Pregnant trans men Guardian article

Men can't have babies.

You talked specifically about transwomen and women's spaces, that's all.

Men have got a whole HELL of a lot of being educated to do!

and men? Men just seem to carry on regardless...

..and then when everyone's forced to pick a side and gather at the extemes you can add up how many votes are in each camp and declare one side the winner!

That team gets everything all their own way and the other team gets... well... nothing. And either a whole load of women OR a whole load of transwomen get a really fucking miserable life.

Which is why we don't do things this way in this day and age.

And we try and spread the burden of tolerance around a bit, so everybody comes out with at least a little bit of something - because these are people's lives we're talking about. So unfortunately I think we really do have to try and navigate down that messy grey area in the middle.

But doesn’t this mean that it is trans women who need to understand and be educated about single sex spaces?

In my mind (and the Equality Act agrees with me I think) there are some single sex spaces that are more than justified. There are also some transwomen who just aren't getting it and do certainly need an education.

Conversely there are some spaces which really can be gender segregated, or should rightly be on the basis of harm done to each party, and in those cases there probably are some women who need educating. Although I'm loathe to say that because it's become such a loaded phrase.

As usual it's probably the question of which spaces and where the lines are drawn that get people so hot under the collar.

And when people get frustrated that they can't agree a clear and simple line down which to make the cut, they retreat to the extremes - things are very clear and simple at the extemes - in fact they're black and white! No simpler way to handle all those awkward shades of grey.

Looking at the current bunch of trans women in the headlines I don't see any 'ultra girliness' most come across as far more masculine in behaviour than feminine. When India Willoughby was shouting at the older women or throwing themselves at the men she decided were the attractive ones that looked far more like male entitlement than anything else. Sure she also appeared to be very very insecure but given that everyone was trying their best to accommodate and validate I'm not sure what else is really expected to be done. In any case the experience that is being asserted is generally not that of a trans person and sometimes not even of a person with gender dysphoria, it is 'I am a woman / girl / female'. Comparing it to a Hillsborough victim where they were challenging the perception that they were victims not villains is I think really quite offensive.

No feminist is trying to say that trans people do not exist, or argue that those individuals do not experience the world from a trans perspective (although it is difficult to understand what that really means any more as the term encompasses so much now from distressed people who believe they are in the wrong body to fetishists and ideological bandwagon jumpers) they are simply saying that they are unable to pretend that they are female. Because they aren't - if they were there would be no problem (for anyone) after all.

Funny, because that 0.01% probably isn't that far off the percentage of the population who are transgender and attempting to "pass" as members of the opposite sex.

We're up to 1-1.5% now, I think you'll find.

But that's got fuck all to do with law regressing to Victorian times and women having to individually manage risk posed by disordered males.

the human ability to discern sex at a glance (we can do that, regardless of costume or transition status, in 99.99% of cases)

Funny, because that 0.01% probably isn't that far off the percentage of the population who are transgender and attempting to "pass" as members of the opposite sex.

When people's identity is threatened, they reaffirm it. At least some of what you see as entitlement I see as insecurity.

People do react badly when their identity is threatened. That's exactly why TIMs should not be anywhere near women's spaces. They are not women. There is no such thing as an innate gender identity. Nobody is born in the wrong body. The self and the body cannot be separated - unless you believe in eternal souls. Some people have dysphoria. This is awful and sometimes medication and surgery can ease it. But it's still the same self inextricably attached to the same body.

No adult human can expect the entire population to validate a false identity. It's an unachievable ambition. If someone's identity is both false and fragile and comes with a side order of narcissism, they are not only upset when their identity is not validated, they also become a risk to others.

It is not up to women to manage this risk. It is not up to women to pretend that they have suddenly lost the human ability to discern sex at a glance (we can do that, regardless of costume or transition status, in 99.99% of cases). It is sad for a dysphoric individual that they experience material reality - and other people noticing it - as personal injury. But that's not my problem when I'm in a single sex space, which was created precisely to protect me from disordered males who present risk.

I see that too.

But doesn’t this mean that it is trans women who need to understand and be educated about single sex spaces?

That's what I see too spoonless.

