Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Gender Self Identification debate continued

617 replies

PoochSmooch · 25/07/2017 07:36

Continuation of the thread from here

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
andintothefire · 25/07/2017 09:23

Just responding quickly to Anlaf's post yesterday regarding this case: www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/law-reports-106

I have just read the full judgment and actually in many ways I think it is quite a sad case. I also ended up agreeing with the judge in this situation (the prisoner wanted to fully transition but was not able to live as a woman in a male prison because of the more restrictive rules on clothing and makeup, so was unable to have gender reassignment surgery). The evidence to the court was also quite clear that the prisoner had struggled with gender identity for a while, and had also had a male partner. There were also proposals to keep her away from the general female prison population if she was a risk. Anyway, it is worth reading the judgment in full if you have a moment.

Of course, the real issue with the new proposed legislation in relation to prisons is whether men who have no intention of actually fully living as a woman or transitioning simply take the route of self declaring in order to transfer to a female prison. But it does strike me that we need to be a little careful (particularly in public petitions etc) about conflating people who are genuinely transgender and those who might be opportunistic. Actually, it surprises me that more transgender people are not concerned about this possible opportunism (a point that has been made by others).

PoochSmooch · 25/07/2017 09:24

I was thinking about this again while walking the dogs and I thought of a parallel.

When equal marriage rights were being proposed, throughout the consultation process that led to the change in the law, those who opposed it had a place at the table. Representations from faith groups about why they opposed the measure were welcomed, considered, debated, and of course ultimately dismissed. Much as I personally might think their views to be wrong, they were allowed to present them, allowed to have them, which is as it should be. We live in a democracy where people are allowed to discuss, debate and oppose laws - making them, changing them, updating them. In a modern democracy, there is a process.

What worries me here is that women do not have a place at the table. Women's groups are not being consulted. The petition about this on 38 degrees was deleted by the site owners without any of their customary weighing up of the evidence. Most women I know, myself included are afraid to discuss this on their social media because of the hounding we receive. All of the consultation pieces that I've seen on this take no account of women's voices. That's what worries me.

I mean, I could be mistaken. Maybe this legislation is fine and won't result in women's rights sliding backwards, and maybe I am on the wrong side of history (I doubt it, but hey, it's possible). However, we can only know that this is the right thing to do by examining what is being proposed, who it helps, and who it hurts, because that is how a free, open democratic society works. We don't do it by censoring, by name calling, and by steam rollering.

OP posts:
makeourfuture · 25/07/2017 09:26

But it took 12 years for courts to agree.

This is the way our common law works. One can say that nothing is ever "settled".

cuirderussie · 25/07/2017 09:28

Datun you said it. Like Kaiser Soze said (paraphrasing Baudelaire) the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he doesn't exist. Substitute "patriarchy" for "devil" and you've got the last 20 years of liberal feminism with their sex-positivity, post-modern queer politics, and uncritical pro-trans stance.

LadyinCement · 25/07/2017 09:30

The thing is transgender is rather trendy . I had a look at the celebrity comments regarding the North Carolina Bathroom Bill (ie people can only use toilet of their birth sex) and there were all these people such as Bruce Springsteen frothing and saying they would never play North Carolina. And of course every Tom, Dick and Harriet followed so as to be seen to be "on message".

I do have every sympathy with a genuine transgender person. But as everyone on these threads is saying, why compromise the safety of 51% of the population for the sake of a very small number of people?

Datun · 25/07/2017 09:33

Thanks user1471517513

There is a head of steam building up. It's now or never.

hackmum · 25/07/2017 09:42

Andintothefire: "But it does strike me that we need to be a little careful (particularly in public petitions etc) about conflating people who are genuinely transgender and those who might be opportunistic. Actually, it surprises me that more transgender people are not concerned about this possible opportunism (a point that has been made by others)."

This is a good point. I do wonder if a lot of ordinary transgender people are keeping quiet about this because they are being intimidated by the more vocal transactivists.

