A New Feminist

We nearly all agree that spaces should be segregated by sex, not gender. Why then do we afford the gay man the right to be there wearing his woman costume? Why aren't we offended by that costume and the belief that liking men means he's a woman? The only explanation that I can think of for this is that we do not consider that gay man is a real man. And if he's not a real man ,well, then he must be a type of woman ,so he's welcome and can come in. It's an uncomfortable thought but perhaps one we should address.

Terf, do you mean we’ve bought into homophobia, on some level?

I hate the idea of peaceful individuals having rights taken away.

But I am also drawn by the points made about “who budges up”

This in particular:

“ are transwomen, a subset of men not women. Men needed to budge up and make room for them within manhood and male spaces. Respect and protect them as male transwomen. This is not the job of women, however much we like and admire the transwomen we know personally.”

My own trans woman friend is just much more comfortable with a business culture we think of as female (more support, less bragging, less assertion, more exploration). She has a fine track record of employing and promoting women and being loyal to them when they are vulnerable (mat leave, etc).

I completely agree.

This is women trying to accommodate men, because - compassion.

But on any practical level, it's impossible. You don't get to vouch for a man, due to your personal experience of them.

I could vouch for my DH say. But I wouldn't expect you to get undressed in front of him.

And you can't make surgery a pre-requisite. It's not fair.

This is really all about the concept, rather than practical application.

Practically, a GRC might just be the way. At the moment only one percent of TIMs have one.

It's a minuscule number.

Strengthening the criteria, would make so much more sense than eliminating it.

It would weed out the fetishists and chancers. It would make opportunists far less likely to apply.

And, at the end of the day, it probably is about a question of numbers.

It wouldn't work in toilets, necessarily. Because you can't, at the moment, demand to see the certificate. As it's outing. (Although, I can't help thinking that if someone is asking to see your certificate, you're already outed.)

But women only swimming, overnight accommodation, locker rooms, etc. There would be no automatic entry. It shouldn't even be considered without a certificate. And then, even with one, the equality act should be upheld.

Those of us who are okay with it in certain situations don't get to tear down other women's boundaries without their consent.

This is absolutely key and I wish more women would acknowledge it. You're fine sharing changing rooms with TIMs in general, or with specific TIMs who you're friends with or related to? That's all well and good but you don't get to make that decision for other women, and trying to guilt trip them into it because oh my friend/relative is so nice is shitty.

I really struggle from an ethical standpoint with the idea of surgery being a delineator. I don't think it's ethical for someone's decision to have surgery to be linked to any financial, legal or societal advantage in any context, so I can't think it's okay for trans. Although I can see why it makes sense.

I disagree about surgery. It's radical, life changing cosmetic surgery, with a high rate of complications. It leaves men having to dilate a surgically-created approximation of vagina for the rest of their lives. I don't want to see a situation where men, especially young men, feel under pressure to undergo surgery in order to go about their lives as a transwomen.

Transwomen are transwomen, a subset of men not women. Men needed to budge up and make room for them within manhood and male spaces. Respect and protect them as male transwomen. This is not the job of women, however much we like and admire the transwomen we know personally.

A huge number of women do not consent to having males in our spaces or claiming to be female. Those of us who are okay with it in certain situations don't get to tear down other women's boundaries without their consent.

Patodp

I agree. If you don't know, you don't know.

It's also quite interesting that even if when a transwoman absolutely passes, but I know they are are a man, I would automatically view any objection on my part, in the light of that knowledge.

At the meeting on Tuesday, it was very interesting. Three TIMs spoke.

All of them opposed to self ID.

But it was marked and noted by many, that when they spoke, it was completely different to when women spoke.

Women would often start with "I'd just like to say...", with some ums and ers.

All three men were assertive, very dominant in the way they spoke, but also didn't have any of that 'I hope you understand, this is my personal opinion, it's a tricky situation...' etc.

It's difficult to explain, because I'm trying to analyse it. But it was remarked upon in the pub afterwards, by quite a few people.

Also, one of the feminists said something and there was a muted response, with the odd vocal disagreement.

Then one of the TIMs said exactly the same thing and was cheered.

Now it could be that because they were talking about their own cohort, people bought into what they were saying a lot easier.

