You were right

This is a good article on autogynephilia.

www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/06/11/what-kind-of-woman-is-caitlyn-jenner-part-one-of-a-qa-on-autogynephilia-with-michael-bailey/?utm_content=buffer6d4b3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The question of why some people choose to transition isn't talked about nearly enough IMO.

Generally the explanation is that 'they feel like the other gender' or 'they were born in the wrong body'. Neither of those explanations means anything to me at all and I think they are incredibly weak reasons for significant law changes and medical interventions.

Lots of progenderists get very angry when gender critical feminists examine why people transition - look at how Sheila Jeffreys has been vilified for her book 'Gender Hurts' (Same for Raymond, Bailey, etc).

Of course different individuals have different reasons for their desire to transition but there are common themes which recur.

1. Autogynephilia, as mentioned by FloraFox.

Autogynephilia is defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as female. Autogynephilia explains the desire for sex reassignment of some male to female (MtF) transsexuals. It can be conceptualized as both a paraphilia and a sexual orientation. www.annelawrence.com/autogynephilia,_a_paraphilic_model_of_GID.pdf

Lots of gender critical feminists see autogynephilia as a sexual fetish and the ultimate objectification of women - the crossdresser who gets turned on by wearing feminine clothing takes his fetish to the point where he actually wants to wear a woman's body.

1. Internalized homophobia. This is of great concern to gender critical feminists because it is an erasure of butch lesbians.

1. Dissociation. Brought on by trauma, usually from childhood and usually of a sexual nature. See this article for a good explanation.

1. Identity disorder - a form of mental health issue. Lots of progenderists get very angry when this is suggested (many people find this anger ableist).

I think it is important that we talk about why people want to transition. And I think it is vital that we examine why there are power structures such as the medical and legal establishments who are willing to help them on such a path and to validate the idea that it is possible to change one's sex. It is also important to differentiate between sex and gender - the above mentioned book by Sheila Jeffreys does this and she also looks at it in a previous book 'Beauty and Misogny' which is available as a PDF.

Important and interesting as the above may be they do not change the fact that it is impossible to change one's sex. It is of course possible to imitate the other sex via stereotypes, trappings of femininity and masculinity, synthetic hormones and cosmetic surgery - none of which feminists have traditionally been supportive of as we think they are harmful (again see Jeffreys for her analysis of harmful cultural practices).

Gender critical feminists are sympathetic to reasons 2, 3 and 4 but tend to think that it is deeply inhumane to offer a 'sex change' (i.e. something that is untrue and impossible) as a solution to these painful issues. We tend to be creeped out by reason 1 and think that such people are the very last people who should be allowed to influence the law regarding the status of girls and women and that the last place they should be is in sex segregated safe space for girls and women.

Grr, that should be to Lurcio.

Our io, I really like your last paragraph.

I think lurcio has done a grand job In providing a synopsis there of the 3 threads; and highlighting the major concerns that women have expressed for women

avocado if you are only going to briefly read over the threads because you find it too depressing, then you are not really listening to the concerns that women have/any POV at odds with your own. Therefore, its pretty impossible to have a conversation about it

Egosum, I'm not sure I understand your point.

People do things all the time that cause them severe problems in society and cause them to lose privilege.

Some of those things are unethical, either due to the impact on others or the impact on the person. Some of them are not unethical.

Some of those things are easy to understand and some are not.

Are you saying that if we understand why people do things, that makes what they are doing ethical?

Great post lurcio

And would echo your thoughts about ego who has very thought provoking posts as well

Egosum - I've read some of your posts on other threads, and find I agree with a lot of what you say on other issues in feminism. But at the same time I've read a lot of the trans threads and am genuinely worried about some of the issues raised. So I'm really interested in how you approach the following issues (because I'm feeling a bit like a lot of other women who identify as liberal feminists - that I always felt happy to be trans-inclusionary, but now I find I may have given away a load of women's rights without realising). So I hope this doesn't feel like me putting you on the spot because I'm being aggressive - it's more that you seem like a good person to ask about these things because you're likely to have thoughtful answers which may help me to understand the opposing point of view.

Some trans-activists object to using the term "female genital mutilation" because it's trans-exclusionary. Should we agree with them on this? Even if it means renaming as something like "vulval mutilation" thus obscuring the fact that it is done to people with biologically female genitals precisely because they are women living in patriarchal societies where women's sexuality is seen as in need of controlling and those societies think they have the right do do that controlling?

Ditto menstruation. Some trans-activists have complained very loudly that having an international day of women's menstrual issues is trans-exclusionary. Should we agree with them about this?

Some trans-activists object to abortion being described as a women's rights issue because it's trans-exclusionary. Should we agree with them, and take all references to "women" out of literature on abortion and campaigning for abortion rights?

There's an under-representation of women in STEM subjects. If we agree with trans-activists that statistisics should be collected on "women" without reference to which sex was identified at birth and whether the person in question was socialised as a boy, had all the advantages in terms of access to encouragement for STEM careers typically extended to boys and often denied to girls, we end up with statistics which exagerrate the number of women in STEM subjects and again obscure the pressures that exist for girls entering science at school level. Should we agree with trans-activists that their need to be counted as women without further qualification trumps the need to collect accurate data which indicates the degree to which girls going through school are subjected to social pressures which limit their career choices?

Women in sport - we live in a society where women are often put off sport. Women who make it in professional sports have (similarly to those who make it in STEM subjects) struggled agains immense social pressures and much more limited funding. Women who do sport at amateur level do so often inspired by women at the top of their sport. Should we agree with trans-activists that after a certain amount of time hormone treatment lowers levels of male hormones to levels where they should be allowed to compete as women, even thought they still have higher bone density, higher muscle mass and a height advantage? Even if this means that, say, women's pro basket ball teams end up containing a disproportionate number of transwomen, compared to the proportion of transwomen in the population at large?

