There are genuine transgender people - but they are quiet.

I use a ladies gym.

It is only permitted to exist due to a significantly sized local Islamic community. It is a ‘proportionate means to a legitimate aim’ the aim being promoting health and fitness amongst a community (Muslim women) unable to use the mixed sex facilities on offer.

If a trans identified male were to start using it, a significant proportion of current uses would stop using it. If the facility no longer achieved it’s ‘legitimate aim’ it’s existence would no longer be justified, neither in legal, nor commercial terms.

Mine neither but equally i cant deny that these people exist.

And nobody is denying that they exist.

What is an alternative gender identity?

Transition means whatever the utterer wants it to mean.

Most surgeries are breast implants or facial cosmetic surgeries.

If you mean "male person without a penis" - how do you propose a demarcation of such that could possibly work in any social context?

And do you think you have the right to consent on behalf of women who do not?

my need for sex segregation doesn't disappear because either of those people exist.

Mine neither but equally i cant deny that these people exist.

This may be controversial but I see TRA/modern TG agenda as a common enemy of both women and transsexuals. I know some feel that TG and TS are still biologically male and therefore further distinction is irrelevant.

The most prominant lobbyists for policies and legislation which have and are continuing to inform the 'agenda' are TS though.
In the Uk the founders of Press For Change eg Stephen Whittle, Christine Burns, see also James Morton in Scotland, Sarah Brown Stonewall and Lib Dems, prison policy changed due to appeal by Karen Jones etc etc

Its not possible, however much wished for to draw a credibility line between TS and TG any more than past and present.

There are individuals who have choices aboout where they decide to use their influence and for what purpose.

There has been a steady stream of TS who are seeking to make women 'allied' to their cause.

*Have all the other members been asked in a manner where they're free to answer their true feelings?

Actually they have and are asked every single time I attend*

So no then. They’re not being asked in a manner where they’re free to express their true feelings. They’re being asked to agree to a fait accompli.

Why do you think women join a women only gym? Anyone male, regardless of their inner essence or surgery and drug regime turns it into a mixed space. Something the members have gone out of their way to avoid.

There was a really good attempt at discussion here.
Sadly it's ended like the other times discussion has happened.
I get it, it's a rare thing so all emotions run wild and everyone swoops down all at once. But it's totally overwhelming and unfair in my opinion.

I get it though.

👆🏻That

The trouble is, I have no idea who has gender dysphoria and who is expressing their gender identity.

Either way, my need for sex segregation doesn't disappear because either of those people exist.

You know this really is hilarious how a thread wanting to know why transsexual people are quiet ends up with a transsexual person getting called manipulative and deceptive.

I didnt agree 100% with what was said but nothing rang alarm bells with me and I would have been interested to see that discussion go farther.

Are you still rhere TSNotTG ?

Mu understandingis that transsexual is someone who has Gender Dysphoria and has transitioned whereas transgender is an umbrella term for anyone who chooses to express an alternative gender identity whether diagnosed or not and transitioning or not.

knowyourmeme.com/photos/1313387-lgbtq

Aren’t transsexual and transgender the same thing? Isn’t transgender just a millennial rebranding of ‘transsexual’?

What is a ‘genuine transgender’ person?

What is a ‘traditional transsexual’?

Terms are being thrown around without definition.

If a male is there (regardless of what he calls himself) then it is no longer a female only space, as there is a male in it.

No one can argue with this.

The space was set up for a reason, and the male person has disregarded those reasons and made it into a mixed sex space. Why would someone who respects women, and calls themselves an ally do this?

Passtheknitting

I completely agree

I agree with everything Sweary has said.

Some males may believe that they are somehow internally women due to their belief in sexist stereotypes, and/or because they have had cosmetic surgeries, it makes no difference to me whether they call themselves transgender or transexual. They are all still males and should be restricted from female only spaces, the same as any other males should be, there should be no exceptions made for certain males.

Trying to blur the distinction between intersex and “transsexual” is also something that we see very often in their arguments.

As is the old argument that “none of the women mind me being in their spaces in real life”. If a male is there (regardless of what he calls himself) then it is no longer a female only space, as there is a male in it.
Males that want to be in women’s spaces need to understand that many, many women do not want males in our spaces for many various reasons, trying to elicit sympathy from women in order to get one’s self admitted is a form of emotional blackmail.

Just read this thread and the irony has struck me...

The OP was commenting on how genuine transgender people are being quiet....

We then have someone come along, make a few posts which whilst you may not agree with I found interesting. Then suddenly they get turned on, told they are just like all the other TRA and then the thread concludes with a below the belt dig that wasnt deserved.

This was not fair to TSNotTG.

They just said they would stand alongside women fighting to protect women's rights.

Unless a woman says something they don't like, in which case, collect £200 and move straight on to outrage at non-compliance and appeals to female socialisation.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Should those with intersex conditions be treated the same way as transsexual people (and note intersex is under the transgender umbrella).

Not quite sure what you mean. Treated in what way?

I can't speak for intersex people as I am not one, but I understand their conditions and needs are diverse, and I do wonder what benefit there is for, say, intersex individuals who have infertility issues but no gender dysphoria to be lumped together with people who feel they were born into the wrong body.
There's evidence of persistent lobbying by prominent trans rights activists in this particular area against the wishes of many intersex rights organisations going back years. I would love to know how exactly it became acceptable to conflate the two.

