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

And im not going back to read that thread again

Ive read it loads now...

@ poster thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth

Oh that’s annoying. Is she the one who criticised the ceo of Mermaids? About his castration?

There was more to it than that but putting that aside for a moment, I'd like to talk about the language you've used there.

Firstly, it's an indisputable fact that the surgery this young person underwent wasn't 'castration'. The name of the surgery is gender reassignment surgery or gender confirmation surgery, that's not opinion, that's a medical fact.

I think that it's really important, if we want to have a respectful discussion to be respectful towards each other. CIS is a scientific term but some women have expressed their wish not to be called that, as they have the absolute right to, and it would be rude of me to continue to use that term in those circumstances.

So I don't use it.

The initials of trans exclusionary radical feminist, seem accurately discriptive to me but again, women have expressed a desire not to be called that when I'm talking about women who hold those views, so I'm respectful of that and don't use it, even when it would be much easier to type.

TIM is also a derogatory term that trans women have asked not to be used to refer to them and I think it's right to respect that.

I understand that some women have an idological objection to calling trans women, who are legally women, she or her. I think the respectful thing to do in those circumstances is to use something genderless.

That's not censorship, that's respectful discourse, respect is a two way street.

Still,

Re the “living as a woman” thread I would agree that people are exploring an analysis that, if followed to its logical extreme, could result in a removal of existing rights.

Still,

Yes, I’m new to this -I’d be happy to avoid the term castration and use the term GRS.

Thanks for your measured response.

@Rufustherenegadereindeer1

I'm not treating you like your stupid, I don't think you're stupid. You said earlier in the thread:

As i have said i havent seen people on mumsnet saying that they want to get rid of the GRA

The has been an insidious creep of agenda here. Most women, intelligent women think that they are objecting to new laws when they are actually aligning themselves with a group with a much bigger focus, a focus many of them don't agree with.

Most people who 'liked' a meme on Facebook supporting service men and women, didn't think that that 'like' would then be used as a demonstration of support for Britian First but that's what happened.

u said earlier in the thread:

Do you know i read that as i had said i wasnt stupid earlier in the thread

Life is much too short for me to be getting shirty on threads

intelligent women

Oh you charmer you....

I am against self ID, i would very much like to see the information that says that there is an end game when it comes to self ID of removing all the legal rights of trans people

Amendments to the GRA dont count, amendments to laws are made all the time ...as long as they are positive amendments

Lots of people trans and otherwise have concerns over self ID...im gonna stand with them

Do you think we're all dupes who are having the wool pulled over our eyes by hateful bigoted women who run hate groups?

Maybe you liked Britain First posts and shared them with your friends, but plenty of us are capable of looking at the source of a post before liking it or sharing it. It's not hard. Blindly liking anything vaguely nice-sounding is not what most people capable of critical thinking do.

I do think that the 'tone' has changed on some of these threads

Less patience

But i think thats fair enough...people are getting angry

“The has been an insidious creep of agenda here. Most women, intelligent women think that they are objecting to new laws when they are actually aligning themselves with a group with a much bigger focus, a focus many of them don't agree with. “

I agree that if people have stronger views they should make this plain. As Datun does.

Tbh I think I am an intelligent woman objecting to new laws.

it's funny you should say that because I haven't been back to posting on the feminist forum on anything except completely un-trans-related threads following what I felt was a pretty nasty seeing-off on this linked thread and others

Sorry to hear that, I have not been posting anywhere near as often as I did for various reasons (one of which is my daughter being in and out of hospital on oxygen :( ) and as such had not noticed your absence.

It can be pretty tough on any poster being in the 'minority' view and I get that you can feel really ganged up on. I don't think this 'sealioning' stuff helps tbh though may have been guilty of calling an obvious troll (like many of the TRAs we get on here) a sealion..I am positive I have not used that term against you though as as I said, I find your contributions pretty interesting for the most part. So sad to hear you have taken a break. I do kind of get why people were asking you questions on there though given you appeared to be agreeing with someone who appeared to be just trolling with their 'the only reasons I have seen are basically 'I dont like transpeople'...where posters who pulled you up on that had spent many many hours talking to you prior to that thread, going over their various reasons for being anti self-ID...and it must grate a bit to spend so long talking to someone only to seemingly have them agree that basically..only transphobes are against it.

