Letter in The Guardian from Transexuals saying self ID not the answer

KayM2 I was a girl who wanted to be a boy. Turns out I am both autistic and bisexual, both "risk factors" if that's the right word for questioning one's gender.

That's why I'm worried. I'm worried for the children and young people like I was. I know I would've been extremely confused if I was growing up in the current climate, and feel a lot of pressure to identify as something. I wasn't a sexual being then so I wouldn't have recognised same-sex attraction as a possible solution.

I watched a 'mastectomy' regret video on YouTube earlier. In another lifetime that could've been me. That's where I come from.

I still don't understand why people can't appreciate that there are several very different but equally as valid perspectives to this.

Ekphrasis Quite!

*Think

I think everyone I know who might see it would thing - "errr how is this transphobic?" And get thoroughly peak transed.

Ekphrasis I think the Twitter account is great. It shows just how impossible it is to speak without being called a transphobe. Let them carry on I say.

Is it me or is that twitter account very helpfully collating quite a lot of scientific factual statements all in one place?

It's like the flat earth society screen shotting Prof B Cox's musings about the Earth in space.

For information; the response of the trans/ transgender/ transsexual world to the letter in the Guardian has been mixed, but mostly predictable. A " cancelling out " petition is being developed, and unsurprisingly there will be far more signatures than our 17. Well there would be, wouldn't there? As " trans" is a massive catch all, and is almost meaningless, there will be lots of people keen to sign.

The terms of the petition, though it appeals to emotion, does not currently address the issues that our letter tried to deal with. It is clear that people are driven by a wish for " right on" solidarity, and personal advantage **and not at the potentially dangerous developments for women, girls, and, yes, diagnosed transsexual people. And for people who are troubled, thinking they have found out why, and acting too hastily.

Life will go on, and so will the controversy. Not everyone likes us, we "signees", but a surprising number seem to be quietly supportive.
** Gender Dysphoria is not a nice thing to have, so people tend to look for a solution. Like sheep looking for a hole in the hedge to escape through. They don't think about what might be on the other side enough.

JustABrokenDoll It's a new account

The person who set up those Twitter accounts said they'd now been shut down. Not sure why MN would still be taking reports from allegedly defunct accounts?

Are they deleting tweets as soon as the report is actioned on? I'm not seeing anything beyond the 2nd of May there

I'm new to Twitter though so I might be twittering wrong...

Both posts have been reinstated now.

But the next shift at MumsnetTransphobia Twitter will simply report them again I dare say.

If you are watching this thread - I WAS QUOTING THE LETTER IN THE GUARDIAN YOU NUMBSKULLS.

MNT posted one of my posts, it's still up here. I do think however, MN is becoming very trigger happy.

@MNHQ coercive control training for moderators - please.

Also: algorithmic prejudice may well be illegal after May 25th.

Also: being able to take reports via Twitter was a bad move. It’s open to abuse and mobbing.

But MNHQ has now deleted another post of mine (which says exactly the same thing as in the first post) after MumsnetTransphobia Twitter reported the second post as well.

Seems like MNHQ go into automatic deletion mode when reported by MumsnetTransphobia.

Even when MNHQ have reinstated the initial post, they will still automatically delete the second post SAYING EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Even though there is nothing wrong with the post (according to MNHQ).

And of course I wouldn't have needed to write the second post if MNHQ hadn't wrongly deleted the first one.

It does seem that automatic deletion (from reports from MumsnetTranspobia) is at work here.

Mumsnet have reinstated my post.

:)

Mumsnet have reinstated my post.

Because there was nothing wrong with it.

Rose of Dawn is in Whitehall for the DOF march at the moment according to their twitter. I've been following some of it on twitter to see what's what and seen tweets from 3 trans people attending.

There's a petition now been started to counter this letter. They're looking for trans-identified people to sign to rebut it.

twitter.com/radfemangrybird/status/993128340788785152?s=21

MNHQ can you please reinstate my post of 19:21 on Friday 04 May 2018? You have deleted it in error.

My entire post was as follows. The words in quotes are where I quoted The Guardian letter. I am not responsible for the content of The Guardian. Thank you.

"This is problematic when such male-bodied people, including sexual fetishists, demand the rights afforded to women as a protected sex, including access to their private spaces."

That reference to sexual fetishists is really important.

Gets it right out into the open.

Well done to everyone involved.

Rose of Dawn was one of the signatories of the letter, this is her most recent video. She discusses the power of non-binary ideology in relation to NUStrans18.

One extra thing - where a person is requesting access to single sex provision, it should be legal to ask to see a GRC. Otherwise how do you know someone's got one

I was thinking that might be a way to get around the problem of having someone standing in front of you who is clearly male, claiming to be female. As asking to see a GRC is illegal, there is no way to challenge this claim.

In certain circumstances it should be reasonable to ask to see either an original birth certificate (which will have the birth name and sex), or if the individual can only produce a copy birth certificate then it will need to be accompanied by a GRC.

In the example of a trans identifying male HCP it is obviously the responsibility of the practice / hospital where they work to understand that that member of staff is male and not field them in scenarios where a service user would legitimately expect a female, unless they have agreed to a male by prior consultation.

Thanks PermissionToSpeakSir i'm glad i'm not being considered a cool chicken and I understand your point.

You sound lovely flowers - I wasn't singling you or anyone out.

I just don't agree with the point of view in an 'honours systems' for males (whether pre or post op) to be allowed in women's single-sex facilities.

A hypothetical scenario - women in the ladies, TIM pops head around door, asks "is it alright if I pop in for a wizz" women near the door say - "no, fine, come in - thanks for asking", while a woman like me is in the cubicle feeling massively uncomfortable that those women had said it was okay without consulting everyone. Even if they had asked all the women who said they didn't mind - what about the next woman walking it? They didn't ask if she was okay with it - they couldn't have.

An honours system is not okay, if everyone is not okay with it, is my point.

I agree with lang about 11 posts back.

The reason why I suppose it's helpful for women (repeating myself) is simply that the TRAs have been so very set on labelling any of the concerns set out by WPUK, which over lap with the concerns on angry bird's thread and in this letter. This letter included some of the points that WPUK make.

Of course it's transsexuals speaking up for themselves but as I said before in this very apparently polarised debate on twitter, it shows that the Rad Fems and the TSW are able to act as allies. It calls for reasoned debate.

I for one actually feel less scared to speak about my newly acquired rad fem ideals in relation to anything linked to trans simply because I know many trans people have this view and aren't into the batshit crazy crap of the woke unicorn umbrella spectrum lot. And are querying self ID from their own perspective.

They didn't have to speak up, so loudly, in a publication that has been trashing women bar a few of its contributors attempting to occasionally try to redress the balance. So I do say thank you.

The GRC was supposed to be a 'little white lie'.
Always the wrong choice.
'Protecting' a group of people by giving them the right to lie leads to enforcing others to collude in a lie.

And the little white lie is growing at an exponential rate as thousands want a piece of that action, without the gatekeeping too.
The little white lie was never 'white' and it sure as hell isn't little. It's a whopper.

The little white lie of legally changing sex has reached the end of its shelf life. It's time for a better solution.
In perpetuating the lie we are creating generation after generation of people harmed by it.

Sex never changes. The law must reflect reality. It's time to create legal protections for people who want to change sex that do not affirm their false belief that they can. But that instead protect people who can't accept reality easily from being affirmed in their false beliefs.

The only people we should be affirming in false beliefs are end stage dementia patients and people who lack capacity.