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

The group booked a room at Millwall FC and when the club became aware of the content of the meeting, they withdrew from allowing it to happen on their property. That's 'banned' in meeting booking room speak.

This is simply not true at all. Milwall were perfectly aware of the content of the meeting, which is about as far from extreme as anything tbh. Its about women discussing the change in the law that will affect them. Women talking about their experiences with transactivists and such.

Millwall cancelled as they came under extreme attack from transactivists. Like every place that says they will host the meetings does. Constant phonecalls, emails, abuse. Until the venue changes their mind as, its not worth it. Luckily the HOC will not bow to such pressure, and did not, which has really angered transactivists. They also were spamming individual MPs telling them to voice the opinion that it chould ba cancelled. David Davies (Brexit guy) was spammed when it had absolutely nothing at all to do with him. They have been going absolutely off it about HOC standing their ground and saying that basically, all opinions (that are not hate speech) should be heard.

It's my understanding that the person plead guilty to a lesser charge. I mean, it's on film from six different angles.

That's a shame and it happens far too often, people who let their views spill over into violent behaviour should be punished fully.

I believe that it wasn't accepted and it is now going to trial.

Oh, has she been charged now?

I know you replied to Stillscreaming, Datun but I hope you don't mind me jumping on...

Being seen as a woman is arousing, being addressed as a woman is arousing, insisting on pronouns is arousing, accessing women only spaces is arousing. - well like I say, whether or not this is an actual thing and not simply one man's theory (that others of similar standing have since argued against, as you know), it really doesn't matter what someone finds arousing. Wasn't this what was used as an argument to segregate gay people, that they might find it arousing to share changing rooms with those of the same sex? But that's not my argument to make.

The fact is for as long as someone behaves appropriately and respectfully you can't police what's in their mind. And if they behave badly... there are systems in place to deal with that.

People who are being forced to except these individuals as women, are unwittingly participating in the fetish. They are turning the person on.

Look, if it's "unwitting" what on earth do you expect anyone to do about it? Perhaps you and I have a strange fetish for online debate and we're unwitting pawns in each others sordid little games, the mind boggles!

And many women realise it, and are desperately uncomfortable.

The funny thing is you've said yourself go back a few years and no-one recognised or believed in the notion of AGP transexuals. If the problem is that the thought is making women uncomfortable with transpeople then all these years spent banging on about it has been rather counterproductive!

But what's more pertinent to say I think is that what someone thinks of someone else's motives is not reason enough to damn them. What if someone is uncomfortable with a transwoman because they think they might be getting off or whatever? If that person isn't doing anything wrong, what authority is someone else's thoughts about them? Frankly, if they're behaving well... who cares??

Haha, Stillscreaming said it much more succinctly - I'm going to give myself a word limit!!

Stillscreaming

Except men with a fetish could be challenged in women's spaces. Women have had recourse.

Now they don't, because these men claim they are trans. They claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Which can lead to a man, who fetishises women's biology, and wants to give a woman a smear test, allowed to call that woman transphobic if she objects.

It has also led to a strictly male sexual behaviour being framed as the behaviour of women.

It's a narrative that is going unchecked because of trans.

Perhaps the government think they can legislate and somehow square that away with the general public.

I would just like to find out.

#YesDebate

David Davies (Brexit guy) was spammed when it had absolutely nothing at all to do with him.

Just FYI, he's NOT the Brexit Guy, he's this guy, of gay marriage is "barking mad" and "most parents would prefer their parents not to be gay" fame.

Its about women discussing the change in the law that will affect them. Women talking about their experiences with transactivists and such.

The meeting wasn't about that all all. The meeting was about rolling back legislation that has been in place for 14 years.

The most odious part for me, was those at the meeting comparing themselves to domestic violence victims because some people disagree with them.

Oh, has she been charged now?

Yes they've been charged. It went to court. I'm not familiar with how this works, but I believe it's a plea hearing. Which will now result in a trial.

The most odious part for me, was those at the meeting comparing themselves to domestic violence victims because some people disagree with them.

Um, a good number of those women are domestic violence victims and rape survivors.

