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

I think the term cis is completely pointless and seems needlessly divisive. I had never heard of it until a year or two ago when I started posting on Digital Spy as openly trans after being on there for years discussing the media without it ever coming up.

I had to ask what it meant and why it existed and when told still failed to get why it was needed. Like most of the silly acronyms and words dreamed up on both sides that strike me as being there to se to fire insults and create division and further the argument.

As if perpetuating the fight is more important than trying to find some common ground which I would have hoped would be how any decent person would view something that was understandably so divisive.

I argued then, and still do, that you do not need to define a word to describe someone who is not something which most people will not even recognise. Not when there is a completely understood term already.

I am a trans woman so there is no need to differentiate any further because you are either a trans woman or a woman.

You do not invent a name for every animal that is not a cat. Such as a Noncat. Why would you?

As far as I am concerned my mum was once a Ciswoman for a very short time but then stopped being one.

She worked for the CIS, Coop Insurance Society in Manchester. That is the only context I have or would ever use Cis.

Also, ALL name calling is wrong. Obviously there is a sliding scale where one is a term used to oppressed millions in the most unimaginable way and at the bottom there’s calling the boy at school bum face.

It’s all wrong. But not necessarily equally wrong and offensive. Most people can work that out for theme selves.

I think a very good place to start on any better understanding would be to stoop using ALL the really very daft acronyms that have been created. None of them further progress. All of them are used as weapons, consciously or unconsciously, to alienate others.

Words like TERF, TRA etc are all not aiding anything other than to drive the debate further apart and are frequently used now just as an insult, possibly by people who only view them that way and have no idea of real meaning.

I am only guessing on TRA (Trans Radical Activists???) and TIMs (Trans Identifying Males???) Though the latter is confusing as I am not sure if that is meant to mean a Trans Man or a Trans Woman.

So if you have to play Call My Bluff to figure out a conversation I think the point has been reached where that conversation has gone beyond common sense.

Jayceedove I have found your posts really helpful and illuminating. I really hope that you have contributed, as a trans woman, to the Scottish Government's consultation because I think your views would be a really useful contribution. I think the Westminster government will be looking at what happens in Scotland too and so I think the Scottish consultation is potentially very important.

To be honest, Jaycee, I still seem to have conversations in real life with people who are baffled by the term 'transwoman', and after wrangling with it for a bit, decide it means 'a (female) woman who is transgender'.

As if perpetuating the fight is more important than trying to find some common ground which I would have hoped would be how any decent person would view something that was understandably so divisive.

This is EXACTLY what I find so frustrating about the whole thing and increasingly so on here. There’s too much mud slinging and not enough sensible debate. Thank you for all the insightful comments on this thread. It’s been really interesting to read.

@nanny

Look still you obviously hate us, no matter what we say.

I'm disagree with you, to equate that with hating you is disproportionate. I haven't attempted to silence you, I think that many of the things that you are claiming are wrong and I'm explaining why.

Why is that such a threat to you, surely, you've had people disagree with you before?

No, you compared us to racists.

Still - why can't the "n" word be typed in full? Maybe the person who typed it is "black" - would it be okay then? And if I was quoting certain sections of certain books I would include the "n" word typed in full.
In fact I am perfectly happy to type if necessary all kinds of word that I would never use in spoken conversation. Typing is not the same as speaking - if I called someone in typing a "N" word then that would be offensive, but to be honest to keep typing the "n" word is a bit like some Victorian maiden Aunt covering the piano legs.

I actually find Cis offensive - but will use it if I have to, I definitely find TERF offensive but can understand why some want to reclaim it just like the word "bitch" (ohh should I have typed the "b" word?).

Cis is ridiculous.

'Cis' hasn't caught on and is unlikely to. I've noticed 'biowoman' is now starting to appear in it's place. I'm ready to reject that as well.

I have just posted on a thread on Digital Spy what I think is the right way forward after much thought.

