Letter in the Times - Plea To The Trans Lobby from group of transsexuals

we have had a lot of stuff on here about men/ trans/ transgender / transsexual people ( delete according to taste) being in the ladies loos.

No. We have lots of threads here about male people in women and girls spaces. It's about changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, to name a few. It's also about the words to describe ourselves and our biology.

Male transpeople come here and make it all about toilets.

Thankyou to members who welcome my input on here, being lonely I really do appreciate it; I do bear in mind it is a place for women to have their say so don't wish to offload.

Just wanted to echo Hamster's comment about not using women's spaces. I also avoid them, but will admit I've used the loo occasionally ONLY when I've been desperate. Otherwise I hold on til I get home.

I don't feel good about it. The Daily Mail article records the time I went to join a gym - when shown around the place and led to look over the changing room, I became anxious to see some women completely nude. I felt absolutely terrible - knowing something they didn't - some even smiled at me, in their eyes I was another woman looking to join that's all. I SO longed to tell them the truth rather than deceive them - I believe in honesty - in the hope they might accept me. But when I had explained myself on previous occasions in women's groups, I got thrown out. So rather than deceive them or risk rejection I elected to leave and never went back.

I acknowledge not everyone will accept me (and I certainly don't want to impose myself on people) but it still hurts. I think someone else has already said they hate being transsexual; I feel exactly the same. Unlike the assertions of the TRAs how can I feel proud to be transsexual when all it has brought me is tears and rejection?

Well; I am back at home now, and I see that things have gone merrily on their way while I have been chugging up motorways. I'd just like to mention one, teeny, weeny thing.

The letter in the Times was about abusive behaviour by TRAs, wasn't it? The contentious issue is self ID. Self Id is the reason why some of us ( ie raddled old long term transsexual men and women) have come out against the govt proposals. BUT;

Threads wander; we have had a lot of stuff on here about men/ trans/ transgender / transsexual people ( delete according to taste) being in the ladies loos.

I posted (1) that I would continue to use the ladies loos. After two decades I would look pretty odd in the gents. And not be safe.

Ironically someone also posted that I should " tell the truth for once in my life" . I was telling the truth there, wasn't I?

I also posted (2) that people had been in loos that did not correspond to their birth gender in the past, now, and would be in the future. Because it is impossible to police, and cannot be achieved, and if it was achieved, no-one could reliably show that it had been.

This, I thought was a rather apt way to point out a fact, and to try to get us back to what we CAN achieve . Which is a successful campaign against self ID.

But, in a typical bit of unfriendliness,which we often see, Miranda Yardley chose to say that I was " taunting" people with the "you can't get the trannies out of the loo" point. I am not taunting anyone; why would I do that? I am saying that that is an unrealisable aim, and a sideshow.

Anyway, I've been in Surrey, camping on someone else's computer and childcaring my grandchildren for two days. No-one rugby tacked me to the ground for being a " strange man " with two small children, and taking them into the ladies. The two kids know my origin, they know that I was their mothers " dad". They NEVER slip up on pronouns, because they have never known me as anything else but Grannykay.

So, a nice bit of normal life, with everyone getting on. It makes such as calls for 4th spaces fall into context.

We; ie you, and yours, and me, and mine, must try to stop self ID. That CAN be achieved. To say that we must " have no males in the ladies, or that post op TS women should not go in there is not a realisable aim . Or so I believe. I AM allowed to have an opinion, and state it, aren't I? :-)

There's something absurd about watching a bunch of male humans argue among themselves about which of them should and should not be considered women

On that we agree. Irreversible medical treatment should be impossible to access without adequate screening. The fact that some potential patients are turned down is a feature, not a bug.

I think extensive psych evaluations should be part of the process for the patient's own good. When a friend of mine was transitioning over 20 years ago that was one of the things that activisty types were already trying to eliminate, because it meant some people being told "no" and obviously that was an outrage.

It doesnt do anyone any favour when a diagnosis becomes a simply rubber stamp of what a patient wants. You think you are trans ? Then you are.

True transexualism does exist as a genuine psychological disorder (albeit rare compared to todays loose standards) and one that requires very careful evaluation and treatment with transition only ever being the last resort. I think it also vital to understand that feelings associated with transsexualism may be symptoms rather - certain presentations of bipolar, past trauma and abuse and other factors for example can be an important factor.

In no other branch of medicine would you get away with the lazy, self affirming approach that we are seeing.

