Changing gender without any medical care/advice/opinion - just saying 'I'm a woman' and it being so

Donkey Nobody actually treats trans-identified males as women: they treat them as a super-special class of men

YY.

IMO there's also an element of beong viewed as a delicate little feminine flower in need of protection by big manly men. So men subconsciously feel like they should be protecting transwomen whilst also giving male privilege. (iyswim!)

Petition on 38 Degrees ''No to the erasure of women and abolition of our spaces''

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-to-the-erasure-of-women-and-abolition-of-our-spaces

If the govt bothered to speak to the medical community they'd discover that your doctor needs to know you biological sex to safely treat you.

Government announcement is here.

The LGBT survey is here. It's not specifically about the proposed changes, more about whether people have generally faced discrimination. There's a box at the end where you can put comments, up to 500 words.

The main consultation on changes to the GRA will start in the autumn according to the gov.uk page linked above.

Many of the women on the other thread 'identifying' as some other gender type to fill out government survey.

Just throw the meaningless shit back at them. And they can't complain if we don't feelz like ladiees and like trousers

Mark my words M0stly, The fact that they are men will get obscured. People will pontificate endessly over the causes of an increase in female offences.

The biological difference will be minimised or not even mentioned (cos they are women, right?). Something else will be brought to the fore. It will be about upbringing, sexual trauma, a mental health issue, pornography, teaching in schools, the destruction of moral society, something in the water.

Acknowledging it's because they are male will not be allowed.

Hell, male violence isn't acknowledged anyway.

Brennan rape case

It will still be prosecuted as rape, Power, because it's the non-consensual insertion of a penis into a bodily orifice. (It will give an interesting if unintended insight into the true statistics - because even if they're recorded as rapes committed by women, rape will remain something that, barring a very very few cases of common purpose, can only be committed by a man. Watch those rape-by-women stats soar over the next few years. It'll be the only piece of official statistics that can't be obfusticated.)

powershowerforanhour

I've seen it reported as rape by a woman. Watch the female sex offender statistics go up.

So when (not if) a man who says he's a woman rapes a woman, will this be recorded as rape or will it have to be called sexual assault?

In other words, you get people choosing whether to be the care-giving underclass or the class of leaders. Instead of these roles being socially imposed based on biology, as they have been in the past, they are consensually chosen

That will never happen, and would never work. Women are socialized to enjoy their oppression, and while a lot of women are masochistic, sexually submissive and think that's empowering and their own choice ... not all women are.

If society stopped socializing women into subservience, and socialized everyone to be whatever they want to be ... then no one would want to be oppressed, except a few statistical outliers. Males would not witness misogynist oppression that they could then fetishize, so the number of autogynephiles would sink drastically.

It just doesn't work like this, and that's why the genderist worldview is nonsense.

The only way this might work is if you oppress everyone from birth, by default, and give people the option to buy themselves out of oppression.
That's how the US operates - many poor US Americans "choose" their poverty by voting republican, thus ensuring that they don't get healthcare and a minimum living standard, in the hopes that they can join the oppressor class one day, and then won't have to pay taxes.

But for this to work, you cannot let people join the oppressor class just like that.

Have voted on your thread DJ

YY Donkey. Super-special class of men is exactly right. Which I guess is why so many male liberal, SJW types are so quick to suppport them at the expense of real women. Their (unconscious?) misogyny pushes them to favour the rights of their fellow men.

I started a vote thread in Chat.

Thanks for posting that Times article - it's useful to have all the facts in one place for the next time an online TA says but trans people would never do that...

Hedgehog, that is very true and is what is so tragically misguided about all these trans-identified females genuinely believing that they have found an individual solution to what is a collective problem.

And even within the trans community, they aren't awarded male status and privilege. FTTs' needs are never front and centre in the trans movement. In fact this new gender identity bill specifically denies full legal recognition for FTTs' male identities (in that it excludes them from inheriting titles and properties reserved for male heirs), but have any LGBT and trans orgs raised a peep about this blatant denial of transmen's identities in the bill? Why aren't they screaming the country down about how this is literal murder? Nope, they couldn't give a shit. It's all about the males, all the time.

