DD and the trans thing. She's really sucked in and not able to see an alternative view

How do you define a transwoman, Jaxing. It looks like Ian Huntley is calling himself Lian. Shall we move Lian to a women's prison now?

Well I'm afraid their disregard for my rights, my privacy, my dignity, my boundaries, my feelings as a woman rather diminishes any sympathy I might feel for them as "troubled individuals" Bitof. I reiterate I am not talking about dysphoria.

Why would I have sympathy for people who don't have gender dysphoria yet want to erase women as a meaningful category because of Pomo theory? Or for autogynephiles who want to use women as a prop for their sexual fetish?

People are calling for the law to proactively clamp down on trans people though based on the past and potential actions of individuals. That's not how it works, for very good reasons. A trans woman in a men's prison is just a trans woman. If she also happens to be a violent criminal she needs to be treated like a violent criminal and appropriate action taken. But you can't treat someone like a violent criminal because they are trans. Which is ultimately what you'd be doing if you refused trans women access to women's prisons.

They are literally the only transpeople I have sympathy for.

This lack of sympathy is transparent in many posts on this subject, and to refer back to the OPs teenage daughter, it may well be this lack of sympathy that alienates her. It certainly alienates me.

I can't imagine entering into any trans lifestyle without there being some serious issues behind it. I don't know what those issues are and it may lead people into criminal and unpleasant behaviour. I will not condone their actions yet I still have sympathy for them as troubled individuals.

jaxing

I hear what you are saying. And I have had discourse with some wonderful transwomen.

However there is a section of trans-women who identify as autogynephiles. ie Their transition is definitely sexually motivated. Grayson Perry for instance is a self-confessed autogynephile. He doesn't demand that he is actually a woman and is therefore not transgender. But the condition exists. And many late transitioning males have it. It is irrefutable.

It's not just about accommodating the percentage of trans-women who are like your friends.

The other thing is that the transgender umbrella doesn't just cover people with gender dysphoria any more. They are literally the only transpeople I have sympathy for. Because yes, I think the only medical basis is that it is a mental illness. There are an awful lot of bandwagon jumpers and "genderqueer" special snowflakes that I can see. As well as plenty of men who can best be described as fetishists and actively want to invade women's space.

I think that post is spot on, Bitof. YY to the trans people I know in real life being very nice.

I think the issue for me is self-identification as a basis for law. I get why trans people don't like the idea of medical professionals as "gatekeepers" - it must be awful to feel your very existence is being made dependent on the say-so of psychologists. (And as an aside - a lot of people on these threads mention that trans people seem to go over-the-top with performing gender stereotypes. This in many cases is actually the result of the medicalisation of the GRC process; the psychologists expect a stereotyped performance of femininity in order to grant a GRC. Many trans people I know have then relaxed into a much less stereotyped version of themselves once they no longer have to perform for the gatekeepers.)

So I can see why trans people find the medicalisation of this process so offensive. But the alternative is self-identification, and this is no basis for law, for (I think) a fundamental philosophical reason. Law is all about the shared, public realm of discourse, behaviour and evidence. You have to be able to hold up publicly scrutable evidence and say "here it is, and this is why this action is okay or not okay in these circumstances."

But "I feel like a woman/man on the inside" is by definition not publicly scrutable. The only evidence for its veracity is inside the head of the person making the assertion. They may or may not be telling the truth - the rest of us have no way of knowing. Hence my comment upthread where I said that if self-identification goes through you might as well get rid of the the criminal offences of indecent exposure and voyeurism. Because the defence of "but I feel like a woman, therefore I am one" is irrefutable. Anyone can claim it (whether they themselves know it to be true or not) and the rest of us have no way of rebutting that claim, because we cannot possibly be privy to their thoughts.

And that's a lousy basis for law-making.

It might seem unfair, but that's the reality. Laws don't just benefit nice people, and nor should they. It has to be a question of what's right for all. We cannot legislate to protect people's feelings.

The extreme trans lobby is clearly wrong in man ways

I meant in many ways - but I actually think the typo works

I think one of the issues many people have is that our personal experiences do match the extreme rhetoric - on both sides.

The extreme trans lobby is clearly wrong in man ways. You can produce examples of high profile trans people behaving in ways most people would dislike and disagree with.

However, my experience of trans people is of people who are extremely vulnerable. People who are struggling to come to terms with who they are in a society that is still very hostile. I know no aggressive trans people demanding rights. I do know scared, vulnerable individuals.

I would imagine the OPs teenage daughter sees the second group I describe. To lump these scared, vulnerable individuals into the same category as vocal, aggressive sexual predators no doubt seems unfair to her as it does to many others.

And I'm fine with trans women in women's prisons

So you'd be fine with this budding transwoman moving to a women's prison?

How about this one?

What about someone with a history of violent crime who makes a living by touting their "seven-inch-surprise" on sex sites? Still no problem?

Jaxing understands our anger, Ovaries. Prejudice is a difficult place to be, apparently.

They can have equal rights. We can lobby for legislation that companies have to provide a choice of men, women and gender neutral spaces. Why should it be women that are disadvantaged and disregarded? Answer: because the feelings and wishes of women aren't worth shit. If you can't see that, there's not much point in having this conversation.

Trans women in rape crisis centres? Seriously?!

Many women who need rape crisis centres have PTSD. This may centre around, or involve, fear/discomfort of penises. The vast majority of trans women have penises. Why are the feelings of someone who wants to wear a dress more important than the recovery of a woman who has been through a significant trauma?

I try not to get involved in these anymore because I get too angry but this is a whole new level of what the fuck.

Why do you believe transwomen are women?

It's quite literally all about their feelings. What are we basing the definition of a transperson on?

It's not their feelings that are important, it's their rights. This is where our disagreement on the situation may be. Women have rights, trans women have rights. Women's feelings may be displaced by trans women's rights. But I don't think women's rights are displaced. Both groups have equal rights, regardless of their feelings. Those extreme trans activists are also caught up in feelings not rights.

Why are their feeelz so important, and women's aren't? Perhaps you should examine your own attitude.

It's prejudice not to want a man in a women only rape crisis centre or a communal women's changing room? It's you who is an extremist. The majority of women do not support this.

Predudice is a difficult place to be. They have my sympathy.

Equality for them does not have to include trampling over women's rights.