Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement

borntobequiet you may have missed 1st and 2nd wave feminism then, which were about resisting the confining and restrictive definitions that men impose upon us. Fair to say that many women have had a problem with this for a very long time.

And I think most of us understand the desire of transexual men. Their alleviating their dysphoria comes at our cost. Their need to act out stereotypes and insistence that this be celebrated as part of being a woman is where a great deal of the conflict lies.

I didn't say women wouldn't have a problem with that (though evidently, for many years they didn't).
You can't speak for all women. What evidence do you have for saying 'for many years they didn't'?

I didn't say women wouldn't have a problem with that (though evidently, for many years they didn't). I said that was what I thought transsexual men wanted to transition to, in order to partially alleviate their dysphoria.

so............a man insisting on performing and being validated in unacceptable sexist stereotypes and making sure they are further reinforced and conflated with 'woman'?

Why on earth would women have a problem with that...

I will restate.
Looking like an unacceptable stereotype of a woman.
Being treated in an unacceptably stereotyped way as a woman.
Behaving in a way that is unacceptably sterotypical of womanhood.
Convoluted enough for you?

Ah - yes, sexist I suppose. But easy to understand.

Looking like?
Being Treated like?
Behaving like?

Can you give examples of what that actually means? Because it sounds very sexist.

Okay Lang, you can't think of an example, I get it.

Oh don't be bloody ludicrous. How can I discriminate against you on the basis of your gender identity if you cannot define what a gender identity is? Like I say, you cannot legislate to either criminalise something or protect something if you cannot define what it is.

Well, you can, but then your law would be a bad law.

It. Is. Not. Rocket. Science.

I think what Jaycee meant to transition to was a person who could go about daily life looking like, being treated like and behaving like a woman. That's it. It's what I do (as a woman), most of the time, so I get it.
If that's what makes the dysphoria more bearable, I understand why it's done.

there are no words to describe what is a kind of ineffable inner state
...and yet you use 'woman' for it (adult human female)

a sense of something inside saying 'this is wrong'
...and yet you call this 'woman'

something wonky in the settings that attach some kind of gender identity to biological sex in parts of your brain
...these settings don't exist, there is no match to ovaries in your brain - you don't have ovaries.

I have said that I do not believe you can or do change biological sex.
...and yet you have chosen to have 'female' on your documents

For many, many years up to 2004 with no legal recognition
...you say it was about your body, so you altered it. You say you know you remain male, and that you demand nothing from women. And yet, what you ARE demanding is that you be recognised in society as what you have just acknowledged you are NOT. As female. And you know that legal recognition overrides the rights of actual females to distinguish themselves from you, even though you, and we, know you are male, and we are female.

We know the biological limits of sex and what can be changed and that we had to accept gender was being reassigned not sex changed
...what does this mean? If you use a word you HAVE to know what meaning YOU are trying to convey to others when you use it. How does modifying a body not change sex but does change 'gender'? What is this 'gender'? Is it a feeling? Can it be described? a perception YOU possess? A facsimile of sex? A perception OTHERS have? What is it? I don't care for the legal definition, but HELL, it means something to you. If you had to use another word in it's place, what would you use?

Do you know the root of the word gender, jaycee?

gender (n.)
c. 1300, " kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits ," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,

IT MEANS GROUP. CLASS. FAMILY. SHARED TRAITS.
And this is why it is so horrifyingly wrong and unfair to use it the way you and all transactivists do.

What you say is that it is unique to you, hard to define, your personal identity, who are we to question...
But what lies beneath these words is the truth - that it GROUPS you WITH an entire CLASS of people with whom you DON'T share traits. It makes the claim that we are a family, all, women, all females, when the truth is the opposite.
Your identity, and the identity of every man who wants to be recognised as a woman, involves my participation as integral to all your claims. You're not asserting your right just to be yourself. You are asserting your right to be US.

Your desire to separate yourself as a male, from the rest of the male class (to which you do actually belong) has been granted
At the expense of MY right to separate myself as a female, from you a male.