I also wonder whether the transactivists themselves are genuine trans people, or just male rights activists using the trans cause as a way of forcing women to give up their women-only spaces. Some of the stuff they come out with ("I punch Terfs"; nonsense about having a female penis; demanding that lesbians have sex with them) is so ludicrous and extreme it's hard to imagine that they seriously believe it.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 25/07/2017 09:43

Here is an article that underscores my earlier point about divisions within the transgender community (I actually think that is a misnomer - I don't think it is a community).

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/changing-gender-recognition-act-wont-solve-discrimination

andintothefire · 25/07/2017 09:53

Thanks for that article Spartacus. Should we be using the word transsexual?

YetAnotherSpartacus · 25/07/2017 10:01

Thanks for that article Spartacus. Should we be using the word transsexual

It's a word I prefer because it explains a clear disjunct between a person's body and the actual sex they think they are (put crudely). Transgender suggests something odd about needing to fix one's body to meet a correct social construction of masculinity or femininity - it makes no sense to me. However, I understand that 'transsexual' is now politically incorrect. This is partly because generally, we started to use gender when we meant sex and partly because transsexuals themselves thought the word implied that their affliction was a sexual fetish or said something about their sexuality. Also, if you use the word online you will likely be flamed and called a bigot or a terf.

Andrewofgg · 25/07/2017 10:06

FFS!

Whatever I call myself and whatever I wear there are places I don't belong (a women's ward as a patient) and things I should not expect to do (work at a Brownie camp unless there is a woman present every second I am with the girls).

And of course vice versa - a men's changing room is a male space and the Cubs must be supervised by men.

I appreciate that for some men and some women, themselves harmless people, that works hardship and it's JTB. Self-identification is not on and it's not rocket science.

Datun · 25/07/2017 10:08

LadyinCement

Marketed fantasy vs reality.

You've got it.

Trans is being marketed. Marketed as fun, frivolous and flamboyant. And if that's too superficial for you, don't worry, because it's also brave, courageous and hard. A painful journey, but ultimately a wonderfully inclusive and bonding celebration of womanhood. Sisterly and united.

No, it's not. Very few transwomen scale the dizzy heights of celebrity.

Most genuine trans people are known as Truscum by transactivists. They are as reviled as much as women. And if you decide to de-transition, as many women do, woe betide you. You will be ostracised and abused. You are a traitor to a cause, not someone who has managed to come to terms and manage a distressing condition.

The trans movement is unrecognisable to how it was 10 years ago.

Gender dysphoria is a real and crippling condition. And yes, it does hit children, generally at puberty. It's a nightmare for parents. They don't want it to be seen as an aspiration, to be celebrated. They are petrified of the route down which their children are lead. They want access to treatment, therapy, counselling. They don't want to be told that the only solution is to surgically remove their genitalia and keep them on hormones for the rest of their life, sterile and sexually compromised.

But nah. Let's just change privacy laws because of a handful of transactivists - abusive, sexist, and powerful.

To create laws that allow any man in the land access to any woman and child on the back of a condition that should be having as much money thrown at it as possible in order to find a cure, is ludicrous. And as useless for genuine transsexuals as it is dangerous for women.

Having gender dysphoria should absolutely remain the cornerstone of transgenderism. Cross dressing fetishists and celebrity autogynephiles need to fuck off.

Gender Self Identification debate continued
Gender Self Identification debate continued
Anlaf · 25/07/2017 10:11

andintothefire

I can't see the judgement on that case- only the linked summary. That prisoner dragged a female shop assistant into a storeroom, tied her up with a suspender belt and attempted to rape her.

The prisoner killed his male partner by strangling him with a pair of tights.

I don't understand why he was forbidden from wearing makeup in a male prison- why he couldn't be segregated in a male prison, and whether there was any risk assessment on the women in the women's prison.

Why were the hospital determined he should live as a woman in a woman's prison before surgery?

Anyway, but cases like this probably won't happen in future- that prisoner will declare that they intend to live as a woman forever and tada, they are moved to a woman's prison.

