Miranda Yardley's contribution to the Woman's Place meeting on Tuesday

(Posted before Donkey...)

Then why have a separate term for them?

Why don't we just call them men?

Why do we, including here, call them 'trans' anything? There is no trans. Why reify it?

How does using 'trans' change our way of thinking and relating to these men? Do we end up reifying their transness, such that we see it as A Thing, and not merely a delusion (cause irrelevant)?

That is what I am getting it. Why do we use 'trans' and prefix it to something and what does that mean for us? Language is powerful - it both expresses and shapes thought. It provides the concepts through which we can access reality. What does it do to us - to our thought, our concepts when we use words like 'transwomen', 'transsexual', 'TIM', 'MtT'?

The power of language + our female socialisation + their male socialisation makes me concerned for us.

Are we gaslighting ourselves?

A transsexual person is someone who has undergone bodily modifications to more closely resemble the opposite sex.

A trans-identified person is someone who conceptualises their sexed identity under the rubric of trans ideology. It includes transsexual people as well as those who have undergone no or minimal bodily modifications but still wish to be regarded as the opposite sex, and people who claim to be neither male nor female ('non-binaries').

These terms exist because trans-identified people exist and we need to have some words to describe them. You seem to be very hung up on the idea that the cultural phenomenon of transgenderism is all about weird people being weird, whereas I think it is inextricable from wider cultural beliefs about sex and gender.

I agree that we need to be very careful with how we use language. I use these terms because IMO they are the most precise and most likely to bring clarity to the debate, although I grant that 'transsexual' is a misnomer. Nevertheless since it refers to an objectively definable category of persons (unlike 'transgender'), I'll use it.

'Gender non-conforming man' doesn't work as a term for a man who identifies as trans, because any man can be gender non-conforming. Also, most trans-identified men are NOT gender non-conforming. A truly gender non-conforming man rejects male dominance and entitlement to women's labour and deference, which most TIMs certainly do not. It is precisely because I am careful about language that I never refer to TIMs as 'gender non-conforming'. And I have zero problem with referring to TIMs as men (which was the original topic of this thread). However, sometimes it is necessary to distinguish them from non-trans-identified men.

They could mean anything. They could mean trauma survivor who underwent srs because they couldn't cope with their own adult male genitalia due to childhood sexual abuse. They could mean feminist ally at the end of a journey. They could mean confused male who rejects masculinity and has been brainwashed by patriarchy into thinking this means he can't be a man. They could mean misogynist trying to appropriate womanhood or sex offender trying to offend.

But as long as they don't mean 'woman', why does it matter? In my mind they signify 'one of the above subsets of men'

Lang - absolutely.

When I said: what do these terms mean, what are they supposed to be referring to?

What I meant was: What do WE mean by them and what are WE referring to? Why are they used here?

I am not interested in what TRAs mean by them, or even the wider population. I want to examine what it is that we are conceptualising when we use these terms, because I am fearful for us.

Terf exactly. All the feminists who have gone before. All the women currently speaking out.

Praising him for activism against TRA is as bizarre as praising the TRIC who says she is White for her activism against those 'bad TRICs' who say they are Black. As bizarre as praising her for her actions in defence of opportunities ear-marked for BAME.

Miranda's campaigning is augmented by the fact of his 'whatever the hell it is'. His voice as a 'feminist ally' is augmented by the same delusion. Yet that delusion both participates in the thing he is campaigning against (TRA) and undermines the feminism we claims to support.

It just does.

So what do these terms mean? What are they supposed to be referring to?

This is a really interesting question. If we were only allowed to answer it properly through honest discussion and properly conducted research we would have the key to the society-wide psychological crisis that Donkey refers to.

What we need to establish, first and foremost, is that they don't refer to sex, which remains the signifier of sex class and the determiner of sex-based protections. If we can succeed in this, the whole question will be somewhat depoliticised which might render it more amenable to disinterested investigation.

TheUterati - I follow one Scottish detransitioner. Lovely person. I do think this perspective is vital because I am certain that just as the numbers of girls being referred to GIDS is seeing the biggest rise, the biggest cohort of regrets is going to be women. If we're thinking ahead, we, as sisters, need to be ready and armed with the best ways to support them. And the best route to that is to listen to those already here.

Many women have put in years of activism.

Yeah, and I'm one of them. It's not a zero-sum thing.

A man who does all of that, wears 'women's clothes', and adopts a 'woman's name', and still says he is a man, is weird

See I don't have a problem with men rejecting masculinity, as long as they admit their ongoing maleness

I'd go even further and say I am actively in favour of men rejecting their masculinity, while admitting their ongoing maleness.

And I'd especially like to move as far as possible from the idea of "women's clothes" and "men's clothes" anyway. I thought we were the ones that were beyond all that.

Possibly it's an age thing, for me. In my youth I knew straight men who wore skirts and painted their nails, and sure, some were wankers, but some were "oh, hey, we can get away with wearing skirts now, I like it". (I had a similar revelation about a decade ago about nail polish, which I had never worn. I was buying some for my sister, who likes it, and me and DS went OH WHAT IS THIS IT'S SO SHINY and I bought some for us and went mad with it. I don't wear it often, and I apply it with all the skill of a toddler fingerpainting, but it's PAINT and it goes on your NAILS, what's not to love?) On a slightly different axis, I've always known gay men, including plenty who do drag, and use she/her pronouns, and that's never until now been about claiming biological womanhood. (I know lots of women here really don't like drag, but I don't have a problem with it.)

