The feminist case against anti-trans feminism

@spannablue, tagging you in case you haven't seen all the replies to your thread

OP, sorry your child has been ill however, no one missed you because, as with this thread, all you do is post bullshit and then never engage with the reasoned discussion unless it's to move the goalposts. It makes you look like an idiot.

Actually, I don’t really understand the OP if I’m honest. I’m on day 2 of waking up really fucking angry about all this.

In fairness to that article, it does acknowledge that a feminist position is not necessarily transphobic and seems to engage with the points we make rather than accusing us of being bigots and thinking all trans women are perverts pretending so they can access vulnerable women and that we deny their right to exist etc.

However their central rebuttal is that trans women are not like men when it comes to propensity to commit violence against women. I do not agree. Most trans women pose no physical risk but nor do most men, and my understanding is the risk is largely equivalent.

Also it doesn’t engage with the presence of a penis in female spaces and what that means for abuse and rape survivors, or some sections of religious communities eg some Muslim women.

And it drew parallels with subconscious bias with immigration etc which was really poor.

However while I think the article is bollocks - and I actually am open to a compromise involving trans women in certain spaces - it does at least seek to engage with the arguments constructively rather than shouting TERF bigot #nodebate etc.

Is it anti-trans to worry that we’re fucking up support for young people by taking away medical and mental health support? Or that they can go to a lawyer rather than be referred to a gender specialst?

Is it anti-trans to want to keep a minimum of 2 years in the GRa because many, many young women who explore their gender identity detransition?

Is it anti- trans to not want 16 year old girls to have their breasts removed because at that exact point in their lives they don’t know who they are? Is it anti-trans to understand that the child at 16 is not the same child they are at 18, or the adult they are becoming?

Ian it anti-trans to be worried that we are making decisions which will make matters so much worse for young people? We’ve fucked them on Brexit, we’ve fucked them with student loans.

Is it anti-trans to want to understand links of gender identity and autism?

Is it anti-trans to want to encourage young people to explore who they are before committing to irreversible changes?

Looking forward to your reply OP

trans activists ‘hounded’ abuse victim
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dem-trans-activists-hounded-abuse-victim-b6dx39tv3

''A victim of domestic abuse was removed as a judge of a radical thinking prize and “hounded” out of her role within the Liberal Democrats for saying that she did not believe that men who identified as women should have access to women’s refuges.

Natalie Bird, 38, a mother of two who fled an abusive former partner, was accused of “dangerous transphobia” by transgender activists in the party. She had said that opening up safe spaces without proper safeguards to anyone who said that they were female could put women at risk.

She opposed segregating women’s refuges by chosen gender instead of biological sex.''

This is not feminism, its not feminist activism.

If, on the other hand, trans women are thought of as a subset within ‘women’ – much like the group ‘white women’,

Gosh. spannablue do you think humans can change sex?

Charming! What a bastion of reasoned debate.

I wasn't debating. I was taking the piss. Is that not allowed now, either?

Yes, if you could also define ‘intersectionality’ while you’re at it? Because this idea that all oppressions are lumped together in one big ball as the article states is really not how I would define it. And seems rather to be watering down and defanging the analytical framework proposed by the black feminist who coined the term in the first place, while we’re at it.

I might as well post up a load of tweets by TRAs telling GC women what to do in no uncertain terms (you know the one, usually involving dying in a fire, sucking transwomen's ladycocks, etc).

Now that is "silencing".

The second link is the same kind of a hit piece. So, obviously, attempts by transactivists, including the 'part time trans persona' Natacha Kennedy, to get female academics fired for speaking out, don't count as silencing.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eb941d92-b2ec-11e8-8fb1-ac438dd6af00

Here's another one

You just plop in one TRA argument after another, though. Hardly "reasoned debate".

I'd read it spanna, except that I'm afraid recommendations from people who use words without meanings is as edifying as a chat with my labrador.

Is it like a game to you? Like British Bulldog?
"All the people I 'tick' are women, the rest are men, line up on opposite sides" kind of thing?

Is that what this whole assigned at birth schiz is about? Doctors just randomly picking two teams?

Interesting that Spanna never quotes any of the Jewish or Muslim women who explain they are prevented from using mixed sex spaces.
Or condemns any of the trans activists who call them bigots.

Charming! What a bastion of reasoned debate.

People are pissed off with you because you don't engage in debate. You just plop someone else's blog or a really brief 'what do you think of that' OP and people engage and you don't even have the courtesy to come back.

And why don't you put across your own argument in your own words?

I agree ShowofHands, though, before entering the debate, I would like spanna to define 'woman' and 'female' in a noncircular objectifyable manner, so we all know, what we're talking about.

Charming! What a bastion of reasoned debate.

Why engage in reasoned debate about a blogpost that acts like scientific data did not exist? It is like reasoned debate with my kid about that Martian that ate up all his chocolate at once.

You start the debate and we will join in. Use words, not links.

Ready when you are.

You know, apropos of nothing at all, I made a library card for Bunbury so I could issue out all of our stock in rotation so it didn't get withdrawn. Certainly gets around, that Bunbury.

I gather Germaine is busy writing new material as we speak - the recent revival of interest in her work has given the guru renewed vigour.

You know, apropos of nothing at all, I made a library card for Bunbury so I could issue out all of our stock in rotation so it didn't get withdrawn. Certainly gets around, that Bunbury.

Men as a subset as women is a bit like when as a child you think all dogs are male and all cats are female. Just because they look similar, doesn't mean they're the same thing with the same anatomy or needs. As you get older, critical thinking needs to replace ignorance.

Having put down my Bunbury book for a minute, the takehome message of the article is:

'I could not be arsed to read the peer reviewed scientific work that statistically demonstrates that males transitioning does not change male pattern criminal behaviour, including violent criminal behaviour, therefore, I say that these data do not exist, and if data existed they'd show something different.'.

It must be one of these Pomo principles: 'what I have not read does not exist', or something.

If, on the other hand, trans women are thought of as a subset within ‘women’ – much like the group ‘white women’

Bunbury's suggested response to this is also our new rallying cry: eppur si muove.

If, on the other hand, trans women men are thought of as a subset within ‘women’ – much like the group ‘white women’

That's how much sense it makes to me, spannablue.