AssignedMentalAtBirth · 25/07/2017 10:13

Thanks for starting the new thread pooch

Just catching up as have been away

twitter.com/SatiriaNews/status/889543127496888320

This mag tweeted about the petition when I brought it to their attention, I have also started to tweet to known liberals against the SJW and Identity politics movement about it, in the hope that they will support us. Any ideas ?

Need to go back and check, but whoever was asking if they could PM me, you are very welcome

Anlaf · 25/07/2017 10:14

HELEN LEWIS ARTICLE IT IS TREMENDOUS

Might be one to share -it's short and to the point

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/a-man-can-t-just-say-he-has-turned-into-a-woman-m5lltcgv7

noblegiraffe · 25/07/2017 10:16

Libby Purves in the Daily Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4726874/LIBBY-PURVES-want-equality-worried-gender.html

MaidOfStars · 25/07/2017 10:29

The Brownies/safeguarding thing.

Male/man = potential safeguarding threat, pedo, etc.
Male/woman = not a problem.

The premise is that a male who identifies as a woman is safe. Why? Because they are deemed to be gentle/non-threatening? But there will be many males who identify as Something Not Linked To Gender that could also acquire the same stereotype? A male/Buddhist? A male/nurse? (Obviously stereotyping Buddhists and nurses...)

What is it about the /woman that is different to /Buddhist? Or is it just that the male/woman cannot legally be prevented from taking up such a position?

terrylene · 25/07/2017 10:31

There is also a Telegraph article but it is behind the paywall [humph]
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/24/shake-up-transgender-rights-overturns-foundational-principles/

AssignedMentalAtBirth · 25/07/2017 10:39

Can someone copy the articles text to here please. Esp the Helen Lewis one

terrylene · 25/07/2017 10:42

I can't believe that this country has a government makes badly thought out decisions on life-changing legislation that affects women in vulnerable situations, and probably everyone else in its wake, once it is passed, all to pull the rug from under the feet of the Opposition Leader because his star is temporarily a little bit higher that theirs.............

Wouldn't they carefully research its affects, and commission studies by eminent academics in the field? Pay all those legal eagles to find the loop holes. Announce it in the Queen's Speech? No flimsy self-identifying surveys............

Oh, wait a minute ......everyone's busy with Brexit, and they have got the fag packet out again Hmm

AssignedMentalAtBirth · 25/07/2017 10:45

twitter.com/SatiriaNews/status/889547306067951616

Yes! they are starting to tweet more about it. We need more allies like this. Private eye?

LadyinCement · 25/07/2017 10:51

I read the Libby Purves article. Extra information is that authorities will be not be obliged to (read: must not) inform parents if there are adults "self-identifying" as female in residential settings (eg Brownie camps). I can imagine most Brownie parents are pretty wired about safety, but what about in children's homes etc? Historically predators target vulnerable young people and what a gift to be able to access girls with no decent advocates.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/07/2017 10:53

I missed the end of the last thread - did MNHQ ever make any comment?

Anlaf · 25/07/2017 11:07

Can't copy Helen Lewis article in times on phone but you should be able to register for 2 free articles

Also helpfully linked to here if you want to read it twitter.com/judeinlondon/status/889784798763507716

terrylene · 25/07/2017 11:15

I think the New Statesman article upthread had some very salient points.

There is a great deal of confusion. Other groups that want to be women for various reasons have piggy-backed on the needs of a small minority who actually want to be a different sex and suffer for it and this has been taken up by very vociferous and aggressive experienced activists who know how to work the system and flood us with 'positive images' and lobby the right politicians.

Everybody has seen something in the press and think 'what's the fuss, it's only giving nice people what they deserve'

But it is all so badly thought out. People need to read, understand and take notice of the things that are finally coming into the press, from people who know how to explain the issues. Otherwise it will become another thing that we drift into, and can't do anything about.

And worst of all (except for the collateral damage if it passes), it is not actually helping the people that it is supposed to help.

Swipe left for the next trending thread