Talking to non GC people

No, but a woman who wants to transition to being a trans man would.

Yes, because we were talking about people who hate minorities, like trans people. So obviously we were talking about anti-trans.

Can you engage with the content instead of splitting hairs? I'm guessing not, because my position isn't extreme.

Top surgery is a type of mastectomy. What's the issue?

Only to extremists at the other end of the argument. I don't deal in extremes.

I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's sports and I also think that only TW who have transitioned socially and medically (via hormones if not surgery) should be allowed in loos and changing rooms. I do not agree with self-ID and I think that a completed transition should be required to get a GC. By that I mostly mean a completed hormonal and social transition. Doesn't have to be surgery.

The GC lobby won't have it, but the hormone treatment turns men effectively into women for all practical purposes like safety. It dampens sex drive and gets rid of much muscle, replacing it with fat. (This is according to the "Feminising Therapy" page of The Mayo Clinic, which is the world's no. 1 hospital.)

I do NOT want to share sports or women-only spaces with big hairy regular men. However, I do not perceive any threat from the transitioned women whose photos I'm posting below as examples. They're post-hormones and I would never in a million years know that they were born men. To me, TW like this are as good as women when it comes to deciding who gets to use single spaces.

Where the hate comes in is this: The anti-trans lobby would NOT accept the women below in loos and changing rooms. They would tell them to use the men's, where they would be vulnerable to assault by regular men. I cannot imagine feeling threatened by the women posted below, and you wouldn't have a clue that they had been born men anyway.

Regular men shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces. The TW posted below are not regular men, and to tell them to go to men-only spaces is, in my view, hate. I mean just look at them - it's ridiculous to treat them like regular men and to view them in the same way as regular men.

They are genuine trans women. No bad actor would take all the hormones and make himself look so feminine and have a mastectomy and grow his hair and look SO much like a biological woman simply for the purposes of using the women's loos and changing rooms! To be against TW such as these is hate imo, but it's not hate to want to keep out regular men who want to self-ID into women's spaces.

This is a common sense viewpoint - no to non-transitioned men but yes to TW who are post-transition - but again, the anti-trans lobby won't have it. They are very authoritarian and want to send women like the ones in the photos below back to the men's spaces, and some of them, when you put forward this distinction, attack you for not being as intolerant and extreme as them.

I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's sports and I also think that only TW who have transitioned socially and medically (via hormones if not surgery) should be allowed in loos and changing rooms. I do not agree with self-ID and I think that a completed transition should be required to get a GC. By that I mostly mean a completed hormonal and social transition. Doesn't have to be surgery.

The GC lobby won't have it, but the hormone treatment turns men effectively into women for all practical purposes like safety. It dampens sex drive and gets rid of much muscle, replacing it with fat. (This is according to the "Feminising Therapy" page of The Mayo Clinic, which is the world's no. 1 hospital.)

I do NOT want to share sports or women-only spaces with big hairy regular men. However, I do not perceive any threat from the transitioned women whose photos I'm posting below as examples. They're post-hormones and I would never in a million years know that they were born men. To me, TW like this are as good as women when it comes to deciding who gets to use single spaces.

Where the hate comes in is this: The anti-trans lobby would NOT accept the women below in loos and changing rooms. They would tell them to use the men's, where they would be vulnerable to assault by regular men. I cannot imagine feeling threatened by the women posted below, and you wouldn't have a clue that they had been born men anyway.

Regular men shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces. The TW posted below are not regular men, and to tell them to go to men-only spaces is, in my view, hate. I mean just look at them - it's ridiculous to treat them like regular men and to view them in the same way as regular men.

They are genuine trans women. No bad actor would take all the hormones and make himself look so feminine and have a mastectomy and grow his hair and look SO much like a biological woman simply for the purposes of using the women's loos and changing rooms! To be against TW such as these is hate imo, but it's not hate to want to keep out regular men who want to self-ID into women's spaces.

This is a common sense viewpoint - no to non-transitioned men but yes to TW who are post-transition - but again, the anti-trans lobby won't have it. They are very authoritarian and want to send women like the ones in the photos below back to the men's spaces, and some of them, when you put forward this distinction, attack you for not being as intolerant and extreme as them.

Posted this on another thread:

I think there's a workable middle-ground solution. Anyone who doesn't pass should have to produce a gender cert if challenged, and the certs shouldn't be issued until they have undergone a medical, social, and psychological transition - including a full course of hormone treatment, if not surgery.
In practice, it's self-regulating because post-transition trans women look just like women (like the ones I posted upthread here too), are no danger to anyone, and no one bats an eyelid. And anyone who is clearly a regular man should be - and is - kept out.

Maybe it's not 100 percent a perfect solution, but you can't please everyone, and I think this is the most fair. At least imo.

Of course I denounce sexism in the strongest possible terms. I started to put it on the list but deleted it because I was talking about calling out hate when I feel safe to do so, and I don't generally feel safe starting an argument with a sexist man. Also because we were talking about minorities, and women aren't a minority.

Because they are a minority group like the others.

OP, to answer your question, if it's safe to do so, I do sometimes call out despicable hate, prejudice, and ignorance, whether it's racism, anti-Semitism, or trans hate. It's generally a waste of time since bigots never change and are generally wedded to their hatred, but still, there are times I find their views so repulsive that I have to do it. They generally blow their tops at being called out and will weaponise anything to tear you down, including lying about what's written in black and white, hoping that others won't read the actual exchange, and including lying about anything and everything.

