How should we treat trans people?

If you want a rule that says everyone has to abide by their birth sex

What does that even mean?

Many posters on this board talk about having different reactions to men than women, how they behave differently when talking to a man than a woman, presence of a man changing the dynamic of a group etc etc.

What makes you think that these reactions are a choice? These reactions are survival mechanisms stemming from a lifetime of social conditioning and, for too many of us, prior sexual assaults.

My reaction to a man is always coloured by the knowledge that he could rape me and leave me pregnant, that he could easily batter me or murder me. I spent the first seven months of this year feeling nauseous if I looked at a good-looking man, because I would remember that there's a one-in-three chance that he thinks that failing to stop when asked isn't rape, and then I would feel sick with fear. (FYI Rape Crisis said I'm not crazy, just experiencing a delayed trauma response to childhood sexual violence.) I object stridently to the transactivist idea that I'm supposed to somehow switch that response off when a man says he is a woman. I object equally stridently to your idea that I should switch that response on when faced with a woman who says she is a man. What about people like Pips Bunce? Am I supposed to be scared of him when he is in a suit and not scared on dress days?

Oh wait, I think I know the answer to this one. I'm supposed to pretend at all times that men don't have built-in rape weapons and that I'm not scared of them, even when I'm so scared that my mouth is dry, I'm sweating, and my IBS is flaring. I'm supposed to pretend to be treating transwomen like women even whilst I appease and defer to them out of fear of typically male violent reprisal. I'm supposed to pretend to treat transmen like men even though they cannot rape me nor leave me pregnant. I'm supposed to pretend to defer to them even though I don't need to. Fuck that noise, it's not going to happen. Human brains don't work like that. Orwell's 1984, book 1 chapter 1, describes the mental effort and hypervigilance required to constantly feign emotions. It's unreasonable to expect this of women and unhealthy for us to attempt it.

Attempting to change reality by fiat, and changing people's outward reactions by fiat and the threat of reprisals, is right into 1984 territory. I'm thinking of the scene in book 2 chapter 9 where, on the sixth day of Hate Week, the official line suddenly changes to say that Oceania is at war with Eastasia and always has been even though in fact Oceania.had been at war with Eurasia up until then. The orator at the rally changes who he's propagandising about mid-sentence upon being passed a note. Everyone has to pretend that nothing has changed even though they all know that in fact it has, for fear of being dragged off to MiniLove and tortured.

"Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. [...] no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere."

A transwoman is a woman: a transwoman has always been a woman. [...] no reference to her sex, or her former name, should remain in existence anywhere.

A transman is a man: a transman has always been a man. [...] no reference to his sex, or his former name, should remain in existence anywhere.

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a manual.

The irony is that it is trans advocates who are ultimately the ones who try to erase the existence of trans women. Because if trans women were really women, then there would be no such thing as trans women. Trans women are by definition males who identify as women. One can argue long and hard about why they want to do that, but that's what a transwoman is. And the trans community is very strict on this point--they get furious if any female tries to say she is a trans woman. THEREFORE, even the trans community acknowledge that trans women have male bodies.

98-99% of all rape and sexual assault are committed by males (regardless of gender ID).

90% + of victims of rape and sexual assault are female (regardless of gender ID).

It is the height of misogyny to ignore these facts, or the risk that males (as a class) pose to females (as a class).

The result of this deeply male-dominated culture is that the male experience, the male perspective, has come to be seen as universal, while the female experiencethat of half the global population, after allis seen as, well, niche.

~Caroline Criado-Pérez, Invisible Women

But you're ignoring the fact that it's not just about danger.

You're ignoring the fact that danger is a factor.

And your "it depends" overrules everyone else's "nah, we'll stick with single-sex, thanks"?

Yes, there's nuance. Yes, there are fragile people to accommodate. A lot of them are female, and we need female-only spaces.

Why are you so unwilling to defend our right to female-only spaces?

Do you get freaked out by the butchest lesbians too? Because that seems a little off to me.

DecomposingComposers

Here's a clue for you...

Men/males are responsible for 98% of sexual assaults (including rape/penetration). Adding cross-sex hormones and the juxtaposition of requiring validation from biological females (not all TW) against claiming to be female (not all TW) does not reduce the risk of them assaulting other people. TW are men who identify with women and attempt to embody "female/women" but retain the biological sex markers "male" regardless of surgical intervention. Whether a man has breast implants and a faux vulva and faux vagina (trans), or suffering from DSD, or with fully intact reproductive organs and presents ambiguously, or however he presents he is still 98% likely to sexually assault.

Women/females are responsible for 2% of sexual assaults (including rape/penetration with an object or digit). Adding cross-sex hormones and the juxtaposition of requiring validation from biological males (not all TM) against claiming to be male (not all TM) does not increase the risk of them assaulting other people. TM are women who identify with men and attempt to embody "male/men" but retain the biological sex markers "female" regardless of surgical intervention. Whether a woman has a beard and a faux penis (trans), or suffering from PCOS or a DSD, or with fully intact reproductive organs and presents ambiguously, or however she presents she is still only 2% likely to sexually assault.

This isn't complicated; it isn't theoretical maths, it isn't the ultimate question, it isn't even as difficult as what to have for dinner.

Who wants a rule that everyone has to 'abide' by their birth sex? What does that mean?

Birth sex is a fact that can't be changed. Ever. No matter what you do cosmetically to the outside of your body the sex stays there and it can be read, it is apparent, humans are designed and hard wired to pick up on this stuff because basic evolution requires it. No one 'has' to do anything or 'can' do anything, it just is.