At the same time, I do think members may have been unnecessarily harsh to you in there. But such is the way of the internet I guess. I once made a thread in this section where I asked AIBU..was one of my very first threads on here, and the barrage of replies was quite intimidating...pretty much unanimous YABU which upset me a bit, but not as much as the minority of posts that directly insulted me. I almost wrote MN off altogether at that stage as the few who were actually insulting rather than blunt...well those were the ones who stuck out and I did in my head write off MN posters as people who will insult rather than try to understand/help. I still rarely venture into AIBU tbh, as I do think a LOT of posters come to this section just to be nasty. I am pleasantly surprised at how...nice this thread has been. Even with polarized opinions on either side, it seems on the whole really respectful IMO. Which from ym experience, is odd for AIBU, especially in a thread this long, usually past maybe page 3 (I have it set at 100 posts per page, so that would be maybe page 15 to others? IDK) its dissolved into a huge fight where noone is being productive

I guess what I am trying to say in a lot of waffle is that there will always be those who go that little bit further in their posts. there will always be some that do venture into insulting and sniping. but on the whole, I really don't think most posters are like that at all. And...I will miss you on the feminist section I guess, if you chose not to go back. An echo chamber is no good for anyone really, when wanting debate.

Lots of people trans and otherwise have concerns over self ID...im gonna stand with them

I've no problem with that. It's not my stance but I respect you right to think differently.

I don't want to shut down or shut up the group responsible for the petition because they want to roll back the Gender Recognition Act but I think they should be open and honest about their aims.

I honestly don't get why people are angry over a 13 year old piece of legislation. I honestly don't think that most people are angry over a 13 year old piece of legislation.

They are angry because they are being told that women are being censored but when you look into that, it's not actually true.

They are angry because they are being told that transgenderism is a paraphilia but the actually doctors who treat trans gender people say that's not actually true.

They are angry when they are told that they are going to be forced to receive healthcare from people they're not comfortable with when that's not actually true.

I think that women are angry when they are told that only one side is fighting dirty, making death threats, threats of violence, harassment etc. but that's not actually true.

Datun, I read that thread on AGP, of which I knew little. It was eye opening and made me realise that a story told by a friend might be related.

She had found some women's underwear under her bed that were not hers and reasonably thought at first her husband was having an affair so after a short while decided she had to confront him. He denied it, said he had no idea where it came from and looked pretty guilty. But she let it ride and then on doing her next big clean did a thorough search of one of 'his' areas and found lots more stuff that immediately convinced her it was his given the size (he was quite tall).

When she later asked him to come clean he said it was just a new thing but would she mind if he wore some later that day when they had sex. She told him no.

He walked out for good shortly after.

I felt sad for her and presumed he was just a cross dresser but had no idea how far some men wanted to take it.

Does this go on more than I ever realised? Might be a reason why there is so much anger towards trans women if you think this is what is going on with us.

I noticed on there, Datun, you posted this:

"I will never see the trans ideology as anything more than a sexually motivated issue. Also hi jacked by bullies and men who hate women"

Apologies for taking it out of context of the thread but I would be interested if you might elaborate here as it sort of suggests you view transgender people this way and if so it gives context for many other things you say.

Really I think if the above scenario is what is going on more widely than I realise it help explain some of the anger and concern. As this does come over as very selfish and self centred and dismissive of the feelings of the woman these men have married.

I cannot imagine any transsexual behaving like this. I would have imagined wishing to gain gratification within a heterosexual relationship by dressing up would be consistent with imagining yourself as a woman but rather terminal if you actually physically transition into one. Especially as you get warned pre transition that libido can decrease significantly post surgery.

So if you seek a perpetuation of the fetish rather than a cure (which given the egocentric behaviour looks unlikely) then I do not see how AGP is really compatible with transexualism as opposed to transvestism or self identified transition.

Though I may well be missing something.

Either way this kind of use of women as a method to self satisfy is abhorrent.

