I'm a trans man and local trans activist, AMA

[Sideris]

Hi there, folks.

As the title says, I'm here to respond to questions in good nature.

For a bit of background information, I'm 30 years old, a trans activist out of necessity (being the first 'out' trans person in numerous spaces, which didn't have any rules or regulations before, but have since been commended for ease of process by some new trans members or trans members who have been referred by me), have been 'passing' for about three years, now.

^@PencilsInSpace I agree with you re systems these are there for screening purposes so it strikes me as potentially dangerous

Have you noticed how OP has deflected the
Thread to small issues.
Your DNA reveals your birth sex , this is a fact that no amount of surgery can change.
Personally I have been shocked by the amount of men want it all, a life a family and then decide to opt out and become a transwoman.

*What have you been barred access to?

To cervical screenings. As well as asking simple questions to a gynecologist, let alone easy redirection.*

How were you barred from these two things? As I understand it you've had a hysterectomy and therefore don't have a cervix so I'm confused as to why you'd even ask for one although I may have missed something there?

And the gynaecologist? A doctor who specialises in women. You've said you're not a woman and are a man so why would you need a gynaecologist?

I'd also like an answer regarding the male or female prison that you'd hypothetically go to.

*KnowBetter op had accused a women of 'weaponising' their experience of rape, presumably purely because they are bigoted against trans people.

How do you feel about that.*

He said that 'a persons' rape should never be used as the reason to exclude the whole of a minority group. It should never be used as a weapon at all.' This wasn't said to a woman that was discussing her personal trauma. Read objectively, if somebody said that about any other minority group, I don't think anybody would be horrified.

Anyway, what ever happened to two wrongs don't make a right? I don't agree with people on here all the time. I don't go out of my way to insult and demean them, because I don't think it achieves much.

I've read quite a few FWR threads, and have found a lot of it informative. But it is an echo chamber. Anybody that has a different opinion gets ripped to absolute shreds, which means that any information that does not adhere to the favoured narrative is not shared, or discussed.

For example, OP has said a few times that self ID will only affect birth certificates, not passports, which already don't need a GRC to be changed.

I've never seen this mentioned before, and haven't seen anybody tell him he's wrong. Is this true? I think this is quite a fundamental point, if so. As he said, how often are you asked to show your birth certificate, compared to your passport or other photo ID? Surely most negative impact will be caused by self ID regarding the latter (which OP says is already in place), rather than the former?

I really do think that there is a lot of value in not living in an echo chamber, and not shouting down anyone with different views. I think most people are trying to do what they think is best, and are not inherently trying to hurt people, in general.

Read objectively, if somebody said that about any other minority group, I don't think anybody would be horrified.

Male people are not a minority.

Like I said, I disagree that children should receive medication or blockers (which I've read from links on here do not definitively cause no long-term effects) due to gender dysphoria. I do understand the argument on the other side though - that going through puberty if you feel you are in the wrong body is likely to fuck you up for a long time.

I wholeheartedly disagree that people should not be allowed to choose who does their smears, mammograms etc.

I think that a lot of things are blown out of proportion, and issues are ignored that are widespread, and are happening to women now. I read a thread on FWR the other day where lots of people were saying that they were going to vote labour, but would now vote Tory due to Labours position on trans rights. That blew my mind. Thousands of people dying and being harmed right now, and that isn't important?

Five years ago, when I was 21, I was homeless and pregnant, after fleeing a domestically abusive relationship. I was housed in a homeless hostel, not a refuge (no space). I was housed with lots of other pregnant women, and women with children. But over half of the other residents were male; a good proportion of them had recently been released from prison, and/ or were on tag. My door got banged each night, presumably to rob me, but who knows? I know people who were raped there. There were shared bathrooms. I weed in a saucepan every night for a week, until I went back to my abuser, as I couldn't take it any longer. On average, women would have to live there with their kids for 2 years before getting a property. This is happening now, and it is widespread! I do understand lots of concerns, I really do, but I do not live in a world where it is the most concerning issue facing the women I know.

