How can we work towards a constructive debate about all things transgender?

I agree that being legally allowed to change sex has to go, for the reasons GuardianLions gives.

Going back to Midwitch's point about saying 'yes people reasonably disagree so let's move on from there...' I think it might be useful to highlight the difference between people's individual beliefs about what a TIM is and what the law can sensibly recognise about a TIM whilst protecting everyone.

Bit of a strange comparison but I was thinking about the euthanasia debate. Many people want euthanasia to be legal. Others do not. In individual cases anyone can see that euthanasia would be a kindness and it's shocking to let someone continue suffering. But the law has to take into account the effect on everyone in the land. A euthanasia law still hasn't been brought in not just because of the sanctity of life argument but because of concerns about the dangers to vulnerable people and how the law would be policed in practice to keep vulnerable people safe.

Perhaps the same sort of argument can be pushed for trans. Yes there are some genuinely gender dysphoric people and we are very sympathetic to them but no way can a law be amended to let any Tom, Dick (har har) or self-ID as a woman because of the dodgy outliers who would abuse the amendment and the inability to police the situation. Cases aplenty in the press already. The number of harmless transgender people is irrelevant (in this argument).

Sorry to use a sensitive subject as a comparison.

The issues with a 'constructive debate' is that it requires two sides engaging within an agreed social contract, and both willing to compromise.

You can see this any day of the week on the relationships board. A very difficult relative is causing an OP issues. Well intentioned posters say well just communicate - why don't you sit them down and explain? And someone gets out the Isendai blog link and shares their own experience and the body of research that negotiation only works between two reasonable people. If one side is not reasonable, is coming from a toxic or abusive or personality disordered point of view, you can spend your life discussing and debating with them without ever making progress, because the problem is not that they need you to explain your point of view better until they understand it .

It's exactly this. When you see politicians or public figures reproachfully saying to women - always to women - 'both sides must work on the way forward', what they actually mean is 'women will have to be the grown ups and give way so this can move forward'.

I passed through the stage of working hard on my language in every post here. I worked hard to always phrase things respectfully and fairly, to never misgender (which involved checking, double checking and tying myself in language knots trying to be nice) , to not say outright things that could be construed as rude and hurtful such as harsh facts like a biological male is and will always be a biogical male, and no women have penises. What I have come to realise is that by being nice and by fogging my boundaries in respect of other people's, I've supported and enabled this behaviour. By taking the time to tie my language in knots I've given the message that I will be a good girl and hand over my time, energy and head space to jumping through all the hoops being held up - why? Because I'm trying to please. It's classic abusive male stuff and classic female socialising in action. And in the process I am validating and furthering the progress of an agenda that is damaging to women, to girls, to many trans people.

I choose not to do that any more. Not because I'm unkind or uncaring but because I see the bigger picture.

It is really, really, really, really annoying if someone keeps claiming utter nonsense in a self-righteous way, with gallingly judgmental tone - you feel your patience start to drain away...

You certainly do! I have no patience for this bullshit at the best of times, but yes I know exactly the kind of exchange you mean.

Seek I think 'Counting Dead Women' has been amazing for getting that message out there - but because so many TRA/MRAs are tech savvy, all of the 'relevance' algorithms for sorting stories on google and elsewhere on the internet are skewed.

My thinking is that we do decide exactly what we want and start a very clear petition or statement - saying we want to end the legal fiction of being able to change sex and why.

I think it is too easy to get distracted and waste time arguing round and round in circles. Lets cut to the chase!

The thing is, though, you read this:
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-01/debates/D4F283FB-2C02-4C8C-8C7E-BEAB889D1425/TransgenderEquality

and it looks like a careful, factual and constructive debate, the sort of thing any right-thinking person would get behind, murmuring, 'Hear, hear! Shame!'

Then you scroll down as far as the tear-jerking tale of Tara-lived-whole-adult-life-as-woman-Hudson, remember that this is a violent, head-butting, male sex worker with a '7-inch surprise', and kind of wake up.

Guardian - absolutely! I mean, for me it's actually a fairly meaningful point - why can't I identify as a much more attractive woman than I am?

But I feel like it's getting to be Godwin's law kind of thing - or that TRAs see it as such - and so it's not actually strategic, where it can be helped.

