transgender supportive, TRA unsupportive

Fantastic post by theotherpamayres at 10:35 which I will repeat again here

*When people accuse women us of being anti-trans, I just give them examples of women working for female-to-male transmen, when everyone else looks the other way and ignores their needs.

For instance...... The government department of Women & Equalities proudly announced a health initiative for LBGT women, specifically mentioning lesbians and transwomen.

It was women who pointed out that, yet again, the female sex was last in the queue. They pointed out that it was more important to the government to validate MTfs than deal with the very real and present health challenges facing transmen.

The LGBT health organisations wouldn't dream of standing up for transmen, if it meant that transwomen's feelings were hurt. In fact, they were silent. They consistently show that they don't care about the female sex. Women stand up for FtMs all the time.

Another example would be the groundswell of concern about teenage transmen. It was places like Mumsnet that cared while the trans lobby used girls on the autism spectrum to further the cause for self i/d. History will judge whether the trans lobby acted in the intrests of teenage transmen. Personally, I think the women's movement may have stopped a catastrophe in the making.

When people accuse feminists/mumsnet/women of being anti-trans, we just point to a record of including transmen in our feminism. We don't care about your gender. It is meaningless to women. Transmen are adult human females, transwomen are not.*

And yet to say that feminists include transmen in their feminism because of their unique health needs due to their female biology is transphobic. Which is why the banned term 't*fs' is absolute bs; feminists do include T in feminism as pam points out more eloquently than me.

But clearly some GC people think that trans just shouldn't happen. No! I think you might be mistaking I have no bloody idea how I am supposed to deal with that for not wanting something to happen.

I cannot square away my willingness to live and let live with the misogynistic bollocks we are being asked to swallow by TRAs. At this precise moment in time my opinion is that anyone can be as trans as they like, but piss off making me feel uncomfortable in female spaces. As a woman I have the right to say "No!" and I do!

Not because I wish to deny anyone's being but because I want to say out loud that transwomen are not women - because they are not! Thank the TRAs for pushing and shoving me into that corner. I like it no more and no less than anyone else!

And there's a view that really no one should.

If we come from the actual basis which is that there is no way, on earth, that someone can actually 'change sex' as sex is fixed at conception. From there it really depends on what 'transing' is.

If it is someone saying words in order to gain access to spaces that will actually endanger the usual users of that space then how is that transing anything?

If you are saying that transing can only happen once surgery on genitals has happened then you will be targeted as being a bigot.

Nobody can actually change sex.

There are lots of varieties of 'GC' because its not a unified thing you sign up to. Everyone involved has their own thoughts and opinions because it's not a cult.

Yes, most of us come from a liberal perspective of 'if it doesn't hurt anyone, do as you please' - but the more you think and explore the issue, the more harm you discover. The transwidows, the confused, possibly gay young people set on a path of mutilation, the reinforcing of Gender by trans everything that comes up with ideas like 'cis' and tries to impose it on women, the continual erosion of women's ability to set their own boundaries, sexually and otherwise, and even just the pernicious effect of defining woman as whatever fantasy exists in a man's head.

Obviously, adults are free to choose whatever course they follow. It isn't remotely incumbent upon feminists not to critique things which harm women. Simple as that.

I agree with what we're saying here, but I do think there's two varieties of GC - there's a view that people should be able to transition, that some in fact may have to. And there's a view that really no one should.

It's not clear most of the time, because nobody is actually running a campaign to ban gender clinics or sex reassignment surgery. But clearly some GC people think that trans just shouldn't happen.

I can understand - though of course its ridiculously overdramatic - when trans people come out with "You're against my right to exist!" And the response from our side is aggrieved, because of course none of us mean any harm to trans people. We don't want them rounded up into camps: we don't want them to lose jobs or their homes or be chucked out of restaurants. But some of us want them not to be trans, and there is often a feeling of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" about it.

I’m pro safeguarding of children and pro women.

I’m pro everybody being able to live their lives and express themselves how they like, provided that does not impact on the rights of others.

I don’t believe in trans ideology (or any other religion) as is my right. I support other people’s right to believe in what they like, but not to enforce it upon others.

The Equalities Act 2010 and HRA actually agree with me, despite the many and varied attempts to misrepresent what they actually say.

Being gender critical does not equal being transphobic.

Of course not. But it is a very handy tool to shut people up and carry on pushing your own agenda through.

That the problem. It is sometimes difficult to say no to a friend and prioritize women and girls that you don't know. But that's why feminism exists to prioritize women and girls, sometime making others feel not centered.

Indeed.

Being gender critical does not equal being transphobic.

I shouldn't have to say that trans people are entitled to health, safety, respect, sexual freedom (with consent natch), housing, friendships, jobs, dignity, in fact everything that any human is (should be) entitled to. These should be non-negotiable. You know the saying that "trans rights are human rights"? We should flip that. We need to say that human rights are trans rights.

AFAIK there are no human rights that they are being denied.

I'm allowed to have opinions about single sex spaces and the exemptions allowed those - that's not transphobic either.

I'm allowed to want language to talk about the things that affect my sex - that's not transphobic either.

IDIC infinite diversity in infinite combinations. A Vulcan philosophy I love. Trans people are part of IDIC.