Were you at the meeting?

rat, i'm not getting involved in discussion about the existence of AGP. The link I posted is about the most damning evidence you can find. And yes, if you read it, those women are being emotionally abused.

The meeting wasn't about that all all. The meeting was about rolling back legislation that has been in place for 14 years.

The longevity of a law is no reason to support it, or not question it!

It took feminists 15 years to make rape within marriage illegal.

15 years of rigourous objection by lawmakers.

It was only finally repealed in the early 90s.

1990s,in case anyone thinks I might be referring to the 1890s

Stillscreaming

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to meet to discuss the redefining the legal word women to include men who fetishise women?

Which can lead to a man, who fetishises women's biology, and wants to give a woman a smear test, allowed to call that woman transphobic if she objects.

Only health care professionals give women smear tests. All of us have a right to turn down a HCP or a procedure. The currently legislation hasn't forced a single woman to have a single a single medical procedure she doesn't want, by anyone she doesn't want.

I think it would be very unprofessional for a HCP to call anyone transphobic and I haven't heard of a single case of it. Do you have any evidence that this has been a problem for anyone?

Just as a by the by, when my father was last in hospital, I saw someone turning down medical assistance from a black nurse. Race is a protected by the Equalities legislation. The nurse rolled her eyes and fetched a white nurse.

Do you knew of anyone being prosecuted for turning down medical assistance from anyone with any other protected aspects? Do the racist police or the sexist police or the homophobic police or the disablist police turn up?

I think it would be very unprofessional for a HCP to call anyone transphobic and I haven't heard of a single case of it. Do you have any evidence that this has been a problem for anyone?

Yes. There are several threads about it on the feminist board. Which is why I mentioned it. It was in the papers.

There are numerous threads about the person who was charged with hitting Maria Mac. As there are about AGP.

And the 20 TRAs surrounding and intimidating Helen Steel at the anarchist book fair. And hitting a woman on a picket line because she attended the Women's Place meeting the previous week.

These issues are the exact reason why women want to meet and discuss the situation.

But you seem to think they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

rat, i'm not getting involved in discussion about the existence of AGP.

No, no, precisely. I said exactly that we shouldn't bother debating it.

Then I gave you all the reasons it wouldn't matter either way.

Because ultimately AGP or no AGP doesn't make all that difference in practical terms (see previous post).

Because ultimately AGP or no AGP doesn't make all that difference in practical terms (see previous post).

I, many women, and many transsexuals completely disagree.

But it doesn't matter to either you or I if we disagree with each other.

All that matters to me is that it gets talked about.

Openly. Publicly.

And I am more than happy for both sides of the debate to be aired.

Are you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to meet to discuss the redefining the legal word women to include men who fetishise women?

I'm not saying that at all, I'm in favour of free speech, as I've said reapeatdly.

I'm saying that no one has a responsibility to host that kind of meeting and that when a venue cancels because they think your views are extremist, you can't blame that on anyone but yourselves. Trying to pretend that when a venue like Millwall FC cancel a booking because of harassment and not your extreme views is misleading.

I'm also saying that I have as much right to free speech as you. I can disagree with your views, I can hold them up for examination. I can point out what your group is falsely claiming to want to stop new legislation when, in fact, you want to roll back old legislation. Your views are much more extreme than you will admit and you talk openly about misleading people about them.

Well, I see 5000 people agree with you to date, so that's totally cool with me, although I do rather wish things hadn't come this far.

If only Twitter and the like didn't give such a universally accessible and wide-reaching platform to any nutter with a laptop, things might have been able to be aired before the language and tolerance on both sides of the debate had hit such a low ebb.

The problem is once things get nasty - on either side - people get hurt, and that's when they start calling for silence. It's so hard to roll it back when it reaches an emotional crescendo.

Here is a thread about women who have been silenced. Censored, no platformed, intimidated, bullied, threatened. For wanting to talk.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3190879-To-be-really-frightened?msgid=76350626#76350626

Here is a thread about women who work in academia, who are frightened to talk for fear of jeopardising their jobs.

Frightened to talk.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3162788-Whats-it-like-being-gender-critical-in-your-workplace

Men are bullying, intimidating and threatening women for wanting to even talk.