You have gained an unfair right to be recognised as the 'same' as me.
By every objective measure of my existence we remain categorically different.
I have lost the fair right to be recognised as different from you.

What you have gained, has come at the my loss.

Okay Lang, you can't think of an example, I get it.

Thanks Barracker, my battery's on the way out so I'll read and digest your post when I get home.

Fabulous explanation BarrackerBarmer
That’s exactly the heart of the self id argument.

theoldruggedcross
I initially read Jaycee's posts with interest, until I realised that the same information was being regurgitated again and again. From what I understand, Jaycee has/had a male partner* and transitioned about 45 years ago, so was probably growing up at a time when homosexuality was illegal. Jaycee was subjected to appalling gay conversion therapy. It is not clear to me (even after a million posts) whether Jaycee's transition was triggered by being gay at a time when being gay was illegal (and still considered fairly unacceptable even after the law was changed), or by true dysphoria. I do have a lot of sympathy for people of earlier generations who were faced with a lot of prejudice just for being gay - and this still happens in many countries, like Iran for example, where being trans is acceptable, but being gay is illegal.

This is one reason why I think it is important to explore why someone is presenting to a doctor with self-diagnosed gender dysphoria. If the reasons are not properly explored, then transitioning could in itself become a kind of gay conversion therapy.

*I have assumed Jaycee has a male partner from this comment earlier in the thread 'I accepted the fact that it meant I could never marry my partner.' I'm sure Jaycee will be along to tell me (at great length) if I have got that wrong.

Barrack's challenge about the definition of legal terms is vital to the preservation of women's rights.

Lang, or Barracker (or anyone of this opinion really), do you think you could explain why you think this please?

I don't mean some vague "words mean something and without them how will we identify the oppression of women as a class?" - because whilst that's all well and good I can't picture the real world scenario that will be made impossible; be it in law or whatever.

I can see we might have to adjust our use of language in order to convey our intended meaning, but even the clearest wordings are ambiguous and rely on interpretation; I find myself arguing the toss over incredibly carefully worded contracts at work all the time!

Are there any examples anyone could give please?

It's a really good question, because it can be hard to visualise in a real world scenario.

Employment and Pay:
Imagine 100 'women'
They are 50% XX and 50% XY , but gender identity is a protected category, so they are all legally women.
On paper there is ZERO difference between the women.
Employers, though, consistently employ primarily from one group.
and pay that group more too.
It is also completely apparent in real life observations which group may need maternity leave, and which won't. But on paper there is no record of how this is known.
How do the disadvantaged group a. demonstrate that they are being discriminated against and b. address it?

Representation:
XX: XY in the general population is 50:50
The entitlement of equal representation which was once based on sex, is now based on 'gender'
'Men':'women' reaches 50:50
But XX:XY is 25:75
We know this because we have eyes, but on paper and in the law 'women' are equally represented. There is no recourse for XX to address this because IN LAW we are not recognised as a group.

You can think of ANY situation where people of one sex, the female sex, might either be subject to unfair treatment on account of their SEX, or WANT different treatment for reasons of healthcare, dignity or privacy or to address existing inequalities.

And you will be able to demonstrate how gender overwrites the ability to do this.

Sex and gender are in direct opposition.
Wherever you make things fair for a sex, you will make things 'unfair' for those who advocate gender.
Wherever you make things fair for 'gender', you disadvantage an entire sex.

They can't co-exist.

That's probably a personal pathology combined with an excusable inability to define gender - who can?
But Jaycee's entire life has been based around the idea of gender identity. If someone is undergoing gender transition, they need a definition of gender identity, otherwise what are they transitioning from or to?

I am becoming increasingly fascinated that a group of women exist who do not care whether I like them or not. It is eye opening.

I have learnt from this board that I’ve been socialised to be needy about being liked.

The DH is reading over my shoulder and just burst out laughing. This is not an affliction you suffer from, mate, is it? I elbowed him in the stomach and told him I only married him out of pity. He's now threatening to steal my Easter egg. It's Lindt. There may be blood.

There's room for us all, theoldruggedcross, there's room for us all.

