Can we have a 'back-to-basics' thread about trans issue please?

Person who has a vagina," seems to be slipping in as the easy call for that

LOL. It's funny how sometimes it's ok to "reduce people to their genitals."

"Person who has a vagina," seems to be slipping in as the easy call for that since modern society has concluded that not everyone with a vag is a woman and not every woman has a vag.

'Woman' works just fine, thanks.

The protections women require (and have fought hard for and are still struggling for in many parts of the world) are due to our sexed body - menstruation, pregnancy, menopause and being physically weaker. These have nothing to do with whether someone feels female in their head. These are the protections we are fighting to retain.

You want to have a book club for people who feel they are female? Knock yourself out. You want to let male-sexed bodies crush woman in contact sports? We're going to have an issue.

It's also always about TW.

When you think about the needs and rights of transmen, you start to see the fallacy.

Which wing (if male/ female) of a psychiatric hospital is the right one for a transman?

Which prison is the right place for a transman to be placed?

Why?

There is an argument around the fact that transmen pass very well and this could be upsetting for very traumatised and vulnerable women in these situations, at the same time the protection of the transman from sexual assault that could result in pregnancy is also paramount.

Hi, OP. I know exactly what you mean about the discussions overall. Hard to know which studies and references are reliable if one isnt science-trained. I can only suggest reading not only as much evidence as you can but commentary from both 'sides'.

It's good to be ambivalent and uncertain. 'Modest doubt is the beacon of the wise '. Keep asking questions! There are many very informed and experienced posters on this board.

One difficulty here us that we are so constrained in what we can say. I would like to suggest you look into the work of Ray Blanchard, but saying so may get me deleted. We shall see.

My own simple question is whether women are entitled to single sex spaces. For me it's a yes. Some people thinks it's unimportant and some people find the use of the phrase 'single sex' unacceptable in itself.

An example - the pink brain/blue brain stuff. I don't feel I have a 'lady brain' and would certainly reject the terminology, but I believe it's the case that there are certain structural differences between male and female brains.

Have a read of the gendered brain by Gina Rippon. She does explain exact his well.

The brain is plastic so we need to consider external influences, and actually these can be influenced by gender stereotypes. Eg toys marketed at girls tend to be less about spatial problem solving such as Lego and building; this has been identified as being traceable in the classroom in attainment in that area for girls.

Craft packs tend to be marketed more for girls and art is often seen as a girl's pursuit; there's a huge lack of boys taking art at gcse and a level.

As pp noted, It essentially comes down to the fact that in terms of ability and intelligence and expression, there's absolutely no difference between men and women.

There's more difference to be seen on scans between taxi drivers with and without the knowledge, whether they're male or female. They can trace the impact of learning a second language later in life on brain scans.

There are medical implications for having a female brain, lots of work around Alzheimer's for example and hormones. I'm currently reading a book called the XX brain where the author makes the case for hrt being primarily for brain health.

But my ramble above is v simplistic. There's apparently a lot of bad science and bad extrapolation on brains about as this article describes:

sfonline.barnard.edu/neurogenderings/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-sex-gender-brains-and-behavior-a-guide-for-academics-journalists-parents-gender-diversity-advocates-social-justice-warriors-tweeters-facebookers-and-ever/

What I always find curious is why so many people with penises are so threatened and angered by the idea of women having boundaries.

EdgeofaCoin that's true, but there are other conditions which aren't easy to diagnose like that

Are you thinking of conditions like ME?

I love that GC women are the ones supposedly "obsessed with genitals" and then you have TRAs suggesting the perfectly good word for women should literally be replaced with "people who have a vagina".

Why don't we also replace the word "earth" with "big ball floating in space" and "road" with "long grey thing for cars" and "hungry" with "empty tummy"?

Why don't we also replace the word "the" with "shmeegle" and shmeegle word "word" with "ploop" and shmeegle ploop "with" with "bub" and shmeegle ploop bub...

Also OP, to answer your questions specifically -

If there were any evidence that you could have a 'female' brain in a male body, and vice versa, a simple brain scan is all it would take to prove that someone is trans.

Children could have a scan. Hormone levels could be tested. The trans rights activists would be very keen to show a biological basis for their dysphoria. Parents would feel much happier knowing that their child's brains and hormone levels correspond to someone of the opposite sex, thus proving their child is definitely trans.

Yet, there is no such test. Furthermore, no such evidence was put forward in the Keira Bell case.
Despite all the talk of brains and hormone washes, children and adults alike are prescribed medication purely on the basis of subjective feelings.

And the push among the TRAs is not for improved testing. The push is for self-ID.

You do have to ask yourself why.

The above video is about half an hour long. It is the first in a four-part series tilted Dysphoric and examines many of the issues with trans ideology and the impact on women's rights.

Of particular note is that it is told from a non-western perspective. I highly recommend watching it.

The things which have turned me away from being persuaded by trans ideology is that there are too many inconsistencies and illogicalties.

For instance, Hibari claims that 'people with a vagina' is an acceptable way to describe women. Firstly:

1. Why not just use the word 'women'? If the word woman does not just mean an adult human female, what the hell does it mean? What are the criteria for being a woman?

