I thought I was transphobic

People don’t object to others being nice and accommodating, they object to the pressure to be nice and accommodating, at the expense of oneself, for the sake of male feelings, and for this only to be expected of women, not men.

This is key to feminism, unpicking ‘male entitlement’, ‘female oppression’ etc.

Perfectly articulated @oolovelycuppa

People don’t object to others being nice and accommodating, they object to the pressure to be nice and accommodating, at the expense of oneself, for the sake of male feelings, and for this only to be expected of women, not men.

This is key to feminism, unpicking ‘male entitlement’, ‘female oppression’ etc.

"So what is wrong with just saying NO and giving it no more thought than that?"

I guess it's about your values and the kind of society you want to live in.

I see no harm, and everything to gain, from communicating with people when tensions arise to try and minimise misunderstanding and upset. I appreciate this when others do this with me. I therefore extend this to others.

Not everyone shares this value - I appreciate that and wouldn't want you to impose this as a 'must do'. What I don't understand is the objection to others doing it.

"That kind of self-confidence is learned. It requires deprogramming from feminine subservience and prioritisation of male feelings. It’s the luck of the draw how well a girl/woman has been raised as to how confidently and competently she asserts her boundaries, as you say - you were lucky and probably unusual in your family."

I think I have been lucky in my socialisation and in the knowledge and skills acquired in my role. Perhaps, from this, I know that an adversarial approach is not the antidote and is unlikely to help achieve the end goals that are wanted.

So what is wrong with just saying NO and giving it no more thought than that?

"Ah okay then, it is humiliating to be told No, one must couch it in flowery, apologetic terms that then give the person you are saying it to the opportunity to use it as a negotiation exercise. Right ho."

Straw manning.

It is fine to uphold your boundaries and there is no need (or benefit) to couch this in flowery, apologetic terms. In having an empathic stance, you also don't need to be open to negotiation.

That kind of self-confidence is learned. It requires deprogramming from feminine subservience and prioritisation of male feelings. It’s the luck of the draw how well a girl/woman has been raised as to how confidently and competently she asserts her boundaries, as you say - you were lucky and probably unusual in your family.

Being 'unkind' might include giving no thought about simple ways you could reduce humiliation

Ah okay then, it is humiliating to be told No, one must couch it in flowery, apologetic terms that then give the person you are saying it to the opportunity to use it as a negotiation exercise. Right ho.

Put me in the unkind camp, I should not have to and will not use flowery phrases to refuse my consent, if people find the word No humiliating that is their problem not mine. Clear rules and language make life for everyone a lot better and easier, much like good fences make good neighbours.

I've done it lots of times. Ive had the full range of responses!

Being accommodating might be thinking about when and how I might inform a male that they can't have acces

They'd call the cops on you if you politely told a male that they can't have access.

Why does 'being nice' and 'being accommodating' get pilloried on FWR?

People can be nice, kind and accommodating whilst upholding boundaries and saying 'no'.

It's a bit of a straw man argument.

I don't think saying that males can't access female spaces, despite whatever identity they hold, reflects being 'not nice' or 'unaccommodating'.

I think you can uphold the boundary and be 'nice' and 'accommodating'. To me, being nice might include having some empathy for the upset this might cause. Being accommodating might be thinking about when and how I might inform a male that they can't have access.

Being 'unkind' might include giving no thought about simple ways you could reduce humiliation when upholding this boundary. And before anyone suggests this would reflect female socialisation, my brothers and son would have the same approach as me. I think this reflects our family values

Yes. I’ve been more guilt of suppressing ‘rational fear’ in an attempt to be nice and accommodating.

More fool me.

@Garlicked. I didn't intend to communicate anything about hatred or fear in my post - I'm not sure where I went wrong in giving this impression.

I think some people/posters are fearful that positive or neutral portrayal of people with transgender identities will undermine the movement to reinstate single sex provision.

I think making blanket judgments or attributions about a heterogeneous group is dodgy at best and transphobic at worst.