And (the million dollar question), if you don't agree with the trans activist position, and want to argue that these are special cases and do merit restriction to women born as women, how do you draw up legislation to back up the idea that this should be the case? It certainly can't be done by accepting that being a woman is down to "feeling like a woman inside" and that self-description is enough.

I really hope this doesn't come across as putting you personally on the spot. It is simply that you seem to be so straightforwardly similar to me in a lot of other views, so I'm really interested to know how you answer these questions in a way that allows transwomen room to do their own thing, and live their lives without prejudice (which I'd agree is a good thing, and any civilised society should allow them to do so) without selling out women's rights?

I know that one trans-activist line is to argue that people like me are pushing some sort of line which says "you can be sort of equal but not in these areas..." and their riposte is that "well that doesn't work well with race does it? No one would argue that separate drinking fountains in 50s America was fine so long as there was one for blacks and one for whites..." But the biology of reproduction and childbirth, and the average differences in strength and size between men and women are basic "material facts" against which the social framework of gender segregation is built (gender in the feminist/social sciences understanding of gender as a set of socially sanctioned behaviours and roles imposed on the sexes, not in the trans-activist sense of "how I feel inside").

I suppose for me the way I feel about trans issues is closer to the way I feel about toleration of religious belief. If someone tells me they "feel like a woman" and want to live as one, I think "fair enough." Just as if someone tells me "I believe in God, and the right to buy buildings in which to pray" - I'd think fair enough. But when their belief systems start to impinge on my life - if someone says "and furthermore, because I think women shouldn't be allowed to drive because god says so, I want the laws of the land changed so you can't drive", or someone says "because I feel like a woman inside I want the rules of this sporting body changed so I can compete as a woman even thought I'm 6 foot 6", then I'm going to say, "no, happy to tolerate what you do in your own private space, but you're now impinging on my rights".

avocado whereas I find the attitude towards women in the 21st century a whole lot more than 'incredibly depressing'

.

I don't think the Rachel Dolezal issue is a good thing for feminists at all. It has negative consequences for black and mixed race women.

chunky

I absolutely agree with what you are saying, you are expressing it much better than I ever would

Please feel free to include me in your 'we'

I don't know - I do know that people seem to be very happy to denounce Rachel as mentally disturbed and deluded, whilst knowing very little about her motivations.

I have no gender identity, so I don't have a handle on the struggles that trans people go through either

I'm not a psychologist, but from an external, lay point of view I do see similarities between Rachel's apparent desire to be black, trans desire to be a different gender, and anorexic's desire to be thinner,the other people who don't feel that their limbs are right, extreme plastic surgery, or any number of other people who look at their lives and see something that's making them unhappy and have to decide what can be done to fix it.

I think people are wild and varied, and some people make some very dramatic decisions, and other people decide to change their minds rather than their bodies.

Yes, sorry, I, and the vast majority of people I've read on this board, are not beating the trans community (in fact I can't think of anyone who has, but there maybe someone I've forgotten and so am hedging my bets)

I would think that transpeople transition because they wish to behave in a certain way that would not be seen as socially acceptable in a person of the sex that was assigned to them. A transwoman who wants to wear make-up and dresses is (more and more) accepted by society because they are seen as being 'really' a man. A man, who identifies as a man but wishes to wear dresses and make up- society as a whole doesn't know what to do with that. It would most likely be assumed that such a man was a transwoman.

That's how it appears to me, anyway- some behaviours and choices are, sadly, still only available to one gender. If we ever get to a point where a man could walk down the street in high heels, a dress and make-up, where every choice was seen as equally valid for either gender, will there still be many people desperately wishing/needing to transition? How many transwomen today transition and then spend their lives with no make-up, wearing jeans and making choices which are equally valid for men and women?

Of course they have a choice to transition. They may not have a choice about how they feel but they can certainly choose to do something about it.

What does being a woman inside actually mean? How does anyone feel like a woman? Liking stereotypically female things doesn't make you a woman.

ego transactivists don't like to address the question of "why?" unless it is an unquestioning of their narrative of "feels like a woman". There are links on the other threads to analysis that they are either homosexuals in homophobic cultures or autogynephiles. This questioning enrages transactivists. It's not women who are narrow-mindedly refusing to consider "why?"

The question of "why?" doesn't address the truth of the matter that men cannot become or be women. So the matter of "why do men want to be women?" should be "why do men want women to pretend they believe they are women?"

We're not beating the trans community - they can be trans, I have no problem with what they do to their bodies, or how they want to dress, live their day to day lives, I fully support people doing what they can to be happy

BUT that doesn't mean I have to say that they are a woman just like me, or that I agree with someone who is biologically male being counted as a woman in statistics, and granted all the same access to women only-spaces that I as a biological woman can access. It doesn't mean that I should stop using the word Woman to describe issues which affect biological females.

Day to day, for individuals I will obviously call someone 'she' I generally don't see an issue with a trans being in the lady's loos/changing rooms, but that's not a right, that's a privilege granted - sharing our safe space, as long as we can still keep it safe.

I think it just all needs to be reasonable.

Oh wow yes that's really helpful, thanks Harvey. Because obviously that's all that being a trans woman involves.

I'm aware of those threads; I have read through them briefly. To be honest I find them quite difficult as I find it incredibly depressing that there's such an attitude towards trans people in 21st century Britain.

You're right. I, not we.

I have no right to speak for other people.