I would also like to point out, Greypaw, that trans-identified males are actually very selective about which feminine sex roles they choose to take on. Notice that their inner 'womanhood' is typically expressed through those feminine stereotypes that they find enjoyable: make-up, sexy clothing, sexual submissiveness (on their own terms).

Funnily enough, they seem wholly uninterested in the other parts of femininity that women are groomed into from birth: subsuming one's own desires in the interests of others, emotional labour, performing most of the domestic and care work. And here is the key thing: no one expects them to. Nobody actually treats trans-identified males as women: they treat them as a super-special class of men, who are far more important than mere females could ever be.

jellyfrizz I really agree with this whole post of yours:

Changing birth certificates really concerns me. It's like trying to erase the past or the truth.

To be truly trans inclusive we should be looking for a society where people can present however they want whether or not it matches your birth cert, not encouraging people to erase their past. It's really sinister.

And gender isn't even on birth certificates. It's biological sex.

Gay rights were and are about fighting to be recognised and accepted for who you are, for not having to hide who you are in order not to be persecuted or discriminated against.

The TRA movement is all about denying who you are. Those transwomen with genuine gender dysphoria who recognise that there is an essential difference between them and women and respect that difference, the ones who are accepting of reality, they are getting such a hard time over this as well. My support is for them.

It is heartening to see on threads like this though that more and more women are waking up to what is going on here, and now utterly repressive and AGAINST social justice this whole movement is.

But the paradox is that the TRAs DON'T actually want to be the subservient underclass at all, they are extremely happy with their male privilege and the status it gives them in society, as shown by the fact they expect all their demands to be met just like that - and the fact that is actually happening.

They want to appropriate every aspect of women's identity that arouses them or satisfies them in some way, they want to invade women's spaces and take over women only services and support structures, access all the opportunities that were created specifically to redress the horrendous societal imbalance between women and men - but they DON'T want to be voiceless, powerless, shat upon and generally screwed over at every turn, as women have been for millennia and evidently still are.

This is so awful. And people can't see it - you can't stick your head above the parapet without being shot down and told that you're unsupportive and don't understand. I am supportive, very supportive of the people who were born into the wrong bodies and are miserable as a result, but changing gender is a huge, huge decision to make and you have to be sure; there has to be a medical diagnosis and counselling and absolute certitude, for the transgender person's sake. The solution isn't this - to denigrate women and take away our words and our identity and any right to feeling safe and secure. It makes me both sad and furious.

My eldest daughter tells me I'm being transphobic because of these views despite the fact I say to her that there are many trans women themselves who are very concerned about this issue, but their voices aren't heard either and that they are also considered terfs. She simply says that they are wrong.

Oh my god. I'm so relieved to find this thread. I don't understand this at all. And I've found you cannot talk about it without being labelled transphobic, which drives me crazy. I have no issue with trans people. But why does no one seem to consider the way some men will use this kind of legislation? Its an affront to feminism that areas such as women's sport can be essentially hijacked by men. They may feel female but if their bodies are male, their bodies are male. End of.
Regressive-left-'progressive'-sjw feminists get so het up about mansplaining and their experiences as women being minimised by the white patriarchy and all that bollocks, but seem to have no issue with men declaring that now they identify as female they experience the exact same issues that females experience. It's so incoherent.

I remember Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche getting ripped apart recently for saying a transwoman's experience isn't the same as biological woman's experience. I don't agree with everything she says but this seemed a reasonable view however she was seen as a transphobic anti-feminist bigot. Things are going crazy.

One of the things that really upsets me about this possible legislation is that, statistically, initially it won't affect that many people.

Maybe in towns, cities, areas with a significant LGBT community. But the trans community is very small.

It will take time for the repercussions and implications to come to light.

And the drip, drip of cultural acceptance will be going hand-in-hand with that.