He said that 'a persons' rape should never be used as the reason to exclude the whole of a minority group. It should never be used as a weapon at all.' This wasn't said to a woman that was discussing her personal trauma.

IIRC this was said to a poster describing the personal trauma of a child.

Read objectively, if somebody said that about any other minority group, I don't think anybody would be horrified.

Do you think we should just have mixed sex everything then?

Sex is a protected characteristic in the EA and the single sex exceptions are there largely to protect us from harassment related to our sex.

The vast majority of all crime, especially violent crime, and around 98% of sexually violent crime, is committed by male people regardless of identity.

fullfact.org/crime/bad-and-dangerous-know-do-men-commit-almost-all-crime/

Sex exists
Sex is a protected characteristic
Get over it

OP has said a few times that self ID will only affect birth certificates, not passports, which already don't need a GRC to be changed.

I've never seen this mentioned before, and haven't seen anybody tell him he's wrong. Is this true? I think this is quite a fundamental point, if so. As he said, how often are you asked to show your birth certificate, compared to your passport or other photo ID? Surely most negative impact will be caused by self ID regarding the latter (which OP says is already in place), rather than the former?

You’re right. Anyone (in the UK) can already request their sex marker on passport or driving licence be changed, without a GRC, I’m not certain of the process though. It’s one of the reasons I’m very puzzled as to why trans rights activists are so concerned about GRCs at all. I really
don’t think anyone is being denied self-determination of their identity at that moment. What we don’t have is capitulation of everyone else to validate our internal view of ourselves, and I don’t feel that is a right anyone has, needs, or should have. Hence why feminists often ask - what rights are trans people being denied, that non-trans people aren’t.

For example, OP has said a few times that self ID will only affect birth certificates, not passports, which already don't need a GRC to be changed.

I've never seen this mentioned before, and haven't seen anybody tell him he's wrong. Is this true?

Yes, it is true, and it has been discussed a number of times on FWR.

An important effect of the GRC is that it changes the legal status of the holder to the opposite sex. So, for example, a man who has a GRC is legally female and will automatically be sent to a women's prison if convicted of a crime. A man who identifies as a woman but doesn't have a GRC (legally male) will go to a male prison.

It's not hard to see the potential problems of this policy if a GRC can be obtained by self-ID.

My problem becomes when people, more frequently than not people who insist radical feminism, enforce sex distinction and social stereotypes on us. When I'm told I should just be a woman because that's what I'm supposed to be because that's what my sex dictates and that's my role in life no matter how delusional, it doesn't feel like abolishing anything, it feels like reinforcement.

You seem to have misunderstood what is meant by being a woman. Being a woman means being a human with a female body. That's it. You can dress and behave as you want according to your own personality and personal taste.

It's not a 'role', it's simply a physical description. What do you think is being reinforced if you accept your body is what it is?

GRC also changes someone’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equalities Act. This is fundamental.

Self id is a nonsense. You can’t be Jim as a rule and Barbara when it suits.

But it is a sure fire way of getting your own way when it comes to jobs, sporting trophies and access to safe places.

Decent men would not barge their way into our world. These are ‘men’ who can’t cut it in their own world and want to feel superior or get their own way in ours.

Male and female sex is defined by chromosomes though- how can that be denied?!

*Do you think we should just have mixed sex everything then?

Sex is a protected characteristic in the EA and the single sex exceptions are there largely to protect us from harassment related to our sex.

The vast majority of all crime, especially violent crime, and around 98% of sexually violent crime, is committed by male people regardless of identity.

fullfact.org/crime/bad-and-dangerous-know-do-men-commit-almost-all-crime/

Sex exists
Sex is a protected characteristic
Get over it*

🙄 are you even reading my posts? You're literally demonstrating what I'm talking about. I am saying that I have read a lot of FWR threads, and identify with several of the same concerns you do.

