To be shocked at the sheer amount of hatred and ignorance about transpeople on mumsnet

[Curiositykilledthecat113]

Specifically transwomen, according to the majority of mumsnet, all transwomen want to rape biological women, “steal their womanhood” and all sorts of other ridiculous, offensive statements without any factual backing.

So why is Mumsnet so intolerant and ignorant towards transgender people?

*really believe?

Or do you think it might just be more complex than that?

So you simply think transwomen go through the potential of family rejection, the potential bullying of any children they might have, potentially dangerous hormone treatment, complex surgery, discrimination etc

The vast majority of them don't do any of this.

And the fact remains that most display an overexaggerated, stereotypical, if not caricatured, picture of what they believe 'feminine' to be.
In some part this could perhaps to be as far away from what they don't want to be - masculine - as possible. But it definitely depends on a range of overperformed feminine stereotypes.
And yes, I know trans people.

The vast majority of them don't do any of this

Most trans people that people think of do do this. But we're just repeating the fact that there are different definitions of trans people.

Well it certainly isn’t to get a bit of the gender pay gap is it?

That’s what women do. Along with thousands of other shit things that come with the patriarchy. Transwomen don’t seem so keen on becoming primary carers for their children or giving up their right to be members of male only clubs or their right to inherit. Cherry picking the bits of womanhood they want is offensive.

So what is it? What is it that makes them women? And if they are women (as we are constantly told by the trans cult) why do they do that shit anyway? Why not just crack on without hormones and surgery?

saga I think some people think that's all there is to bring a woman: hair, clothes, nails.

Most trans people that people think of do do this

That is part of the problem. You need to open your eyes. Only a small percentage do this.

Transwomen don’t seem so keen on becoming primary carers for their children or giving up their right to be members of male only clubs or their right to inherit

And you know this how?

Based on your fantastic knowledge of the trans community?

Or are you on of these people who the op is talking about who is ignorant of the trans community?

‘Why don’t they crack on without hormones and surgery’

Because they have gender dysphoria? And the hormones and surgery help with the symptoms of that.

I have no issue at all with grown people taking hormones and having surgery if that’s what they want, I have an issue with them then thinking that then makes them a biological woman.

Gender is a social construct but it’s a very powerful one.
A similarity might be how a woman might intellectualy know that her desire for a labiaplasty comes from a patriarchal image of woman and that the pornafied pictures she’s sees don’t represent what a woman’s labia naturally look like. She could know in her mind that this is a form of control and oppression and a social construct, and yet be so disgusted with her body she gets surgery anyway.

I know I wear make up because my life is easier when I do because im playing up to the gendered version of me sex and yet I still do it, and even like it. It’s not something I would choose to do if I only used my rational mind but humans are complicated and just because something is constructed doesn’t mean it’s not real, it just means we have the ability to rip it down and build something else in its place.

Most trans people that people think of do do this. But we're just repeating the fact that there are different definitions of trans people.

You do realise this is exactly the crux of the problem - the reason we're having all these threads? What 'trans people that people think of' are like is irrelevant. The only definition of trans people that really matters here is the one enshrined in law. That definition is about to change dramatically in a way that's harmful to women - in a way that redefines the word 'women' to include any man who says he's one.

saga

No-one knows all the transpeople. All the transwomen.

Many people on here have said they know transwomen like you, and equally transwomen not not like you.

The problem isn’t really with transwomen like you. But since there is nothing that we can do to make a distinction, it’s irrelevant.

Datun no distinction and no dissenting voices either.

no distinction and no dissenting voices either

Apart from speaking to their MP about the proposed changes.

But I guess you know everything about trans people

Never said I did saga - I leave that to you.

Primogeniture is a specific exclusion from the GRA Saga. It would seem that men can identify into womanhood in whatever manner they please, but a woman cannot identify as a man and subsequently inherit titles and property passed through the male line (and I think this exclusion will remain under the proposed law changes). It appears that some people are more equal than others in the eyes of the politicians...

Pennypickle that is not how transwoman is defined. Nor do I consider cutting off a body part to be a 'step to become a woman'. And while we're on that subject, nor do I consider wearing a dress, wearing lipstick, wearing high heels, or showing interest in society's traditional ideas of female gender roles to be 'steps to become a woman' either.

