Continuation thread re IOC/trans policy and related trans issues

[fidel1ne]

Also a plug for the FB group

www.facebook.com/groups/ATWIWS/

YY HLC. For me it is more of a dignity/boundaries thing. And it upsets me that my boundaries don't count for anything.

Hairy, yes, it's the principle of sex based privacy that needs to be upheld.

Its not about one over the other. Why is it always reduced to it being about one group having more right or greater need or being more deserving than another?
Because transwomen have been so excessive and shrill and unreasonable in their demands. I agree 100% with Maryz -- 'You simply cannot, in many circumstances, say trans rights and womens rights are equal - because one excludes another. One has to take priority.' The divergence is real and it cannot be ignored. Tws in seeking to erase it are seeking to deny the biological reality of women, to ignore women's feelings about sharing private space with men, to trample our boundaries, to sweep real women aside.

I use the phrase 'real women' because that is what we are, and I am sick to death of pussy footing around and pandering to the hypersensitivity. The more we pander the more power we give them. It has to stop. As a class women have only ever got anywhere politically when we stopped playing to some imaginary audience that was judging us on our niceness.

The Emperor's New Penis A great article.

That article makes me want to cry with frustration
My Facebook experiment made me feel very anxious: two friends commented positively, and another leapt in with the typical angry libfem inclusive responses. I replied to her twice, careful and measured responses. She ignored me and replied to my friends. Then my very good and old friend came on and said she agreed with libfem and the article left a bad taste in her mouth.

I was the angry libfem once until someone on mumsnet spoke sense into me.

I don't think she's a MNer sadly

That DGR article is excellent.

Is there anyone here who is willing to put across the other side, explain what they see when they read stuff like that? If you are, please do and I think we should all agree to no attacks, just debate.

Maid you asked for another side I will say my thoughts are that when I read things like that article, I feel bad inside. I see extremism and isolationism.

My feelings are that the 'other side' tends to view people as individual people first and foremost rather than being determined by which sex they were born. 'Women' are not one universal entity and neither are 'men'. The bell curves seem so very overlapped to me.

I also feel that there is somewhat of an irony in that what is a thread supposedly about trans-issues has become essentially about radicalised feminism. Much of the debate seems to focus on how trans people are taking over radicalised feminist spaces

I would like crowd funding for a boob job, I feel less womanly with my 32d. Breasts

Sadly I don't have a penis so I'm not sure anyone would contribute.

Let's not forget the horrific way the press treated Josie Cunningham about her boob job, NHS boob job scrounged as she was described.

"radicalised feminist spaces"
Not women's spaces then.

If people are just people and not determined by which sex they were born, why is there a need to undergo extensive medical intervention to change sex?

Why are transactivists destroying books and attacking women? Why are these transactivists trying to further isolate women with terror tactics?

I see extremism and isolationism too. In the hands of transactivists.

Can anyone explain?

Hi Claudia, thanks for replying. Everything below is in a conversational, not aggressive, tone....

My feelings are that the 'other side' tends to view people as individual people first and foremost rather than being determined by which sex they were born
Do you think that philosophy is absent from feminism? Have the "opposition" started to forget what feminism is about (or not understood it in the first place)? I think it's the central focus - the sex you are born should not determine you, or your potential, as an individual. However, we know it does, on many levels, from whether you have your genitals sewn up as a young girl to whether you can hope to match the salary of your male peers at work.

'Women' are not one universal entity and neither are 'men'. The bell curves seem so very overlapped to me
I agree in the context of "gender". I don't agree in the context of "sex" (variation within the system aside).

Much of the debate seems to focus on how trans people are taking over radicalised feminist spaces
I think this is the focus because it pretty much epitomises the point at which transactivism and radical feminism can't reach an intersection.

If people are just people and not determined by which sex they were born, why is there a need to undergo extensive medical intervention to change sex?

I think for the most part of the 'trans' community this is a red herring as perhaps they don't undergo extensive medical intervention as you put it Ophelia.

My feeling is that a small group of people in society feel dysphoric about their biological sex and try their best to correct it so they don't have to worry about those feelings anymore. It stops hindering the rest of their life. They can go on to function as somebody who doesn't have gender dysphoria. The 'trans' issue finishes there really.

