mad, and I've got several hours worth of rl volunteering to do on an all gender basis, so I'm disappearing.

Apols if you think I was misrepresenting you, sea. Not my intention.

But I'm not saying that women who can't or don't have children should be somehow categorised differently, GB. I think you're being rude to make such a misrepresentation. I never suggested they should be excluded.

All I am saying is this.

There used to be a thing called the female body. Some people feel that female body is part of their identity and will want to be only with other people who have that body in certain circumstances.

I am not saying that there can't also be groups for men and women.
I am not saying that there can't also be groups for transwomen and other women together.
I am not saying that infertile people with female bodies do not have female bodies.
I am not saying that all infertile people with female bodies would rather talk to a woman and not a man.

There may be fertility situations for some with a female body where they identify with trans people. But my friend, for example, has serious fertility issues and has had ectopic pregnancies. That isn't anything like the situation of a trans woman. It is to do with what used to be called the female body.

I understand MWITA's perspective if she is against all exclusion and all segregation. What I don't understand is

a. the need of some to misrepresent my point.
b. the need to argue against rights for people who identify by sex but for rights for people who identify by gender. Why can't both groups have rights? Why is one group trivial and the other important?

I wish I'd written your post at 17:20, Annie.

The thread's really helping me firm up some of my ideas around this ... still somewhat blancmange-like at present, mind you!

Not offended at all, madwoman :)

And that people continuously claim that more discrimination would help sort the whole sorry mess out. Third sex indeed.

Yy, Annie. And I'm aware that the opposite of that is 'I don't wanna discriminate. I just don't!' which is equally unhelpful given the fact that we live in such a discriminatory environment.

That just makes me more depressed that less discrimination isn't the default.

How is that not to do with trans?

And how is that not to do with feminism?

I'm all for equality, me.

I find it really hard that feminists argue against equality.

I want my trans friends to be able to go about their lives without endless discussion about where they can and can't go. I want me to be able to go about my daily life without being treated differently because I have a womb.

How is that not relevant to a trans thread?

I'm sure many of us can think of very specific occasions where there might be a reason that women or men would wish to get together exclusively with people of their own sex (however defined). I don't think that invalidates the position that we should start from an assumption of no segregation, whilst being prepared to make a special case for any departure from the norm. The criteria would have to be a lot higher than just "I wanna discriminate, I wanna", mind you.

Then I'm not sure why you are arguing on a trans thread. Your argument isn't about trans people at all. Your argument seems to be that there should be no segregation of men and women, either on the basis of sex or gender, in any situation.

Yy, garlic, my 'women's rights' comment was supposed to reinforce that. Hope I didn't come across wrong, didn't mean to offend.

And women's rights is only such a huge movement because of discrimination against women. To seek to increase discrimination by the creation of more boundaries is something I can't get my head round. It genuinely doesn't make any sense to me.

How will the creation of a third sex stop discrimation against women by society?

Or stop discrimination against trans by society?

Surely infertility, at least, is relevant to trans women? I can't shake off the feeling that a very restrictive definition of "woman" is being applied by women discussing these issues. I couldn't have children. There are women born without functioning wombs or ovaries. Nobody's ever rounded the lot of us up and told us we can't discuss with other women because we're "not proper women".
I will be very fucking angry if you tell me I'm less female than you because I have no children. How very dare you! Yet you're happy to create some definition of "woman" - which is not chromosomal - in order to support exclusion policies against trans women.

Some of you are actually trying to enforce the kind of binary definitions feminism fights against, it seems to me.

I'm not saying your putative badminton discussion group should be shut down, I'm just putting it to you that if someone comes in saying "actually I play tennis but I'd be really interested in learning about badminton", they shouldn't be told to push off.

Agree.

That's kind of my point. There shouldn't be any need for laws to exist to protect and create 'trans'. That reinforces the binary in itself.

The legislation should seek to remove discrimination, not reinforce it.

Didn't ever say that the term women's rights was offensive. Just that i see women's rights in terms of the absolute childbearing potential or whatever. You can call it women's rights if you want to. but don't exclude a pg man with a beard from an antenatal class. And call it an antenatal class, not a pregnant women's class.

