What causes women to become trans activists?

I've just read on another thread the difference between a kink and a fetish, which I hadn't realised.

A kink is something that's nice to have, generally harmless, and you can enjoy sex perfectly well without it.

A fetish is a prerequisite for satisfactory sex. Sex doesn't work without it.

Autogynephilia is a fetish.

I knew it was a compulsion, very strong, but I hadn't realised the distinction.

Well exactly. Grayson Perry was interviewed by the Telegraph about his cross dressing sexual kick.

Quite openly. He does not identify as trans, nor does he identify as a woman. He certainly doesn't think women should centre him in feminism!!

He wouldn't dream of using women's toilets, nor demanding people call him female. And he's fast becoming a national treasure!

And no one cares. Crack on.

There is a Facebook page called Exposing Trans Activists. It is the number one enemy page of transactivists everywhere, and they successfully manage to get them regularly suspended by bombarding Facebook with complaints.

The page does nothing but collate the things that transactivists say, from the rest of social media.

When I first saw it, I thought the comments were little harsh. Sometimes they still are. But they're not wrong. The things TRAs say are hair raisingly awful. And there are so, so many of them.

What's worrying about this is that despite a lot of these people coming across as unstable (like those of last week's violence), it is these very people who want, and will be granted access.

It's one of the most ironic pieces of legislation I can think off. Only the people who represent a threat will use it. Men who aren't interested in violating women's boundaries, won't. They just won't. They will not use this legislation.

Miranda Yardley doesn't. Most genuine transpeople say they only use female facilities if they pass. If they are therefore not intimidating to women. That it's not cool to demand entry. That it's not cool to intimidate women and make them feel uncomfortable.

So who's it for then?

One thing I do know, I searched the entire 98 page report that Maria Miller published and not only was autogynephilia unaddressed, it wasn't even mentioned.

In 98 pages.

I've never had such an uncomfortable feeling when I realised that there are people making laws in this country who are genuinely this ignorant. Self-interest, I can understand, in a cynical way. But desperately uninformed, dangerous ignorance is worse.

This law is being considered by people who are completely blind.

"It's also, actually, worth bearing in mind that a lot of transvestites don't want to be associated with these aggressive, attention-seeking arseholes."

Absolutely, SGB. And it's the whole gaslighting, dishonesty business. I salute, for instance, Greyson Perry's honesty about his cross dressing and the sexual motivations behind it. And I don't find it threatening, because he's honest about it, and gives no sign that he's wanting to violate my boundaries by the fact that he likes wearing dresses. It's the autogynophile trans person who demands that I validate his belief that he's a woman who wants to violate boundaries, and lie to me, and get me to lie as well, that I find threatening.

Does anyone know anything about how transmen are getting on in the "male world"? The ones I know are getting on fine, they are quite young so who knows in the long run?

It's also, actually, worth bearing in mind that a lot of transvestites don't want to be associated with these aggressive, attention-seeking arseholes. There have always been people who liked to dress up as a member of the opposite sex, either as a (CONSENSUAL) kink thing, or to relax, or just for the fun of it.

I have also seen and heard, in the past, some fairly nasty, self-righteous and wilfilly ignorant guff from some people who consider themselves radical feminists (not just on the subject of trans rights) - but NOTHING which compares to the stuff you hear from this transactivist lot.

Transsexual people who break away from this stupid thing are branded 'truscum' (really..search that too...)...infact I think 'truscum' is used to describe any trans person who actually has sex dysphoria. So, ANY actual transsexual :S

I wonder what the 'genuine' transsexual contingent plan to do? Do they want to break away from the now hijacked trans sexual movement?

The problem is, any transsexual person who speaks up is bombarded with the same threats that women endure for speaking up and questioning ANY aspect of the whole ridiculous argument. Hell try going on twitter and saying that the penis is not a female body part...within minutes you will have rape threats, death threats the lot (I don't recommend ACTUALLY doing this as the abuse is vile. Its just an example)

So the transsexual people are bullied into silence, like these men try to do with women. And so transactivists can pretend that they are helping these very same people who they have threatened into silence. Its just disgusting really and the amount of people who cannot see this is insane.

Also the problem with loos, changing rooms and such is that transsexual people have already been using these spaces for years, as kind of an honour system with females. It works fine as it is, why do we need laws about it?

Its unfortunate that genuine transsexual people are being lumped in with men with fetishes and pisstakers, but thats the way transactivists wanted it I think.

