Confused

In a prison situation transmen are housed on the female estate? Why is that? Why do we not have similar campaigns arguing that they should be housed with the men? Surely of transwomen are women then transmen are men.

So I didn't know that. Would that also include trans men that had full surgery? They may have a surgically created penis but still be in a female prison? If they had a GRC would they still be in a female prison?

How was that decision made? Surely if legally someone is male they go into a male prison, in a segregated area for their own protection if necessary?

Would a post op trans man be allowed to work in a woman's refuge because they are biologically female? Or to intimately examine a woman? Are there rules covering this?

I totally understand the issues with women's sport.

Even with data collection - so breast cancer statistics could be skewed if trans women and trans men are included? So female breast cancer figures might appear to drop whilst male breast cancer figures could rise if women and men that had self ID 'd appear in the statistics for their chosen sex rather than their biological sense?

Do I have this right?

It's too late for me to take this in I think and for every answer I get 10 more questions.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this though.

If your friend has found a way for humans to actually change sex, and thus TWAW, then this is an earth shattering discovery which would net them scientific fame and probably a Nobel.

So i would be asking if they think humans can actually change sex. Go from there. The whole illogical house of cards falls

Here's the thing though - even if you're comfortable other women may not be, and the standard should aim at making sure no women are uncomfortable.

But will they really be comfortable or just saying they are because to say no labels you as a bigot? Assuming they are actually asked that is, I'm sure the answer would usually be "they'll be fine with it" unless all new members are routinly vetted.

Again though an all female book group could then include a trans man, who looked exactly like a man but who would be considered female because you can't change sex?

Where am I getting confused?

Am I focusing on appearance too much?

I think in my head I'm thinking what would I be uncomfortable with and in truth, not that much - so I personally wouldn't worry about a male dr examining me for example. Have had it many times and it isn't a problem for me though I totally understand it will be for others.

In a changing room I would try to go in a cubicle if not would try and stay covered anyway even if all women in there. I think that I would be uncomfortable if someone looked male - but then they could be a trans woman or a trans man, who is actually biological female so would I be wrong to view them as a man?

The worst case would definitely be someone behaving inappropriately regardless of how they appeared - so whether they passed as female, looked male, looked male but dressed as a female, or male - if they were being inappropriate I would have a problem.

It's so difficult to actually unpick the scenarios and then work out how you feel about it and I would not want to upset anyone whose feelings and motivation was genuine. My issue is with anyone who is doing this for dubious reasons or for the sole reason of attacking or abusing women and girls and I do get the fear of not knowing who is a threat.

Thank you if you have tried to answer my questions.

I would be really interested to read any more answers.

^Excuse my grammar btw I get forgetful when I think!

@BrownPaperTeddy

To answer your question about the lack of discussion about transmen and why the focus is on transwomen.

For myself I would ask the question. Where are the prominent transmen in this discussion? They haven't been excluded by the radfems. Why is it that transwomen have such a large platform? They have been given this platform by organisations like Stonewall and political parties - Green Party, LibDems, Labour. You should ask yourself why the political class is still overwhelmingly male. It is my contention that transwomen retain their male privilege.

In a prison situation transmen are housed on the female estate? Why is that? Why do we not have similar campaigns arguing that they should be housed with the men? Surely of transwomen are women then transmen are men.

The reason is that everybody knows they remain at risk of sexual assault - by males, because they are female. It doesn't matter how you present in reality sexual assault is something done by males against females.

What you end up with in a mantra like TWAW is two classes. Men and non-men. That's patriarchy incarnate

But how would you know all members were actually in agreement? If you present it as "this is what I think we should do to be kind" you've already made it clear that you think not doing so would be unkind, and thus made it difficult for other members to object.

Dommina

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'd put more emphasis on distinguishing between sex and gender. Men being feminine - fine. Men wearing dresses and make up - fine. But they are still men.

In short, my ideal would be a gender less one, where for official purposes we label ourselves as 'male' or 'female' and otherwise get on with our lives.

Absolutely agree with this, but then you say I think a big reason 'woman' is broadening though, and 'gender fluid' people are a thing, is because people are questioning what gender is and what it means, which is a good thing.

'Woman' is not broadening. 'Woman' means adult female human. It does not include men. It is a word which refers to sex not gender.

In some ways, GC feminists and transpeople are fighting or fighting for the same thing. The removal of gender based expectations.

It doesn't seem like that to me. It seems as though gender ideologists want to change the meaning of sex to be something that is described by gender - for example if a man wears a dress he becomes a woman. The GC view is that a man who puts on a dress is a man wearing a dress - but why shouldn't he? Sex cannot be changed, but people should be free to present as they wish.