There's something absurd about watching a bunch of male humans argue among themselves about which of them should and should not be considered women

you do have a way of cutting to the heart of the matter AAK which I appreciate, even when my female socialisation makes me feel embarrassed or uncomfortable reading it

Maria Maclachlan whose attack by T Wolf was referenced in the letter was targetted on twitter this week and suspended as a consequence.
(another example of attempted control)

www.peaktrans.org/another-feminist-voice-silenced-on-twitter/

The idea that a mother trying to protect her child is using the child to "score points" is pretty despicable. Reminds me of the first time I saw an MRA accuse a woman of "playing the rape card".

Perhaps we (adult human females) instead should focus on the harassment, threats and abuse directed at women?

I posted this on another thread this morning:

"I've read two pieces of important writing which are pertinent to this thread and exemplify the heart of the issue:

Twitter thread by Jammersminde February 2018:
"I often talk about my experiences of Domestic Abuse/Violence, of being in refuge with my child, my sense of safety and security when I try to engage with TRAs. I don’t do it to gain sympathy or to play victim olympics, but it goes directly to why I am so concerned not
only about the proposed changes to the GRA but also increasingly about all the companies and services who are choosing to ignore the sex based rights women have under the EA.

Because of this, I have been accused of using my child to “score points”, being an “abusive mum” bringing my child up to hate and fear men, being transphobic, not giving a damn about abused TW, scare mongering etc etc.

None of which is true.

In return I have repeatedly explained why women and children like us (not only us of course) need guaranteed male free spaces

I have gone into more detail about our trauma, ptsd etc both here and on FB than I really wanted, as I desperately hoped that it would make at least one person understand and see that needing our female only spaces doesn’t come from transphobia. I have made clear that I would always support trans rights but that we have to find a way for it to work for everyone, not just the minority. I have tried to stay calm in the face of pure misogyny, aggression and disregard to OUR rights to feel safe, secure and comfortable.

I have been ridiculed, called names sneered at and told my child should learn to share and get over his transphobia. This has been in response to me explaining how even a male voice would see him shaking and crying with fear when we first arrived in refuge.

Grown men have told me that my then 7 year old traumatised child should get over himself! I have been repeatedly told that a TWs NEED to work in a refuge shouldnt override the residents NEED to keywork with women only and have a women only environment.

I am being told that all the issues there already is in mixed sex services is our problem to deal with and if it means we can’t use them, well I deserve that because I’m a bigot.

I never intended to mention that we were in refuge. It’s a very painful thing to acknowledge to yourself and even harder to speak about, but I made the choice to do so hoping, as I said above, that explaining what the effect of male abuse has on women and children and how self ID and the continuous withdrawal of our sex based needs will have a huge impact. Not just for us, but for all the women and children who for whatever reason need/want to know that there are places which are for females only.

So today someone said that I was lying about it all. Thankfully I didn’t see it, but the person who said it was a TW who referenced an earlier convo where again I had tried so hard to convey my concerns and fears. Being accused of lying about this was probably my last straw. I don’t like the peak trans # as I know amazing TW so I won’t use it, but yes, today is the day where I just can’t try any more.

It took me a long time to admit my concerns about the ever increasing demands coming from the TRAs to myself, even longer to voice them quietly. I came to Twitter in November to reassure myself that it couldn’t be as bad as I imagined and as some people told me, but it’s worse, it’s horrifyingly worse.

The threats of violence, the delight found when someone was physically hurt, seeing DV action groups supporting male on female violence, the hate filled loathing of anyone who asks the slightest question, the refusal to consider women and children in all this.

The posturing, the sneering, the intimidation.

Do you know what it reminds me of? 10 years of hell. 10 years of belittling, gaslighting, humiliation, threats. I won’t give the info on the physical stuff, that’s mine.

Pure male misogyny, violence, hatred of women. And all this from people who say they feel like me...a woman"

[twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/966488560374337536]

& then this recent article
'Trans women should be allowed in women’s shelters – here’s why'
by ESTHER BETTS
03 DEC 2018
www.thearticle.com/trans-women-should-be-allowed-in-womens-shelters-heres-why/

I think extensive psych evaluations should be part of the process for the patient's own good. When a friend of mine was transitioning over 20 years ago that was one of the things that activisty types were already trying to eliminate, because it meant some people being told "no" and obviously that was an outrage.

Credit where it's due: I appreciate you saying yes to that suggestion, cant.

It is tragicomic that this of all threads has descended into a number of trans people attempting to control what women can say and what we should focus on. The idea that a woman's natural role is facilitating someone else's journey of self discovery is as sexist as it gets.