In my mind, a 'genuine' transsexual would not WANT to impose on female people in jobs such as rape crisis counseling, sex specific carers and so on. As they are not stupid, they know they cannot actually change sex, but their dysphoria makes them feel better with a more female looking body, and thats fine! Its only when the rights of females are threatened that I have a problem...people should be free to get whatever surgeries they like, dress how they like and such.

There seems to be a bit of a divide between feminists about post-op trans people...personally I would have no issue with these people using female loos, changing rooms and that (but definitely NOT in the jobs I outlines above...but I don't think 'genuine' trans people would even want to do them)...but its something that needs to be spoke about, and females actually consulted on...rather than just steamrollered ahead as every voice needs to be heard. Women who have been raped and such need to have their voices heard too...not be written off as transphobic bigots.

If that's not a woman hating tweet I don't know what is.

This isn't even the most upsetting tweet but I thought I'd give it as an example.

Should I provide the petrol and matches or will they bring their own?!

Christ the censorious zeitgeist is terrifying.

@Crazyweimlady
A really eye opening experience is to search for the word TERF on twitter and see the atmosphere.

Basically people saying they want to set women on fire if they ask questions like this.

Thanks for the (patient!) responses

I think my conclusion is verging on the OMG side of things now...

I see now why people like Miranda Yardley are getting such a bashing ( I couldn't separate it all out)

So very basically it's all being hijacked and muddied by the ex?transvestite contingent...

I wonder what the 'genuine' transsexual contingent plan to do? Do they want to break away from the now hijacked trans sexual movement?

This is super scary now I think I have a handle on it - the analogy of frogs in a boiling pot someone mentioned is absolutely apt.

Why are women unable to challenge this on the basis of offence like so many other groups do? it hurts my brain.

Thanks again for the discussion- it's great to finally be able to discuss things freely

I think the toilets thing is a bit of a red herring. Trans people have been using whichever toilet for years without people noticing and there was absolutely no way or inclination to police it. I don't think many people would try and force one of the 'genuine' trans women who just want a quiet life to have to piss in the men's toilets.

The issue comes with self identification and the fact that with it literally anyone can go into women's toilets and when questioned can just say 'I'm a woman'. It basically removes the point of a women's toilet.

I get when the debate centralises around the toilets because it's not the point, the issue is with being able to legally turn down a dr for a physical exam, or a counsellor in a rape centre, or a carer because you would prefer someone who is biologically female.

Crazyweimlady

You're not the only one who is experiencing a disconnect here. Many people know perfectly harmless transwomen who just want to get on with it. As you say, just to try and experience life through their version of femininity.

Indeed, transwomen have been doing this for decades, and no one turned a hair.

But what's happened now is some sort of a perfect storm that has been created by bringing in different strands. The first one is what we used to call cross dressing fetishists. They are now considered trans (which they resolutely were not before). They are a massive cohort and have hijacked transgenderism in order to implement their fetish.

They are also the ones responsible for saying transwomen are biologically women.

Genuine transsexuals, like the one you know of, and people like Miranda Yardley, in no way assert that they are actually women. That the penis is a female organ- a lady stick, a girl dick and that homosexual orientation doesn't exist. That people are attracted to other people's gender, not their sex.

(Which means me, a straight woman, would be perfectly happy to have sex with a woman who identified as a man, but has a vagina. Patently nonsense.)

The second strand of people to enter this foray are violent, misogynistic men. Since you need do nothing to be considered trans, they can just spout their hatred of women with impunity, covered by that label, whilst doing nothing to deserve it. Just straightforward normal abusers.

So you've got men with a fetish and violent men hijacking the issues of a microscopically small number of people who have gender dysphoria, for their own ends.

I wonder how many other factions are waiting quietly until this goes through Parliament. Convicted rapists? Paedophiles?

The upcoming debate in parliament about whether to allow self identification seems to have pushed this all forward. Culturally, it's pretty much accepted that if you say you're trans, you are. Because it's also discriminantort to ask for proof, i.e. the certificate.

How many people are on here saying there are trans-children at their children's school. Legally, they cannot be trans. You have to live 'as the opposite sex' for two years and get a gender reassignment certificate (for which surgery is not necessary). You can't do that until you're 18. But it's already happening, everywhere.

Before the bill has even been discussed.

And the thing is we are not even allowed to ASK these questions without being branded transphobic. Just asking what the implications are for women is seen as hate speech now.

Do the majority of this demographic expect to identify as a woman whilst insisting on maintaining a male physical presentation and basically taking the piss?

