If you're pro Self ID for trans people please could you explain it to me?

I'm not asking your to believe that. I fully respect that you don't.

I think our approach is just different - you think the solution is for everyone with different needs/experiences to be separated into spaces where those needs can be met because we can't as yet create a single safe space for everyone and we need to keep vulnerable groups safe until we can.

I think we should be aiming to create that single safe space for everyone where what we define oursleves as doesn't matter a jot and everyone should have the right to define themslevss as anything. And that the best way to get it is just to create it, and then put in place measures within that space to protect vulnerable people within it.

I do accept that as a white middle class educated woman living in a liberal area I am safer in that shared space than most and that might influence my perception of how close we can get to my utopian ideal.

I think you are being woefully naive.

If our government and politicians have such disregard for the thousands (eventually probably millions) of women who have concerns about self ID why do you think they will give a shit about vulnerable groups who make up nowhere near 51% of the population?

An individual lesbian who doesn't fancy an individual transwomen is no more transphobic that I am racist for admitting that actually, Idris Elba doesn't appeal to me.

This misses the point. It is not about fancying individuals. It is about lesbians being told that if they say they do not fancy people with penises they must exclude transwomen from that preference. They must accept all transwomen as prospective sexual partners even if they have male genitalia. This is no less homophobic than men who see lesbians as women who ‘just haven’t met the right man yet’.

I do accept that as a white middle class educated woman living in a liberal area I am safer in that shared space than most and that might influence my perception of how close we can get to my utopian ideal.

Well, if we're talking utopian ideals then we can do away with sex segregation altogether because we wouldn't need any safe spaces because no man would ever pose a risk to any woman.

But back in the real world...

The very fact they want it so badly, makes me nervous.

Yes. And the fact they are so violently aggressive towards the class of people they say they most identify with.

If they regard themselves as 'one of us', why don't they behave like it?

If success was only tied to the straight male stereotype then we would expect to see butch lesbians in more positions of power than we would gay men. But we don’t.

I have no issue with a man wearing a dress, or painting his nails. But I do have an issue if that man starts saying that he is as much of a woman as me, if not more so because I don't do those things.

But even then, a man who says that he is as much/more of a woman than me can't cause me any harm, or impact on me negatively, unless the law is rewritten to mean that he is now a woman just because he says so.

When you argue for transrights to safety and protection, I don't think you'll find a single person on here who disagrees with you. But why do we have to say that they are women in order to provide that protection?

I want to build a future where stereotypically feminine traits are celebrated as well as streotypically masculine traits, and I feel that the feminist agenda which insists on biological sex as being the key differentiating factor can only be detrimental to that.

How? Genuine question. I really want to understand the other side!

I'd rather see a world where people have spaces and services based on sex segregation to meet male and female biological/physical/health/medical/social needs, but where we are all able to style our hair however we like; wear the clothes we choose; pursue the interests we want; present however we like - masculine women/feminine men etc free from restrictive gendered expectations and without ridicule or discrimination.

But I don't think we need to pretend that women are men and men are women in order to achieve this.

I have no issue with a man wearing a dress, or painting his nails. But I do have an issue if that man starts saying that he is as much of a woman as me, if not more so because I don't do those things.

I'm not asking your to believe that. I fully respect that you don't.

I think our approach is just different - you think the solution is for everyone with different needs/experiences to be separated into spaces where those needs can be met because we can't as yet create a single safe space for everyone and we need to keep vulnerable groups safe until we can.

I think we should be aiming to create that single safe space for everyone where what we define oursleves as doesn't matter a jot and everyone should have the right to define themslevss as anything. And that the best way to get it is just to create it, and then put in place measures within that space to protect vulnerable people within it.

I do accept that as a white middle class educated woman living in a liberal area I am safer in that shared space than most and that might influence my perception of how close we can get to my utopian ideal.

"I don't think that the world specifically discriminates against women or people with vagina's. I think it discriminates against people who are not "men". And by men I mean people who present as straight and masculine - our stereotypical view of a manly man. So I think anything that enables anyone to live and be accepted and succeed as something other than a "man" is a good thing."

I can see your point here, but I'm not sure that I agree that all the discrimination has the same cause. It may well happen because people are not accepted because they are not straight (white) men. But I think it's not helpful or sensible to lump that all together as one type of discrimination. Feminine men are discriminated against for different reasons than women, and also for different reasons than non-feminine gay men.