See how the terminology just ties up in knots? I just think that the creation of a third sex would increase discrimination further. And reduce the prospects of us ever, ever, ever, being seen as individuals.

I don't want my entire life to be mapped out by the fact I have a womb. My womb is completely and utterly irrelevant unless I happen to be pg.

No, a transgender man giving birth doesn't have to be called a woman.

How does that make the term 'women's reproductive rights' offensive?

How does it make abortion not a women's issue?

What do you think is a women's issue?

I was talking about why I joined a guides group and why I thought it was a good idea for it to be segregated. I don't claim to lay down what should and should not be an intrinsic part of guides.

Anyway, if you believe that no group should exclude people, then there should be no transgender groups, no women's groups and no women's facilities. In that case, there would be little point in any transperson having their gender legally recognised, because there would be no separate groups and no separate facitilies.

It is paradoxical to say that it is wrong to stop a transwoman from joining a group that excludes men because excluding people is wrong.

The existence of the women's group would then be wrong. Whether the person trying to join it is a transwoman or just a man is then totally irrelevant.

It was a couple having a baby. And then another one. I found it v interesting that he had a beard and that the beard just stopped growing when he got pregnant, and didn't fall out. I didn't see it as in any way threatening any pregnancy legislation.

I idly wondered if he had had GRS, and how that would have worked for both conception and childbirth, but really it was none of my business. As long as he wasn't discriminated against because of his pregnancy, I couldn't give a monkeys. Same as if he's got pregnant and decided to abort it. As he was carrying the baby, the rights were his. I don't have to insist that he is a woman to give him those rights?

But people's social attitudes to pregnancy and abortion, and attempts to increase or reduce those rights, are situated in a world where people associate childbearing with the female body. So sexism plays a part in their opinion on childbearing.

That would make it a women's issue in political terms.

What would you consider to be a women's issue? If pregnancy and abortion are not women's issues?

No none is saying you can't or you shouldn't. Just that you shouldn't exclude other people. All of those things would still be freely available to you in a society that doesn't tie itself up in knots over gender.

You might have done competitive sports. That doesn't make it an intrinsic part of the organisation. And I was really meaning teamwork to solve problems, put up a tent, whatever, rather than 'I'm going to beat x at a sport which involves physical strenght'.

Sorry Hully. I cross posted.

You have rights about pregnancy. You just legislate for the absolute.

Tis the same with mat/ pat pay. You just call it newborn allowance and anyone who is staying home for the first six months of a babies life can claim it. It doesn't have to be gendered.

Not sure what infertility rights?

Abortion and pg related stuff has to be discussed in terms of the person carrying the child/ terminating the child - whether that is someone who identifies as female, or who identifies as ftm and has been living as a man for ten years, and stopped the hRT because his partner can't become pg.

We did competive activities between the girls in the group. Lots of competitive sport involves team anyway.

As for the puberty issue, I don't think talking about girls' bodies has to be instructive. Girls can want to talk about about those topics in group situations for a variety or reasons; it doesn't have to be about instructing people.

And no, it isn't necessary to talk about puberty with the guides. Just like, no, it isn't necessary to talk about breastfeeding; as OHM says I could just have coffee with my friends instead. And I suppose it isn't necessary to talk about pregnancy, or childbirth, or abortion, or infertility, or IVF, or the menopause, or clitoral orgasms, or miscarriages, or periods for any women meeting together anywhere ever. We could talk about something else instead.

But I'm not sure why my body is so offensive to people, or perhaps so dangerous to people, that me wanting to talk about my life experiences that are connected to my body with other people who have had similar experiences is analagous to hanging black people and burning crosses on people's lawns.

There are people who have complained about abortion being discussed as a woman's issue or a woman's reproductive issue because that implies wombs are somehow connected to women as a group. They would rather we didn't associate what used to be called the female body with any group of women.

I don't know the answer to that! It seems a bit mad. There are plenty of "born" women who are sterile etc and they have to put up with hearing about potentially upsetting stuff. So I'd probs not go along with that.