My daughter was assaulted tonight - why I'm against self ID

No, but the fact is they could be beaten up.

As could gay men, particularly slight, very effeminate ones, but they're not asking women to offer them sanctuary in the ladies.

I totally get your point, Barracker. However due to the Talk Guidelines none of us can be as direct as we might like.

I use the phrase transgender person because it's descriptive. It's like calling someone a Seventh Day Adventist. They may believe in it. Doesn't mean I do.

*There's no evidence that I'm aware of - at least in the UK - that there's any real risk. However women and girls have been assaulted by transgender males in women's facilities.

Gay men are sometimes assaulted in men's toilets. There's no push from them to be allowed to share with the ladies even though they probably pose far less of a risk than heterosexual men who identify as women.*

No, but the fact is they could be beaten up.

I don't want men in women's rest rooms. I know how abuse can and does happen. I just wouldn't think a boy dressed up as a girl and using the men's room would be something a mother would want either, so wondered if that pushed the OP to either side.

JudgeFlounceRedRugBlah can I ask what you mean when you say transgender people?

It means different things to different people.
It seems to me that when GC people use the phrase they are mostly using it as a euphemism for "man (or woman) who wrongly believes xyz" or "person with sex stereotype dysphoria" or possibly "person with body dysmorphia".
Each time I use the phrase myself I am making a concession to communicate with someone using their terms, at the expense of clarity.

It feels like saying "Sally is a reincarnated person" rather than what I want to say: "Sally believes she's been reincarnated". I feel dishonest, and as if I'm lending credibility to a concept I don't believe in.

Sally's preference would definitely be for me to say she IS reincarnated. A reincarnated person.
But this isn't actually true.
Noone IS reincarnated.

My head spins when people talk of distinguishing between self-ID reincarnates, vs real reincarnates; those with an official reincarnation certificate.
Or, for that matter, ensuring we are not anti-reincarnation, or that we have reincarnation friendly policies.

Perhaps my analogy seems odd to some.
But when I hear a gender critical person use the phrase 'a transgender person' it rings EXACTLY like 'a reincarnated person' to my ears would from the lips of an atheist.

None of which is to denigrate or dehumanise the person who genuinely believes they are reincarnated. I just cannot validate their belief by describing them as they prefer.

Do you think he should be in male resources dressed in a skirt or dress? Isn't that a huge risk?

There's no evidence that I'm aware of - at least in the UK - that there's any real risk. However women and girls have been assaulted by transgender males in women's facilities.

Gay men are sometimes assaulted in men's toilets. There's no push from them to be allowed to share with the ladies even though they probably pose far less of a risk than heterosexual men who identify as women.

Ah, sorry. I see you answered already.

FWIW, I can imagine an intra-family appreciation in my household that a family member has dysphoria and a desire to understand and ameliorate the distress it causes.

I cannot imagine a situation where I ever affirmed to one of my children that it could ever be possible to be or live as the opposite sex or ever transgress any boundaries set out for women and girls.

You are not GC.

Fine, that's ok. Just don't pretend you are.

This in a nutshell.

That was the bit that really stuck in my throat. The denail of this or straight up dishonesty of it.

Admit you don't mind gender stereotypes and sexism as it suits you as it helps you ultimately keep the peace in your family.

Cos this is the bottom line.

A "feeling" is very different to "being" imo.

A 'feeling' that gender stereotypes are what everyone should adhere to or at least tolerate for the sake of 'being nice' even if its at their own expense. Whilst pretending that 'being' is irrelevant and comes second to feelings of those who do not identify as trans at the expense of their reality which may also be crucial to both their identity and well-being.

As I've said through out, it's the cognitive dissonance that is a major part of the problem and what I really dislike as its this that silences and controls others in the family through holding them emotional prisoners to the ideology.

And there is no situation in which I will allow society to forfeit my boundaries, and my daughters privacy, to benefit boys and men, no matter how physically harmless they may be.

Me neither, Barracker. My DF and my DBs are all absolutely lovely men. They pose no risk to women. That doesn't mean they should be sharing women's spaces. Not that they would. Decent men wouldn't want to intrude.

OP, I wonder if you're so partial to your "wonderful, kind and strong" trans child that you see them as a special case? And that they are different from the TRAs?

If your child is so different they should perhaps take a leaf out of Miranda Yardley's book. Miranda is a transsexual who refuses to use women's loos etc because he does respect women and our spaces. He goes by male pronouns because he accepts that he's male.

What is this being that makes your child "genuinely" transgender, OP?

'Do you agree that transwomen are women?

No I don't. I think transgender people are transgender people. A "feeling" is very different to "being" imo.

So what I want to ask next is why are they not a woman?

You said it doesn't mean they can't use them.

What resources do you think he should use though? Do you think he should be in male resources dressed in a skirt or dress? Isn't that a huge risk?

It's when we get down the specifics that people always withdraw. I thought you were going to be different OP.

What do I want answered? Well so much but I will start with one thing and thank you if you respond to it because I know how hard that can be for people who try to justify the impossible.

First is: Do you agree that transwomen are women?

I don't really understand you then.

Your daughter was attacked by a man and you said this is why self ID shouldn't exist and is unsafe. But you also have a son who believes he is entitled to be a woman and is entitled to use the same resources you think he shouldn't.

I don't know how you don't see that it's a side you have to fall on one side of.

What is it that makes him a woman?

OP that's bullshit. You are not addressing the specifics.

No-one is handwringing, that's a passive aggressive statement.

You are not GC.

Fine, that's ok. Just don't pretend you are.

You either have a transchild or a feminine boy. This sets up how you promote gender stereotypes to your children and the social expectations you have of them and how their identity forms around that.

I look back now and I am aware of my mother saying at a young age about how my brother 'wasn't like other boys' and think about how profoundly it sits in my memory. Her anxiety over it was something that resonanted with me. The repetition of it over and over again. She never realised she was even doing it, nor how much of an impact it had on both of us in different ways.

It came as a shock to her when I confronted her about it. She thought she was always for women and girls, yet she unwittingly simultaneously undermined that.

Beware your blind spot.

Personally I suspect this may be along the lines of separate provisions in a lot of cases but I confess that's not perfect either.

Why is this not perfect?

Thank you for your continued involvement in this thread by the way. It's rare to have someone here that is prepared to respond to individual posts.