People apparently support trans

So WHY do trans women (particularly) want to be accepted in to a segment of the population which is not relevant to them?

This is an interesting question, and one which should be asked more often.

Their 'version' of womanhood is a fantasy of their own making. The male version.

It's about as different to actual womanhood as you can get.

Sometimes it's hyper sexualised, as that is how the viewer perceives women. Sometimes it is an earnest desire to become one of the gatekeepers to sex. They view women as the cohort who get to decide whether or not men have sex. If they become one of that cohort, they can say yes to sex all the time. They are the decider. I have the power.

Which is why such importance is placed on not actually speaking about women's biology, as it exclusionary. It spoils the picture. And why you will find lots of blogs talking about how great is to be objectified.

For transsexuals, I believe it is different. My perception is that it's more a rejection of masculinity, which defaults to femininity as the only available option.

But for all the cohorts, they are not actually trying to enter the segment that's not relevant to them, they are trying to get that segment changed, so it is.

Post edited by MNHQ

Again this increased propensity to sexually offend is due to the overly diverse group of people squeezed under "transgender" which does a disservice to trans and women alike. Stonewall shafted their own, royally.

Well, in that case male patterns of offending are NOT the same in the trans community, are they, and something is skewing them higher,

Yes, indeed it is. Weird huh?

Well, in that case male patterns of offending are NOT the same in the trans community, are they, and something is skewing them higher

And? What do you think it could be? And doesn't that make it rather relevant?

I think that is our point! If transgender offenders show a higher propensity for sexual crime, we want them out of our spaces. It doesn't really matter to the victim what caused that behaviour

This is fairly obvious, when crossdressers and such come under the umbrella. Been fairly well known for a while that certain fetishes are very prevalent in sex offenders..so widen the definition of trans to include these fetishes, and obviously the amount of sex offenders in the new trans definition is disproportionate.

Yet, feminists are blamed for this, feminists did not include fetishists under the trans bloody label. Its 'pro-trans' groups that did that.

Yet Another Spartacus - that is a hugely depressing thought. From the few trans people who have posts - I don't think that is the core segment's issue I think thats its more TRA territory. (I truly hope)

Oh, I agree. But many trans people who post here (as you say above) do not want to be considered as women. I was only referring to a particular demographic of those who do.

Yet Another Spartacus - that is a hugely depressing thought. From the few trans people who have posts - I don't think that is the core segment's issue I think thats its more TRA territory. (I truly hope)

Betty - Yes agree. Especially as Trans People have very particular needs. The key issue is that women's messaging is old - sorry - our message is being lost in the "shine new" so we need some better/clearer marketing messages ( Our core product have changed, our value hasn't changed we are still 52% of the population and we have significant spending power and value to the population)
Trans messaging is loud and repetitive - (but untruthful)
Our message is where? Manfriday was inspired (I actually use it as a case study its so good) but why doesn't is resonate with decision makers? Where are we missing a trick? We have a women PM and we are still getting shafted? Where are the "woman allies" - the dads, the husbands / brothers who are not doing enough for their wives / sisters and daughters - selling them short when they are in the boardroom, chambers or courtrooms. Our sphere of influence is vast and we do not leverage it. There is no "Old Woman's Network" but there bloody should be..because there are women in boardroom etc

One thing that's always seemed incredibly obvious proof that TWAW isn't true, is the way TRA behave.
Blatant, in-your-face cases toxic male entitlement.

Outrage, threats and acts of violence, threats of sexual assault, coercion.

Male privilege with a great manicure doesn't make someone a woman.

Well, in that case male patterns of offending are NOT the same in the trans community, are they, and something is skewing them higher

I think that is our point! If transgender offenders show a higher propensity for sexual crime, we want them out of our spaces. It doesn't really matter to the victim what caused that behaviour.

Needchoos great post!

Exactly Needchoos!

If you follow the ‘transwomen are women’ logic, transwomen would no longer receive healthcare appropriate to their bodies (and the statistical risks that their bodies are associated with).

We need women politicians because they understand the difficulties women face in the workplace and in society - these difficulties are related directly to our sex.

I absolutely support trans people in political and public life, but lumping transwomen in with women and putting them on all women shortlists does nothing for transmen and non binary people and nothing to redress the balance of female/male sexed bodies in parliament.

Decisions are made by whoever is in the room at the time - surely equality requires population proportional women AND transpeople in those rooms?

I would also add that it is not being extrapolated to the general population but is made within the context of the prison population in which a substantially lower number of [non - transgender] male prisoners are incarcerated for sex crime.

Well, in that case male patterns of offending are NOT the same in the trans community, are they, and something is skewing them higher, just as something is skewing, say, the 31% of women in prison who have spent time in local authority care as a child.

It's like a person with healthy tonsils demanding access to a tonsillectomy - why!!

One theory is that it is not so much about trans rights as keeping women in our places, silenced and subservient with our rights eroded.

I'm a lurker... don't post often but read a fair bit and this thread kept me awake last night.

I'm a board level marketeer - One of the key frameworks is Segmentation and Targeting.

