Trans media watch are lobbying mnhq

No argument from me Mx on that - gendered characteristics are bunkem.

Unfortunately, ignoring my genitals is more of a problem, especially for women, because that's where babies come from. I have special needs because if some male genitals get into my female genitals, then there can easily be a baby growing in my primary sexual organs - which no amount of non-gendered characteristics can change.

People will look at me, and know this, there's really no hiding it, so again, it doesn't matter which sports I play or what my hobbies are, my sex is still important.

Gender matters not a jot. Sex has rather important implications for women.

No Manu, it was my illustration of gender stereotypes currently existing as a straitjacket.

Venus refreshing to have a mention of trans men. They rarely get a look in on these threads. Clearly we're not about to change each other's minds, and I think we risk going round in circles, but it has been nice to have such a civilised discussion on the matter!

Datun, thank you for your explanation. Sorry for the slow response - I've been away from the keyboard.

Yep, I guess I am Spartacus too, in that case: I'd have no issue in treating a post-op transwoman as a woman, but I want to reserve the right to observe that people in that position still have male chromosomes, and that a person with a penis is still physically a man, even if he's wearing a dress.

Now back to catch up on the thread.

What about in sport?

The rights of transwomen to compete in women's categories? Transwomen have an advantage of height, weight, higher muscle mass, lower body fat and higher aerobic capacity over biological women in the vast majority of sports.

And the rights of biological women to compete against other biological women?

Those rights are utterly in conflict. How can we reconcile those rights?

I am happy to involve transmen's experiences in feminism, as they are women. So I am not excluding transpeople.

And that's your illustration of gender melting away as a concept?

I also mean the perception of women as the reproductive class and all the discrimination around that.

I don't think trans rights have much relevance to feminism personally. I don't believe centring the experience of men strengthens feminist thought. I think women's rights have a long way to go. It's ok to have things just for women, I think.

Manu indeed, that is exactly what it was meant to be!

Venus do you mean women's health issues? Cancers, childbirth, that kind of thing? In which case I do agree that some of the examples included up thread (classifying trans women in data on cervical cancer, for example) are unhelpful at best, dangerous at worst. I may be supportive of trans rights, but I wouldn't go that far. (I know some people do... But I don't speak for them.)

Venus well, I don't think either side has an inherent right to 'outrank' the other. , so ultimately I guess there is no 'right' answer to that question. So much of social progress is balancing out different people's rights, and I don't for a moment dismiss feminists' concerns as groundless or petty or transphobic because I don't think they are.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think it has to be a case of one side losing out and the other winning. For the reasons I've outlined, I would have thought feminism has much to gain with aligning itself with trans rights.

No argument with that. But what about women as a class and the problems we undoubtedly face, that men do not? What about the problems we face due to biological issues or perception based on that?

Hmm. It looked like a straight alternation between tedious stereotypes from where I'm sitting.

Manu Well no not exactly, but the fact you assumed I was sort of illustrates my point! I was deliberately picking stereotypes. My point was those are stereotypes that might, at the moment, be considered by some to be 'female' (not by me, clearly!) In the same way boxing might typically be seen as 'male' by some (again, not by me.) My point was how much better off we'd all be (especially women) in a world where those were just 'characteristics' rather than 'gender characteristics'...

I respect your view MxMarmite. I'm reading between the lines because you haven't answered the question. I'd be grateful if you could say what you think should happen where there is a clash?

Sometimes radicalisation is necessary and good. I won't make Godwin analogies, but sometimes people need to be made aware of what is happening in their name.

My view is that women would gain more from the erosion of the 'genitals / life chances' connections than they would lose from the analytical difficulties that would pose. I would rather fix the problem than analyse it.

Can you say more about your cost/benefit analysis here? What would be some of the costs and benefits with your solution? How would this feed into fixing the problem?

