Reducing Moderation Load for MN (continuation of Dealing with Inflammatory Posts)

Not sure what you're saying?

That again you see yourself as more reasonable. Which is entirely subjective. I think it's unreasonable to redefine women as a class to include males.

and I do not consider a dysphoric person delusional.

I have to pick up on this, as a scientist who works closely with patients.
a dysphoroia is, by medical definition, a suite of delusional ideas about the self. Anorexia for example. BDD. The dysmorphic disorders are real and distressing and require appropriate treatment. Gender dysphoria is unique in that one treatment (and by no means the only or always correct treatment) is to change the person physically to meet the dysphoric vision.

So yes, medically and scientifically it is a delusion. I think the reluctance to acknowledge this comes from the stigma that delusional = bad. Delusional means not in accordance with reality - it’s not a judgement on the person themselves. It’s not a value judgement AT ALL. A dysphoric person is not lesser, or worse but neither do we as non dysphoric people change our realities to accord with theirs.

The TRA movement strongly opposes dysphoria as a concept by the way.

I'd happily go out for a drink with Miranda Yardley, take Miranda along to lunch with my friends, include Miranda in the group of people who I invite to concerts, parties, etc. I don't think Miranda is a woman. This does not, as noted above, mean that I dislike Miranda, in fact I'd be happy to include Miranda in most things. Just not those things that are all woman for a reason, like the trip to the hot springs where we're all going to be naked. Even if I personally didn't care in that situation (and I might not, I've done things like that with gay men friends before and not cared) it would never occur to me to presume that my "I'm fine with this" overruled the "not fine with this" of other women.

I do not consider a dysphoric person delusional.
The people suffering the dysphoria, on the other hand, do indeed know that their dysphoria is a delusion. They treat the symptoms to mitigate the suffering because they have not yet found a cure.
The currently advocated treatment of affirming the delusion is proving to be more damaging to the patient than the dysphoria.

We disagree on where the line is.

We do. And yet you say I'm inflexibly sure, and you aren't.

Not sure what you're saying?

Most feminists and so-called "terfs" have for decades included transsexuals into women's spaces and included them in feminism using a reciprocal "honour system" based around trust.

This honour system is being eroded by Transgender advocates who no longer believe an attempt at "passing" is necessary and are frankly making a mockery of the whole relationship between women and transsexuals.

No woman on earth wholly and truly believes that a transsexual is a woman. We afford them the courtesy of saying so in trust.

The line is no line. Transexuals have not changed sex but we accept them because of their obvious effort and feelings of kinship. Self declaring your own sex despite your appearance is just obnoxious especially when you force us to deny reality.
I am happy for people to declare themselves Transgender and all the exciting expression that comes with that. Don't expect me to believe you've changed sex.

We disagree on where the line is.

We do. And yet you say I'm inflexibly sure, and you aren't.

I'm also willing to be sure about gravity existing, and don't feel any more shame about that than I do about recognizing that biological sex exists and has a massive impact on how people are treated throughout their lives.

I advocate including women who identify as transmen in every circumstance that applies to women, PLUS additional specific services that relate to their trans status.

Similarly, I advocate including men who identify as transwomen in every circumstance that applies to men, PLUS additional specific services that relate to their trans status.

This is not advocating for exclusion.

Where the relevant characteristic is sex, they should be included with their own biological sex.
Where the pertinent characteristic is a belief in gender, they should be entitled to associate with those others who proactively share the same belief. However this must NEVER involve co-opting people into a default status of sharing such a gender belief. It must always allow women such as myself to opt out of any category that involves determining a group shared identity.

No, as much as possible without completely undermining women's rights and legal protections. We disagree on where the line is.

As I say, I don't know and my response is to err on the side of including them as much as possible.

Even if that completely undermines women's rights and legal protections?

So how do you suggest this is dealt with? What is your definition of a trans person?

As I say, I don't know and my response is to err on the side of including them as much as possible. I know what it's like not to be a minority nobody understands and I have huge sympathy and I do not consider a dysphoric person delusional.

More than that, though, I think that the people who are willing not to be sure vs the people who think they definitely know is as big as distinction as 'TRA' vs 'TERF'. That's always my main point.

The "no one has a problem with "old school transexuals" rhetoric is no different from xenophobes denying being xenophobes, because they don't have a problem with foreigners they know personally...Whenever challenged, examples from aggressive tweets are brought up. I am friends with a number of transfolk, and follow a few more. They're all pretty openly advocating women's rights, and I never saw any of them posting any aggressive "die in a fire" crap.

Best not to exhibit the behavior you are criticizing in the same comment that contains the criticism.

There is currently an effort to replace UK law based on material reality with law based on subjective beliefs. History teaches us that this never ends well for women.
My question remains the same.
Can you mandate belief?
Can you codify into law the idea that some people can mind over matter themselves out of material reality and into the opposite sex, and must be treated accordingly?
It is like transubstantiation. A belief that no one actually believes.
Will you allow people to drug and mutilate children based on this belief that no one believes?

The "no one has a problem with "old school transexuals" rhetoric is no different from xenophobes denying being xenophobes, because they don't have a problem with foreigners they know personally.

I can see how it might seem that way. I think the reason for this is that 'old school transexuals' have body dysphoria which we can all understand.

Gender identity is something different. It's identifying with something imposed on us by society (girls like baking and cleaning, are no good at maths or parking etc.); it's a division of personality traits into masculine or feminine based on our biology which I don't recognise in myself or wish to perpetuate for my children.

I have a consistency problem here because I find it much easier to use the right pronouns and advocate rights when somebody passes "my own internal tests", as a friend put it. Which for me largely comes down to how well they pass, and that's wrong because you can't recognise rights based on the length of somebody's chin and it needs to be resolved.

