Am I alone in wondering where the WOMEN wanting to trans are?

[loveyouradvice]

They feel so invisible....

Everywhere I look there are men who have or are transitioning to be transwomen - on magazine covers, on all women shortlists, in the media....

But where are the natal born women who are/have transitioned?

The only two I've come across are:

• one who detransitioned and wrote movingly about it, after ten years as a transman
• the american high school wrestler who is fighting to be allowed to fight in men's categories

rat Then I think, again, we essentially agree. I know the Conservatives aren’t going the whole hog. My worry is about Labour and their current thrall to the activists.

Self id does need vocally opposing. Mostly so we can point out what a shit non-solution it is. It’s also why feminists and transwomen (all as feminists, should be no need to make labelled divisions) needs to campaign for better services for trans people (medical and counselling support etc) which IS a better solution.

Problem is, these foolish young people are likely to be getting laws changed, and its these foolish young people who are pushing for GNC kids to be given puberty blockers, going round schools teaching kids that its possible to actually change sex (and that it should be done if you follow the wrong stereotypes)

Who are these groups teaching children that they should,change gender if they don't conform to gender sterotypes? Not conforming to gender sterotypes doesn't in anyway qualify you for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Not doctor will treat anyone for not conforming to gender norms because, that isn't an illness. No branch of the NHS is going round touting for trade.

As Stillscreaming says the real crux is that the GRA is about what were called transsexuals - those who accept there are two biological sexes and two gender identities usually aligned. Who say in their case they are not aligned and seek to correct that as far as medicine allows without disputing the original basis of the duality.

Hence it being the Gender Recognition Act and NOT the Sex Change Act.

But the present move toward self identification would fundamentally alter that to include redefining gender in any multiplicity of possibilities whilst shoehorning that into a two gender law and society.

Looking at it that way how can it work?

Seems to me any reforms to the GRA should be about its process - making it swifter, cheaper, removing any barriers that might be preventing those who do qualify under the definition of the act but have felt unable to comply.

And that those who wish to identify across a gender spectrum that they do not regard as in any way being of relevance to medicine or a disorder of some sort should be trying to define and persuade someone to back a separate act that covers those particular elements.

By definition they seem different aims covering different subsets of people and only really conjoined by the word gender.

Because of the different end product in both cases in terms of physical status and interactivity with other people then the rules pertaining to each act could be made more or less strict as fitting.

Then those who wish to 'transition' can choose to comply with the GRA under its stricter terms but with wider recognition or the new Gender Expression bill, or whatever it is called, conveying more restricted rights for its status as a lifestyle choice and not a medically diagnosed and treated matter - but alsi easier, even self identified, access.

Would that someone work to make everyone happy?

@Stillscreaming "Just as a by-the-by on transsexual hormone treatment. Two kinds of hormones are prescribed, one is an androgen blocker and the other is similar to HRT. The androgen blocker causes erectile disfunction and shrinks the testicles."

Can you explain what this means in relation to the debate. I think I know what you mean but I don't want to assume.

@thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth "This is the best trans thread I’ve read on here." That is good to hear. It does feel a bit different. It is good to have trans people commenting.

The ploppers (good word) are offensive because they say we are all anti-trans, we are not! We are anti-self Id.

I guess the androgen blocker/hormone treatment lowers the libido. So even without surgery someone on this is less likely to be a sexual threat. Especially if given oestrogen also.

Though in the absence of surgery only so long as the medication is taken.

Not sure that would ease the concerns of someone seeing an anatomical male as they would not know that person was taking blockers so the anxiety would likely remain.

Ah yes, Jaycee, I'd forgotten about non-binary and the whole pantheon of other gender identities.

I think your suggestion is a good one.