If people are just people and not determined by which sex they were born, why is there a need to undergo extensive medical intervention to change sex?
Conceptually, I can't wrap my head around this. I recently read an article arguing that it is "sex", not "gender", that is the social construct#. If "sex" is a social construct, like "race" and "religion", it can be ignored by those who refuse to define themselves by societal pressures or rules (that's what feminism is). Why then do you need to change sex? If it represents nothing but a system of societal oppression, why physically interact with it?

I'm atheist. I do not believe that god exists and I try to make small inroads into the pervasiveness of the concept. To do so, I do not have to alter my behaviour or physiology - I don't have to become a Christian to fight Islam (or vice versa).

#My understanding is that the author was attempting to say that how we, as a society, interpret the word "sex" makes it a social construct. However, the author failed to understand that we have a word for how society interprets "sex", and that word is "gender".

My feeling is that a small group of people in society feel dysphoric about their biological sex

Sorry, I mean to continue onto this in my last post....

So, if "sex" is a construct that need not require any alteration to behaviour or physiology, then the people who choose to alter their morphology to match their desired sex are simply dysphoric#? I tend to agree, and indeed, have seen testimony here to that effect.

So all this stuff about sticking it to the man (no pun intended) and "sex" can be chosen at will and whatnot is keyboard heroics? I don't know. But the premise of "I need to change my sex presentation" does not follow from "Sex is a social construct", IMO.

#by "simply", I'm not minimising the psychological impact of dysphoria, I'm trying to highlight a single cause.

hi Maid yes I can see you've taken thought in your response and I appreciate it isn't aggressive and is conversational :) I hope mine will be the same as best I can

I think you make a good point about gender not being sex I need to take that on board as some of the distinctions I'm not experienced in using. I do feel drawn to this debate primarily as I feel it may help my own understanding of the world I live in.

I am trying to decide for myself whether or not the 'trans activism' and 'feminism' can meet at some point but I do feel that at some point the labelling needs to dampen down.

I feel boxing people up is a problem with extremism in general and certainly one I would associate with 'trans activism' and 'radical feminism'. They seem to me to be exclusively comfortable only in spaces that are uniform (as they see it)

Wow these last few posts have been eye opening and very interesting, thanks.

So a lot of transactivists/transgender ppl don't actually want to alter their body to a huge degree.

So is it a case of eg: I look like this, I call myself female, please accept I am female. Regardless of the biology they have?

And many transpeople don't have gender disphoria, that this is down to a lifestyle choice?

maths - v gd article ^^

What I can't understand is why mtf transgender people looked at the spaces available (male spaces / female spaces) and instead of thinking we will create our own third space which actually acknowledges our shared transgender history/experiences, they instead thought we'll take the women's space.

It implies either a deep level of cognitive dissonance (because they are completely denying their own lived identity until the point of transition) or it is a more aggressive attempt to rewrite 'women's' history because, let's be honest, there hasn't been an aggressive takeover of male spaces by ftm transgender people.

And the language of 'women's issues' and 'women's spaces' is important. It's not about being pragmatic about attracting support for a campaign. It's about the fact that if we leave a gap. If we start to 're-name' issues in the hope of eliciting support from the patriarchy then anyone can claim those spaces and issues and speak for 'women'. Which sets us back God knows how many years. If we lose our spaces, our language, our shared history then actually we are in a much worse situation than we were before we even had suffrage.

My experience, working in deprived areas, has been that mtf transgender people experience abuse, DV, difficulty accessing benefits, etc. Their experience is similar to women's but not the same. I could honestly weep when I see the disconnect between the public debates on transgender and the reality for the transgender people I know.

I don't see how it's confusing really. The position they are taking is that there is no category difference between woman and transwoman (or not one that matters for these purposes). So it can't be misogynistic because it's one woman giving way to another woman.

I don't agree personally but I don't find it confusing or contradictory.

I should say, I've read a few of these threads and I do think I'm changing my opinion on these issues so thank you for all the interesting chat.

APlace

It does seem to tie in somewhat with a narcissistic need for self confirmation, and a "screw you" to everyone else...

I will happily be allied to trans equality once transactivism is about identifying specific needs and campaigning for those needs. But as it stands there is a huge amount of assertion that transgender needs have to be grouped with the needs of their chosen gender, which is nonsense in the most practical.