So, yeah, there isn't any such thing as women's clothes. (Even if Eddie Fucking Izzard has changed his mind on this.)

Miranda isn't getting applause for being trans, IMO, but for years and years of activism, and often acting as a lightening rod, too

I just can't see how he can speak out about the very thing he is doing and benefiting from. Many women have put in years of activism.

Lang - I think there are far fewer of them who are visible. That in itself is a manifestation of gendered socialisation.

I can only think of a couple, both USA. One was on FB but has disappeared. Another had a few videos on YouTube.

Doneky - but what is a 'trans-identified person'? What is a 'transsexual'? How are these things real? These are not intended to refer to a 'gender-non-conforming-man', because otherwise the terms would not exist.

'trans-identified person' and 'transsexual' are not intended to mean 'man who thinks gender is bullshit and just prefers wearing a dress and a bit of lippy'. We have a word for that it is 'man'.

So what do these terms mean? What are they supposed to be referring to?

I'm not singling you out in this! It's only that you are the most recent poster to use these terms.

We need to be so careful in how we think about these men, and the terms we use to refer to them and to conceptualise them. This is part of what I meant by the danders of fighting dirty and using whatever weapons we have. We need to be careful about the costs to ourselves, because I believe our socialisation (and theirs) can work against us so easily. Hence, I have seen so many 'solid' gender critical feminists lapping up everything these men say.

We need to guard against that. And part of that is calling a spade a spade: calling a man a man.

I don't even know what detransitioning means, in this context

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant in the context of voices we need rather than the context of should TIM voices be included, and I was referring to women who were FTM and have now detransitioned.

A man who does all of that and still says I am a man is bloody weird.

I think Miranda would probably agree with you!

Look, perhaps this what it looks like when somebody has had such severe body dysmorphia that they have done all of that - but then make it out the other side? Perhaps this is what "I used to be dysmorphic" looks like?

Perhaps we need to know this because perhaps there are going to be a great many Mirandas if the extreme trans narrative is ever defeated.

I don't know. You'd have to ask Miranda, I suppose.

What is he actually famous for, apart from being trans?

For speaking up, again and again, under a tide of abuse, about the utter bollocks that is trans activism? Miranda isn't getting applause for being trans, IMO, but for years and years of activism, and often acting as a lightening rod, too. And sure, Miranda could have a change of attitude, but so could any of us. If we have any chance of getting anywhere, then we all need to work together in as good faith as we can manage. I understand and respect the views of women who don't want to work together with any men on this issue, but I've been very glad to have Miranda on our side, and hope that continues.

And someone else mentioned detransitioning - I don't even know what detransitioning means, in this context. If someone who current societal norms regards as a transwoman is saying "but I'm a gender nonconforming man", how to describe their journey? (And that's a totally different journey, btw, from someone who regrets their transition - and I do know some of those.)

God, I'm so slow at typing.

The female detransitioners voice would be good to reduce childhood transness (made up word).

analysis paralysis

I am so stealing that for regular use!

No, I don't see too much that's 'weird' about a trans-identified person moving away from the ideology but not rejecting their history and bodily reality as a transsexual person. I don't care if men want to step outside the accepted behavioural and presentation norms for their sex, as long as they aren't trying to colonise women's existence.

"I see transgenderism (and transsexualism) as a manifestation of harmful cultural beliefs about sex and gender."

But transexuals/transgender/transwhatevers and their supporters don't see it that way. It's seen as a positive movement. And let's face it, lots of men have done very well out of been trans, they have more attention and more of a voice than they would have had.

If they think all of this is harming women and they are on our side, wouldn't they detransition?

I've seen too many threads on here, where MIT put on a charm offensive to win as many of us over as possible. They will say anything to get us to say, 'we are not against all MIT, just the bad ones'. How many wives of MIT say their husbands are charming to strangers and bastards to live with?

Don't get me wrong, I will work with anyone to stop childhood transitions. I will do and say whatever anyone want to here to make women spaces female again. I just think we should look at what men are doing as well as saying.

Tallulah - it's more the surgery and hormones that I meant. A man who does all of that and still says I am a man is bloody weird. What the hell is he doing???

There is a difference between breaking gender stereotypes, which is great, and donning womanface, which is not.

I think these analogies, here I used blackface, are very useful in examining whether how we conceive those who adopt womanface and how we react to them.

Yes yes to more female detransitioners.

I would like to see more (if they would wish to put heads above the parapet) female detransitioners included in the debate

This x 1000

What's the endpoint for transitioners though?
Either they stay entrenched, or end up...where?

I'm not interested in fighting every tiny battle to the detriment of the bigger picture. I give myself a free pass for performing a bit of femininity when circumstances call for it because I accept I'm a product of my socialisation and I can't undo an entire lifetime's conditioning without analysis paralysis. So I shave my legs once in a while, let myself off the hook and fight the bigger battles. Is it weird that I think it's wrong that women feel they should shave their legs yet still I do it every now and then? Yes, it's hypocrisy on my part. But it's a minor concession that keeps me functioning and I'm not actually advocating it as a good thing.

If Miranda wears what he wants and knows he's a man then he is an example of broken stereotypes. Which I'm OK with.

A man who does all of that, wears 'women's clothes', and adopts a 'woman's name', and still says he is a man, is weird

See I don't have a problem with men rejecting masculinity, as long as they admit their ongoing maleness