The key point of segmentation is to group consumers with a similar need to enable effective communication / relevant products and services / messages that resonate etc.
Frustration is created if you are in the wrong segment - we've all had crap sent that's of no interest because it is not relevant.

So WHY do trans women (particularly) want to be accepted in to a segment of the population which is not relevant to them?

Medical needs are not similar - Women cervical screening, maternity, menopause support and a whole host of others

Social Support - Post children back to work schemes (predominately women), pre / post natal support networks

Career Support - Fair Wage, Maternity, Keep in touch days etc.

Yes not all these apply to all women and they are hundreds of other examples but all women can see the benefit for their category because ... the need is the same which is primarily driven by biology. (Just be cause I can't have children so won't use maternity services doesn't mean I can't see the benefit of maternity services etc)

So WHY would a transwomen want to join a segment which does them such a disservice?

From a purely altruistic point of view it would be better for a trans category to be clear about the need that they want satisfying - to enable it to be effectively satisfied. I think many posters have identified within "transgender" there are conflicting needs - so this creates further issues! Wanting to be "women" is not a clear need / to what end and how does it benefit them - they will be ineffectually serviced if this is not clear.

This lack of a clear segmentation / similar needs makes it virtually impossible for organisations to target segments with the relevant service / products further creating frustration on both sides.

It's like a person with healthy tonsils demanding access to a tonsillectomy - why!!

For clarity, that should read: "a substantially lower number of non - transgender male prisoners"

You know that figure is speculative, and it can't be extrapolated back to the general population at large otherwise 46% of women would have attempted suicide at some point in their lifetime and 59% would be alcoholics.

R0 has given the statistics and I would also add that it is not being extrapolated to the general population but is made within the context of the prison population in which a substantially lower number of male prisoners are incarcerated for sex crime.

Violence is never acceptable (except in self defence). Avoiding harassment or violence is vital. Why has there not been a push for third spaces- unisex, gender neutral, fully enclosed, safe, toilet, changing and showering facilities?

Trans men and non-binary people would be helped by this. These people may not feel happy in the female space and not safe in the male one. Might not trans women and women be assisted by those spaces too.

In terms of suppprt for trans people, i think lots of people do 'support' but exactly what does support mean? It doesn't mean supporting self id as I think many people have no idea what self id means.

On a thread here or elsewhere someone suggested speeding up the GRC by not including anything medical. Surely that is failing to support trans people.

@Bespin We do not always agree but i have found some of your posts helpful here. You seem to have good intentions and I feel sorry that many other people have posted in bad faith and that makes some of us suspicious! I may be one of the least suspicious people and I am now dismissing things some say because this debate gets so heated!

I have been reasing and reading to catch up and not posting. So coming to this thread late!

I just wanted to say @Floralbunting has said so many great and helpful things on this thread. And every sympathy for ypur daughter's situation. My best friend's child is going through this now but there does seem to be some light at the end of the tunnel.

"Possibly the fact that 40% of transgenders incarcerated are there for sex crimes? Just a thought."

You know that figure is speculative

There is a full breakdown of statistics including FOI response and MofJ statements:
(extract)
"The MoJ also revealed that 18 transgender prisoners are housed in Category A maximum security prisons. This is double the minimum estimate of 9 identified by Fair Play For Women.

The MoJ’s most recent response to our FOI requests mean that we now have incontrovertible official confirmation that a minimum of 52 of the 125 transgender prisoners (40%) are either held in sex offender or max security prisons. This does not include any data from individual prisons that hold fewer than 6 trans prisoners or any male-born transgender prisoners who have already obtained a female birth certificate, so this 40% figure will likely be much higher in reality. If the MoJ would reveal a complete set of figures, the public would be able to see for itself exactly how much higher this is."

fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

acts of violance and other criminal things are few and far between

March 2018 James Kirkup 'Fear and loathing grips the gender debate'

(extract)
"Many of the people I’ve been in touch with are women who worry about the direction of politics, policy and even popular culture when it comes to gender and sex. And many of them are frightened.

Frightened of what happens if the law is changed to let people born male become legally female simply on the strength of their own declaration. Frightened that the word “woman” will become meaningless and allow the legal rights and protections currently granted to women to be eroded and erased. Frightened to meet to discuss these concerns. Frightened even to speak about them.

Some of these women are political activists and professionals, but some are, to use a clumsy term, ordinary people, women who never gave much thought to politics until they stumbled across this issue through questions about swimming pool changing rooms, Girl Guides safeguarding policies, or Mumsnet. Now aware of – and worried about – politics, they believe they should speak about their worries, but fear what will happen if they do.

Why? Well, as I’ve written before, the debate around gender is poisonous, nasty and even violent. Online conversation can turn extremely hostile when someone questions the orthodoxy on transgender issues – or is simply perceived to have done so: some people have written some venomous things about JK Rowling because she “liked” a tweet some saw as transphobic. Neither celebrity nor the facts (she hit the like button by accident) are any defence from the mob.