A two tier system much like a provisional and full driving licence.

Retain the GRA as now and its safeguards and more onerous qualification requirements to gain full gender identification status.

Make it a little smoother to access and cheaper maybe but do not remove the need to demonstrate evidence of permanence of transition and commitment by attempting to transition as fully as practicable.

Create a new bill for the equivalent of a provisional GRC - a sort of Gender Identification Presentation Act.

This can be used as a first step to a full GRC for those planning to transition and can have much easier access but with its wider access and scope come with more limited rights.

Much as if you have a provisional licence you cannot drive in certain circumstances and are not regarded as being a proper driver until you decide that driving is for you and you are good enough to do it and you can then apply for the full licence and meet its more onerous restrictions and requirements but gain freedom of the road.

Those who simply want to express themselves in some self identified gender expression would be able to do so and get some recognition but not in areas that would potentially cause problems.

Many might be happy to stay in this status if they are simply socially transitioning or want to flip flop or are not yet sure if they want to medically transition or be assessed.

Those who do could go on and attempt to qualify through the existing route to qualify for a full Gender Recognition Certificate but would have some interim protection during the period they are qualifying for that by way of medical assessment and real life qualification duration.

Would be interested in how this might work for both sides of this concern and if it might be a way to find a path out of the existing impasse.

Obviously there would be many fine points to consider but would this make sense in general principle?

I haven't caught up to all the latest comments, but I wondered if anyone wanted to read this and compare how they see it?

Thanks

www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201803/different-stripe?collection=1111884

I've noticed 'biowoman' is now starting to appear in it's place. I'm ready to reject that as well.

Can I ask why? I think I think I'd be ok with biowoman. I'm a woman because of my biology, nothing else.

Still - why can't the "n" word be typed in full? Maybe the person who typed it is "black" - would it be okay then? And if I was quoting certain sections of certain books I would include the "n" word typed in full.

There are load of explanations for this if you Google but for a thread about transmen: social convention. MN is a very liberal place in terms of allowed language, you can type cunt until your head falls off and no one will say a thing but, as you can see, it has been removed.

Biowoman sounds like a superhero to me - but I still identify as = woman.

@Italiangreyhound I really like that article - and I'm so pleased that the author had the strength not to give in to pressure to take a step she wasn't ready for.

jaycee What you’ve suggested sounds reasonable. I’mnot Sure you’d get the current trans activists to agree to it though. I think it represents a good middle ground.

Have you seen the petition on feminist chat? It’s asking for a proper discussion on self-id in the commons. Worth a look.

jelly this issue lots of people have with biowomab is that implies that women who don’t conform to gender stereotypes are only half women, just biologically. Like there is a hierarchy. Like those women are just women for biological purposes I.e- breeders. There are just women, there shouldn’t be a qualification element if you are born female.

I see it and understand it Italian.

Cindy was being understandably driven by her own convictions to tell them what to do, but you should NEVER assume that everyone is like you are. Self evidently from all the diversity out there they are not.

The advice to take it slowly was the right advice.

I immediately recognised the uncertainty in this story and so it proved as it developed. Transition would have been disastrous in these circumstances.

If you look at my posts I often use the term 'persistence of insistence'. It is what is looked for and why only around one in 10 people who present at doctors with dysphoria are progressed to transition and the rest are not.

Persistence, as in it starts early in life and not post puberty, where emotions and hormones are running wild and can create confusion. And insistence as in it is not an am I or aren't I ? debate. It is a certainty.

Rightly or wrongly those were the criteria used when supporting
someone to transition - which in those days meant via hormones and surgery not try it and see - so these stern ideals were thought necessary.

I suspect that stories like this one are more typical than not and show why that old school thinking was probably right.

It is also why there were far fewer cases of trans regret than I suspect there will be today as many people who would once have been vetted and told to wait and see are given scope to do as they wish on the spur in today's easy access to anything via the internet society.