Presumably this is something that psychiatrists and psychologists are well versed in recognising if they still do the kind of examinations they used to do.

Which, of course, might well be why some of them prefer to get rid of the medical assessment safeguard.

I do think that the 'tone' has changed on some of these threads

Less patience

I also agree with this. Even as little as a few months ago, so many members prefaced most of their posts with 'I support actual transssexual people. this is about TRAs and the laws they are actively getting changed' and so on. Now, this bit is not happening and people are just being pretty blunt. As, it gets a bit repetitive having to repeat the same thing over and over, and it never did any good anyway, even with all of the prefacing, they were STILL accused of just being nasty transphobes. It is still beyond me how anyone can read about peoples valid concerns over the imposing law change and just see transphobia.

Where I stand on this whole thing is, I use preferred pronouns IRL. Not doing so would seem mean. Though, none of the transsexual people I know have ever got all upset over being 'misgendered', and one of them actually does not really care if they are called he or she. I guess the difference between them and 'transgender' people who dissolve into a fit of tears over a stranger 'misgendering' them is that for transsexual people, the dysphoria is not so much about how others see them, it is dysphoria about their sexed body. I do think it is accurate sexing though, not really misgendering at all. But each to their own.

I also personally have no issue at all with post op transwomen using female areas. I have come in for a bit of flack for this, as some say they are still men. Which I agree with and also disagree with at the same time. They are of course still male, and services are segregated on biological sex. However, so do think that having SRS shows a commitment, and obviously noone would put themselves through such invasive surgery without a damn good reason to do so. Yes, some AGP men do have SRS, but I would think that most people who have SRS have severe dysphoria about their sexed body, rather than are doing it for fetish type reasons. I am willing to ignore the few with AGP in order to help those without.

I do think the GRA is pretty redundant now though, given it was rushed in so that transsexual people could marry someone of the same sex, and for equal pension rights. Now, both of those have been rectified anyway, so the original reason for it is redundant. Though I appreciate it makes people such as Jaycees life a lot easier. And would never advocate for a GRC to be taken away from people who already have one. I think it could be tweaked a bit..tbh. I am not firmly in the 'repeal the GRA' camp at all. Though I can kind of see where they are coming from at the same time. And do think that it needs changed (one of the ways it needs changed, is the removal of this 'live as a woman for 2 years' thing..as its just about following stereotypes or a paperwork exercise.). Not entirely sure where my opinion falls on the topic of GRCs and such, except that I do NOT want any man to be able to get one. And IF this was to happen, I would certainly want the exemptions strengthened, not removed as stonewall proposes.

My main gripe is with transactivists and this new breed of 'transgender' person (you know the type, bullies lesbians, calls their penis female, calls women transphobic because they discuss their female biology, says there is literally no difference between a male and a female except for one has 'ladybrain', so on), not transsexual people.

At the same time though, I am unwilling to police what other women say/feel about the whole topic. I understand that other women/people have different opinions to me, and thats just fine. If someones post is a little too strong for my taste, I simply ignore it. If its way too strong, I will ignore and maybe report. What I will not do, is pull them up on it in the thread, this helps noone and will just make the thread descend into a bunfight. MNHQ are the mods on here, not me. I am a moderator on another forum and it it actually really annoying when people report a post, but then also reply to it as it just results in a bigger argument with more deletions too!

Bit longer than I planned again, but yeah..

I think the problem is that Stonewall now plonks transvestism (which according to the DSM-5 is indeed a paraphilia, and one of the eight most common ones) under its transgender umbrella.

They are angry because they are being told that women are being censored but when you look into that, it's not actually true.

It is true. Women are being censored let right and centre, pretty much everywhere except mumsnet, and even here they are censored in the more extreme opinions (as sometimes, is the right thing..HQ could be in hot water for some of the stuff posted on here sometimes)

They are angry because they are being told that transgenderism is a paraphilia but the actually doctors who treat trans gender people say that's not actually true.

But..AGPs would not generally be under the care of gender specialists. As they are usually these ridiculous shouty 'my penis is female, I am female because I like wearing short skirts' types.