"I don't agree with feminists who fight for "womens' rights". I think we should be fighting for rights and equality for all people, and that within that fight we must recognise that there are groups (BAME, women, disabled, trans, gay and many others) who have been historically denied rights and therefore need more action to get them equal rights."

So do you also criticise movements that only focus on one of those elements, and lobby them to be inclusive of all other groups as well? So disability action groups must spend as much time and effort campaigning against racism and homophobia as they do campaigning against disability discrimination?

I think that the majority of discrimination that women face is down to the social construct of gender rather than biology. I don't see that Thatcher's premiership was a triumph for feminsim becasue she gained power by acting like a stereotypical man, as have many women in the recent past. I want to build a future where stereotypically feminine traits are celebrated as well as streotypically masculine traits, and I feel that the feminist agenda which insists on biological sex as being the key differentiating factor can only be detrimental to that.

Again, I can see your point here. I do wonder about how aborting female babies or abandoning them at birth is to do with their gender and not their sex. Also how rape and coercive control of reproduction is a rooted in gender and not sex?

I also have an issue with the misandry prevalent in SOME of the anti-trans voices ( I do recognise that not all people who are against self-id are anti-trans but there are many) Yes, men as a class commit the vast majority of violent crimes. But that doesn't mean that any individual man is more likely than any individual woman to be violent.

Does it not? Surely it does? Mathematically it must do, unless I'm not understanding it correctly here.

We rightly abhor assumptions about an individual on the basis of race, but seem happy to do it on the basis of genitalia (and saying that woman have had assumptions made about them for years is true but doesn't excuse the same behaviour they other way). I know transwomen who could show far more empathy towards victims of violence in a woman's refuge than I could, and to blanket ban them from ever being able to so just because they used to have penises seems wrong to me.

A transwoman could easily show more empathy towards victims of violence. But if they then cannot understand that those women might not want them to, then they are not being empathetic enough. If their desire for validation overrides an awareness that male-bodied people might be unwelcome for valid reasons, then that's not on. Places like women's refuges and rape crisis centres must retain the right to have single sex workers for the benefit of their service users.

Having said that, I do recognise (as do many of the saner voices on the self-ID side of the debate) that there are extreme viewpoints on the trans side as well and some of the crap they spout is , well, crap. An individual lesbian who doesn't fancy an individual transwomen is no more transphobic that I am racist for admitting that actually, Idris Elba doesn't appeal to me. And I do think that any person should have the right to refuse medical treatment from any other person based on anything they want without being accused of being phobic or "ist" but I don't think the right to refuse treatment based on a particular characteristic should be enshrined in law - that's state sanctioned discrimination.

I don't think women are asking for the right to discriminate to be enshrined in law. I think women are asking for the right not to be convicted of a hate crime if they state the reason why, and ask for someone of the same sex.

I think there needs to be control over who can take part in sports - but I would prefer to see that based on scientific evidence of unfairness such as levels of hormones or measured muscle density rather than the genitalia someone had at birth.

The overlap between women and men in terms of physical strength etc measures is so small that it makes sense to use sex as a category. If you look at skeletal structure, lung capacity, heart size, bone density, muscle mass, limb length, height, arm span, hand size, hormones and so on I'd be astounded if you ever had anything other than a split by sex.

Surely the answer to men not conforming to the stereotype of a manly man is to broaden the definition of "man" to give men more ways of being accepted as men. I don't see why changing the definition of "woman" to include non-stereotypical men would be a useful goal.

I don't agree with feminists who fight for "womens' rights". I think we should be fighting for rights and equality for all people, and that within that fight we must recognise that there are groups (BAME, women, disabled, trans, gay and many others) who have been historically denied rights and therefore need more action to get them equal rights.

Feminism by definition is about females. Of course people can fight for whatever causes they feel strongly about but it's not feminism. Why should women pick up all the emotional labour for every other cause under the sun?

It's this sort of attitude that precludes women ever putting themselves first, having anything of their own. If feminists from years and decades gone by had been forced to include every other groups woes we would never have got the vote and the countless other things we take for granted now.

If this is the mindset it explains to a point why you think the sex category of woman should subsume any male who wants in. I profoundly disagree because it's the fastest way to destroy all progress made by women and prevent us ever clawing it back.

Yes, men as a class commit the vast majority of violent crimes.