Sadly Datun I agree that this is the most likely outcome of gender identity laws. We can hope that there will be a huge backlash once the implications for women and children become clear, but it's more likely that there will simply be a slow shift of social mores, to a society where women and children are more unsafe and less involved in public life, and this becomes the new normal.

Women's rights, sex-based protections and legal and social mores around protecting children from predatory men are historically circumscribed and contingent; they haven't existed in most human societies across space and time. The only reason they exist now is because feminists fought for them. They could easily be lost, along with the political consciousness that made them possible.

Of course, the other thing that will be lost will be the ability to analyse or even name male violence against women and children. Because all the male-pattern crimes that this new legislation will enable will be recorded and reported as crimes committed by women.

Greypaw - I think that sort of thinking (voluntarily opt out of the oppresssed class) is what's behind the somewhat muddled thinking of a lot of biologically female trans teenagers. Unfortunately the wheels come off when it hits the buffers of male sexual violence - there was that terribly sad case of the young transman in the US who was raped by a taxi driver. According to the police they kept saying repeatedly during the assault "but I'm a man", then kept saying to the police afterwards "but I told him I was a man". It is totally tragic to picture that poor young person.

Identifying as a man will not stop male rapists raping you. It will not stop male bosses sacking you when you become pregnant. It will not stop male bosses who correctly read your non-passing underlying sex from not employing you in the first place. It will not magically make you strong enough and fast enough to get gold medals/tens of thousands of pounds a week pay cheques in elite sport. In real terms it will mean fuck all.

All it will have done is made you invisible, and stripped you of the language to even name your oppression. Because if you identify as a man you still won't be treated as a man in the areas that really matter. And if you identify as a woman (because for good and honourable and valid reasons you want to be a nurse, or a care worker, or a mother) you will be deemed to have freely chosen your own oppression, lower/no wages ('cos remember choicy choice feminism-lite is all about choices made in a social vacuum where no-one ever suffers from social pressures or stereotype threat).

Forgive this mental download – I’ve recently finished writing a psychology paper on gender and I’ve all sorts of thoughts chasing round in my head.

This is a theoretical concept, by the way – it’s a “what if” series of thoughts about transgenderism and, if self-identity is inevitable and accepted by society as a whole, how it could potentially play out.

All the psychological and sociological evidence I looked at for my paper suggested that “the feminine” (as a socially constructed concept) was aligned with all the sexist character traits we’re all familiar – subservience, objectification, passivity, hypersexuality, submission. “The masculine” conversely was aligned with leadership, physicality, logic, independence, dominance.

If we take the words “woman” and “man” to have reference to gender rather than sex, what you have is a word that describes a personality type unrelated to biological sex. And by allowing people to self define, you naturally get people aligning themselves to their preferred societal role. In other words, you get people choosing whether to be the care-giving underclass or the class of leaders. Instead of these roles being socially imposed based on biology, as they have been in the past, they are consensually chosen. For some, the roles will undoubtedly be sexualized as some find it exciting to be “humiliated” by their subservient, sexually submissive role. Perhaps even they’d find it exciting to be humiliated by lower pay and more domestic work. I’ve known plenty of AG people for whom this certainly would have been the case.

Like I said, this is theoretical, because current oppression has its roots in biology, and women can’t identify out of that. But what I’m wondering is whether transgenderism has the potential to change that? What if patriarchy and/or capitalism doesn’t really care about the reason for oppression, but just wants to benefit from a sub-class. If 50% of the population capitulate to traditionally female oppression, would that satisfy it? Could society shift so that people can actively select to be in that sub-class, and if it could, would people with uteruses THEN be able to opt out of gendered violence by means of self-identification? Could it, in other words, be the route by which biological women finally escape biological-based oppression?

(Obviously I haven’t thought through prisons, shelters, changing rooms etc. Just having a brain spew).

The next census will take place in 2021.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2021

I'm putting down male as my gender then. I'm going to do it.