When people's identity is threatened, they reaffirm it. At least some of what you see as entitlement I see as insecurity.

I have a feeling (warning: random anecdote based on nothing but a feeling) that gay men may display fewer camp behaviours nowadays because they are more accepted than previously.
I disagree. There have always been gay men who were not flamboyant in their behavior. In fact the vast majority of gay men are not now nor ever have been the theatrical stereotypes. They act like people because they are people. If I misunderstand what you mean by "camp behaviors" please correct me.

(Apologies for my demeaning "calm the fùck down" line.)

*My conclusion would simply be to accept the version of reality in that person's head and to tolerate it and accommodate it as far as I reasonably could’.

Unfortunately science, politics and society pretty much depends on people being able to use language in a way that has an agreed and specific meaning, particularly when you are defining the rights of an oppressed group with specific needs.

"Obviously the point of disagreement comes when trying to work out what's reasonable; how to equitably dole out the shit bits of sharing the world with other people; and by "shit bits" I mostly mean managing the fact that some of those other people are total fuckwits!"

Rat - v well put.

“That doesn't mean no hardship, that just means a fair and equitable distribution of that burden between every single one of us, in order to achieve that society.”

Yes.

If you solve that one, let us know!

your conclusion would be that they are a man

Trans isn't something that's externally imposed on people as a result of their behaviour or appearance though is it; so it wouldn't be my conclusion that they are one thing or another.

My conclusion would simply be to accept the version of reality in that person's head and to tolerate it and accommodate it as far as I reasonably could.

Obviously the point of disagreement comes when trying to work out what's reasonable; how to equitably dole out the shit bits of sharing the world with other people; and by "shit bits" I mostly mean managing the fact that some of those other people are total fuckwits!

I personally also feel sure it’s correct but I can’t prove that. That’s just a feeling in a woman’s head.

That's perfectly reasonable (and I see what you're getting at, I think ).

The thing is that the world each of us living are living in, despite being the exact same place, is probably a completely different place to each of us inside our heads.

My vision of a tolerant, inclusive and humane society is one where everyone's vision is accommodated as far as is possible without undue hardship caused to others. That doesn't mean no hardship, that just means a fair and equitable distribution of that burden between every single one of us, in order to achieve that society.

So to me, it's not fair and equitable that no transperson should ever be offended or assaulted or inconvenienced if that means women suffer extensively as a result. Likewise it's not fair for no woman ever to feel uncomfortable, inconvenienced or even (god forbid) be assaulted if the price of that is a far greater suffering to transpeople.

It's more complicated than that of course, but that's my general premise. So I guess my "it could be nature or it could be nurture but most likely it's both" is ideological too, given that the above is the position I'm coming from.

Hope you didn't mind me waxing lyrical a bit there, I went off topic!

I think that before deciding whether gender is innate you have to define what gender is and also explain why, when finding those qualities in a woman, your conclusion would be that they are a man, not that those qualities are also clearly present in women.

I’m glad you unpacked that Rat!
(In fact can you unpack a little more)?

Really interesting points.
I’m more than happy to describe my own position (nurture) as ideological. I personally also feel sure it’s correct but I can’t prove that. That’s just a feeling in a woman’s head.

And it's a shame I think that this is what angers so many feminists so very much

The "this" being that transwomen in particular seem to peddle and reinforce the damaging gender stereotypes that we are fighting to erase. Of course I understand why it would anger feminists, I just think it's so unfortunate.

The "gender is exclusively a social construct" belief strikes me as ideologically motivated.

Precisely, equally as motivated as anyone trying to say gender is entirely innate, "pink brain, blue brain and there's nothing more to it" bullshit.

So you are wondering whether a more complete affirmation might lead more trans people to relax and drop the ultra-girlie stuff?

I think overall it probably would. And it's a shame I think that this is what angers so many feminists so very much, because to me it just seems like the totally obvious thing that someone in that position would do - purely in order to ease acceptance - and that that should be the thing that might prohibit it just seems really sad to me.

So

“What empirical findings would convince me that “gender” is not exclusively a social contract?”

Christ, even thinking about it makes me feel trapped and afraid.

I am happy to accept that my “it’s a socia” construct” position is political/concerned with my own safety and advancement.