No, I think there are a lot of genuine people who either have sex or gender dysphoria and are genuinely unhappy in their body and/or the role their biological sex is supposed to play in society. There are a lot of unhappy, confused people out there who need support.

But there are also the piss takers and attention seekers and people who just don't see the harm in taking away the protections for women.

To that end, can I ask where those who have had total reassignment surgery and hormones etc would stand (I.e. No penis)

The problem I have with that is that it's like saying woman is non-man. To me "woman" is not just lack of penis.

Ok, thanks for the responses.

I suppose I'm thinking that most trans ladies want to be physical, actual women and surgery and hormones create a body that reflects how their mind, perception of themselves is - a woman. And that these trans women want to live quietly as women just like we do.

From the thread(s) I have now read, I'm starting to think I am being stupendously naive ( possibly the same thoughts that many biologically female activists are having??)

There's a trans lady (cannot remember the name, but brunette and Scottish) who used to be a British soldier who did a documentary in America about not being able to use female toilets despite being post op and considering him/ her self to be a woman now - he always strikes me as being absolutely earnest and genuine. I keep coming back to this person when thinking about these concepts- is he/she the minority? Do the majority of this demographic expect to identify as a woman whilst insisting on maintaining a male physical presentation and basically taking the piss? I'm wrestling away here ... thoughts, corrections and guidance most appreciated

Carrying out intimate care for sick, disabled or elderly women is another obvious area where the rights of trans people to have their identity respected is in direct conflict with the rights of vulnerable women and girls to choose the sex of their carer.

There was a thread recently (since deleted) about an agency sending a transwoman to carry out personal care for the MNer's learning-disabled dd, and the distress this was causing to the dd. Now the OP may or may not have been a troll, but this kind of scenario is inevitably going to occur if it becomes illegal to make a distinction between someone who is a biological woman and someone who has declared themselves to be a woman because they think they feel like one.

Nobody's saying people don't have a right to feel how they want, or to express themselves in their appearance any way they see fit. But does their right to be respected trump the right of my 90-yo grandmother or my disabled teenage daughter to prefer someone of the same sex to change their pads or their catheter?

I would say absolutely not, and I think most people would feel that way if they thought about it. The problem is that it is not being talked about - transactivism is being presented as a matter of being kind to gender-non-conforming individuals and not discriminating against them. Which is all very well other things being equal, but the potential impact on all sorts of areas of female privacy, autonomy and boundary-setting absolutely needs to be thought about and discussed openly.

Crazyweimlady

Its brilliant that you're asking questions and trying to reconcile all your different thoughts.

There is sometimes a slight disagreement between pre-op and post op.

Unfortunately if someone has autogynephilia, the operation can be all part and parcel of the fetish. In fact some of the more grim fantasies I've read have come from transwomen wanting the op.

Some people will think because the penis is the problem, without one there is no problem.

Personally, I disagree. Although cutting off a penis shows commitment to their feelings, it does nothing to persuade me that they are considering the feelings of women, in any way. And it doesn't change the sense of entitlement and male socialisation.

Those are the thoughts. In terms of practicality, very few men have the operation. You are also not allowed to ask whether they have or not.

In real terms, it's just an abstract exercise. Because the reality is an actual distinction can't be made between pre-op and post op. In fact, most trans-people think it's unfair, because it feels like they're being forced to have the operation in order to appear authentic.

The whole point of this upcoming bill is to remove gatekeeping, not impose it.

Depends a bit on the nature of the female space and how they're going to behave when they get there, I think.

Using a public loo with private cubicles because you present as female is one thing, trying to get a job that gives you more intimate, physical or emotional contact with potentially vulnerable women, such as eg. counsellor in a rape crisis centre/smear test nurse/bra-fitter/mammogram radiographer on the basis that you're just as much a woman as any other female is much more problematic.

If self-identification goes ahead, there will be no way of distinguishing between these scenarios, or protecting the rights of women to have some space in which they are free from the male gaze (whether said male has a penis or not).

Hi everyone- de lurking here...

I want to say thanks for the really enlightening and supportive discussion on this thread and similar ones that I have read since stumbling across the speakers corner thread. I too have not really thought the subject through and am still wrestling with the concepts highlighted. To that end, can I ask where those who have had total reassignment surgery and hormones etc would stand (I.e. No penis) - would you still consider them male and as such ineligible to enter female spaces? If this is the case would someone tell me/point me in the right direction to understand more as this is where I am getting stuck.

Apologies if I'm going off piste, just trying to get my head around these (often worrying) concepts