Another thing - the other 'weapon' we are up against is the continual spouting about how we are literally killing trans people and how much more at risk of murder and assault they are. What are the figures on women being murdered again? Maybe, like my right-on trans ally colleague who frequently and a propos of nothing posts about trans deaths, #translivesmatter - we could do similar about women's deaths, regularly and relentlessly.

Wouldn't it be simpler to outlaw all discriminatory gender practices (such as telling people whether they can wear a skirt to school or not) whilst retaining sex-based protections?

I think exploring this would be a good start. Surely transactivists would agree with the first part at least?

"I identify as a teapot" is a statement made usually rhetorically or as part of a debate to score a point

I think it is a sign of someone getting wound up.

It is really, really, really, really annoying if someone keeps claiming utter nonsense in a self-righteous way, with gallingly judgmental tone - you feel your patience start to drain away...

An awful lot of people are wound up at the moment.

I think that transgenderism should not be accorded any legal status. If it is a mental illness, then it should be treated as such - no one gets official government ID and altered birth certificates for any other mental illness.
If it is a belief system, then the same should apply. No one legislates to force me to believe in god - why should the law insist that we believe the fiction that it is possible to change sex?
Wear whatever you like, present as you please, but it is YOUR issue.
I don't think we need a debate. I think we need the state to stop pandering to delusions.

I recognise that "I identify as a teapot" is a statement made usually rhetorically or as part of a debate to score a point but it sits uncomfortably with me too.

msbeaujangles

What you 'feel' from the board may not sit comfortably - but that is the point of the board. The sharing of views and not just the one you want o hear. Many of these posts share a view (probably shared by many) that is interesting and viable, it is not a reason to 'step away' in a snowflake fashion

Thanks MsBeau

I am also needing to ponder a bit more about a certificate of gender dysphoria being a bit like being registered disabled - because that language could punt the hot potato over to disabled people and into their fight for accessibility.

Like women, disabled people have enough to be getting on with, without having AGPs, kinky and 'queer' people, SJWs and MRAs saying that validating their feelz is an accessibility issue that the world must bend to!

We have to tread so carefully!

Ha,ha. Just after posting I see that post by GuardianLions about mulling issues to do with ‘banning’ stereotyping.
That’s a perfect example of what I used to find compelling about these threads. Really thoughtful, reflective problem grappling stuff.
I’d love to see more threads like that!

I agree Seek. My concern is that the ‘conversations’ are becoming sloganised and the ‘no debate’, ‘TW are W’ versus ‘I’m a teapot’ ‘women don’t have dicks’.
Whilst for the most part, the same people are going around in circles, at times, new people arrive. I think we are more likely to invite people to listen and think critically if we focus on the key points.
I have been following this board/ these threads for a long time. I used to find the majority of posts very impressive, well reasoned and convincing. However, I find the tone of lots of posts pretty off putting and share the sentiments that others have posted about ‘stepping away’. For me, this isn’t because of frustration with the situation (although I do get pretty irate), it is because I feel uncomfortable about ‘the feel’ I get from the board

Wouldn't it be simpler to outlaw all discriminatory gender practices (such as telling people whether they can wear a skirt to school or not) whilst retaining sex-based protections?

At first glance yes, but I haven't thought deeply enough about the implications so I don't want to be knee-jerk.

I can imagine that boys/men might start cross-dressing in a hostile way that humiliates girls/women or other things like that - I need to ponder longer.

And I thought that genuinely dysphoric people might benefit from being differentiated from gender non-conformists, while the world caught up to any changes...

But I definitely don't think the cert should be part of the EA - instead something separate entirely like a certification of disability that could be presented to an employer saying, I am not just taking the piss, I have a mental illness....

There should be legal clarity as to what constitutes a full change of gender, and this needs to be nailed down.

At the very least that should be done. Not moving towards even more vagueness and lack of gatekeeping.

I agree GuardianLions that the polite fiction of the 'sex-change' needs to go. It's politically dangerous, biologically inaccurate and philosophically unreasonable.

I don't know about any certificates at all. Wouldn't it be simpler to outlaw all discriminatory gender practices (such as telling people whether they can wear a skirt to school or not) whilst retaining sex-based protections?

My belief is that the EA and GRCs need to be reassessed.

I think it is morally wrong to allow someone to 'legally change sex'.

YY. I agree. It's bonkers and unworkable in the long run.