In exactly the same breath as claiming they are women and should have legal access to women's spaces everywhere.

*the 20 TRAs surrounding and intimidating Helen Steel at the anarchist book fair. And hitting a woman on a picket line because she attended the Women's Place meeting the previous week.

These issues are the exact reason why women want to meet and discuss the situation. *

You shouldn't have a meeting about that, what you want to do is call the police immediately. We have very strict laws about that.

I'm not claiming that you are the only extreamist in this discussion. There are some TRAs spewing absolutely offensive awfulness themselves. Both extreme have lost their ability to discuss things they disagree with, in a reasonable and respectful way. That's not a reason to become more extreme and less honest about where those extreme views have taken you.

A trans woman, Jaycee disclosed having been sexually assaulted to explain how the Gender Recognition Act gave her the confidence and legal basis to report her assaults.

Instead of receiving the normal compassionate response that every man, woman and child would receive after such a disclosure, she had her experience doubted, questioned and dismiss, on a part of MN that's supposed to be about feminism.

Jaycee was treated in a way that feminist wouldn't treat any other human being or any sex or gender. That's where your extremist views have lead you and it's a very dark place.

"I'm saying that no one has a responsibility to host that kind of meeting and that when a venue cancels because they think your views are extremist, you can't blame that on anyone but yourselves. Trying to pretend that when a venue like Millwall FC cancel a booking because of harassment and not your extreme views is misleading."

This is just not true. The statement Millwall put out was that the event was cancelled mutually due to them being drawn into a drama that they didn't want to be part of. The drama being the sheer volume of contact over this meeting. Nothing at all to do with the organisers being extremists. You are pushing your opinion about this, not the facts.

With reference to your first link, I don't condone violence or intimidating behaviour in any way shape or form. However, I do question the idea that anyone who was simply 'gender critical' would inspire so much anger. MN is full of women who are sceptical about any new laws. They discuss them openly and freely without consequence which is as it should be.

The second link is a bit more difficult. A woman has vies that she knows her university won't give her a platform to share, presumably those views are on the extreme end of the spectrum but I don't know.

She has the right to free speech but her employer has no responsibility to allow her to share those views. If you're working in a shop, you can't tell every customer you serve, that they should vote for your political party. The political party might be totally sound but you can't push contentious views in the workplace.

Stillscreaming

The police were called. They were also called at the eventual venue after the speakers corner debacle.

It doesn't stop though.

When I was watching the planned violence unfold, online, it was interesting that everyone was given a preprinted card on what to do if they are arrested. Which friendly lawyer to call, what to say, and what not to say. Standard practice, apparently.

Going to a meeting where women are talking, armed with the means to address an arrest, shows a premeditation that is pretty grim.

Jaycee was using their experience of assault on a bus, as a seque to discuss their legal status as a woman or a man.

Feminists, as I'm sure you know, are at the vanguard of women's rights over sexual assault and rape.

Addressing male violence is what feminism is for.

There were many people on that thread who expressed sympathy for what Jaycee had been through.

And just as many who realised that the point they were making was their status at the time, not the fact that they had been assaulted.

Jaycee's posts are long and tend to include a lot of points.

Concluding that the women who chose to address the point, in the the context of the issue under discussion, were unsympathetic to the assault, is wrong.

If there is one thing that feminists are fully informed on, and profoundly compassionate to, it's sexual assault.

But of course, you know that.

This is just not true. The statement Millwall put out was that the event was cancelled mutually due to them being drawn into a drama that they didn't want to be part of. The drama being the sheer volume of contact over this meeting. Nothing at all to do with the organisers being extremists. You are pushing your opinion about this, not the facts.

Have you got a link to the statement, I can't find it?

Stillscreaming

Let's just get this straight. You haven't answered my questions.

Were you at the meeting?

In light of my posts above about censorship, do you still have the opinion that the women at that meeting should not have been allowed to talk?

Or if you do think they should be allowed, do you feel that the content should have been vetted first?

The information about Millwall is on Twitter. I'm not on Twitter, so I can't help you.