Can someone explain why transgend is OK but transracial is not?

There is probably some truth to that. Women can't claim there is a united female voice on this issue, or even fake it which is what happens in many other instances.

And that seems to be the only thing that counts in oppression hierarchies.

It's because black people have said no fucking way and enough women have said yes ok for the trans brigade.

I like your argument that men cannot know what it is like to be a woman in the same way that a white person cannot know what it is like to be black....one thing I will say is that race is a much more sensitive topic than gender..so you are more likely to get people saying YOU CANT SAY/DO THAT! I was thinking more people have died over race issues then gender but then as I'm typing this im thinking hang on.... What about the millions of women who have been raped/killed over the years at the hands of men...? So where does that leave us..that it is less offensive to be trans-male than trans-female? Hmmm.....

So we have to put our trust in the best option we have for advice- trained medical professionals and scientists. We have to accept that the advice night still not be right and the choices we make carry risk. And we really have to make sure that as adults we keep our autonomous decision making- that we have that final veto over the things that effect us.

These medical professionals are as bullied by the TRAs and as subject to personal bias as anyone else. If we're going to rely on this, we need to create the conditions which allow them to properly think and benefit from specialist thinking themselves. The current bully, silence and divide ethos prevents this happening, rendering much of their advice untrustworthy.

Thanks for this very clear explanation, NecessaryScene. I hadn’t thought it through before. Very different aims, but both ’theories’ created to further an agenda, not to search for truth.

Several people with varying success rates have tried to identify as a different age. I think the most famous one, I'm not allowed to say who or my post/whole thread gets deleted, is now or was recently identifying as 6 years old girl. So if transage is real ha, then that person could potentially go to school with your child. Is that ok?
Blair white has done a vid on YouTube Aug 2019.

I don't know whether anyone has said that either, I was just trying to explain my own opinion not put words in the mouth of you or anyone else.

I don't think I agree that a medical diagnosis should be abandoned for getting a GRC. What criteria would be used otherwise? I don't see why you would need a GRC without the diagnosis TBH.

With regards to single sex spaces, I think you'd mostly find agreement from me. I certainly don't think TW should be in a space like a DV shelter or a rape crisis. I am a bit torn on purely social spaces like a women's book club or the WI and I'm also a bit torn on toilets- I used to not mind at all, but I hate mixed sex toilets and now trans seems to mean people without GRCs as well I'm a lot less happy about it.

@MagpiePi has nailed how it has happened.
Of course it's bollocks, race is much more fluid than sex, but what the (white) men with power, billionaires and medical industry want, they will have.

What I can't understand is why as it is so blindingly obvious that it's as outrageous for men to identify as women as it is for white people to identify as black, people can't see it.

There is a push for women's oppression, and relative physical weakness compared to men, in the West to be minimised I suppose, so it doesn't seem like the oppressor identifying as the oppressed. Every other movie and TV drama has women beating up men twice their size, and committing male pattern violence. Narrative is that women are as strong and as violent as men.

I also agree with the opposite pov, that some people should be allowed to transition if that is what is best for them.

Has anyone on this thread said that an adult who has had their comorbities properly and exhaustively assessed and then properly treated who then makes the choice to transition medically should not be allowed to? I would be surprised, but I am not about to read back all the posts.

And I mean, allowed to transition but not to be allowed to be treated as the opposite sex when sex does in fact matter?

Plus, I don't mean removing the need for the GRC to be based on a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. So, if you mean, you agree that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be abandoned to get a GRC, then here we will certainly disagree because of the legal implications of this certificate at this time.

@Helleofabore

'I get that you prioritise autonomy, but I think that at the moment 'autonomy' is being obfuscated by the impact of the amplification of 'no debate' and the move now for explorative therapy to be treated as conversion therapy.'

Yes, I think you are absolutely right - I don't support explorative therapy being labelled in that way or that it should be banned. I don't support affirmation only care either.

People should only transition when they have all the facts- what a transitioned life will actually be like, the risk of de-transition, the fact that it may not solve other issues. They should also receive full consideration of co-morbidities, other conditions, vulnerabilities. Finally, the process shouldn't be rushed.

However, to me this only makes me more sure that personal autonomy is important. What I see TRA's doing is removing the autonomy of trans people, removing their ability to get all the facts, removing their ability to come to their own decision about a transition. They have politicised the doctor-patient relationship so that the choice isn't really a choice, it's more a predetermined outcome.

And yes, I do think some de-transitioners have been victims here.

But I still think we live in an imperfect world. As others have pointed out doctors get things wrong, medicine moves on all the time, the world changes around you and we all end up having regrets- sometimes very serious ones.

So we have to put our trust in the best option we have for advice- trained medical professionals and scientists. We have to accept that the advice night still not be right and the choices we make carry risk. And we really have to make sure that as adults we keep our autonomous decision making- that we have that final veto over the things that effect us.

So, whilst I agree with you, I also agree with the opposite pov, that some people should be allowed to transition if that is what is best for them. The final choice, as long as they are capable of making it and all the relevant advice has been given, should sit with the individual. They might make the wrong choice, but they have the best chance imo of knowing what's best for them and making the right choice. No-one else knows us better than we know ourselves, and other people often have their own agendas which may not be what is best for us, even if they mean well.

As to where the line is, I honestly don't know, I would hate to be an individual having to make that choice, or the medical professional supporting them. Like you, I don't think it is necessarily in the right place right now, but I also wouldn't set it so far in the opposite direction that it removed real choice but in a different way- so that it was almost predetermined that you wouldn't transition.

I understand that you probably won't agree with the conclusion I've come to on this, but hopefully there's a logic to how I got there. I also hope this wasn't so long that you've long since died of boredom reading it!

