transgender supportive, TRA unsupportive

I was coming back in this thread to say that a small linguistic concession is harmful and EluphNaugeMeop's last paragraph hits the nail on the head.

Trans women are trans women
Trans men are trans men

Both should be proud statements, both are true statements, and both should be common statements.

If we can’t hold the line here, our sisters in developing countries will be utterly fucked before they even get started

Exactly!

I'm 100%:supportive of everyone's right to live and dress as they please, wear makeup and hairstyles as they choose, and use the name they want. That harms no one.

No one should be discriminated against in employment, provision of services including housing, medical care etc. No one should be abused ever for being who they are.

But it fundamentally does harm women and girls if a man who chooses to wear a skirt, makeup and long hair is described as "living as a woman" and it is also harmful to describe a woman who chooses trousers, short hair and no makeup as "living as a man". This is harmful because it places unreasonable expectations of performance of femininity as the defining feature of womanhood.

Women and girls are discriminated against due to their sex not their gender. Transmen are discriminated against due to both their female sex and due to their transgender status so my intersectional feminism is very much concerned for them. Transwomen are not discriminated against because of their sex as they are male. They are discriminated against because of their transgender status and they should not be - but that isn't the fight that feminism is concerned with. Feminists centre women.

When examining the rights of a transwoman the appropriate question is not whether they are being treated the same way as a woman would be, but are they being treated the same way as a gender-conforming male would be. If they are being denied housing, employment and services that would be available to a gender-conforming male due to their trans status then that is discrimination. Refusing to address someone by their chosen name is unreasonable. But a male not being allowed access to spaces, services and opportunities reserved for females is not discrimination.

There is no need to describe a transwoman as a man though obviously. Transwomen are transwomen - they are male at a biological level but wish to opt out of the gender expectations of masculinity. That's fine - fully supportive. There is nothing at all wrong with being a transwoman. Transwomen are not women though. Why pretend otherwise? Why be ashamed of the trans prefix? There is no harm or shame in being trans so own that prefix as a badge of honour.

Imo we can advocate for female only spaces and still say that trans women are women - I just think it’s a small linguistic concession we can make that doesn’t really hurt and means a hell of a lot to some people.

What is the difference between a women only space and a female only space?

Are we assuming that everything at the moment is women only, and therefore we are going to have to campaign for female spaces? Or vice versa?

What is the difference between s women and an adult human female?

Excellent post Erythronium

The AWAs have used the trans issue, and the few troubled individuals who lived as best they could, to groom and gaslight a whole society, and their over reach will create a backlash that we've been warning about on here for ages, and part of it will be the people who had these brutal surgeries will no longer be able to comfort themselves that anyone is willingly playing along with the illusion. That is what under the bus means for transsexuals, and it is really cruel

Yep

The family member of mine uses, where possible, the toilet that is unisex. I've never seen them use the female toilets

We are very up for a campaign for more third spaces on this board, we are aware that I’m some cases there isn’t adequate provision for trans people.

By the by, Peter Tatchell was on the the radio last night, discussing the Brunei law of stoning to death gay people.

He stated gay was "same sex attracted".

Now, given what our Trans friends tell us, sex is absolutely meaningless and it's all about gender, therefore a male sex person and a female sex person can easily be a gay couple. PT is officially approved by the trans lobby, yet when speaking on a live interview...ooops!

trans women are women - I just think it’s a small linguistic concession

That's really no different to saying
A packet of crisps is an apple
A glass of wine is a glass of water
A dirty garden trowel is a surgical scalpel

All fundamentally different things.

trans women are women - I just think it’s a small linguistic concession

Small linguistic concession?! No, it fundamentally changes the meaning of the word woman.

As a woman It means a huge amount to me that I can no longer believe news reports when they say "a woman ...". I have to check whether they are really talking about a woman or not.

Imo we can advocate for female only spaces and still say that trans women are women - I just think it’s a small linguistic concession we can make that doesn’t really hurt and means a hell of a lot to some people.

You are contradicting yourself there.

If you say transwomen are women, then they are women! Any advocation for female spaces ould inlcude them, as you say they are women!

Your small linguistic concesssion would hurt very many women - see recent cases in court, womens prisons etc etc. That means a hell of a lot to me and very many other women!

Imo we can advocate for female only spaces and still say that trans women are women - I just think it’s a small linguistic concession we can make that doesn’t really hurt and means a hell of a lot to some people

That is your decision to make, and you have every right to of course.

But why should your linguistic consession mean that women in prison for example, are put at a higher risk of rape and sexual assault?

Giving ‘women’s’ rights to male bodied people will make it impossible to defend those rights in a court of law.

The only reason we have specific rights is because we have female bodies. If we can’t hold the line here, our sisters in developing countries will be utterly fucked before they even get started.

Woman has to mean Adult Human Female.

Frida how is changing the meaning of the word woman harmless?

I’m critical of the concept of gender but wouldn’t want to associate myself with Gender Critical movement because of some of the vitriol (not just on here - on other sites too). It seems like most posts on the feminism boards are about trans people to the expense of more positive discussion.

I dislike the misgendering and dead naming. I’ve never been a trans person so I can’t know what that’s like, and the most compassionate road seems best to me.

Imo we can advocate for female only spaces and still say that trans women are women - I just think it’s a small linguistic concession we can make that doesn’t really hurt and means a hell of a lot to some people.