They are angry when they are told that they are going to be forced to receive healthcare from people they're not comfortable with when that's not actually true.

This has happened. The woman in question was not forced to accept healthcare but she was told that the male person she had been sent when she asked for a female was actually female. By the trans staff member involved.

You can never really be forced to accept healthcare, but your smear or whatever could be unnecessarily delayed because you have requested a female HCP and been sent a male one who 'identifies' as a female. You cal also be made to feel bigoted for refusing the male person in front of you who argues that they actually are female because they have a female 'gender identity'

I think that women are angry when they are told that only one side is fighting dirty, making death threats, threats of violence, harassment etc. but that's not actually true.

But that is true too? Do you have any examples of death/rape threats being sent from feminists? Or any proof of feminists calling transpeoples places of work to try and get them fired? How about any instances of feminists punching transwomen because the transwoman wants a right to talk about a law change?

It IS mainly one way here.

Denying this is just ridiculous.

for you and your dd TheGoalIs

That thread was tough because I actually knew that other poster from other threads, and had been PM'ing her in between. She wasn't a troll, just a kind-hearted young person who wanted peace and love, so I didn't feel I could let her stand alone - hence my jumping in and inviting a pasting I guess!

Rufus I don't know if it's an end-game as such (although I don't know that it isn't), but I do think certain individuals have boxed themselves into a corner taking a "hard line" with their views.

It's obviously just my perception at this stage, but to me it seems that some are clocking onto the fact that self-ID - as in streamlining the GRC process - isn't actually something that could bring about all that much change to the way things are right now. So if almost everything to fear is already a possibility RIGHT NOW, the problem must be RIGHT NOW. So something about the way things already are must have to change.

But there is another kind of "self-ID" - a kind that IS already here - that of toilets, charities, refuges, sports centres and all of the rest issuing guidelines that people should be able to use gender-specific facilities based on their own statement of fact.

Now this isn't the "self-ID" that's proposed in law, this is the self-ID that is already happening, and seems to be being widely taken up.

And how do you stop that kind of self-ID? Can you really convince every shop, every swimming pool, every refuge, every prison that they're going down the wrong route?

And what would even be the alternative? You show your ID to use the Topshop changing rooms? Staff can ask anyone who looks even a little bit "gender non-conforming" for their passport? Telling people which toilet you think they should use rather than the one they think they should use? It's unworkable!

(...although it would certainly bring about people self-policing themselves back into narrow little gender boxes, "man" and "woman". Terrible for women, great for the patriarchy. In my personal opinion that a fairly obvious far-right win from this whole situation; women volunteering themselves back into strict ostracisation segregation, back into rigid gender roles that paint them as vulnerable, to be preyed upon and protected away from the nasty, scary men.)

The only alternative to using enforced segregation by way of showing ID is for companies and facilities and government services to take bloody responsibility for the welfare and comfort of men, women and children using their facilities themselves, just like they damn well SHOULD be doing. But that is going to cost them no small amount of money, I'm sure.

I think the problem is that Stonewall now plonks transvestism (which according to the DSM-5 is indeed a paraphilia, and one of the eight most common ones) under its transgender umbrella.

Quite.

Hence my post earlier on saying that part of the solution in this would be for transsexual people to distance themselves from this 'transgender umbrella'. I don't think transsexual people have anything in common with fetishists...but transactivists, and stonewall, along with many trans groups...insist that they do.

Just a little thing but...

your smear or whatever could be unnecessarily delayed because you have requested a female HCP and been sent a male one who 'identifies' as a female. You cal also be made to feel bigoted...

I'll be honest, I'm all up for women not suffering negative consequences and all that, but I really think we can tolerate minor inconvenience and a little ill-feeling without too much complaint.

I am just catching up slowly on this fast moving thread, so my AGP points got overtaken a little by replies,. But still interested Datun if it is the sexualisation of transgenderism is the source of main concern. I could much more easily see why if that is the case as I can imagine how I would feel if a man I was with was an AGP in the context of that thread. Something I have not considered before.

I do appreciate your respectful later posts. Thank you. We have quite a bit of agreement.