So, I'm learning lots from this thread, but still more qs- appols if they are stupid! Is there a reason why no one says 'transvestite' any more?

I think it's so they can break the association with cross dressing as a sexual fetish. Those men are active in the new transgender movement but they can practice their fetish without stigma.

I care about women’s rights, I care about transgender rights, it takes nothing from me - someone who has the luck of feeling right in their own skin - to call someone she if they want me to or accept someone for themselves whatever clothes they’re wearing. I don’t feel threatened by men in mixed sex bathrooms so why should I feel threatened by a transgender woman in bathroom? I don’t understand the anti-trans sentiment I see on here, I think it’s unnecessary and ignorant.

You don't care about women's rights. You are happy for women who want to preserve female spaces free of males to be thrown under the bus because you want to virtue signal your "progressiveness". Do you have any idea how misogynistic and abusive most transactivists are? That women are being told they shouldn't talk about female issues as it makes males feel bad? I don't want them anywhere near me. You're the ignorant one.

Sorry - bit late to the thread.

My belief is that the EA and GRCs need to be reassessed.

I think it is morally wrong to allow someone to 'legally change sex'.

Because
a) It is a lie
b) It impinges on the rights of both sexes to be able to access single-sex spaces for privacy
c) It impinges on women's right to be able to meet and organise politically as a single-sex group.
d) It skews statistics, monitoring and positive action where sex is relevant

However, gender dysphoric people may need a medical certificate to confirm that they have a persistent mental illness, which

a) entitles them to 'present' as the opposite sex, for example where uniforms are sexed in the workplace.
b) differentiates them from sexual fetishists,

However this certification should not entitle the use of sex-segregated facilities and services designated for the opposite sex.

In order to properly protect transpeople there needs to be a specific protection of gender non-conformity, (which will allow transpeople to continue using the sex-segregated facilities of their own sex) such as
a) protect gender non-conformity as a characteristic* from discrimination and harassment.
b) classify incitement and/or or actual abuse** or violence towards a person because they are gender non-conforming as hate crime or hate speech.

• with exceptions such as cross-dressing and mimicry of the opposite sex which is degrading, offensive or hostile

**speaking about biology and other neutral topics is not hate speech. Only if it is done in a targeted way set out to hurt and humiliate a gender non-conforming individual.

For me it is simple:

If someone has had a full sex change then she is full intents and purposes a woman/man and should be given full legal representation and recognition as woman/man.

If someone is 'dressing up' as woman/man and still has the genitals of the opposite sex then clearly they are still the gender of their birth be that a man or woman.

If you are so committed to changing gender then a sex change is not difficult decision.

No one should be offered this option before the age of eighteen, no child should be offered medication. A child should always dress as she/he pleases, and their wishes respected but no gender change until they are mature enough to understand the irreversible consequences.

Anyone can identify with any sex at any given time, that is entirely for them to decide, care should be take to respect individuals that are changing genders. There should be legal clarity as to what constitutes a full change of gender, and this needs to be nailed down.

I've been thinking about this a lot. I am a fully paid up Spartacus, I am deeply concerned about what's happening. I used to object mainly because I felt that transsexuals (as was then the term) were making a mockery of womanhood by seeing it as being basically summed up by high heels and make-up: now, there's still that, and there's.... everything else.

Structurally, I don't know what we do. Here are some things I've been musing on in terms of carrying out conversations at a micro level, and working within an environment in which I think one of the biggest problems is that we say something, we get called Transphobic Terf, and we get abused and silenced. But there are a lot of people out there who aren't the Madigans and the Fayes and the Lees, who are good people who should be open to rethinking, and these are my thoughts:

1. no more 'Oh well then I identify as a teapot

1. not, unless irresistible or necessary, talking about cocks, balls, and blokes in dresses

Same goes for 'misgendering' - which sticks in the craw, but I am trying not to do it, because again, it's a red light to them and means they can discount you as 'wilfully hurtful' etc.

1. Continuing to reject the news sources and ideologies that we always did, even though they are also trans-sceptical

1. Saying sex, not gender. Every time

Just me, obvs. But glad to have this thread to muse on.

Yes I understand Sittin.

justa (assuming that is your preferred abbreviation!) that would be good - but I would never admit to using mn in rl!! No idea why, but I just couldn't 😳!!