But that doesn't mean that any individual man is more likely than any individual woman to be violent.

These two statements seem at odds with each other because if you take the first to be true (which it is) then statistically an individual man is more likely than an individual woman to be violent.

Women know this which is why they are more wary of being around men than other women and until the recent explosion of pomo politics society as a whole knew this too hence why we have sex segregation.

Great thread. Please stick around pro self ID people!

One of the differences in perspective, I think is related to NAMALT.

Most men are not sex abusers but most sex abusers are men.

Sex offenders and violent criminals seem to be disproportionately represented among AGP TIMs. There seems to be an element of narcissism among the TRAs which makes them dangerous by definition. And these are the people who are pushing self ID. The very fact they want it so badly, makes me nervous.

Individual trans people I have no problem with. Any intact man in a women's changing room, almost by definition, regardless of what gender they identify as.

As Dodo said, not being a stereotypical, straight, alpha male does not make you a woman.

We are not the default "everything else". We are a class of people in our own right. Just like men are.

MrsMcGarry what is your take on some of the incredibly aggressive misogyny aimed at women by some transwomen who are very vocal and politically active?

The thing is, MrsMcGarry, I don't disagree with you on some of your points.

Except that trans rights activists aren't arguing for safe spaces for transpeople, they are specifically arguing for transwomen to be women. The access to women's spaces is a by product of that.

We are not divided into Men (as in stereotypical alpha male men) and Not Men whereby the needs of stereotypical alpha males can be met in one environment and the needs over everyone else can be met in another. Transpeople have specific needs and experiences, women have specific needs and experiences. Those two groups of people are not the same, and neither are their needs and experiences, just because none of use are 'stereotypical men'.

If transpeople want protection and safety from men, why not argue for a third transgender space?

What about the women who don't feel comfortable being around any sort of man; stereotypical or not? When they are vulnerable/alone/in a state of undress? Where do they go? Women who've been raped or escaped violent relationships and have PTSD? Where do they go? Where are their needs met?

No idea what gbd should have been in that post.

No, hold on, I think MrsMcgarry is right when she says the (male) world esssentially discriminates against anyone who doesn’t fit the straight male stereotype. I’m with you so far. Also with you on the fact that however much we might like it, the stereotypes exist and the feminine one is rated lower than gbd masculine.

I still don’t believe that male+feminine stereotype = female though.

I don’t see how I can make myself believe that.

I think that the majority of discrimination that women face is down to the social construct of gender rather than biology.

No no - gender constructs stem from women’s biology. Biology - specifically women’s fertility has always been a battleground.

Having children - or choosing not to or bring unable to - is a uniquely female experience Driven by an intersection of biology and gender expectations right from when a biological female is born. It shapes everything.

Transwomen also have unique experiences which are bound up with gender and fertility etc - but these are different.

OK - I don't really have time for this, but seeing as it is your birthday. And seeing as I am interested in a reasoned debate on this issue which all too often doesn't happen. (I've been insulted here for pro-trans views before)

And please don't get hung up on the use of specific language in my post - one of the issues is that different words mean different concepts to different people so I will try to explain what I earn by the rods I use, which I fully accept may be different from how you use them.

I don't think that the world specifically discriminates against women or people with vagina's. I think it discriminates against people who are not "men". And by men I mean people who present as straight and masculine - our stereotypical view of a manly man. So I think anything that enables anyone to live and be accepted and succeed as something other than a "man" is a good thing.

I don't agree with feminists who fight for "womens' rights". I think we should be fighting for rights and equality for all people, and that within that fight we must recognise that there are groups (BAME, women, disabled, trans, gay and many others) who have been historically denied rights and therefore need more action to get them equal rights.

I think that the majority of discrimination that women face is down to the social construct of gender rather than biology. I don't see that Thatcher's premiership was a triumph for feminsim becasue she gained power by acting like a stereotypical man, as have many women in the recent past. I want to build a future where stereotypically feminine traits are celebrated as well as streotypically masculine traits, and I feel that the feminist agenda which insists on biological sex as being the key differentiating factor can only be detrimental to that.