Can you educate us how trans women, gender fluid people and pansgender are defined Dixie? Which of them still have a penis??

Either way... which of the aforementioned (or other up to date names they call themselves on an almost weekly basis) do you think should be welcomed to share changing rooms and toilets with young, vulnerable, female teenagers or vulnerable adult women?? And why???

OrderMeACurry thank you for contributing here, it's really helpful. I know these proposed changes will affect you too.

sagamartha Maybe you should read Stonewall's definition of what transgender is. It's basically anyone who wants to be.

No surgery, no hormones, no two year process, necessarily.

Curiositykilledthecat113 said earlier on "Trans only means they are transitioning between the gender they were and the gender they would like to be. They don’t remain in that transition stage forever..."

But actually, 'transitioning' doesn't necessarily mean that. It doesn't mean having surgery or taking hormones. It doesn't even mean dressing in a 'feminine way'. It just means identifying as a woman.

I don't hate trans women or anyone else. But I am scared for me and my young daughter and for all women and also for trassexual women who have been through a prosses. This is not the same as self-identification, where there is no process, just 'self-identification'.

Many people who are concerned about self-identification are people who would have been very supportive of transsexual people (and still are) and who recognise that this is not going to help anyone.

Teresa May has said, that being trans is not a medical issue. How is this going to affect genuine transsexual people who do actually want to have surgery and hormones on the NHS (as adults). How do will affect children identifying, or being identified as, trans - who need counselling to help them work through this serious time in their lives.

The government is being very clever and very sneaky, I think, the funding will be cut from services for trans people (as I believe it already is) and I am guessing a lot of trans people will realise exactly what self-identification actually means, fuck all!

The OP said at one point "... it’s about being kind..." Woman are not required to be kind and allow males access to sex-segregated spaces. And if we are 'required' to be kind and allow any male who identifies as female into sex segregated spaces, why are we not required to allow any male in at all? I bet loads of males hate being in male prisons or having to compete against other males in sports, I expect loads of males would feel safe in female prisons.

The reality is prisons are segregated by sex and should continue to be so. But I would like to see safe facilities for trans women, and trans men. I hate violence against anybody and I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone in a prison who would be the target for bullying or sexual violence. But putting male-bodied people in with females in prison is wrong.

This is even more of a pressing issue then changing rooms, IMHO. I mean you boycott Top Shop, or buy their clothes and take them home to try on. But you cannot identify yourself out of prison to a safe place, not if you are a woman!

The current self-identification laws will make life a lot harder for women but I am guessing they will make things harder for genuine trans people and children/teens too -less access to talking therapies, support, medical support; and suspicion from people, potentially even other trans people.

Because when you attempt to take away all the rules it makes things very hard for lots of people. If woman means nothing how will anyone identify as one!

Phew, sorry long, I have just read all 28 pages and had a lot of thoughts!

Night all!

I don't want to read 25 pages on a non - issue. I am offering my valid opinion though on the whole tedious subject.

This is one of the difficulties, that people like @ShirellesFan think that their opinion is "valid", despite not knowing anything about the issue, not being willing to educate themselves even a little, and feeling free to join a thread they haven't read in the entirely mistaken assumption that the vast majority of people posting on the thread have the exact opposite opinion to what she thinks they do.

Sums up why public debate is so necessary, really.

Primogeniture is a specific exclusion from the GRA

I had no idea this was the case, Inertia. Says everything, really, about who benefits, doesn't it? You can't identify out of oppression.

I'd put money on the exemption for primogeniture continuing after the new Act, possibly as the only exemption.

The exemption for primogeniture is truly shocking.

So we’re supposed to believe there’s no way a sexual predator would go to all the trouble of transitioning, but a woman wanting to inherit would.
And it’s transphobic and hysterical to discuss the former but totally acceptable to enshrine the latter in law.
Dickheads.

The fact that it was written at all tells you all you need to know really doesn't it FloraFox?

Absolutely. And the number of men affected by primogeniture is minuscule - first they have to have a title to inherit and an older sister who would be willing to publicly transition to a man in order to inherit. However of course these men's interests are protected against their over-reaching (non-existent) older sisters. But it's hysterical and neurotic to be concerned about the motivation of the entire male populations.

Natal women are gold diggers though, innit...