But as soon as anybody questions any part of the narrative, they're met with 'oh so you think we should have rapists in refuges then' - which is frankly fucking stupid and pretty insulting if you have read my last post, where I tell you that I was an DV victim, pregnant and forced to share bathrooms with prisoners, but of course that doesn't matter to you as they're not trans.

Or they're met with 'sex exists - get over it'. Where did it say I didn't? How is that conducive to productive debate and discussion?

What are your thoughts on ops comments about women and girls 'weaponising' their rapes?

But women can mean anyone which renders the whole idea of women's rights meaningless

Which for some people is the endgame. Not talking about op but in general. Ops views do support that view though.

If Animal Farm was written today it would be an allegory of trans rights.

As in op thinks woman/ man/ girl/ female etc mean anyone.

An important effect of the GRC is that it changes the legal status of the holder to the opposite sex. So, for example, a man who has a GRC is legally female and will automatically be sent to a women's prison if convicted of a crime. A man who identifies as a woman but doesn't have a GRC (legally male) will go to a male prison.

I think that crime should be categorised by biological sex, 100%, though I do think it would be beneficial to keep stats on crimes committed based on gender identity too (as I believe they do with age etc).

Not sure on prisons. One of my best friends is a trans man, had full surgery at 18 and fully passes. Has been binding and calling himself by a male name since we were in year 7. I think it would be wrong for him to go to a female prison. I don't know any transwomen, but can understand how the same kind of person (eg completely legit) would be at even more risk the other way round.

I know you will say 'what about the women!!' and I agree, but the vast majority of trans people are not out to cause harm. So in an ideal world, i think as case by case basis would be best - but then this leaves the door open for human error, and women may be harmed because of rulings being subjective.

I don't think much of it is black and white. But so much of what I've read on the subject is extremely black or white, and anybody that has a slightly greyer view (on either side of the debate) is torn to bits.

He said that 'a persons' rape should never be used as the reason to exclude the whole of a minority group.

It's not. It's being used to exclude males. (Along with other concerns, such as comfort, privacy and dignity).

Males are not a minority group, how they identify is their own business - but nobody who was born male should be able to identify into women's spaces - because that would mean it's not a women's space anymore.

The vast majority of men mean no harm. The exact same majority of transwomen mean no harm. Why then should we include transwomen in places where we exclude men?

What are your thoughts on ops comments about women and girls 'weaponising' their rapes?

I've covered this. Whilst not phrased brilliantly (though I think you've took his words out of context) i took it to mean that a tiny minority of bad people from a group should not be used to demonise the whole group. I agree with this, to be honest.

I don't agree that there should be no single sex facilities. I don't think that violent male sex offenders should be in prisons with women. So overall I disagree with the OP on the point he was making. But I don't think he's said anything so utterly horrific that deserves the way he's been spoken to.

I don't think that a couple of rare cases of transwomen attacking women should mean that everybody has carte Blanche to speak to OP like he is a piece of shit. Which is what plenty of people have done on this thread.

This was my main point, tbh. Not particularly the content; as I've said repeatedly, I agree/ disagree with some stuff in both sides. But there is no need to be so fucking rude to people.

The vast majority of men mean no harm. The exact same majority of transwomen mean no harm. Why then should we include transwomen in places where we exclude men?

But so many of the places you are concerned about are already mixed sex. Homeless hostels housing pregnant women and children alongside recently released prisoners. I've worked in several residential homes for people with mental health problems, and none of them are divided by sex.

There are many more men than there are transwomen in the world. So these situations are much, much more common. Why are you not worried about the vulnerable women already forced to share facilities with men? Surely you can see how that could be viewed by some as prejudice?

Not sure on prisons.

Well, I've told you what the prison service policy is. What do you think of that? Self-ID for a GRC means that any rapist can get a GRC and then if they get caught will go to a women's prison. Does that sound like a good idea to you?