I also should say something about the discussion of my LA bus story on the other thread. I appreciate those pointing out about the reaction there. And also Datun is right that it was used by me as an illustration not of that trans women can be assaulted, too, which is terrible but inevitable. But more of the fear of lack of recognition and the risk of reaction to that lack of 'legitimacy' in a foreign country resulting not in the crime being reported and acted upon but the reporter (in this case me) facing repercussions as a friend previously had when her trans status emerged at a US airport.

I was only arguing that I would have acted more proactively in a way that might or might not (depending on police response CCTV evidence etc) in being aware of a man who could have gone on to do worse things. That was all.

So it was more about how having recognition can be a positive for other women not just the trans women sometimes, because all the argument settles usually on the negative consequences of transgender recognition on women. Of which I agree there is some.

And, thegoalis - it is interesting how so many of the transsexual women you are asking to distance ourselves from the trans community have independently without talking to one another done exactly that.

This situation has driven us from our lives of just getting on with it without causing anyone a fuss into the open against our real wishes to appear litigious or activist,. Because we know this is a critical time where women are legitimately at risk from mooted changes and the battles that seem to be going on in our name that are happening in anything but our name or consent.

It is striking how many of us have readopted the recently outlawed term of transsexual - which until I popped out of the woodwork 2 - 3 years ago on seeing the start of he media furore was a term I had always used as I had thought it was still the long used definition for this medical condition. To discover that the American term transgender (which I had never heard of up to then) had replaced it alongside a bewildering load of terms and acronyms that I did not have the foggiest what they were about - Cis, TERF, TIF , TIM, AGP - even what I knew as LGB suddenly being LGBT, then LGBTI and watching for the next letter to be invented/added.

It was pretty clear quite quickly on reading around that the whole thing had suddenly taken off in left field and exploded in numbers and bit by bit I started to see what was going on.

I read around widely. This is not my first appearance on Mumsnet. I posted a few times a year or so ago when I was still trying to understand the concerns - around the point that Jenni Murray was being censured for Woman's Hour because I knew from having met her that she was being unfairly caught up in the rising storm.

So, yes, there is an awakening and a reclaiming of that old term and a realisation that this is our fight too and a recognition of how much more important it is now not to hide away and hope things will just work out if we stick our fingers in our ears and go tra la la.

So if you seek a perpetuation of the fetish rather than a cure (which given the egocentric behaviour looks unlikely) then I do not see how AGP is really compatible with transexualism as opposed to transvestism or self identified transition.

And again, precisely.

Crossdressers/AGPs have fuck all to do with transsexual people, IMO. Yet stonewall and all major trans organizations lump them all in together. Why? Why the push for 'transgender' instead of 'transsexual'? The lumping in of both groups, seems to have come just in time for these pushes for changes to the GRA. You have to wonder why.

I mean, I cannot imagine any transsexual person to be shouting from the rooftops that their penis is actually a female penis either. Yet this comes from 'trans' people..just those under the umbrella, rather than actual transsexual people.

'Old school transsexual' people are very very much in the minority in this new movement. Its a huge problem, which will not be solved by screaming 'transphobe' at any woman who dares voice concerns over quite who is driving transactivists behaviour/the law changes, or at anyone who says that male and female are real bloody things.

Transsexual people just will not benefit from 'selfID' as they can already get a GRC under current guidelines. Who would it benefit to remove the 'gatekeeping', the requirement for a diagnosis of sex dysphoria?

I'll be honest, I'm all up for women not suffering negative consequences and all that, but I really think we can tolerate minor inconvenience and a little ill-feeling without too much complaint.

Its hardly a minor inconvenience. And for whos benefit, anyway? Women should be able to request a same sex HCP, and know that they will get a female, not a male who identifies as female. Same as men should be able to. Sex IS important, and is not 'identified' into or out of. Unfortunately.

That thread was tough because I actually knew that other poster from other threads, and had been PM'ing her in between. She wasn't a troll, just a kind-hearted young person who wanted peace and love, so I didn't feel I could let her stand alone - hence my jumping in and inviting a pasting I guess!