I don't know how clear that is. It's late and I'm tired.

Welcoming a trans woman into an all female reading group if all members are in agreement, calling her 'she' and treating her with kindness and respect. Small stuff like that is no big deal.

But will they really be comfortable or just saying they are because to say no labels you as a bigot? Assuming they are actually asked that is, I'm sure the answer would usually be "they'll be fine with it" unless all new members are routinly vetted.

@BrownPaperTeddy

These are all really interesting points and I do not have all the answers. This is something which I do struggle to get my head around as well. Honest answer is I don't know.

In a legal sense where services were single sex then a trans man could provide these services because you could be assured their sex had been verified. I would hope that people would be respectful i, for example a woman had requested a female HCP to provide a smear test and was not comfortable with a very masculine presenting person providing an intimate service.

In a day to day setting like toilets and changing rooms my feeling is that those who genuinely do 'pass' could use it without an issue. This does raise a question about people who have religious reasons for needing a single sex facility. Although that person may never know they were sharing an intimate space with a member of the opposite sex, is it fair to transgress their boundaries?

The only solution I can see is to fight for additional unisex facilities and services. These should not be at the expense of female only spaces or disables spaces.

Oops forgot to bold your bit at the top there, Vicky.

Who do you include in your definition of TW, however? Are you happy to have the ones with penises? How about the ones with penises who just occasionally dress in a slightly less stereotypically masculine way? How about the ones with penises who are autogynephiles?

This is the part Im still kind of trying to figure out for myself. I AM gender critical, just probably not to the extent of lots of people here. Do I believe that slapping on some make up and a dress makes you a woman? No. Am I bit at TW who retain male sex characteristics? Yes. However, I do believe that there are traits and behaviours that are inherently female and male. Perhaps 'feminine' and 'masculine' would be a better term. So I can see that there is something, a feeling, that TW might have that I don't understand. So I'm mindful of being respectful of their feelings. I will call any one who wants to be called a woman a woman. I might question it privately, but I think it's respectful to honour pronouns. Surgery and hormones are expensive, life altering, and sometimes just don't work. I can see why some trans people avoid them.

As I said, I interact with lots of TW (and gender fluid, agender, TM, gender neutral, etc) people, all the time. Including what you would probably call 'autogynephiles', because some of them do like the underwear. But then, so do I. I call them women because they are genuine people and I have no reason to believe that they would make something up about themselves that they didn't EARNESTLY believe.

I can also say that yes, they are often subject to discrimination and harassment. In a different way than me sure, but it's very real. Trans people ARE at real risk of homelessness, abuse and suicide. I was walking down the street with my darling friend G, who was SPAT AT by some oik who shouted 'tranny'. Whether or not you believe in gender or whatever, that's disgusting. And it's not uncommon.

I could go on but it's bedtime! In short, my ideal would be a gender less one, where for official purposes we label ourselves as 'male' or 'female' and otherwise get on with our lives. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I think a big reason 'woman' is broadening though, and 'gender fluid' people are a thing, is because people are questioning what gender is and what it means, which is a good thing. In some ways, GC feminists and transpeople are fighting or fighting for the same thing. The removal of gender based expectations. I just have to believe there is a middle ground somewhere.

... Phew.

@VickyEadie

I think I understand that now - that you just won't know who you can and cannot challenge because basically anyone who wants to go in to any toilet or changing room can just by claiming to ID as that sex. Is that right?

So what is the view of trans men? Can they legitimately be in a female space - say refuge, or as a HCP, even if the patient requests a female?

So is it the issue of not being able to challenge them because if they say they ID as female then they can legally be in there?

Even if they're lying - how would you know? It's opening the door wide for any abusive man.

under self-id (as you are aware) they will be able to do so far more easily and we will not be able to challenge them

So is it the issue of not being able to challenge them because if they say they ID as female then they can legally be in there?

Sorry for the question - I really am trying to get it straight in my own head.

What I don't understand is posters on here asking " who will be responsible for throwing out a rapist that follows my niece into the toilet" and similar questions. A rapist, identifying as a man, could follow a woman into a toilet, or be waiting in there, who throws him out? Right now, if a man wants to do that he could couldn't he?

My point in asking that was in response to being told (on this thread) that men who shouldn't be in women's locker rooms could just be "thrown out" - my point was about who would be able to do that.

I'm perfectly aware that men can already (and do) sometimes follow women into such spaces; however, under self-id (as you are aware) they will be able to do so far more easily and we will not be able to challenge them - because, as I asked earlier, how do we know who is and is not trans?