I don’t care how anyone wants to present themselves or what stereotypes they wish to adopt. In fact, I’m all for challenging gender stereotypes - it goes hand in hand with smashing the patriarchy.

I object to misogyny, violence, bullying, dishonesty, ideology and the insistence that lies must be truth.

IME women are supportive of one another, and empathetic. Whether by nature or nuture we are good at putting other people first. TRAs have yet to cotton on to that. That if they want to ‘think like a woman’ as they say they do, this whole shit storm would blow over.

TRAs have yet to lose their Male privilege from what I can see.

Hey OP

It's a strange learning experience huh.

I think for me as I tried to (badly) say earlier:

I guess what I'm trying to say is trans women are not women in the same way as women are not trans women - we cannot experience life as the other.

We are equal, but different.

Ugly don't leave us, it did make me laugh!

polar your OP is a bit of a red rag... and whilst late to the pary I want to tell you why that is so, for me.

About 2 years ago I could have typed something similar. I have trans friends, full medical version and weekend tranny type. I am not transphobic.

I used to support tranwomen in their quiet usage of women's spaces. Why not? What was the harm?

The TRA happened and I began to see it differently - as I believe Debbie Hayton has also done!

Why?

Well... as far as I am aware not a single one of those nice quiet transwomen went unnoticed in any woman's space. Every time I saw one I had to stop and remind myself they were transwomen and I should be nice, accepting. But I was always initially unnerved and always reprimanded myself... in women's spaces!!!

The TRA happened.

And after a while I thought hang on... every single time that has happened I have acquiesced to the wants of a man!!! Decades of it! Why?

Then TRAs demanded that I simply must acquiesce.

That was part of what peak TRAd me. Once seen you cannot unsee it!

Welcome back OP, do you feel like there are more people like you now? You're not the only one.

Sorry paragraph fail!

ugly the objection to your sarcastic post looks like a variation of "it's not what you said, it's the way that you said it" or if you want people to listen you have to be nice. It's just the same old same old.
The title of this thread frustrates me, I would have thought treating other people with respect and dignity was a given but it seems if you object to an ideology you need to explain yourself.
If people don't treat you with respect then I don't think you're obliged to show them any, hence the tone of occasional posts on this board when discussing the more aggressive TRA's who seem to delight in causing people distress. Sometimes the unacceptably shocking is mocked as a way of coping when it's being tolerated by authorities that should challenge it.

Well as someone trying to save a 15 yr old from a life of pain and medical intervention, can I say that the m very glad Polarpigs family member is supported and loved. But they aren’t the point of all this.

I'm trying to work out what you mean by this:
'How many cases do we actually have of non-cis women harming women and how many cases do we have of transwomen being harmed in virtue of their identity.'

Does the 'non-cis women' bit mean male people harming female people (plenty of examples of that if so), or grumpy feminists with no particular gender ID harming other female people (not so many examples of that, I would think)?

I know the OP is long gone but I'm trying to flesh out a thought...

Women and trans women are supposed to be equal under the law. I see us as equal but obviously different. So, if we are equal (under the law), why can't I (AFAB) ID as a trans women?

sackrifice going back a bit you said:
However no trans woman can live as a woman. They do not have the same common ground as women, they are not subject to the same discrimination, health issues, job prospects or reduction in them, they don't take an average 20% pay cut, they will not have wrecked bodies from childbirth, brittle bones from an early menopause, reduction in pension if they took time away from work to bring up a family etc etc etc.

And I agree. So why can I (a FAAB) not ID as a trans woman? And the answer is because your statement would read:
However no woman can live as a trans woman. They do not have the same common ground as trans women, they (women) are subject to discrimination, health issues, job prospects or reduction in them, they take an average 20% pay cut, they will have wrecked bodies from childbirth, brittle bones from an early menopause, reduction in pension if they took time away from work to bring up a family etc etc etc.

Because we are equal (but different).

I guess what I'm trying to say is trans women are not women in the same way as women are not trans women - we cannot experience life as the other.

gender reassignment vs gender identity

It's so so easy for stuff like this to be accepted into common parlance. Where I work, we have an phrase of (e.g.) B90. Originally there were 90 levels of Bxxxx, .

Today there are only 40 levels of B, but some Cxxxx are included too. But B90 persists.

So as it is probably is with the GR vs GI phrasing. Someone just used the latter and it stuck. Nobody bothers questioning it.

That's what I thought too! And whilst I wouldn't describe myself as a speaker on the subject it did occur to me that to Joe Public watching the ad who has had way less exposure and chance to educate themselves on this topic, just the label "transgender identity " could imply there has been a change in law. Cue some people perhaps even less likely to speak out/question/debate. It's as if some language is knowingly chosen to be vague to shutdown discussion.

Ugly swan

tellme gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the EA 2010 afaik - whether that is equivalent to 'transgender identity' is a question - is man or woman the gender identity, and transgender the descriptor, or is that a part of an individual's gender identity too? I don't know, I don't think there are particular rules.
But it is one of the reasons I object to being labelled as 'cis', since I don't have a 'gender identity' of woman, so I am not cis. Humph. It's complicated semantics!

It’s our individual good will towards our trans friends and families that has been quietly exploited for 20 years, bringing us to the point where we are now!