But nonetheless, it was another demonstration of how we are all socialised differently and react differently to whether we are hearing a man speak or a woman speak.

And MRAs who've realized that as long as they call themselves trans they can do whatever they want to women and be cheered on for it
LM definitely falls into this category.

If you look like Blair White nobody is going to ask you to use the gents. The debate about policy is irrelevant to anyone who passes because who's going to question their presence? The only scenario it might happen in would be if people around them had already known them pre-transition.

That's a tiny minority of a tiny minority, so a bit of a red herring.

I disagree that post op transwomen are different.

I understand why it's a point, though.

It shows commitment to the cause, as it were and the lack of a penis would indicate a reduced risk to women. There is also the fact that a lot of HSTS will have had bottom surgery, as opposed to AGP individuals.

But firstly, some AGP individuals do have bottom surgery. It's considered the ultimate in becoming a woman. There are blogs from men all about it.

Secondly, having surgery because you've got gender dysphoria, doesn't suddenly stop you belonging to the cohort who intimidate women. The two aren't linked.

The Swedish study (the only long-term study) that they did, only included men who had had sexual reassignment surgery and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The male pattern violence was exactly the same as those of natal men.

One of the most prevalent comorbid conditions in people who transition/have gender dysphoria is narcissism.

Which automatically is a risk to women. It ignores boundaries.

If you could divide TIMs into those with narcissism and those without, that would be a far more useful categorisation than whether they have had surgery or not.

Indian Willoughby has had surgery, as has Paris Lees (I think). Both of them bullying men who couldn't give a fig about women's boundaries.

Blair White passes. I used to think she was pretending to be trans to be contrary.

There are a few more but hardly any. I've seen a few on telly that I'd need to be told they're not women.

From a philosophical and ethical viewpoint I take transwomen are men, but in practice I probably wouldn't be the person to insist Blaire White uses the gents.

The thing about whether a TIM experiences sexism, in real life, is rather moot.

There's not a TRA on the planet, who doesn't immediately, purposefully, tell you they're one. And in the exact same breath tell you that TIMs experience sexism.

So the sort of TIM who will tell you they experience sexism, is the sort of TIM who goes out their way to let you know they are a man, and therefore can't experience sexism.

Then you have those who tell you that they definitely pass.

I have yet to see one. Even Paris Lees, Caitlyn Jenner, India Willoughby, have got male written all over them. They have spent thousands of pounds on trying to pass.

Women are programmed from an incredibly early age to identify male pattern behaviour and male pattern mannerisms.

Rape and sexual assault survivors, even more so. Their radar is on a knife edge. Because their very lives would have depended upon it.

Even TIMs who transition very young, tend to be above the average height of women. Walk differently, have certain features like a more pronounced browbone.

This new wave of children who are transitioning might change that. But even a few minutes watching Jazz Jennings makes you pause.

What you see in a photo, that has been photo shopped, isn't really what you get in real life.

Coupled with that, women are socialised not to say anything.

There are loads of TIMs who will tell you that they pass, because everyone thinks they're a woman, but a quick glance at the photo will tell you that no, people are just being kind.

And AGP individuals who look like a navvy in a skirt, have an internal image that is wholly at odds with what you actually see. They see sexy minx, you see alpha male cross dresser.

So you are left with a few, very few, men who genuinely pass and who won't tell you.

You've then got to rely on them to act in a way that is counter-productive to their own benefit. So if they are of childbearing age, and it looks as though they are getting passed over for promotion, you have to rely on the fact that they will maintain they are a woman, despite it affecting their promotion chances.

Likewise sexual harrassment. Link below to demonstrate.

Nonetheless, you will see 'sexism' used relentlessly as a form of 'credential' to underpin the demand that they are actually women.

It's such a minuscule possibility, that it shouldn't form any part of the argument.

It also rides rough shod over the concept of oppression. Oppressors cannot identify into the oppressed group. Because, at any point, they can change their mind, if beneficial. Which is why they're not oppressed.

Think Rachel Dolezal.

On the trans issues...I work with a woman who was born a man, has had reassignment surgery and is married to a man.

This is the main point for me, anyone that has completed reassignment surgery should be able to be that gender.