Gendered dress and behaviour and stereotypes is rubbish, anyone can wear and do anything regardless of their biology, and should be able to do so free of harassment or discrimination because their choices don't match other people's stereotypes.

Single sex spaces for women are necessary for obvious and very frequently discussed reasons based on the biology of being born female, and should be kept to birth sex only.

For TM who may prefer not to use those spaces absolutely third spaces should be available to them.

Everyone's needs respected and met.

Do you not understand the lack of symmetry? Men are a danger to women. Women are not a danger to men.

But you're ignoring the fact that it's not just about danger.

If you want a rule that says everyone has to abide by their birth sex then that applies to everyone surely?

Do you not understand the lack of symmetry? Men are a danger to women. Women are not a danger to men.

Tyrotoxicity

I can't answer in one word because, for me, it's not that simple.

My answer is "it depends".

Yes I support TM with the solutions they want.

But why do you support TM with whatever solutions they want but not tw?

If you want a rule that says everyone has to abide by their birth sex then that applies to everyone surely?

I didn't ask you about Buck Angel, Decomposing.

Would you rather the trans-identified people in your single-sex spaces were the same sex as you, or the opposite sex to you?

You can answer in one word. Same or opposite?

While the only options are male, female, or disabled, then it's a very simple question: would you rather the trans-identified people in your single-sex spaces were the same sex as you, or the opposite sex to you?

I honestly don't know what I'd prefer. Someone presenting like Buck Angel I would see them as male. I wouldn't be comfortable getting changed with them present for example.

Someone who doesn't pass so well then maybe I would be more comfortable.

I don't know - the more you consider it the more I think this isn't solvable with just 2 options.

Yes I support TM with the solutions they want. Some trans/allies only seem to mention TM as a way to try and manipulate how people must think about or treat TW. This has to stop.

What do you mean by being "treated as

I mean in every sense.

Many posters on this board talk about having different reactions to men than women, how they behave differently when talking to a man than a woman, presence of a man changing the dynamic of a group etc etc.

I honestly don't think that many women would feel.like this.

Do you need all three billion or so living human females to say "Actually, yeah, I'm okay with that" before you'll accept it?

So.its far more complicated than you make out.

No, it really isn't.

While the only options are male, female, or disabled, then it's a very simple question: would you rather the trans-identified people in your single-sex spaces were the same sex as you, or the opposite sex to you?

So: transmen are welcome, until we sort out adequate additional mixed-sex provision.

Body modifications don't change your sex. I should know; I've acquired over a dozen of them in a subconscious attempt to reclaim my body from patriarchal demands.

To me, I would be sharing a space, be that a toilet, hospital ward, changing room, with a man. I wouldn't be reacting as though the person was a woman

I recently worked with a very lovely TM, complete with beard. Voice, smile, size and proportions, all read very clearly as female from the start, just a very lovely female with a beard, who isn't going to intimidate or distress anyone - not least because they're a very caring person to pretty much everyone around them. They may prefer options other than using single sex spaces and I absolutely support third options available for privacy, dignity, safety, choice. But there's no difficulty in picking up the difference between how they choose to present and their biological sex.

How about people organise their own book clubs however the hell they want?

I’m in a book club which includes a lesbian couple, one of whom is a transman. It’s fine. TM are female. They will always have my solidarity, even if they don’t want it.

...even those who are indistinguishable from natal men, shod be treated as women, which to me, makes no sense

What do you mean by being "treated as .."? Apart from using single sex services and spaces, what do you mean? It might be helpful to unpack that concept a bit - to see where you are really coming from.

What about spaces for women and spaces for non-women?

I just laughed outloud. Someone should suggest that to the Green Party.

You have to be recorded as one or the other, given the rights of one or the other, treated as one or the other

On the issue of treatment, trans women seem to like to pick and choose which aspects of 'gendered femininity' they want to embody or identify with. Much of what goes with being female is not quite the erotic fantasy that most imagine it to be.

I'm really bothered that you seem stuck on gendered stereotypes of behaviour and 'treatment'. Can you not see what you are saying?

it follows that TM, even those who are indistinguishable from natal men,

The higher voice (sorry Buck Angel, but this applies to you), different face shape, chest scars, differing hip-waist-shoulder ratios, and lack of penis all give the game away. Even clothed, three of those things remain visible. There's more subtle clues like limb-torso ratio, hand size, foot size as well. If the clues don't add up, like a person has a beard and a female torso, we look twice, three times, because we spot the inconsistency. Millions of years of evolution have selected for very sophisticated and sensitive sex determination capabilities in women, mainly so that we can detect rape threats.

Transmen make me sad and appalled that a woman has been so abused and misused that she has inflicted such mutilation on herself. I remember cutting my hair off as a child because I wanted to escape girlhood. I considered transition in my early twenties but concluded that as long as I had a vagina, I was at risk from men and I didn't want to spend my life in fear of being outed. I came that close because of sexual assault and misogynist bullying. How much worse must a woman's life be for her to go through with surgery and hormones?

I would like to see spaces for "women" and then "unisex" because I think that would help lots of people - including parents with opposite sex children for example.

I think that would be a good solution.

So in these cases TM would be welcome in a women only group, but again, I would see a person that looks like a man as a man so the argument that a man would change the dynamic would apply for.me if it were a TM too.

I doubt that a transman would want to join a women-only group, because they would want validation as a man, just like transwomen want to be validated.