If transgender means changing gender but notsex [which seems to be a current version?] then trans women are, by their own admission, men.

If my son would talk to me, I suspect I would find that he doesn't believe that it's possible to change sex. The main difficulty between us is the redefinition of pronouns, so he thinks it's reasonable to demand that I call him "she" etc. I have no evidence that he is encroaching on women's spaces, but fear that the influence of the genderists could be affecting his behaviour as well as his thought processes. This muddling of language and therefore thought is the pernicious basis of trans activism's societal and political success.

"It isn't a "perfectly valid opinion" to think homosexuality should be illegal for example."

I fundamentally disagree with the opinion that homosexuality should be illegal, but it is debatable, in my view, as to whether this constitutes homophobia.

You may hold beliefs/ views that homosexuality is somehow harmful to society and therefore should be outlawed. At the same time, you may not harbour any negative views towards gay people.

I think this is the crux of the whole thread

Great piece of thinking and writing, there, Garlicked, thank you! I think I'm going to save it somewhere and refer to it in those moments when I just KNOW someone is talking BS but can't quite verbalise what it is. Which is often, in my case

There is a catch 22 in a 'phobia' which involves something that many people profoundly believe just doesn't exist, and is anti-women in the way it is declared and manifested by its supporters.
If you believe humans can't change sex, you're transphobic from the beginning.
If transgender means changing gender but not sex [which seems to be a current version?] then trans women are, by their own admission, men. So what's all this TWAW nonsense then? Oops, transphobic..
It's a lose-lose situation in the short term, but there are green shoots appearing e.g. in the courts and tribunals🌱

I know I will get pilloried on here for saying this, but I often feel discomfort as a result of reading posts on this board that seem to come from negative bias or generalised negativity towards trans people.

This often takes the form of negative inferences about motivation. Some posters don't acknowledge that their inferences are not facts, and when challenged, will make an appeal to authority. These appeals often relate to the length of time they've been a feminist or on FWR, their own experience with trans people, or simply the level of conviction they have that has been bolstered by others who agree. To me, this indicates that they may have significant blind spots that lead them to hold biased views and automatic negative attributions.

Those who consider themselves to be transgender are a heterogenous group. Some are very vulnerable (at risk) and others are high risk in terms of the harms they might cause others. I expect people who have not encountered many trans people might form biased opinions based on their experiences that they then general use to the whole group. For example, a mother with an autistic daughter who is binding and becoming more and more alienated from her family is likely to hold in mind very different ideas about 'trans people' and what they need and deserve than a trans widow with an AGP ex.

Both, due to their legitimate concerns, are likely to fear views and opinions that are likely to soften or harden other people's views of 'trans people'.

This thread should be retitled "Transhobic and proud"

We only want a pee

I’m actually quite cautious around all men I don’t know. And if some of them come across as odd I’ll be doubly cautious. I don’t want to share a private vulnerable space with odd weird men. And I certainly don’t want my dds or elderly mother to either.

I think those instincts a perfectly natural to women and shouldn’t be labelled as unlawful or hateful. Just instinctive protective mechanisms. This is why single sex spaces are so important to uphold.

Omg. No it isn't. It isn't a "perfectly valid opinion" to think homosexuality should be illegal for example.

How can one be "phobic" about a condition that doesn't even have a coherent meaning or description? Compelled religion is right. "Transphobic!" is right up there with "Blasphemy!" and takes me straight back to Life of Brian.

Any form of prejudice or hostile attitude towards transgender people, including denying their gender identity or refusing to acknowledge it.

In a strange twist of fate...if a person comes into the doctor's office and says 'I'm the opposite gender to my sex' and the doctor gives them cross sex hormones, they have already refused to admit that they ARE the opposite gender to their sex as otherwise they would not have had to give them any hormones.

Bloody transphobes.

"-phobic" is largely just a clever linguistic trick to make perfectly valid opinions seem evil.