This is the question nobody can answer. You will be told it is a gender identity, something which is innate, inexplicable and subjective.

Okay, but that isn't a scientific explanation. I believe in gender dysphoria and I know I don't have it. However, how do I know that if I had been born a boy, with exactly the same brain as I have now, and I had been given a boy's name and socialised as a boy my entire life - how do I know that I would have been distressed by this and would have wanted to live as a girl?

Is a woman simply a series of stereotypes? Someone who is more submissive than a man? Someone who likes pink and dresses and high-heeled shoes? You will be told no, of course not, these are simply instances of 'gender expression', which is different from 'gender identity'. You will be told that we on the GC side of the debate are misrepresenting the argument. You will be told that gender identity is something separate from gender expression, and the two don't necessarily tally. So you can get 'tomboy transgirls'. However, this leads us straight back to what is gender identity? And also - have you ever heard of any young male-born child being put on puberty blockers when they have the 'gender expression' of a boy (ie trucks, cars, football etc.) but the innate 'gender identity' of a girl? Oh, certainly you will hear about adult transitioners saying that they were tomboy transgirls when they were kids, but I urge you to try and find a story of a young child (under age 15) whose gender expression 'matches' their biological sex but who still wishes to transition.

2. Some mtf transitioners do have surgery and have a constructed neovagina. Are these therefore 'people with vaginas' too? Should someone with a neovagina be permitted to play sports with, um, 'people with bio vaginas'? Do people with a neovagina require smear tests, or are these reserved for people with a bio vagina (or people with a cervix?)

Are you happy that the word 'woman', a word that has had a fixed meaning since almost the dawn of time is now in the process of becoming so meaningless that women are being described variously as 'people with a cervix', 'people with a bio vagina', 'people with a vulva'.

Which class of people are left out in menstrual huts in certain parts of the world? Which class of people only recently got the right to drive cars in Saudi Arabia? Why was King Henry VIII so upset with his children by Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn? Which class of people are denied the right to inherit titles among the landed gentry in this country? Could any one of those people in those situations been able to escape their circumstances by saying 'I identify as male'?

Finally, even if you accept the premise of gender identity (this innate characteristic that nobody can describe without reference to gender stereotypes) why does this trump biological sex when it comes to things like sports, changing rooms etc.?

I will recognise someone as a Man; I will recognise someone as a Transwoman; why can't I be recognised as a Woman?

I'm not against Trans people's right's; I am against the erosion of female sex based rights to give them to Trans people instead. This is safeguarding, not bigotry.

Since this is a forum supposedly dedicated to talking about women's rights, as far as the trans issue goes, the basics are:

1. Do women have the right to single sex spaces, positions, resources, the right to organize as a sex, and should we allow our language to be warped to substituting this kind of language for "woman"?

"Person who has a vagina," seems to be slipping in as the easy call for that since modern society has concluded that not everyone with a vag is a woman and not every woman has a vag.

(gag)

2. Why are so many girls turning to medical transition, and if this is a genuinely helpful course for them to take, why are so many detransitioning?

Why are transwomen and their allies pushing so hard to remove women's rights to our class instead of pushing for rights for their own class?

So eg

Uighar people with vaginas systematically raped in China

Isis trades people with vaginas as sex slaves

Is that correct?

What I really cannot understand is why being Trans is looked down on?

Why pretend the obstacles and life experiences never happened?

Why is there not huge pride in just being Trans?

Why is there not a global campaign for acceptance of Transmen or Transwomen?

It baffles me tbh

go against what at least 30 globally respected health and psychiatric organisations say
Which is what? What claim are you suggesting these 30 globally, etc etc might refute? You haven't specified.

"Person who has a vagina," seems to be slipping in as the easy call for that since modern society has concluded that not everyone with a vag is a woman and not every woman has a vag.

Hibari do you think there should be words to describe the cunty half of the world's population?

If so what are they?

If not why not.

Basically the common view here is to go against what at least 30 globally respected health and psychiatric organisations say then screech about universities being "captured," if they're accepting of trans people.

Asking for opinions on trans stuff here is like asking for opinions on vaccines on an anti-vax board.

For me, for years now, it has been simple.

Do we need a word/ words to describe the cunty half of the global population.

To me the answer is obviously. Of course we do.

That's the basics.

I am hugely concerned about the ethics of repeated references to suicide in this debate. Based on flawed data national advocacy organisations frequently claim young trans people are at higher risk of taking their own lives. The media have been happy to share this, but it goes against the Samaritans' guidelines (see below) and you'd think experienced journalists would be able to spot when suicide is being sensationalised for a political purpose...

These points are from the Samaritans guidelines on reporting on suicide:

• Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.

• Young people are more susceptible to
  suicide contagion. When covering the death of a young person, do not give undue prominence to the story or repeat the use of photographs, including galleries. Don’t use emotive, romanticised language or images – a sensitive, factual approach is much safer. Coverage that reflects the wider issues around suicide, including that it is preventable, can help reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour. Include clear and direct references to resources and support organisations.