See page 5 of this thread (the whole thread is well worth a read!!) www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?pg=5

14 May 2000 - AISSG UK's 'GIRES Statement'

A Position Statement Concerning GIRES (Bernard Reed) by the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group UK (AISSG UK):

Introduction

The Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (AISSG) is a peer information/support organisation established in the UK in 1988 (formalised in 1993) and which achieved UK charitable status in early 1999. We are completely autonomous but are affiliated to the Genetic Interest Group (GIG) and Contact a Family.

We have around 120 subscriber members (and many more contacts) in the UK (mostly adults but many families too) affected by intersex conditions such as AIS, XY gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer's syndrome) and 5 alpha reductase deficiency; with some XX female members who have Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser (MRKH syndrome, *Mullerian dysgenesis/aplasia, vaginal atresia etc.

We have representatives in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, S. Africa and Spain. Our website at www.aissg.org has received much praise, from people with AIS who come across it after years in the wilderness (having not been told about their condition) and from medical specialists in the intersex field.

After extensive email correspondence with Bernard Reed of GIRES during mid March to early April 2000, we decided not to work with GIRES at the present time. Overall, we wish to disassociate ourselves from GIRES and to state that they do not represent us.

We have already established mutually beneficial relationships with several groups of clinicians and are working with them on AIS-related research projects and the provision of multi-disciplinary patient care. We collaborate on joint projects with other related support organisations (e.g. the UK Turner Syndrome Society, the Anorchidism Support Group) via a consortium set up by the Genetic Interest Group. Within this consortium (set up in 1999) we have recently published a leaflet for clinicians to give to parents on receipt of a 'genetic diagnosis' and have obtained a grant from the Baring Foundation to enable one of the clinical psychologists with whom we work to carry out counselling skills training for the three groups' helpline volunteers. We also work very closely on an informal basis with the UK's Adrenal Hyperplasia Network (AHN) and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) Group.

We do not foresee that an association with GIRES would follow the same spirit as those above, so do not wish to join forces with Reed. We believe that Reed's desire to change the medical management of intersex, although reasonable in itself, is based firmly on the discourse of gender dysphoria (transsexualism/transgender, often referred to as 'trans') and moreover masks an underlying attempt to exploit physical/biological intersex so as to provide an authenticity to that scenario, an authentication that it doesn't need.

We started asking questions about GIRES's policies and aims, about the nature of its membership and its credentials as a mouthpiece for intersex people. There followed a number of emails from Reed giving information about GIRES and asking for our comments on some GIRES guidelines for the medical management of intersex and on a draft synopsis of the issues that GIRES thought the BBC programme should cover.

Throughout his emails, and in his guidelines/synopsis, Reed would employ the phrase "gender identity and intersex conditions" as a means, it seemed to us, of slipping gender dysphoria into the picture without explicitly saying so. While many of the points in GIRES's management guidelines made sense at first sight in terms of intersex, we were wary of this "Trojan horse" approach to including trans within these recommendations because whatever aetiological considerations might link these, in terms of medical treatment there is a world of difference between purely gender issues and the issues faced by intersex children. We did not comment on the content of the guidelines/synopsis.

We noted several other things during the exchange:

a) Reed wrote that "We don't ask our members what conditions they have" and "I am confident that the majority of our members have no condition at all and nor does any member of their families. I estimate that only 7% of the charity's income is derived from those with a condition or the parents of such persons." It seemed strange for someone representing an organisation so underweight on the intersex side of things to be throwing so much weight around in that sphere.

b) names of well-known researchers and clinical experts seemed to appear 'overnight' against the various topics on further drafts of his 'BBC synopsis'. At least one of them (a consultant gynaecologist in the team at the UCL/Middlesex Hospital, London, who are our main collaborators on research/clinical aspects of AIS) had no idea she was itemised in this way and was quite annoyed; so we surmised that others possibly hadn't been consulted either.
(continues)

I don't think TSNTG is conflating their aims with women's rights. They just said they would stand alongside women fighting to protect women's rights.

So I am going to decline to answer such a loaded question.

It wasn't a loaded question: it was a clear question.

Your reaction to it speaks volumes, however.

It is perfectly fine to advocate for your own aims as a transsexual. I will either support or oppose you in them depending on which particular aim is under discussion.

What I do not see as fine is for you to conflate your aims with women's rights. This is no different to any extremist TRA.

Every male transperson seems to have a line in the sand that they won't cross. Some don't think male transpeople should be in women's competitive sports, others won't use female toilets, some don't use female or women to describe themselves.

But for every one who doesn't do those things, another male transperson will, meaning that women don't have any female only spaces or words to describe themselves.

There’s no point haranguing someone who has come on here in good faith to share their point of view. Life for any of us is not black and white. If you are transsexual, with a condition like transsexualNOTtransgender then life is most definitely not black and white and it is difficult to navigate public space, even with the best of intentions. It’s not always safe for transsexuals who present as women to use male facilities. A gender neutral third space is probably the best option, with the proviso that sex-segregated spaces are retained alongside those third space to ensure the safety of children and women.

Let’s face it: the true enemy here is male violence, not people who have a genuine intersex condition and are just trying to live their lives. Male violence against women, children and transwomen is the problem.