How should we treat trans people?

Yes women are held to a higher standard of decorum... and are pressured to present as ‘decorative objects’ by the patriarchy as opposed to men who can look or behave how they like.

I meant that in every day life men are also required not to misgender etc.

I generally think gender roles are largely subjective so don't tend to comment too much on what's a 'boy' thing and what's a 'girl' thing but:

"Men are required to be equally courteous (or play along as you might call it)."

One of the most openly rude, discourteous men I've ever seen is President of the US. Females are held to a MUCH higher standard, "decorum"-wise.
(KF vs Mumsnet springs to mind as well...!)

You don’t have to. You can go on believing what you want and conceptualising yourself however you like surely?

Okay.

I believe I'm a woman regardless of my gendered experiences, because my body is female.

This means I am categorised as a bigot fit only for the gulag.

I believe I should have access to female-only spaces on the grounds of my female body.

This means I am categorised as a bigot fit only for the gulag.

I am denied the opportunity to exercise my human right to participate in public life, because their belief trumps mine.

I am denied the opportunity to define myself within the terms of my own experience, because their belief trumps mine.

I am denied the opportunity to heal from maleadult-on-femalechild sexual violence, because their belief trumps mine.

I am not talking about the requirement to treat others courteously. This is human socialisation. I am talking about gendered socialisation, specifically, the expectations placed on female bodies and female minds to behave and perform and think and be sexually available in ways which suit men.

What of the autonomy of identity of all the females who will not submit to feminine socialisation?

Being polite and courteous isn’t exclusively female socialisation though. Men are required to be equally courteous (or play along as you might call it).

What are we supposed to reconceptualise ourselves as, to accommodate bodies-with-penises?

You don’t have to. You can go on believing what you want and conceptualising yourself however you like surely?

"in what way are they women?"
"By way of their gender identity"
"What is a gender identity?"
"The way in which they are a woman"

Tease out the implication here.

If the harsh realities of sexual conditioning don't 'take' well enough to allow the female to perform sexually-submissive domestic-appliance emotional-caretaker behaviours to the 'required' standards, she is denied access to the identity "woman". She is simply a defective female.

If she identifies herself as a woman on the grounds of her female body despite the gendered socialisation she has been traumatised by, she is not only defective but also transphobic.

Like I said, it's a revolting logic train. And fucking offensive to all females, including transmen.

Or share a bed with John and their erect penis on a drunken works night out?

You have some weird works nights out if they end with you in bed with a colleague of either sex.

Yes I can see that’s very traumatic StopThePlanet. Very upsetting. We can all only do what we feel is the right thing to do. You have to do what you need to survive, that’s understood.

Not quite, hooowl.

It's more that they feel unmasculine.

But being an unmasculine man is difficult, and attracts negative attention from other men. Reconceptualising the self as feminine is an attempt to reconcile the dissonance of never fitting comfortably in the "man" box.

It's a very narcissistic way of thinking, unfortunately, because it involves requiring the rest of the world to interpret everything through the preferred lens of the "unmasculine" male.

And, of course, it falls down at the first feminist hurdle. Men who do not perform hypermasculine behaviours are still men.

If men who do not perform masculine behaviours are not men, then logically women who do not perform feminine behaviours are not women. I am therefore forced to redefine myself as some sort of unsexed ethereal being attached to an abused female body.

And, of course, it means everyone else who doesn't perform femininity to men's satisfaction is fair game for corrective rape, because they're not "real women" and so don't count.

It's a thoroughly revolting logic train, if you can stop thinking about the poor males and consider the female experience instead.

The female equivalent basically involves being repeatedly traumatised by dicks and trying to escape it by saying "please stop kicking me for not performing femininity; look, I'll even cut my tits off if it helps." Except mostly we're not quite narcissistic enough to insist everyone reconceptualises their own identities to accommodate us.

(and that it is mutually exclusive from being male)

tyro thank you, I do appreciate and like your posts but i will be honest and say they don't often make things clearer to me! I'm sure it's just communication styles etc, I used to work with someone similar (but with work-related subjects), just never sure I understood what he was saying - it's likely me.

I think you are saying because they feel feminine rather than masculine, and erroneously believe that femininity is either necessary or sufficient to be a woman, when it is neither.

hooowl look upthread; I answered you already.

Will have another go though.

They believe they have the mindset they believe is unique to women; because they believe their mindset disqualifies them from being men.

Their mindset may not be consciously and deliberately typical-alpha-male, their life experiences may mean typical-alpha-male is never going to be a possibility - but this does not mean they have "typical-female minds" because there's no such thing.

I just can never seem to break out of the loop: "in what way are they women?"
"By way of their gender identity"
"What is a gender identity?"
"The way in which they are a woman"

fields has introduced "sharing a physical characteristic/s" as another way but surely that can't apply to the many TW who don't undergo any physical transition?

If you don’t believe there’s such a thing as gender identity

This is deliberate obfuscation of language.

They're talking about gendered identity-formation.

Gendered. Not gender.

Identity-formation in response to gendered socialisation? Yes, that happens. Innate and inborn gender? Does not.

Those terms are colloquially used to denote respect (at least in the US).

Yes. They're called honorifics for a reason.

Unless of course Decomposing has redefined that word as well.

It’s a mixture of accepting an individual’s autonomy of identity combined with changing some aspects of sex.

And what of my autonomy of identity? What of StopThePlanet's autonomy of identity? What of the autonomy of identity of all the females who will not submit to feminine socialisation?

