Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

Sue
I’m sorry you had to use a refuge, it’s an awful position to be in. I’m glad you managed to find some help.

Would you be kind enough to read my first post on this thread where I talk about being in a refuge as a child?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3160220-to-write-to-Women-s-Aid-and-ask-you-to-do-the-same-if-you-value-their-services

womanformallyknownaswoman, thank you for such an eloquent post. There's a significant difference, I think, between identifying with women rather that identifying as a woman.

I’ve had the misfortune of having to use a refuge and have had counselling for major trauma. I know what it means to fear men and anyone looking masculine including predatory men and women but that is what it is fear. I’m over my fear and I wish to share nothing but love to the world.

The vast majority of people are inherently good. We shouldn’t make law based on predjudice and fear.

Laws and policies are in place to protect us now. How can anyone police an individual’s identity? Why would anyone wish to force another to live an inauthentic life?

Let’s show respect and dignity to all people and not expect gender equality for us then try to deny to another.

Love one another and we might build a better world.

Getting back to the OP…

the pp who discussed the use of TERF in user names didn't ask people to stop using the term, she just explained that to her as an occasional lurker that the fact many regular contributors have TERF as part of their username comes across as aggressive. There's nothing wrong with expressing that view. [my italics]

Yes. To me many people seem sincere but quite defensive on here and I'd like an objective definition of "inflammatory" so I know you're not using it and "goady" and "TGLWGH" to shut down awkward posts.

I know you think "But WE'RE the ones being shut down!" but in my experience, notwithstanding DARVO, ideological opponents tend to start mirroring each other.

Yes Sue what about Philip Bunce? He does exactly that-a man one day a "woman" the next. It seems to me more and more that the issue of self id is actually a bit of a red herring, because if a man can win Woman of the Year, and a man can win an "all female" Big Brother in the Year of the Woman, and men are taking jobs set aside for women in the Labour party, and no one is allowed to question any of this without being called a bigot, then we are already in a situation whereby men can self identify, aren't we?

@Sur0001
@somethingweird

I’ve read the report from the Endocrine Society and the evidence they referred to in the first footnote.

The evidence is a literature review looking at:

Evidence that there is a biologic basis for gender identity primarily involves (1) data on gender identity in patients with disorders of sex development (DSDs, also known as differences of sex development) along with (2) neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity

The first set of literature reviewed only deals with people with diagnosed DSD (intersex conditions). These studies say nothing about the transgender umbrella including middle aged TIMs who have gathered children, cross dressers or gender fluid types who we are now expected to accept as women.

The second part of the review looks at neuroanatomical differences that assume there are differences between male and female brains which is a far from settled issue.

If, however, good evidence were found that there is a biological basis for a person feeling that their personality is at odds with the socially constructed roles and behaviours associated with members of that person’s sex classification that doesn’t mean the person is actually a member of the opposite sex. However if we are better be asked to treat that person as a member of the opposite sex, would it not make sense to test whether any individual seeking to be treated as a member of the opposite sex exhibits those biological markers?

It is very relevant that if gender identity is "a feeling in someone's head" - and they are prepared to sign a legal declaration - then no court could prove perjury, because how do you challenge a person's own feeling?

That is why legislation needs to be based on evidence-based fact - ie. biological sex, not gender identity.

The mantra is 'transwomen are women' - and self ID will allow anyone who says they are a woman to be a woman.

Self ID also states that no hormones, or actual transition needs to have taken place to identify as the other sex. As gallantly shown by 'Man Friday" Mumsnetters.

So how do women protect their spaces which are set aside on the basis of biological sex, if biological sex becomes meaningless?

The only thing the trans community is asking for is to self declare via a statutory declaration punishable with two years in jail for perjury for falsely claiming they are living full time in their gender

How would you tell if someone made a false declaration?

And given that it's illegal to ask to see someone's grc, how would you tell if a male-bodied person in a female space had even made one in the first place?

Agree Simon.
No one wants to stop people happily living their lives how they choose..unless they are damaging others in the process. The loss of single sex provision and estate for women and girls is extremely damaging. Female people need protection from male people. Female people need protections based on sex.

Any man wanting to be predatory towards a woman will do so. There is no way that he would go to the solicitors first before acting. It is just a made up fantasy.
Is it? Men have trained and worked as vicars, youth workers and teachers before now to access children and vulnerable women before. Why wouldn’t they do this.
Anyway, that’s not the point. It’s the way that shops, groups and businesses are changing policies. It’s the way that a woman now feels she can’t challenge a man in a woman only space.