This indeed ^^

(Rule 11 was mine, btw. So proud that she decided to use it!)

It is tragicomic that this of all threads has descended into a number of trans people attempting to control what women can say and what we should focus on. The idea that a woman's natural role is facilitating someone else's journey of self discovery is as sexist as it gets.

There's something absurd about watching a bunch of male humans argue among themselves about which of them should and should not be considered women. And then getting angry with women who have the nerve to suggest that perhaps we should be consulted on this issue.

I miss TheBewilderness posts here. Her work is important (& I'm never quite sure which rule/s to post. So here they all are:

'The rules of misogyny
1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.
2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men thus male violence against women is justified.
5th rule of misogyny: WATM! Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
6th rule of misogyny: Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breast feeding babies deserve punishment.
7th rule of misogyny: Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
9th rule of misogyny: Men always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say. 10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it males men look bad. 11th rule of misogyny: Basic pattern recognition skills are cruel and evil when they hurt men's feelings.

12th rule of misogyny: whatever women suffer from, men suffer from more.

13th rule of misogyny: Women are not oppressed! Rape and catcalling and objectification are all compliments, not oppression.

14th rule of misogyny: Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent."

By that argument you could argue that any minority group should get nothing. The majority should never be inconvenienced and the minority should suffer in silence. Fine, you disagree with where things are at but its certainly not ego.
But how do other minorities "inconvenience" the majority? Other minorities have fought for basic human rights. I'm slightly at a loss as to what 'trans rights' means. It seems to be about special rights and special privileges, not human rights per se.

This thread was started in response to a letter in The Times signed by a number of people identified as transsexual.

It seemed to be about the condemnation of control, abuse and sexism directed at women (adult human females)

As transsexual people we are dismayed by the escalation in harassment, threats and abuse directed at women and women’s groups in the name of “transgender rights activism” (“Trans lobby sent me death threats, claims professor”, Dec 6). In the past few years violent rhetoric on social media has spilt over into real life too often. After the harassment of Julie Bindel and the Working Class Movement Library, the physical assault on Maria Maclachlan and the recent use of “masked-up” tactics at a feminist meeting in Bristol, we are horrified by the intimidation and abuse directed at the human rights expert Rosa Freedman.

We seek to find common cause with women against male violence and we condemn the threats, harassment and intimidation of women who argue that sex-based protections are vital in a society still punctuated by sexism. Women are oppressed because of their sex, not some metaphysical gender identity.

Some on this thread seem solely focussed on ensuring women's concerns be with what some transsexuals believe to be common cause eg their cause.

There's something absurd about watching a bunch of male humans argue among themselves about which of them should and should not be considered women. And then getting angry with women who have the nerve to suggest that perhaps we should be consulted on this issue.

Men are what men say they are, and women are also what men say we are. Why on earth would what the vagina people think matter? This is an issue for important people to decide! So, you know, the ones who either have or once had a penis.

Stephanie Hayden was part of the first group of transsexuals that delineated themselves as against self-ID and different from TRAs. Jus' sayin'.

TRA = trans rights activists.
Some are transsexual.

Does anyone argue that Whittle isn't transsexual? Because if they are then the whole "well we're just trying to make lives for ourselves" argument falls apart at that point, because Whittle has gone far, far beyond that and is responsible for many of the policies that would fall under the general heading "TRA stuff".

bold fail above of what seems the most pertinent part of Stephen Whittle's post:

If the reforms are derailed, past experiences have shown us that many trans people will become depressed. There might be a small public demonstration, but I doubt it, as people will be at a low ebb.
In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one”.

So what's the "big one"?
& are Labour "behind this one"?

For those TS concerned by self-id, it would seem there would be more effective places to protest than FWR.

Does that include a psychological assessment of the attitudes a prospective transitioner has towards women?

Simple question. Yes or no?*

I have no issue with that being included at all. I think it should be something to be assessed.

Stephen Whittle's response to challenges on this board about his use of predicting suicide in Guardian article:

I agree. In hindsight I should not have said that - but the Samaritan's guidelines never cross my mind. The problem is the media is always in a rush. If I had insisted upon the time to think, I would have much preferred it if I had said the following:

If the reforms are derailed, past experiences have shown us that many trans people will become depressed. There might be a small public demonstration, but I doubt it, as people will be at a low ebb.
In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one”.

I hope that clarifies matters.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?messages=100&pg=1

The thread is worth reading.