Wanting peace and love, and going about achieving that by pretending that womens concerns were always unfounded and that people on here with concerns were only ever posting their concerns as they were transphobic?! Yeah, great way to achieve peace and love.

Sorry, I think they were being quite idiotic in that statement, and do understand why posters did not take it well at all. And then, when you seemed to be agreeing with their statement, I understand how that got peoples backs up also. Given how many threads you had been involved with at that stage and quite how many people had interacted with you, it came across as if you did agree that there were no valid concerns and anyone opposed was simply transphobic.

But again, once you clarified this further in the thread, I do think people went a bit OTT maybe. And I understand why you took a break after it.

Thankfully Datun turned up and swore at me to my face smile which was an absolute blessed relief smile and helped me find a way back in.

Gosh this thread moves fast. I'm not sure what this means? I swore at you Jane? Sorry!

JC. I said "I will never see the trans ideology as anything more than a sexually motivated issue. Also hi jacked by bullies and men who hate women"

Please note my use of the word ideology. I make a distinction between an ideology, and a medical condition.

Which is why I like to link it back to gender dysphoria. Unfortunately dysphoria, AGP and the ideology in general now come under the umbrella of 'transgenderism'.

Transvestism is officially part of transgender according to stonewalls own website.

Perhaps you are beginning to see part of the problem having read that AGP thread.

Women far more technically savvy than I, drill down into this, a lot.

Most transactivists, who take to Twitter, aren't the slightest bit worried about their Internet presence. Their AGP is there for everyone to see. It's no secret.

It really, really doesn't help when prominent activists like Shon Faye who's on TV, tells women to enjoy their erasure, or Paris Lees says that being treated like a piece of meat is hot and sexual objectification is a turn on, or Daniel Muscato with a full beard, tweets on International women's day from a women's aid shelter that if you don't believe he is a woman you can suck his dick.

There are a lot of men who are drawn to the ideology, like a magnet. And according to the ideology, they are just as trans as you.

Every cross dresser, part time transvestite, AGP, misogynist, predator in the country can claim to be trans, now. Phillipa 'Pip' Bunce a high-level executive at credit Suisse, who alternates between man and woman. And changing facilities on that basis. It's just taking the piss. They're a cross dresser.

And they don't have to make any modifications to their body or their appearance. Hence Daniel Muscato.

The ideology that says transwomen ARE women is getting pushback, because of it.

You get Karen Jones, the killer and attempted rapist, who was released from prison and five days later attempted to rape a woman, binding her with a pair of suspenders.

He claimed that his dysphoria was so bad, he attempted to rape a woman in order to be sent back to prison, to be fast tracked for surgery.

He was then invited to the House of Lords to talk about his experience of being trans in prison. A murdering rapist. They couldn't find a regular trans person?

It's incredibly offensive and very worrying. We don't tend to reward rapists and murderers in ths way.

And he is a woman, now. This is what women do now.

You and your experience has been subsumed.

If anyone can claim to be a woman, irrespective of a GRC, this is what you get.

And women, despite what Scream says, are being censored, no platformed, and threatened if they don't agree.

You have been reasonable. And you have analysed the situation. You are attempting to come up with a solution.

But perhaps you can see now why women want to start this thing from scratch.

Perhaps you can understand why the term transwoman has lost its currency. Why women are pushing back with trans identified male.

It's useful to talk to you about this.

If there was a tick lists of goals, we would probably share many of them. And I agree, the common ground over specific goals is very effective.

But, the parts where we don't agree, are probably stark.

Am I wishing difficulties on you? No, of course not.

And if anyone can genuinely come up with a solution, i'd love to hear it.

But making gender dysphoria a condition of being trans is a boat that has sailed.

@RatRolyPoly

Minor inconvenience and ill feeling?

I've survived a violent rape and would not allow myself to be "mildly inconvenienced" by a biological male putting anything into my body.

Biological sex is fact.

Gender is far too complex to allow this to happen with no debate. I wouldn't get a smear if I couldn't ensure it was a female.

Female victims of male violence are a large group. Men are more prone to violence, also a fact. Whether Gary identifies as Pam doesn't mean squat.

For heavens sake we spent so long fighting for these safe spaces.