Here is an account from an Australian detransitioner who is now suing her psychologist.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4618227-australian-detransitioner-suing-psychiatrist-over-lack-of-care

www.smh.com.au/national/absolutely-devastating-woman-sues-psychiatrist-over-gender-transition-20220823-p5bbyr.html

Should this 19 year old who was referred by her Endocrinologist (or Androligist to be precise) as needing a thorough psychiatric work-up have their need for care diminished with a 'regret and sadness' should not override her autonomy?

"According to a statement of claim filed in the NSW Supreme Court in May, the referral letter from Professor Ann Conway said it “seemed likely” Langadinos had “true gender dysphoria”, but she was “very young” and “clearly” needed “thorough psychiatric work-up before embarking on hormone treatment”."

I get that you prioritise autonomy, but I think that at the moment 'autonomy' is being obfuscated by the impact of the amplification of 'no debate' and the move now for explorative therapy to be treated as conversion therapy.

For instance, if this woman had have been denied the treatment she demanded in either Victoria, Queensland or some other states, the clinician may have been sued for NOT providing her the treatment she demanded.

What is true autonomy at the moment? How is it to be judged? That a vulnerable patient who is determined to get this treatment states what is clearly their desire at that time, but has been judged vulnerable, but is given that treatment anyway... is that true autonomy?

And where does the line lie then? Which patient is the tipping point where a clinician says 'no, this person is clearly not well enough to make this choice?'.

How is that to be judged now in this current era?

Someone stated its because sex is a spectrum unlike race. I could not tell if this person was taking the piss or serious I actually think they were probably serious.

Your niece can only answer ' its obvious' because she cannot explain it either!

Lol as soon as there might be a financial implication the powers that be suddenly understand the importance of reality.

Going back to the original question, I have a feeling it is something to do with, the fight for the end to racism has come from the bottom up; the people fighting for it have never been and are still not a dominant group (in white, western societies at least) and have had to struggle to get attitudes and policies changed.

Transgenderism has come to society the other way - the dominant group (men) have influenced attitudes and policies from the top down, (looking at you Stonewall) as they are already in a position of power. Therefore they have been able to dictate what is and isn't acceptable, rather than having to fight and negotiate, and ultimately have attitudes and policies that are (mostly) acceptable and fair to everyone.

They are also taking advantage of current societal attitudes about being inclusive and non-discriminatory (which IMO have been brought about other by minority groups - LGB, disabled, religious, etc) and use it to shut down any debate or questioning by immediately bleating about transphobia and hate crimes.

There is also something to do with what benefits an individual can gain from claiming an oppressed identity, which is also tied up in the high profile and non-questionable (as in, you aren't allowed to question it) status that trans ideology has at the moment.

(This is all a bit of a mish mash in my brain, and I haven't thought it through in great detail. Please don't flame me!)

This is my understanding of the difference. It makes no logical sense. It would make far more sense if it were the others way round.

Define ‘harm’.

Also why can't people claim to be 'trans age'? Just as biologically impossible. I have read that some have tried this and it has been refused (eg to collect pension, some perv trying to declare himself a 6 year old girl etc).

I accept and respect that you, and others, won't see the boundary between autonomy and protection in the same way as I do and won't share my opinion.
I did want to point out that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying- co-morbidities should definitely be explored, additional vulnerabilities should be considered, other options should be explained etc. There may be some people currently transitioning where the risk balance hasn't been properly considered, I'm sure.
Most of the posters here have definitely given me food for thought, so I'm glad I posted, we learn more about our own views from being challenged I think.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4637908-academic-article-on-the-dutch-protocol-puberty-blockers-etc-by-michael-biggs

This OP has a new paper that is interesting reading.

the bulk of the medical profession seem to think that the best treatment for gender dysphoria can be to transition.

That's pretty much a circular definition. "Gender dysphoria" used to be "that condition which can best be treated by transition".

It's only more recently that "gender dysphoria" has become expanded to include variations which are probably not best treated by transition. And the bulk of the medical profession has yet to catch up.

I don't think either is OK or normal so both fall into the same category for me

Yes, I know. However, 18 is the age of majority and I don't see that changing anytime soon. 18 year olds are adults and can take their own decisions, on any number of issues, some of which will change the course of their lives. That's just a fact.

However, I think personal autonomy trump's being protected from regret or sadness- giving up our autonomy, and allowing others to take decisions for us seems like the greater of two evils to me.

The difficulty is who is able to consent and who isn't.

If someone has comorbidities that have been ignored (as many of the detransitioners are now telling us), and adults with these comorbidities are being allowed to make medical decisions around experimental treatments that are being questioned while their comorbidities if they were diagnosed would actually raise alarms about the ability to consent, should they still be allowed to receive that medical treatment?

Particularly since these people are also reporting that they are repeating the things groups and peers have told them to say to ensure they get treatment.

Clinicians are now being pressured in some countries that if they do not treat as insisted upon, they may be sued.

So, no. I think that there is too much at play here. I think it is too simplistic to say that people of all ages should not be protected from regret and sadness when it is now well publicised just what these vulnerable patients are doing.

@ScholesPanda I am glad we mainly agree.

But I am afraid that "regret" is a very dismissive and minimising way to describe "suffering". If you can't put the word "suffering" into your own sentence and feel it is true, then you don't understand just how how much people can suffer from wanting a child and being unable to have one. I am not accusing you of deliberate cruelty, but however hard you try to sympathise fertility must be an area where you just don't get it. I am not interested in being kind, just honest.

You overvalue autonomy. Maybe that is OK for you, that's your most important value and you'll put up with any amount of suffering for the right to have things your own way and not have anyone else telling you "this is a really shit idea and there's every chance you'll feel shit about it 10 years down the line". But not for society as a whole. No single value always trumps everything else.

That was a response to @TheKeatingFive