I haven't read the whole list of recommendations from the original consultation (is it even available? Does anyone have it?) but the very first thing I ever read about self-ID talked about a range of suggestions having been made. It was also the author's opinion that many of those suggestions would have gone much further to improve the lives of transpeople than self-id, yet only self-ID was picked up on by the government to progress. It was suggested that this was because it was an "easy win"; a bureaucratic change that would be cheap to implement but that could be flaunted to the press as a great step forward for trans rights.

I'm not in the least bit fond of our current government, but I think even their biggest supporter wouldn't find that difficult to believe.

It is quite common for post transition (Blockers/HRT even pre any surgery) to have a much lowered sex drive.

This is one of the things that needs to be considered in relation to that contentious autogynophelia theory. It would presumably either work as a cure or be disastrous if the urge to transition is caused by a sexual fetish.

One would assume anyone seeking that gratification would not exactly volunteer to remove it by actually transitioning.

Perhaps this explains some cases of trans regret. Patients who transitioned for sexually gratifying reasons and ended up unexpectedly losing that trait.

Some people are anti-trans Italian, let's be honest.

Can you tell me which LGBT organisations are telling you that you must accept sexual partners, you don't want.

Pretty much across the board, LGBT organisations have re-defined homosexuality (and consequently re-defined the people whose interests they represent) from a same-sex orientation to a 'sexual preference for the same gender' (e.g. www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/terminology_-_final.pdf ).

Among older lesbians (many of whom have been 'out' for quite a while and socialise outside of official groups) this doesn't really register and the vast majority would be polite to a transwoman but certainly wouldn't feel that they had to consider them as a sexual partner. Younger lesbians (such as there are) are often involved in LGBT uni groups and LGBT youth groups and, from what I've seen and what I've heard from other people, there is a lot more suspicion of lesbians in these organisations and a lot more pressure to accept trans-identified males as sexual partners or risk being accused of transphobia.

Its not that you would be required to have sex with a specific person (although being able to accuse someone of transphobia if they won't sleep with you or if they call out any abusive behaviour does give individuals a lot of power to isolate young women from 'their' community - This gives a bit of a snapshot of that experience 4thwavenow.com/2016/04/27/shrinking-to-survive-a-former-trans-man-reports-on-life-inside-queer-youth-culture/ ). However, young lesbians (who as girls have been raised to please, to be compliant and put other people's needs above their own) are told by their new community that it is discriminatory not to view transwomen as sexual partners and also harmful to a vulnerable group who could commit suicide if their gender identity is not validated. (Even more blatantly in the linked blog trans-identified males were saying they were suicidal and only nude pictures would help, which is a level of blatantness I haven't seen but I try to avoid these circles now.)

I think I was very lucky growing up as a lesbian before this stuff really kicked in (although I certainly didn't feel lucky at the time and I hoped the next generation would have it better).

I know a lot of lesbians of the generation above me who got married - even where they already knew they were a lesbian - because it was what was expected and approved by society, because lesbianism was seen as morally wrong and because they didn't want to upset and shame their family. Although corrective rape and forced marriages do happen, none of these women were physically forced to enter a marriage and have sex with a man they were not in love with or attracted to. They didn't need to be forced - There was already enough pressure on them to push them into these relationships.

Similarly, with the younger generation of lesbians, there is a return of this pressure to sleep with males - and, again, in many cases, they aren't being physically forced to have sex with males - the messages they are being taught about morality (which has shifted to that they are bigots for not sleeping with males rather than that they are sinful for sleeping with women), the societal pressures (now from within the 'LGBT community' rather than outside it) and again the pressure on women to be people pleasers and to put other people's needs above their own are enough.

Can you explain what this means in relation to the debate. I think I know what you mean but I don't want to assume

I was replying to someone who implied that we were swimming in people who'd had breast surgery and hormonal treatment but no surgery lower down. I was pointing out that, it was unlikely to be a long term state that large numbers would choose. Which,mod course, doesn't mean that no one would choose to live like that, just that it's not the default.

I do not understand how transgender issues have anything to do with whether A wants to sleep with B.