Although in the long run, and noone will believe me when I say this, I really think it will be much better for people who desire such surgery when it's not available.
Supply is creating demand, and noone is served except those who profit financially.
These surgeries are ethically wrong. Treating a psychological disorder of thinking and reasoning, with physically devastating surgery on a healthy body is just wrong. It needs to end, and the demand will reduce accordingly.

Barracker, yes, I think you're right. That's probably the most poignant thing about the behaviour of transactivists in this - we talk about people being 'thrown under the bus' and the cliche, like most phrases like it, doesn't really convey the true horror of what has happened.

We did, at one point on this board, talk about how there was a tacit agreement that women politely accepted the troubled trans person who 'presented' female out of kindness. Actually, that was something of an illusion itself, but it was probably the best a transfeminine person could expect in fairness as an accommodation. We weren't exactly willing participants in the illusion, but it was a reality. The people who underwent these experimental cosmetic surgeries could comfort themselves that their suffering had achieved something, however illusory.

The AWAs have used the trans issue, and the few troubled individuals who lived as best they could, to groom and gaslight a whole society, and their over reach will create a backlash that we've been warning about on here for ages, and part of it will be the people who had these brutal surgeries will no longer be able to comfort themselves that anyone is willingly playing along with the illusion. That is what under the bus means for transsexuals, and it is really cruel.

I have a theory regarding the "surgery helps some, as a last resort" idea.
I suspect that for many, surgery is a disaster. I've read enough horrifying accounts where the facade finally drops and people admit they're terribly damaged.
But perhaps there are some people who have been satisfied. And yet, I imagine a huge part of that satisfaction is dependent upon the illusion that society was once prepared to uphold: you've had the surgery, we'll play along with you, you're a true Trans.
Physically, the body is permanently hurt. Nerves are severed, genitalia is scarred, urinary function damaged, infections are rife, and often things fail entirely.
Once society withdraws it's cooperation in playing along, the psychological reassurance that it hasn't all been in vain evaporates too.
I think we're heading towards the end of the era where surgery is considered a last resort of good practice. I think it possibly bought satisfaction for a limited number of patients who lived through the particular decades where their belief that they were considered truly changed was indulged kindly.
Those days are numbered, I think.

Sorry that was rambling. What I am trying to say is that the morality of being trans isn’t up for debate. It’s a private matter and vulnerable individuals should be given support along with decent medical gate keeping.

But what is being pushed back against is the imposition of an ideology on society and its resulting consequences.

Does living as a transwoman with a minimum of fuss involve using women's toilets, expecting to be treated on female wards when they're in hospital or taking on female pronouns? My thoughts will always be with the women' and girls using the toilets when they find a man in there or the woman in hospital bed next to a man or the wife and children who now have to believe their husband and father is a woman. In the case of the transwoman you know OP, my thoughts would be with their colleagues, especially the female ones, who are forced to accept them as a woman or risk their jobs.

I'm deeply suspicious of the "minimum of fuss", "quiet life" cliches that are wheeled out in order to divide trans into good or bad as if it's only the naughty ones over there who are causing the problem. It was trans living so-called quiet lives who gave us the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 which kick-started this whole debacle. Public transactivism didn't exist back then (so no vocal TRAs to blame) they just quietly got on with their agenda behind the scenes and managed to legally erase the biological category "woman" without even talking to women once, let alone asking our permission.

As far as I can see the artificial division between "good" transwomen and TRAs is the last vestige of the cognitive dissonance caused by the demand we accept that men can become women. We know it's not true, but the social pressures on us are so strong that the line is drawn between "good" and "bad" transwomen rather than women and people who can never become women (men), which is where it needs to be.

I have to confess that even in the conservative circles in which I move, I don’t know anyone who claims that adults who are exhibiting severe distress shouldn’t be allowed surgery.

Admittedly Catholic teaching doesn’t support gender theory, but there are a minority of cases whereby people feel they have no other choice.

That said, someone who did transition, even if the right pronouns etc were used, would still have to accept that formally they were viewed as their birth sex and so would not be able to contract a valid marriage with someone of the same birth sex and wouldn’t be accepted for priesthood.

You can deal with someone pastorally on an individual level, ensuring that they were made welcome in the parish but at the same time, you would still need to apply the same safeguarding procedures etc and the person wouldn’t be able to force the church to accept that they had ontologically changed.

This thing about wanting to strip trans people of rights is a canard.

That was the purpose of their visit today @MsMcWoodle, to collect screenshots and quotes to suit their agenda. Best ignored and forgotten about as a total irrelevance.

Ah is that what that foot Stampy thread was about earlier that got zapped?

That person needs to grow up a lot.

Sorry haven't read all the thread, but I wanted to add this and don't have much time. I will report it to Mumsnet in case they want to delete and because I want them to see it.
I just caught the thread about narcissism about ignoring the monkey tantrum before it was zapped. It was about narcissism generally and how to cope. This is what has just been posted on Twitter about it.

Your absolute right to wave your arms around ends at someone else's nose.

That's it. That's all.

Well said FloralBunting.
It isn't remotely incumbent upon feminists not to critique things which harm women. Simple as that.

It's also not incumbent on feminists to make sure our critique is dampened with enough platitudes so as to be palatable to men.

Also, don't mistake critique of an ideology with hating on an individual. It may feel like a personal attack if your entire identity is the ideology, but that's not actually relevant.