It's noticeable how they don't engage with what you're saying at all, they simply attack you personally and are, cringingly, very quick to lose control. Which is not only an ineffective tactic but makes them look really thick. They sometimes remind me of the people on Jerry Springer. 🤣 I don't find this with intelligent, educated people. They tend to have a much better handle on themselves and they respond to the content. You can always tell a bigot because they respond to polite discourse by frothing at the mouth and going nuts. I guess they thin they should be able to hate minorities freely and others should just nod along with their disgusting far-right attitudes.

Hate of any kind is unacceptable. Many people are into power, control, and are unfulfilled abusers, basically. But the saddest thing of all is that often, it's themselves they hate.

Happy people don't hate others.

As long as I live, I'll never understand why some people despise others who are simply going about their lives and doing no harm to them whatsoever.

I am actually doing other things at the same time as writing on here.

Using "looks feminine enough to pass " as the criterion for letting men into women's spaces is not practical.

If nothing else, there would be an endless stream of discrimination lawsuits from other transwomen who were considered not to pass and denied access. Especially ones who had been through the full works of hormones and surgery etc but were just too ruggedly built to feminise successfully. That really would be discrimination.

If passing = fooling all of the people all of the time, it would only take one rather more observant new service user or staff member and you would no longer pass. If passing just = fooling some of the people some of the time, then how many? How often? And what about the people who aren't fooled and know fine well that there's a man in their space? Don't they matter?

And finally: looking feminine is no guarantee that you won't think and act like a male chauvinist pig. It isn't all about rape and testosterone.

Thank you Seethlaw. I appreciate your willingness/ desire to do that.

so there have been a lot of push on the actual biology/definition of man and woman stuff, With quite a few assumptions that I don’t believe womanhood is based in biology. I think that’s understandable considering I’ve entered a GC space and declared myself ‘middle’ rather than ‘GC’. So I will try to clear this up a bit. I am not sure if you have a self-determined definition of GC, but if it is purely that you are GC if you believe that women are adults who were born with vaginas etc, ie biologically based, then yes, I basically believe this already.

I am definitely not militant or activist, basically not even engaged in the issue until yesterday…… but I am passionate about women being able to call themselves women and that particularly in areas of health, the distinction being vital to be able to articulate - for biological women to be able to talk about their bodies and needs without tying themselves in knots. I am actually not very interested in what trans people call themselves or think of themselves or even what scientists think. It is not that interesting to me. I don’t want anyone to feel discriminated against or unsafe, and it makes me sad that so much of the debate centres on ‘diagnosing’ or determining who trans people are. I understand the logic and maybe this is unavoidable. but it isn’t my issue. And I think my leaning would definitely be towards ‘third space’ and ‘third label/box’ kind of solutions. And the title of ‘trans women’ feels reasonably respectful, while remaining distinctive. I suppose my natural hope when this issue first arose was to allow quiet inclusion without takeover- (I guess more how it feels trans men have integrated into manhood). At this point it is feeling impossible, because this issue has become so aggravated and politicized and there has been a bid for takeover on the trans activist level which is absolutely infringing. So if I am forced to pick sides, then I would always pick women. And no I don’t think anyone else’s needs or wants are more important.

However, I do feel for normal people who are struggling with their gender identity and simply want to feel accepted and safe. My natural inclination is to accept anybody who is just wanting to be who they want to be, and not think I have a say in it. I think that works on a human, individual level. Ie my cousin, who has shifting self-definition, wouldn’t hurt a fly, is one of the most caring, ethical people I have ever met, and I would not dream of telling them where to go to the toilet or consciously choose to use a pronoun that would not feel right for them. I am certain they would not raise an eye in a woman’s toilet, but I would be worried for them in a men’s. I suspect they use individual toilets whenever they can, because they are very adverse to any form of attention or conflict. I just hope they and everybody else can find something they are comfortable with. However, I realise that this quiet ‘let it be’ acceptance has stopped working on a systemic level, and I am very sad about that.

Seethlaw, I think it was you who said earlier that there is no distinction between ‘normal trans’ and activists or cross dressers. That is something I do struggle with seeing the same way. And I think many others not in the GC space do also. You said the only distinction is their opinions and extremity. those sound like very important distinctions to me. And I would add another- as far as I can tell, a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon who are attention seekers, bullies and polemics, and if they didn’t jump on this platform to be that, they would jump on another one instead. So I think there is a subset of activists who are simply misogynist bullies and may not ever have struggled with their identity at all. I may be wrong. I don’t follow any of them -have just clicked on a few links posted here sometimes.

I will also say, I am overwhelmed by the level of response in what I’ve said. I was expecting to post one thing and have it fly by amidst a fast moving thread. I am trying to read and respond thoughtfully and don’t want to be accused of not doing so. But I also really have no need or want to take up this much space. I have been given plenty useful information and perspectives already, for which I am grateful.

But you failed to appreciate in your post about trans men that it was your error because you can’t seem to keep on top of your own arguments or logic.

You can’t even make it clear what makes someone a woman based on your logic, so a mastectomy makes just as much sense as a mammoplasty.

Yes, I meant to write mammoplasty instead of mastectomy.

Read your own sentence.
Your posts are so muddled.
Don't make out it's other people not wanting to engage when actually it's hard to follow your posts.

But what does that have to do with your original quote about the potential for bad faith men?

You can’t even follow your own logic.

No, but a woman who wants to transition to being a trans man would.

No, but a woman who wants to transition to being a trans man would.

Someone who wants to present as a woman would probably not have a mastectomy

Someone who wants to present as a woman would probably not have a mastectomy

Ah right, it's just that you somehow failed to mention trans extremists in your original post, preferring instead to focus solely on the "anti trans lobby". Good that you've clarified it now though.

Top surgery is a type of mastectomy. What's the issue?

That's a really sexist and reductive way of thinking about women.