Sorry, I don't want this thread to go off at a tangent (I agree it's been one of the more productive trans threads of late), but just to response to IPity, I categorically am not saying that serving halal meat in schools is an indicator of Islamism. My analogy was that many schools now serve halal meat because they are eager to be accommodating to Muslim students and advice, including that written by known extremists, has been that they should serve halal meat for school meals. But this has been taken up without any critical thinking about the implications: what about students who cannot eat halal because of their own religious beliefs? What about students who object to halal slaughter? Their rights - and ability to object - have been pushed to one side because of some over-zealous accommodation of one group, much as women have blinked and missed the fact that we are now apparently supposed to call ourselves menstruators and child-bearers and be happy about it.

One last comment on this theme: perhaps MN is "radicalizing" people, who are becoming more aware of what is happening in the world of TRA. But I think the better analogy is the many chat forums and support groups for children who are seeking answers to their issues and who are told that the only way to resolve them is to trans (along with "help" on how to convince psychologists, how to buy and self-administer illegal hormone blockers, how to respond to parents and friends who have doubts about transition etc etc).

Marmite did you really just illustrate your point by including 'gossiping' and urge to nurture to illustrate someone's more 'female traits'?

Venus I very clearly haven't said that. I think the ideas are important and need to be discussed, and I was enjoying doing so with mutual respect.

Aunt - yes, I agree, women are discriminated against because of their sex in the world as it is. And I do take your point. As with much in life it's a cost / benefit analysis - there will be gains and losses. My view is that women would gain more from the erosion of the 'genitals / life chances' connections than they would lose from the analytical difficulties that would pose. I would rather fix the problem than analyse it. Are we a long way off? Yes. Is it, as things stand, utopian? Clearly. But it would I hope be a step in the right direction.

Or what venus said

What do you think should happen where women's rights and transactivists' demands clash?

I don't accept that transpeople have a "right" to be thought of as the opposite sex in every possible way, though I believe this should be accommodated where possible.

But if were truly in a post-gender world, I wonder if it would matter? If it really mattered not one jot what genitals one was born with... then would that not be beneficial to women? And by allowing anyone to define themselves as they wish, wouldn't that aid the creation is that post gender world?

No, yes, and it's a nice idea but I don't see how.

I mean, in the world as it is, women are discriminated against because of their sex. The class perceived to be capable of child-bearing is oppressed by the class that isn't. That's traditional feminism in a (very tiny) nutshell, right? So if we fuzzy up those boundaries of the classes, we become unable to name the problem. It's just some people doing stuff to other people, when this is demonstrably, overwhelmingly not the real case.

If we nominally eliminated race, we wouldn't be able to name, analyse and counter racism. If we nominally eliminated disability, we wouldn't be able to name, analyse and counter disablism. But it's OK to nominally eliminate sex because...that's the state of the ideal world? I'm not convinced at all. Like, not talking about it means the problem goes away? That's just adding repression to oppression IMO.

So are you saying women should just STFU and suck it up?

Freshwater - well, I have a hope (possibly unfounded) that by acknowledging that when it comes to gender, 'we are what we feel', it could move the focus away from both the sex we are born into and the gender characteristics we have. If we could say 'I was born with a vagina; I am happier with a penis and a beard; I do however fancy men not women; I enjoy gossiping and I am very nurturing; I am competitive and I like to box', rather than having to say 'I am a woman who is unhappy in my own body with both stereotypical male and female gender characteristics', then surely that would be moving to a world where neither gender nor sex defines who we are.

I agree Aunt that it makes traditional feminist analysis harder (impossible, I suppose.) But if were truly in a post-gender world, I wonder if it would matter? If it really mattered not one jot what genitals one was born with... then would that not be beneficial to women? And by allowing anyone to define themselves as they wish, wouldn't that aid the creation is that post gender world?

I accept we are a long way off it. But I would think transgenderism would aid rather than hinder its creation.

So to answer your question Venus... I accept that to promote trans rights is to overlook that concerns of some more traditional feminists, and both sides cannot be kept happy. But to my mind a world where who we are is defined by how we feel, and where our genitals are our business, is more likely to aid women's rights than otherwise.

I'm not prosthelytizing by the way. I think the tendency of both sides of the debate to do that is where things have gone so very wrong.

Sorry; actual trans issues.