“But JC does write an awful lot of words about JC's life story, whilst avoiding answering specific questions like what do you mean by gender? “

I am really interested in Jaycee’s life story.

I am also really interested in the radical feminist perspective though I am usually a bit like this

I am becoming increasingly fascinated that a group of women exist who do not care whether I like them or not. It is eye opening.

I have learnt from this board that I’ve been socialised to be needy about being liked.

Jaycee felt compelled to join this debate, both on MN and on trans sites, as someone who's life has benefited from both the advances gained by trans campaigners and the fair and measured inclusivity of women

Oh, right. It isn't so Jaycee can go back to Jaycee's TRA board and mock the nice MNers and slag off the mean ones? Good to know.

I have a fair amount to do with legal writings as a matter of fact. It's commonly accepted that words have nuanced meanings depending on the context and the audience.

But of course you do, dear. I'm sure your contribution to jurisprudence is unparalleled. Nuance has nothing to do with legislating to either protect or criminalise something which the legislation does not define. We all understand that law has word and spirit. The interpretation of which is what judges are for. This does not mean that good law is bereft of meaningful definitions. That's bad law.

As you, experienced in legal writings as you are, perfectly well know.

I really don’t believe that Males will be having womb transplants, let alone ovary transplants ‘any day now’ 🙄
It’s still experimental in actual Women, 12 live births in 10 years I believe, the Montreal protocols don’t allow for Male bodies to be used, I’ve researched the surgery and outcomes thoroughly, a Woman who has received a donated womb has to have her own working ovaries as IVF is >30% effective. She has to menstruate for 6+ months to show everything is working.
There is a UK charity wanting to research and carry out womb transplants , they need half a million pounds to get started, they have only raised £40k in 18 months.
Even if they could get a womb to function in a Man ( god knows how) no way would Ethics commitees allow experiments on a growing foetus when fertilised ova have to be destroyed after 10 days of cell division.
Male bodies have not evolved to sustain pregnancy, no matter how many deluded Men say they can.

That's probably a personal pathology combined with an excusable inability to define gender - who can? There are plenty of ideas we recognise but can't define; beauty, freedom, sadness (unless others are far better at definitions than I am). They all have dictionary definitions but are ultimately interpreted differently by different people.
I understand that sex is binary and whatever gender is is largely constructed and is based on/recognised by observable behaviours. However some of these behaviours may be innate (driven at least in part by biology) and others entirely constructed by society.
As an aside, I was put off feminism in the 70s/80s/90s by a particular type of feminism that did reject biology on the grounds that it acknowledged that women were in some way weaker than and inferior to men. At least some of our present difficulties may trace back to this. I've only recently engaged again.

borntobequiet
But JC does write an awful lot of words about JC's life story, whilst avoiding answering specific questions like what do you mean by gender? Constant derailment of the subject being discussed is unlikely to make people sympathetic.

Rat - that was my take as well. It's probably not good for Jaycee to keep going over this stuff. Like you, didn't know about the constant flouncing- but am broadly sympathetic towards someone who has kept their head down for four decades and then finds themselves in this shit storm, entirely orchestrated by the trans lobby.

It's why things like the exact document like the one that sparked this thread have their own set of definitions at the end.
Except they don't define gender.

If you don't see why it's a bad idea to write laws about something the law can't define, Rat, I really can't help you. It's not rocket science.

Well if you can't express what you're trying to say Lang then you're right, you can't help me.

I have a fair amount to do with legal writings as a matter of fact. It's commonly accepted that words have nuanced meanings depending on the context and the audience. It's why things like the exact document like the one that sparked this thread have their own set of definitions at the end.

But no, you are not the poster to help me.

@flowersonthepiano Jaycee felt compelled to join this debate, both on MN and on trans sites, as someone who's life has benefited from both the advances gained by trans campaigners and the fair and measured inclusivity of women.

Every post she's written has been personal and heartfelt, digging up old ground that I can only has been very painful for her, and the sole purpose of her posts has been an effort to foster some middle ground between the two groups to whom she seems to feel she owes something to.

But that's just my take on it, for balance.