However a person that self identifies as a gender that is opposite the one that they were born with should not have the same rights as a person that has gone through reassignment surgery.

The outward change of the body is the crucial point.

Thanks for the stats Quentin.

Butterfly I completely agree that having female biology changes how one lives one's life, but in your examples it mostly isn't the having female biology that matters, it's the appearing to have it. That's what affects how other people treat you.

The OP says her friend has experienced "sexism" at work, which I quite believe, if indeed she does look like she has female biology. You don't need to have a functioning reproductive system to be passed over for promotion because someone thinks you'll have babies. And you don't need to have a god-given vagina to be a rape target.

And MRAs who've realized that as long as they call themselves trans they can do whatever they want to women and be cheered on for it.

You can divide transwomen into two cohorts. Homosexual transsexuals (HSTS) and autogynephiles

I know this comes from a respected official source, but I really really would add
and teenagers who are jumping onto the Trans Train because right now it's the coolest thing ever

I think you'll find that some feminists reject post-op transsexuals in women's spaces in any circumstances

That would be me. If it was up to me I would completely scrap the gender recognition act. The tim in the op is simply a gay man . More than that he is a gay man who has gaslighted women into pretending he's a woman and has also intruded into women's spaces. I strongly disagree that these transexuals care about women's rights and I think it's foolish to believe that they will object to the very laws that have benefited them.

I find it frustrating that within these discussions about sex and women's spaces so many people are willing to accept a gay man into their space without question. Why is this? Why are they described as harmless and genuine? How on earth can a man who lies to himself and others be considered genuine?

We nearly all agree that spaces should be segregated by sex, not gender. Why then do we afford the gay man the right to be there wearing his woman costume? Why aren't we offended by that costume and the belief that liking men means he's a woman?

The only explanation that I can think of for this is that we do not consider that gay man is a real man. And if he's not a real man ,well, then he must be a type of woman ,so he's welcome and can come in. It's an uncomfortable thought but perhaps one we should address.

By accepting that gay man in our spaces we are segregating by sexuality and sterotypes. Isn't that what tra's are doing and what we object to? I don't think we will get anywhere while we accept one man and not the other.

Either we are segregating by sex or we are not. A gay man is still a biological male.

The absence of ovaries is irrelevant day to day.

Are you young? Not goady but I have realised over the years how very relevant my biology is.

Having a vagina makes me a rape target. And sexual harassment and that fun stuff.

Having a womb means that consciously or subconsciously my reproductive choices influence pay.

Having female biology results in any anger or upset being interpreted as hormones or hysteria.

My body is subject to the whims of male lawmakers.

What about trans men? How are they viewed by women?

Transmen are women. So their rights are women's rights.

All of them.

However transmen are still a feminist issue.

They transition for different reasons to men. It's almost never sexual reasons.

Stephanie Davis Arai of transgendertrend who is concerned with the transitioning of children, has said she is yet to see a girl transition who is not doing it either because of past sexual trauma, or they are lesbian, or they are autistic.

Autism is over represented in the trans-community. The theory being that people who are autistic don't recognise gender signals. And therefore are quite likely to display behaviour of the opposite sex and therefore, sometimes, trans seems to be the answer they are looking for.

Sexual trauma I don't think is difficult to understand. Young girls denying their sexuality and womanhood, in a bid to escape objectification, harassment and assault. A sort of Teflon coating.

And lesbians are often gender nonconforming. Butch lesbians come under a great deal of peer pressure to identify as men. (There is a thread around here somewhere highlighting claims that all lesbians are transmen in denial).

Chartreuseveil

datun and lang thank you so much. Reading with interest

Glad to help. Although, be aware, the more you read, the more you drink.

I was another one who hung out in spaces where there were transsexual, as well as a bunch of other gender non conforming people, around back in the day. No big deal, was fine with that. The AGP guys? Oh hell no.

I want to add, that as an ideology, it is highly aligned with men's sexual rights activism.

As a result, it's a misogyny magnet.

So people who aren't even trans are drawn to it - men's rights activists, misogynists, and intimidating, bullying men in general.

Given that you don't need to make even the smallest modification to your appearance, including your clothes, (or have gender dysphoria), to claim you are transwoman, it's a bit of a gift for certain men.