Does not matter if A is Arthur or Anna and B is Barry or Barbara - this is two humans choosing to be together on the basis of attraction.

That's it.

I cannot see anything transphobic about someone deciding they would rather not sleep with a trans man or woman. Anymore than it would trichophobic if someone prefers not to sleep with a blond/e or brunette.

All relationships are about attraction and choice.

You just cannot order human nature to do what you want it to do and thinking you can is a bit silly really.

@IG

The ploppers (good word) are offensive because they say we are all anti-trans, we are not! We are anti-self Id.

Perhaps those who don't stay to engage are not comfortable with the tone of the discussion? Some people are respectfully anti self ID, others are offensively anti trans, some are just plain offensive to anyone who disagrees with them,

As I've said, I've been accused of "oppressing women' for disagreeing with them. I'm been accused of being a man for disagreeing with them. I've had male pronouns used at the first sign of asking any questions.

Those who do hang around and then called 'seal Lions', and have all of their questions met with, 'arf, aft, aft'. And meaningless gifs.

It's not a pleasant environment.

So I think it's a bit rich to start having a go at people that trans decades ago about 'farting about on MN'

This could have been better phrased. It was borne out of frustration. I also apologise to you @Jayceedove for addressing my comments personally to you. My frustration has been building for a long while and isn't personal.

I will cheerfully admit I spend a lot of time farting about on MN for all sorts of reasons, serious and frivolous. Nobody here knows how much any other poster does offline unless they choose (and are able) to talk about it. That was really not my point.

You missed the bit off the end of that sentence which was to do with tone policing and this is something that concerns me. I think it's a side effect of there being no organised trans voice against self-ID, plus MN being pretty much the only place online where women can openly debate. Anybody can post on MN about anything of course, but it's obvious that some tw are drawn to post here because this is where the debate is happening.

And despite the odd angry post that Rat can drag up, we are on the whole an empathetic lot who don't wish to cause further hurt to people who have been through hell. And we are socialised to put others' needs first. So when a tw starts posting we start to tone things down and self-censor. We tend to centre the tw and defer to them, thank them effusively for their posts and admire their bravery for posting.

This is no good when our rights are being thrown in the dustbin. Women have the right to be absolutely fucking raging about what's happening.

It’s sometimes difficult to remember, amongst all the arguments, exactly what women stand to lose here. The sex category ‘female’ is being asked to absorb the sex category ‘male’. What women are being forced to accept could literally not be any more extreme. (Helen Saxby)

So sometimes some of us will say things some trans people will not like. Sometimes we won't be as polite as some trans people would like. This has to be OK. We've been shut up long enough. This is pretty much the only space we have.

I wonder what the aims are for trans posters who are drawn to MN purely to join these debates. Are you seeking to educate us? Listen to us? Police us? What?

What am I supposed to make of one after another tw joining mn purely to post variations of 'I agree with you on A but please don't say B or C because that upsets me, btw I'm too scared to do anything about A myself'.

Pencils -much respect for coming back and reviewing your phrasing and apologising to Jaycee

@HereComesTheSun1

I'm glad that we agree that no LGBT organisations are requiring anyone to have sex with anyone they don't want to.

As I've said, there is a problem with young women of all sexualities being coerced into sexual activity they don't want. It does seem to be even worse than it was when I was a young woman but this is something that effects young women from all communities.

I think that it's really sad and quite pathetic when groups use this awful situation to bash their minority group of choice. We saw it happening with grooming gangs in Rochdale and we're seeing it happen with the trans community.

The sexual abuse of women is bloody awful, it's not confined to or the responsibility of one specific community.

Rat yes some people are anti trans but ploppers come and tar us all with the same brush.

@Jayceedove "Though in the absence of surgery only so long as the medication is taken."

Indeed and there is no legal requirement to take hormones.