I find this whole issue so confusing and end up tying myself up in knots when I think about it.

I can understand the fear that under self ID men, with no interest in actually transitioning as a woman, can use self ID just to gain access to female spaces.

What I don't understand is posters on here asking " who will be responsible for throwing out a rapist that follows my niece into the toilet" and similar questions. A rapist, identifying as a man, could follow a woman into a toilet, or be waiting in there, who throws him out? Right now, if a man wants to do that he could couldn't he?

I do understand that a man could use self ID as a way to legitimately gain access to say a prison, or to be a voyeur, in a changing room but to ask who will protect a lone girl from a rapist if this goes ahead - it makes me ask how protects them now?

Also why do all of these discussions focus only on trans women? Why are trans men not included because I am just as confused by this issue though it is never covered?

So someone dressed as, and appearing as, a man could walk in to the ladies toilet but actually be, as you would say, female so have every right to be in a female space? Am I correct? So how do I know whether I can challenge or not because this person that appears to be male is actually female with every right to be there?

Presumably as this person is biologically female, though IDs as male, they are fine to work in a refuge? Or be a HCP for women that have requested a female? Even though they look like a man?

These issues make me even more confused because all of these discussions only ever seem to cover the trans women debate and completely ignore trans men.

In the same way as when you ask why aren't men being asked to accommodate trans women - but wouldn't men be asked to accommodate trans men, not trans women?

Where do trans men fit within feminist thinking? I hear the argument that trans women are men because your argument is that you can't change your sex so that follows then that trans men are female - so people who look like men, act like men etc are able to use female spaces because they are female??

I hate asking questions on here because the responses are usually so aggressive but there seems nowhere to actually ask questions or to try to work out how I feel about this. Would it not be better to actually try and explain to women rather than verbally attack them simply for not being as far along the process as you are?

I'm not looking for arguments. I am trying to ask genuine questions so that I can get my head around all of this. If you are just looking for an argument please don't bother, I'll just hide the thread.

It's also illegal to break into people's houses and steal things. Yay, we've solved burglary and those never happen any more!

it is illegal to be a rapist

And that's fantastic because the law protects all women from rapists, especially the ones banged up in prison who wouldn't be able to escape from one, doesn't it?

Oh, hang on...

it is illegal to be a rapist

Is it? Phew! That solves sexual assault then. I'll just call the police and they can arrest him and prosecute because 95% of all reported sexual assaults result in a conviction don't they? Oh wait no, it's the other way around isn't it?

Dommina

You said "TWAW, although a different kind of woman than I. Day to day, I don't believe the distinction matters that much.*

Who do you include in your definition of TW, however? Are you happy to have the ones with penises? How about the ones with penises who just occasionally dress in a slightly less stereotypically masculine way? How about the ones with penises who are autogynephiles?

I'm not getting at you - just trying to ascertain if you have a narrow or wide view of TW.

I don't even know what to call myself any more.

Radfem views I hold seem to be:
-Sex based protections should be offered when it comes to sport, rape crisis centres, refuges etc.
-The oppression of women comes from a patriarchal society which must be reformed, and the root causes dealt with.
-TW and 'natal women' have different life experiences. We are a distinct group and should be afforded distinct protections.
-I am a lesbian, and I'm not attracted to TW. I've never come across any hostility from TW about this though.

Libfem views:
-I agree with the idea of unisex toilets and changing rooms (cubicles!)
-While I vehemently disagree with mainstream porn, I do believe there is ethical porn out there, which I do find and indulge in.
-TWAW, although a different kind of woman than I. Day to day, I don't believe the distinction matters that much.

• I do believe in gender to an extent. Hair and clothes should not be gendered, but I do believe there are certain traits and behaviours which inherently male/female. Just like every other mammal out there. I think denying this is illogical and will not lead us any where.

Perhaps a left leaning centerist feminist?

Thanks for the link, Ova, I'd missed that.

Really can't be bothered to have the same conversation I've had a million times again with Dakinis.

Dakinis
You may as well campaign to do away with the GRA altogether rather than getting hung up on an inconsequential amendment to it.

I asked you earlier who benefits from a change to self ID, and you didn't answer. So I'll ask again. Who would benefit from self ID?

You say the the amendment is 'inconsequential', so why not leave the law as it is now?

If the law is to be changed, it should be up to those who want to change it to show that there is a net benefit. If there is not, then the law should remain as it is. So who would benefit, and in what way, from the proposed change to self ID?