Real-world encounters can be nastier still: Judith Green wrote here about organising Woman’s Place UK meetings for “gender critical” women. The video here , meanwhile, shows what happened to a female trade unionist who had attended one of those meetings; it seems she was identified as attending and then targeted for mob abuse when she stood on a picket line some days later. That aggression wasn’t unique; one accusation of assault is before the courts, arising from an incident following protests against a meeting where feminists gathered to debate gender laws.

Other stories in this area involve women who speak out using their own names getting abusive messages at home and at work. In both the public and private sectors, being accused of transphobic bigotry is no small matter, and even many people who know they are doing nothing more than asking questions about an issue of public interest feel reluctant to risk being tarnished with such accusations, no matter how baseless they may be. (For real-world examples of this, see Mumsnet: this thread is just the latest to pop up while I was writing this. There are too many others.) continues

How can it be that in modern, democratic and free Britain in the early 21st Century, women are frightened to meet or talk about law, politics and society? Don’t we have institutions and, more important, social norms that say this shouldn’t happen, can’t happen? Shouldn’t this stuff get the attention and interest of politicians who are supposed to listen to all the different strands of public opinion, and ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard?

Bluntly, why the hell is no one in politics shouting from the rooftops about this stuff? We’re talking about people trying to put the frighteners on Mumsnetters, for goodness sake. In any other area of public life, politicians usually fall over themselves in their rush to speak up for middle-class working mothers. Yet the politicians who were desperate to talk biscuits at Mumsnet Towers are curiously silent about the intimidation that some women now report there" (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/fear-and-loathing-grips-the-gender-debate/

Possibly the fact that 40% of transgenders incarcerated are there for sex crimes? Just a thought.

You know that figure is speculative, and it can't be extrapolated back to the general population at large otherwise 46% of women would have attempted suicide at some point in their lifetime and 59% would be alcoholics.

If acts of violence are few and far between, how come the only meetings women can have are ones that are arranged, hosted and attended by men?

Women can't literally meet up without men being there, if the do they face bomb threats, being beaten up, being barricaded by men in balaclavas, being shut down, being shouted down, meetings being cancelled - how is this few and far between when it is literally every time?

4/7/18 James Kirkup 'Labour and Tories finally see the truth about the gender debate':
(extract)
"It is, again, a simple fact that people with penises have the potential to commit certain acts of violence and abuse against others. That fact is the reason Parliament and society accept the concept of single-sex spaces: women have a right to keep someone with a penis out of those spaces.

Upholding that legal right is possibly the founding principle of several women’s groups that have sprung up since the Government first announced its intent to make it easier for people to change their legal gender. Unlike the charities that lobby for transgender rights, the women’s groups — Woman’s Place UK, Fair Play for Women and ManFriday — have no corporate or public sector funding, and not much money at all. They are genuine grassroots political organisations that have sprung up from a concerned public. Those groups have made a difference. Back in the autumn, that point about female-only spaces was either often ignored or dismissed in political debate. Women talking about penises were ridiculed as bigoted cranks, accused of transphobic misinformation. Their meetings were subjected to violent protests (one person has been convicted of assault) and a bomb threat, threats that went shamefully unremarked on by most politicians. Nevertheless, the women persisted: the meetings continued; the campaigns went on; and it made a difference.

Why has the Government decided to say it will listen to grassroots feminists? That brings me to the less public bit of the story. Some people have been listening to the women’s groups, even if they don’t say so publicly. They include quite a lot of MPs, of all parties. The steady flow of letters and emails from constituents has helped some see that quite a few voters are unhappy about this. (This poll from Pink News underlines that point: 18 per cent of all voters, and 13 per cent of Tories, support allowing people to change their legal gender without medical approval.) That sort of feeling does tell on politicians, even if many aren’t keen to say so publicly, for fear of being accused, like those women’s groups, of nasty transphobia.

(If you doubt the extent of that chilling effect, consider that bomb threat I mentioned. It was made against a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Hastings, in Amber Rudd’s ultra-marginal seat. Even though it would only take a few hundred angry women to switch votes to topple her, Rudd hasn’t yet responded to campaigners’ requests to speak about what the police call a “serious” incident. I find it hard to think of other circumstance in which a former Home Secretary would stay silent about a bomb threat made against a public meeting in their constituency.)" (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

Acts of violence or intimidation are not 'few and far between'. They are routine.

Both for disagreement, and for the very act of speaking about it. The police have visited a woman on another thread because she maintained that nails and a handbag do not constituent a woman.

It's quite clear to everyone on the planet that is a true statement. What is disputed is whether or not she should say it. How she should say it, to whom and why.

Quite normal people are claiming she has no right to say it. Despite her saying it being in defence of women's rights.

People are calling the police on women, the police are responding instead of escorting the complaint from the building, other people on social media feel quite confident to ask how she said it, to whom, and why? Ticking a series of secret boxes to find out whether the woman's opinion is acceptable or not.

This is routine. It's practically guaranteed if you say anything that could possibly be construed as wrongthink.

A page of tweets threatening violence from the same TRAs who would like to access women's safe spaces.

manfridayuk.org/2018/05/04/manfriday-the-11th-our-very-own-art-exhibition/

Can anyone find any examples of feminists making such threats?

Thought not.