It probably fits what I am suggesting too. A halfway house recognition whilst someone is trying stuff out and full rights only if and when they and the doctors who they must go see first conclude they are genuinely in need of transition.

My view is that many of the 593,000 trans confused and gender unsure people who are behind the self identification route to full rights would go the way of this case and be happy with the freedom to explore with some basic rights in return.

And that only a small fraction of them would do that and conclude they really were so dysphoric that they needed full, permanent transition and would put up with whatever requirements are asked for to achieve that.

Indeed this is why it is relatively hard work to get a Gender Recognition Certificate under the current GRA.

Based on the 10% rule about persistence of insistence uncovered years ago it is known that those in that category will prove that intent by doing what it takes and those who feel it is a bit too much like an imposition probably never should transition and are best served by taking the time to really think it out.

a quick apology to stillscreaming - the second example I gave works just as well (the nasty women t-shirts). I tend to put my foot in it when I am at my most well-meaning.

It hadn't occurred to me that some people would see the "reappropriation" of the word "Terf" as being like waving a confederate flag.

It is, at the very least, a badge of alleigance, a circling of the wagons, a drawing together against perceived attack.

But, of course, we each see our "side" as victim, so that makes the actions of the other "side" look aggressive to us when they band together, even though it feels defensive to them (and vice versa).

this issue lots of people have with biowomab is that implies that women who don’t conform to gender stereotypes are only half women, just biologically.

I was thinking of it the other way, as in I don't conform to gender stereotypes therefore I am a biowoman, a woman biologically only, why that would make me a half woman? I really don't want to be a woman in the gender stereotype sense which is why I don't like 'cis'.

I think whether we like it or not, the word woman comes with a whole lot of social connotations including all the gender stereotypes.

still pondering the use of nicknames thing.

back in the day, on the mumsnet special needs board (long long ago, before all the geese metaphors began) a few well-meaning folk crashed into rather sensitive threads saying like "Oh! I just want to say I think you are all marvellous! I don't know how you do it!" and "you must be a saint to do this!"

It was, truthfully, very annoying, and although the well-meaning people were politely ignored on the threads, lots of regulars did then change their nicknames to include the term "saint" or "saintly" as a bit of a parody or riposte or banding together against the ignorant or whatnot. Truthfully, because I was only ever90% sure I belonged on the board and I didn't agree with everyone all the time, I found this "saint" thing a little unnerving - an in-joke where I wasn't sure if I was on the inside or the outside.

If we think of the trans debate as being just as sensitive but much more hostile, I guess I can see why someone would feel offended by the terf-names. But, on the other hand, there is no right not to be offended.....

Nanny, I read the thread on the petition.

There is nothing I object to in the wording and was happy to sign it.

Which petition is this, please?

There was something in the thread I had not appreciated. That the changes to the act plan to alter what is currently Gender Reassignment to Gender Identification.

That is even more clear showing that the original intent of the act is being significantly extended (and diluted) to embrace large groups of people that it was never designed to address.

There is an obvious huge difference between gender identity and gender reassignment and it persuades me that this act should not be extended to include something more fuzzy and easily made to fit all sorts of possibilities.

Any recognition for Gender Identity should have its own act and be sufficiently limited in the scope of what you get for what you are willing to commit to get it.

That alone would have been enough to persuade me.

Someone asked on that thread if self identification would allow a man to get a pension at a female age. I guess it would but by the time it comes into effect with the equalisation of pension ages close to completion it will be of minimal impact.

Certainly under the current GRA the trans women who obtained recognition obtained their pension at the age for a woman. Though I deferred mine as I lost out by that (rather than gained) ironically due to the switch to a new higher rate pension for less tax years and more credits for carer's.

So having cared full time for my mum after her stroke for 14 years I had to defer mine for four years to the point I would have got it before the GRA in order to get the same amount as a woman as I would before as a man.

So this is not really the big deal it looks on first sight.

I think it's this one, Italian:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118