I also have an issue with the misandry prevalent in SOME of the anti-trans voices ( I do recognise that not all people who are against self-id are anti-trans but there are many) Yes, men as a class commit the vast majority of violent crimes. But that doesn't mean that any individual man is more likely than any individual woman to be violent. We rightly abhor assumptions about an individual on the basis of race, but seem happy to do it on the basis of genitalia (and saying that woman have had assumptions made about them for years is true but doesn't excuse the same behaviour they other way). I know transwomen who could show far more empathy towards victims of violence in a woman's refuge than I could, and to blanket ban them from ever being able to so just because they used to have penises seems wrong to me.

Having said that, I do recognise (as do many of the saner voices on the self-ID side of the debate) that there are extreme viewpoints on the trans side as well and some of the crap they spout is , well, crap. An individual lesbian who doesn't fancy an individual transwomen is no more transphobic that I am racist for admitting that actually, Idris Elba doesn't appeal to me. And I do think that any person should have the right to refuse medical treatment from any other person based on anything they want without being accused of being phobic or "ist" but I don't think the right to refuse treatment based on a particular characteristic should be enshrined in law - that's state sanctioned discrimination. I think there needs to be control over who can take part in sports - but I would prefer to see that based on scientific evidence of unfairness such as levels of hormones or measured muscle density rather than the genitalia someone had at birth.

You have to beg the question, given how tiny a % of the population we are told TIMs are, why are they so keen to get into DV & Rape services and provide intimate services to females?

That question alone should ring massive alarm bells.

Absolutely.

I read in one article that 0.1 - 0.5% of the population 'identify as trans'. If that is the case then, even if they argued for proportional representation, that would only be 1 - 5 in every 1000 employees. Yet they seem to be over represented in their desire to fit bras, counsel rape/DV victims and perform intimiate body searches.

It does rather beg the question of why they aren't clamouring to be nail technicians or cleaners or secretaries or any of the other 'typically female' jobs that don't proviced access to semi/fully naked, vulnerable women.

And to add the whole business with Oxfam and male charity workers should really give pause for thought to the people reviewing DV shelter policies about males being given access.

You have to beg the question, given how tiny a % of the population we are told TIMs are, why are they so keen to get into DV & Rape services and provide intimate services to females?

That question alone should ring massive alarm bells.

Are TIFs clamouring to work in gay men's sexual health or insisting on their rights to give prostate exams regardless of whether the patient wants a male Dr? If not - why not?

Please don’t think I’m burying my head in the sand. I think self ID is nonsense.
What I want is sex Ed in school should be thorough and clear. 12 year old girls should know there rights and debating this kind of issue.
I’m not shouting anyone down. I think the issues are not the issues ifykwim.

Or at least I'd hope this would be the case...

Me too but I've pretty much lost faith in organisations' ability to apply common sense over this. Women's Aid are currently reviewing their policies with a view to the possibility of allowing TIMs to be front line staff in women's refuges. They've been getting pressure for a few years from TRAs.

twitter.com/womensaid/status/486896812880445441

"We think he looks like a dodgy perv" Will get you nowhere.

No, but I do think that a man would lack the skills and experience to even get shortlisted for interview if I'm perfectly honest.

I think the women who work in rape crisis centres/refuges are very aware of women's vulernabilities and the legitimate fears of women and tend to be very passionate about their cause.

I don't think they would centre the feelings of men, wearing identifying as women or not, over those of actual women who have been abused at the hands of men.

Or at least I'd hope this would be the case...

Ok, to take the first example:

Does every woman have the confidence to refuse a smear test if they're uncomfortable with the person who arrives to do it? It's lovely you do, women being assertive about their boundaries and bodies is something I wish all women and girls were helped to learn and feel able to do. But what about the ones who don't?

Especially if they feel that having asked for a female HCP that someone with stubble arriving and saying they are the female HCP has already breached their trust? (And this has actually happened.)

Is fear of the person getting cross or hurting their feelings, or anxiety about being called transphobic, or worry that asking for a female HCP may mean a self identified woman rather than a biological woman likely to put some women off attending for smear tests? What about groups who for religious reasons will not be allowed to receive intimate care of any kind from a man?

Is it acceptable for women to end up going through with smears that they experience as deeply invasive and distressing because it was too difficult for that woman to say no? Is a reduction in the number of women willing to have smear tests/parallel increase of late diagnosis cervical cancer a fair and reasonable price to pay for removing the exemption of transwomen from giving intimate care to some women who prefer someone of the same sex? (Plenty of women won't care, but also plenty will.)

It's just not that simple.