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

Cisters: I hear you 🙂

I don't think anyone really believes transwomen become female do they?

In many respects yes Barmer. In some, no.

Lass

Do you agree that its magical thinking to imagine that anyone can change sex

If the GRC works to protect women and children from sexual predators then I will accept the legal fiction. I haven’t seen any longitudinal studies for the UK so it’s an act of faith. I’m open to being wrong on this because I have no evidence to prove that safeguarding is sufficiently rigorous. You strike me as open to persuasion given credible evidence too.

I’m not prepared to extend that faith to just any Tom, Dick or Harry in the way self id requires. Because I don’t trust strange men no matter what they identify as. Do you trust men you don’t know?

You think it’s an ass Uterati because you don’t agree with it but that’s not the case for those whose rights are protected by it.

There have been laws denying full legal personhood to people of non-white races, in comparison to white people.

Yes and there have been laws in the past denying full legal sex to transitioned people, in comparison to non trans people. But fortunately we live in a different era now.

you are going to have a pretty tough time trying to construct a coherent account of reality.

Ontological issues aside I’m doing ok with reality. I think. (Therefore I am).

Another group of radical separatist feminists who are not only against self-id but they do not accept any trans women (or 'TIMs' as they would say) as women and do not accept them in women-only spaces at all, no matter what process they have been through.

I know you like to play fast and loose with the meanings of words, but I dont accept male can become female and I'm not a radical feminist or a separatist. I'm just a woman who understands biology.

I don't think anyone really believes transwomen become female do they?
It's more a matter of whether you'll say it or not.

We need to hear from different groups acting in coalition and speaking together to show (from their particular group’s perspective) the multiple adverse effects of legalising gender self ID. I hope we see more letters like these from sports players and competitors, women’s literary prize winners, child protection specialists, women who want female changing rooms and toilets, the list goes on.

well this is going swimmingly.

How the actual fuck are we suppose to make ANY headway with this, when some on here won't even allow small victories, just because they have not been done to their approval.

This argument is so new to so many people, most of the time you have to go through it step by step to reach conclusions.

On Mumsnet posters my see arguements and think WTAF you're all Mad, but then lurk for awhile and read stuff until for some the penny drops.

When putting things in a reluctant media, and to many people who haven't glue. You just can not go in all guns blazing.

dividing the way forward doesn't strengthen anyone's positions.

Wtf some people said thanks, some people said we don't owe thanks, big deal, what is this argument even about? Deliberate sowing of discord by TRA.

I don't think we can blame TRAs for this one, Pratchet. Seems to be sisters doing it for themselves.

super - in this respect the law is an ass.

They are NOT women. They REMAIN men.

There have been laws denying full legal personhood to people of non-white races, in comparison to white people. Does the fact that this distinction has been made in law mean that there is a de facto distinction to be made between people of different races? Or does it point to the fact that some laws are unjust, nonsensical and not in any way rational?

If truth and reality consists in what is enshrined in law at any particular time and in any particular society you are going to have a pretty tough time trying to construct a coherent account of reality.

Yum. Cake. Now we're talking.

Wander - exactly.

But it is not. They are men. Stand up and say it.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it.

letter cleverly creates the position that transsexuals are no longer male bodied and are no longer to be considered as men.

It doesn't need a letter to the Guardian to do that. The GRA/ law does it already:

"the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)."

Male to female transsexuals are no longer considered as men.

I was around at the time of the Sweary incident, read all the posts here and those linked to on Angels and didn't get it either. Perhaps that's me being autistic

No, I didn't get it either. I don't know who sweary is 'in real life' and as of about a month ago I started stepping back from FWR partly because I was getting the strong impression that there was an odd subtext, perhaps from people who were connected 'in real life' or on the twitersphere that I didn't understand and wasn't part of (and didn't want to be). I also can't remember the transexual posters asking for thanks and I also don't see the point in thanking them as such, but congratulating them on a good letter is different. I do see them more as allies than as enemies and I am happy to read their posts here. I suspect there will be issues of disagreement but the vitriol is puzzling me (perhaps because I don't understand the subtext and the behind the scenes stuff).

• TheUterati Not awful posts @Lass*. The truth. Reality. Yes, the message about sexual fetishism needs to get out. But another message that the letter conveys is that transsexualism is a real and valid thing**

Kind of what one would expect it being written and signed by transsexuals n all...

Wtf some people said thanks, some people said we don't owe thanks, big deal, what is this argument even about? Deliberate sowing of discord by TRA.

And there are feminist who are fine with self id

And they get very short shrift on here.

There is a very vocal element though that is getting the attention from the public and that leads to Mumsnet being labelled as transphobic. All the less inflammatory side, or trans-positive feminism (if there's much here) doesn't get reported

There is a very vocal element on here. I started hiding trans threads because frankly I did find much of it transphobic. That thread about the theoretical trans bra fitter on M&S for example.

Not awful posts @Lass. The truth. Reality.

Yes, the message about sexual fetishism needs to get out.

But another message that the letter conveys is that transsexualism is a real and valid thing. The distinction between real and valid transsexualism and invalid opportunistic transgenderism in the letter is couched such that transsexuals are posited as having meaningfully become women, or at the very least that the accommodation of transsexuals into women's spaces does not in any meaningful or legitimate way compromise or harm women's rights.

NOWHERE does the letter state that all these signatories are men and will forever remain so. In fact, by referring to 'male-bodied' individuals who are not entitled to access to women's spaces and signposting these individuals as included within invalid and opportunistic transgenderism, the letter cleverly creates the position that transsexuals are no longer male bodied and are no longer to be considered as men.

One of the messages that this letter sends out is that it is possible to meaningfully change your sex, by undergoing the appropriate procedures.

This is not a positive step. This is part of the gaslighting.

Agree with @Ekphrais and @JustABrokenDoll

Anything that chips away at the controlling TRA narrative is fine by me, and no doubt this took guts.

This takes nothing away frommy many feminist sheroes, who have sobe and continue to do amazing work for women

"Here are some of the main divisions on this board, which at the same time is an echo chamber" is pretty damn funny.

I don't think anyone here was saying they can't.

Well, that's the problem with getting you views of the site from edited highlights from other sites with a vested interest in getting women to shut the fuck up.

And women can be as vocal as they like here.

I think it just highlights one of the main divisions on this board.

Doesn't that in itself prove that FWR is NOT an echo chamber? My understanding of echo chamber is somewhere where only one opinion is expressed over and over. Kind of like groups on twitter who use mass block lists to avoid seeing any opinion that deviates in any way from what they want...

Yes that makes sense. There is a very vocal element though that is getting the attention from the public and that leads to Mumsnet being labelled as transphobic. All the less inflammatory side, or trans-positive feminism (if there's much here) doesn't get reported.

I would say that there is no such thing as a consensus on this board. The range of opinions is very broad, hence why the debate is so passionate and lengthy.

Anyone trying to pretend that all of FWR speaks with one voice and in a particular way has their eyes and ears shut. Or is being deliberately goady.

There are loads of posters on here I mostly agree with, or rarely agree with or completely disagree with. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.

Oh really on this board? Haven't noticed that myself but only been here 2 or 3 weeks. There seems to have been so many name changes lately I don't even know who is who anymore.