What are we supposed to reconceptualise ourselves as, to accommodate bodies-with-penises?

Because our first crack at this was defining ourselves as women regardless of whether we succumbed to the sharp end of gendered-socialisation&female-body or not. Apparently that's not allowed any more. Because it makes some males feel sad.

I also agree with @StopThePlanet about abuse/bullying. Even outside of this issue.

It ALWAYS starts with testing your boundaries and making you doubt your instinct/judgement about one thing. Even something trivial. Intellectual gaslighting.

After that it’s a slippery slope of “but you agreed....you can’t go back on what you agreed...”

you will treat me with respect Uhuh. Not a hope!

I've just watched Masterchef with Kellie Maloney who underwent gender reassignment in 2014 according to various news reports. The presenters of Masterchef referred to Maloney throughout as 'she' and I understand Maloney has written a book about it, so if I'm modded – well, who knows?

I want to be fair-minded but frankly I was struggling with all the references to 'she'. No problem at all with a man wearing make-up or stereotypical female clothing, but I still hit a wall when I am required – and I think required is the operative word here – to call a transwoman 'she'.

I used to work with someone who insisted, the first day we met, that we'd get on fine as long as I treated them with respect. That seemed to me really passive aggressive, a sort of 'No matter what I do, no matter what you think of me, you will treat me with respect.' I try to offer a basic level of courtesy to everyone but I'm the one who will decide whether I respect you or not. My gut feeling is the same in this instance. I'll be polite but you will need to earn 'she' from me. Any attempt to force me to say something I don't believe or that feels wrong I regard as an act of oppression.

Great post @StopThePlanet

I mean say John who is a man likes to wear a dress and wig and is in our office.

Nothing wrong with the clothes, all good. Jane who is a woman has short hair and wears trousers.

But we’re meant to call John “her” and be comfortable with John using the cubicle next to us.

Ok. We go along with that. Politeness. What harm is there in being polite?

Then - logically we should be comfortable with John seeing us or our twelve year daughters naked or in our underwear? Or share a bed with John and their erect penis on a drunken works night out?

If we’d be comfortable with Jane doing that, we should be comfortable with John in their dress - else we’re “discriminating against one kind of woman” . Because we’ve confirmed they’re a woman by saying “her”?

The really sad thing is, from my experience of the whole “give a tranny an inch and they’ll take a mile” phenomena, I HAVE actually become transphobic.

I’d now never choose to socialise with or let my social guard down with anyone who was a TW or have a hint of being a cross dresser.

From my experience, I’d be worried they’d want to see me naked as “proof” I saw them as a woman, or set me up as an “ally” so they could access girls changing rooms.

Emotionally blackmailing people does that. I don’t want some dude with issues in a wig telling me he’s like an apartheid victim if he’s not allowed on my hen night so I simply won’t engage.

Fair enough hooowl.
if not biological sex, in what way are they women?

I think those that change secondary and to some extent primary sex characteristics are changing aspects of physical sex. At least as much as medicine allows.

A trans man with a deep broken voice and beard is a man if he says he is. It doesn’t mean he’s actually changed biological sex class. It’s a mixture of accepting an individual’s autonomy of identity combined with changing some aspects of sex. It also hinges on the acceptance of the concept of gender identity.

If you don’t believe there’s such a thing as gender identity then you’re not going to accept it full stop. Like I said I’m not trying to change anyone’s minds.

Personally I don’t believe that someone who is more comfortable with breasts and a surgically fashioned vulva can be said to be a man. It doesn’t fit my definition of ‘man’. Likewise someone who voluntarily removes their breasts because they want a flat chest and also wants a beard and broken deep voice, doesn’t fit my definition of ‘woman’. If that trans man (born f) looks in the mirror and sees ‘a man’ and feels, yes, that’s me, a man, then I believe that reflects some internal sense of themselves as a man.

I agree. I just don't see addressing a TW as "sir" or a TM as "madam" as treating them with dignity or respect.

Those terms are colloquially used to denote respect (at least in the US). As a general rule they are not used as an insult or to strip someone of dignity but for the exact opposite purpose. People use those words instinctively regarding those they observe.

I've been called "sir" a few times and I don't look male or sound male I am undeniably female in stature/appearance/voice but as I speak with confidence and authority (when necessary) I am mistaken via phone on occasion (and twice in person I was "clocked" as a TW in a gay bar) - have I ceased to exist? Was I treated with indignity or disrespect? No, I was treated how people perceive me based on their socialization which is of no consequence to me as I do not require validation from any other human.

It is pretty simple. Don't steal my words, don't appropriate my existence, and most of all don't tell me to move over and be nice through compelled speech to the class (male) that has subjegated and objectified my class (female) since time immemorial.

StopthePlanet - we got the really shitty end of the "ciswoman-conditioning" stick. I hear you on the refusing to lie any more. You broke the conditioning though - that takes incredible strength and determination and self-awareness.

I'd say "Fucked if we're letting anyone recondition us back into meek compliance" but the very first word of that sentence says it all, doesn't it?

Just treat them like anyone else. Don't patronise them or insult their intelligence by pretending they're something they're clearly not. Hold them accountable for their actions. Make sure DBS checks / passports / birth certificates reflect reality like anyone else's. They're not some special class of person that needs to be treated with kids gloves - they're equal.

Trust you to ignore everything else in StopThePlanet’s post, just so you can defend males, DecomposingComposers. Shame on you.

I don’t see requiring me to address a TW as ma’am or a TM as sir as treating me with dignity or respect.