We should focus on stopping predatory men not focus hate on a vulnerable group of people just trying live their lives like you and me
That’s exactly what we want to do. But we can’t for all the shouts of TERF. I think it is fair to say that none of us want to stop anyone living in the way they want and makes them happy. We just want to not give predatory men an open door.
Even the op of the T thread said that there should be something to stop ‘chancers’.

The only thing the trans community is asking for is to self declare via a statutory declaration punishable with two years in jail for perjury for falsely claiming they are living full time in their gender.

I can see why some trans people might want this, I truly do. It must be very hard to be in that position. However I have worked with many pts who want a diagnosis and who don’t want the process to be rerouted from medical channels for a number of reasons.

Also, if someone swears their declaration how do we know? Do they carry ID with them to prove it or do we just take them in good faith? Lots of women have spent a life time learning not to take Male bodies people in good faith, I’m sure you understand why that is. Is there a proposed system where we could look up their status as someone who has sworn a declaration? Because there is no point in having laws saying someone will face criminal charges if they abuse the system if there is no way of knowing who has and hasn’t sworn a declaration.

Also what happens to the growing number of de-transitioners? Would they then become criminals or forced to live in their newly acquired gender identity?
I hadn’t seen the proposals about the 2 years in prison, do you have a link?

Sorry if that feels like a million and one questions, I am genuinely very interested in your reply.

So if a woman’s refuge decided in the circumstances that a trans women should be excluded then they can exclude her now.

Well, if the refuge was in Scotland now, and did not have a blanket trans inclusion policy, the refuge wouldn't even exist because it wouldn't be eligible for funding. Same for any other women's orgs and services.

The Equalities Act 2010 gives women the rights for single sex services were it serves a proportionate and legitimate aim.

Unfortunately the Equalities Act seems to have created a lot of confusion.

Schools are being advised now that a 15 year old female runner who questions whether it is fair for her to compete against somebody with a male body should just be told to deal with it.

The Girl Guides don't seem to know whether girls going to camp should have the choice of sleeping in single sex accommodation.

The Labour Party can't explain why they include some and exclude others from All Women Shortlists.

Its pretty much impossible for a public figure like an MP or an academic to disagree that Transwomen are women.

The protections women have exist because we can define ourselves on the basis of sex and clearly explain how we differ from men, but prominent trans activists call this exclusionary.

The idea that a man self ids as a women one day and goes back to living as a man the next is complete fantasy.

The original criteria was based on the fallacy that it is possible to live as a woman, but equally how do you live falsely in a gender? How would you know the difference?

To protect the rights of a specific group you have to be able to define who they are.

It’s somebody’s complete fantasy...

Pickleme what a good idea.

The idea that a man self ids as a women one day and goes back to living as a man the next is complete fantasy.

What about Pip Bunce?

I suppose in the eyes of the law he is still a man, but he has won awards that are meant for women?

It's not exactly 'complete fantasy' is it?

Sue - there is a UK Police officer who DOES identify as Female one day and Male the next, so not ‘made up fantasy’ at all.
Trans groups are absolutely pushing the removal of Single Sex exemptions.
You’re welcome

We should focus on stopping predatory men not focus hate on a vulnerable group of people just trying live their lives like you and me

I absolutely agree with this. I'm worried that the move towards self-ID has the unintended consequence of making it impossible to tell the difference between predatory or opportunistic men and vulnerable trans people. I worry that this will backfire on the trans community as well as on women and girls.

Sue, how would you define 'woman' and 'man'?

I think so many different issues are getting conflated and driven to extreme examples we are not talking about protecting the rights of all people.

Let’s get some basics. Women have the right to be protected. Trans folk have the right to live without being subject to hate.

The Equalities Act 2010 gives women the rights for single sex services were it serves a proportionate and legitimate aim.

So if a woman’s refuge decided in the circumstances that a trans women should be excluded then they can exclude her now.

There are no plans to change the protections women already have. It is total propaganda to say that the protections are being taken away. They are not. Amber Rudd and many others have made that very clear.

Currently a trans man or woman has to live at least two years in the gender they will live the rest of their lives in, have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and show they have made a significant contribution to society in that gender. The only thing the trans community is asking for is to self declare via a statutory declaration punishable with two years in jail for perjury for falsely claiming they are living full time in their gender.

The idea that a man self ids as a women one day and goes back to living as a man the next is complete fantasy.

Any man wanting to be predatory towards a woman will do so. There is no way that he would go to the solicitors first before acting. It is just a made up fantasy.

We should focus on stopping predatory men not focus hate on a vulnerable group of people just trying live their lives like you and me.

I've started a post on chat for people who find the trans debates on here scary and aggressive sounding, but want to know more. @IfNot @Playdohnut @koyaanisqatsi come along if you fancy it.