"Not sure that would ease the concerns of someone seeing an anatomical male as they would not know that person was taking blockers so the anxiety would likely remain"

Exactly. If I had a brother with tiny balls and erectile dysfunction (I don't) I expect most women and most trans women with a GRC would not want my brother in the shower with them at the gym.

Indeed, thank you pencils.

I had no malice in any case.

As I explained earlier I only chose not to engage in reply on that thread as I was not seeking wider confrontation but consensus on this forum.

I have no problem at all with people holding differing opinions to my own on these matters, including how they see my status.

I accept how contentious and confusing this all is.

It is no less so to me.

Pencils, I am sorry if you think I was being passive aggressive. I really wasn't.

Posting about someone behind their back on a different thread when you are not prepared to respond directly to their post is passive aggressive. This is a shoddy non-apology.

Happy to leave it though because it's boring and there are far more interesting points on this thread.

Best left now?

Exactly. If I had a brother with tiny balls and erectile dysfunction (I don't) I expect most women and most trans women with a GRC would not want my brother in the shower with them at the gym.

I've not suggested that anyone showers with anyone at the gym. I've simply said that it's not a state that many people would want to be in long term, that it seems unlikely to be a goal.

You won't get consensus here. The debate has only just started and we're a huge, disparate bunch. Women's and transwomen's needs are different in many areas and we'll have lots of different priorities that won't always align. Where our priorities align we can campaign together. Where they don't we can look for compromises that don't shit on anybody.

The debate has to happen even though it's painful and scary. Right now debate is more important than consensus IMO.

If just a few of us find consensus here Pencils where previously there was none, I'll be happy. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

It is I guess understandable for trans people to seek validation and explanation. What we go through is like a migraine of the soul that is there from childhood onwards until you find the right pill that makes it go away.

That is mentally exhausting and, inevitably, you seek high and low for explanations. When I was young that was really tough as there was nothing at all to consult. No internet. No trans support groups. No doctors who had a clue this thing even existed. When I was a teenager I scoured heavy medical reference tomes in Manchester Central Library looking for some account of what was happening and sign that someone had an answer and a way out.

So you spend much time trying to figure out why you are this way.

It will be very different today as you can just type it into google and be lead to a wealth of discussion, you tube videos of my transition and multiple forums and sites with a multiplicity of theories offered up by someone - genuinely - but largely speculatively.

Because even now 60 years on for me nobody knows how or why this happens every now and then to someone. Only that it does.

It is easy just to view it in a context of the 21st Century where modern society appears to suggest things as likely causes. And yet forget that this was happening to me and a few others when rationing was still in force and gender fluidity and the internet were science fiction.

Or that trans people exist all over the world, even in remote cultures far away from modern western civilisation. And hundreds of years ago when the gender roles and pretty much every aspect of life was radically different from today.

Yes, modern society is likely creating some cases and the numbers are swelling due to things that emerge from our lives today.

But there is a base level of transgender people that have existed throughout history that for me hint at the likelihood that this is more fundamental than the shifting sands of play, gender ideals and how we are raised.

It still might be physical or psychological, of course. But it is less likely to be entirely a product of many things we think it is from only seeing it as it is right now.

@Stillscreaming well let's leave my imaginary brother with his small balls.

I'd really like to talk to trans men, and about this whole phenomenon of so many girls identifying as boys.

@Jayceedove I'm worried that Stephen does posting in his own name, I admire him for it. But could it open him up to unwanted attention in real life?

It would be so nice if a number of trans men could post and add their voices.

I know we have strayed back into locker rooms and showers, sorry for my part in that! There are other threads on that. But I hope we can find out more about how trans men who have a GRC feel about the numbers now identifying as trans boys and the whole self-Id thing.

Thanks for sticking with us.

Pencils "The debate has to happen even though it's painful and scary. Right now debate is more important than consensus IMO."

I so agree. I am someone who wants to get to the consensus but we will only get that common ground if we can work through this maze.

Rat "It doesn't have to be all or nothing." Totally agree.