Of course someone is not any more or less a woman based on their chin size or hairiness or personality - this is the problem with basing 'woman' on anything other than biology. Men can be 'feminine', women can be 'masculine' and that's great, it's the variety of life.

I have a consistency problem here because I find it much easier to use the right pronouns and advocate rights when somebody passes "my own internal tests", as a friend put it. Which for me largely comes down to how well they pass, and that's wrong because you can't recognise rights based on the length of somebody's chin and it needs to be resolved.

So how do you suggest this is dealt with? What is your definition of a trans person?

"we need a little bit more trans inclusion than you are currently comfortable with"

Can you elaborate on this?

I would keep exemptions for rape crisis and DV centres etc but I would call transwomen women and share the toilets with them. I don't know about shortlists.

I have a consistency problem here because I find it much easier to use the right pronouns and advocate rights when somebody passes "my own internal tests", as a friend put it. Which for me largely comes down to how well they pass, and that's wrong because you can't recognise rights based on the length of somebody's chin and it needs to be resolved.

Basically a moderate amount more trans inclusion than you advocate seems to me the least harmful option, not just for individuals but for, well, the moral standing of humanity as well, really, because I do keep seeing the same fears popping up about trans as we had for the gays and as a gay woman that worries me far more than the infringements you see as happening to women.

:D @AntiGrinch

If one person then states that they find the current tone more considerate and appreciate it, while so many others are so unhappy about the situation, to whom exactly is that situation being considerate, and how considerate are they being in prioritizing their own comfort over that of so many others who share the same space

YY.

They're all pretty openly advocating women's rights, and I never saw any of them posting any aggressive "die in a fire" crap.

I’m sure your friends are decent people. I personally only know two transwomen and they are decent people too. Both horrified by all this TRA stuff.
And yet the tone of the online debate is extremely violent. TERFs, scum, all manner of abuse is flung at women stating biological facts. A man is currently on trial for punching a woman to the floor at speakers corner. Women have been told to enjoy their erasure. Of course there are extreme voices in many movements but when you have people in elected positions of power promoting this line then you have to accept it isn’t a few fringe loonies.

The ‘old school transsexuals’ line is valid. Previously, people with gender dysphoria and transsexuals were generally accepted. They did not try to remove sex based exemptions. It was, as it were, a gentle(wo)mans agreement and things rubbed along OK, in the main.

What’s changed recently is the tone and scale of the debate. It’s gone from a focus on gender dysphoria to this rather extreme idea where men, without changing anything about themselves, wish to be acknowledged as actual women. not as transsexuals, not as transwomen, but as women. And in order to do so they are vocal and violent and want to remove the legal protections for women. I can’t accept that.

I personally think thebupcoming changes to the equality act need to be fought as hard as we can. Once our legal protections are secure we can talk about inclusion. Because I genuinely think the bulk of women on here approach this not from a position of wanting to exclude, but wanting to be SAFE.

If we can't clearly define what a woman is for legal purposes then we also can't protect that class of people legally. There's no bigger threat to feminism than that. The reinforcement of gender norms that are oppressive to women is also a huge threat, and very relevant to feminism in that those gender norms are what we've been trying to dismantle since the very beginning.

Doesn't matter if it's only a small number of people supporting and promoting a thing if they're raising a lot of noise and having a big impact.

Also re Gasping's comment about tone. As can be seen from this thread, there are many women on this board currently who're anxious, confused, angry, worried, etc by the attempts to control the way they speak and make it conform to standards that aren't being made entirely clear. If one person then states that they find the current tone more considerate and appreciate it, while so many others are so unhappy about the situation, to whom exactly is that situation being considerate, and how considerate are they being in prioritizing their own comfort over that of so many others who share the same space? It's a question worth asking.

"Lily Madigan blocked me too"

Slogan for t-shirt, right there

we need a little bit more trans inclusion than you are currently comfortable with

Can you elaborate on this?

NAMALT/NATALT vs a women once said that here therefore you are all to blame.

WidowWadman
Please answer do you honestly and truly believe people can change their sex?
Do you honestly and truly believe people who are observed as female at birth should not have a word in common (such as female) to describe themselves?

I understand what you are saying here and I agree with a lot of it. I keep challenging my thinking on this. I don't want to be 'on the wrong side of history'.

I accept that there is really good evidence for a biological basis for gender dysphoria. I think trans people deserve protected status under the law. But I don't believe you can change your sex.

On the other hand, it is a scientific fact, like evolution is a fact, that humans are sexually dimorphic. Nobody disagrees with this, do they? Women are discrimated against because of their sex. Allowing trans people (many of whom don't even want to change their sexual characteristics) to identify as the opposite sex we lose sex-based protections.

I have no problem with this opinion expressed in this way and I agree with much of it. The "sexual dimorphism is a social construct" stuff annoys me. And I don't, @Ereshkigal, object to many female only spaces. Lily Madigan blocked me too, you know.

I do think that in order to minimise the overall harm to all parties, we need a little bit more trans inclusion than you are currently comfortable with. But these are very fine judgements which do require compromise and experiment and I'd support taking baby steps to see if I'm wrong if that’s what it takes.

What I do object to is being browbeaten with "Transwomen are men", straight after I've just conceded that I can't prove they aren't. You are sure of the answer; I am not. I am not objecting to you being sure, I am simply asking you to not insist that I be sure. That you can't drop it while at the same time as complaining of being silenced is, frankly, a bit Lily Madigan.

And the irony is that it doesn't really affect me at all whereas if you just keep hammering away at people until they agree that you are 100% right you will be the losers. It's a counterproductive strategy because it makes you look like uncompromising extremists and nobody wants to talk with them. So there's your ghetto.