Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think you're not allowed to be a feminist on MN if you believe in trans rights?

700 replies

EyeRollChampion · 03/05/2018 10:54

Seems like every post in the feminism category atm is so vehemently anti-trans rights and that anyone who disagrees with this standpoint is ganged up on and ridiculed.

Or 'aren't I brave posting the same viewpoint as the overwhelming majority? I will not be silenced! (Now tell me how amazing and inspirational I am)'

I will probably be told I'm not a good feminist for believing we should respect the gender people identify with. Identity is of no importance to equal rights or mental health, of course. And they're a minority so who cares? Because changing room horror.

I'll get flamed for this because apparently this is not a view you're allowed to hold on mumsnet, TRA (aka anyone who isn't against trans rights) are the enemy of all women and trying to deny free speech.

Tell me I'm not alone?

OP posts:
MissionItsPossible · 03/05/2018 16:57

Genuinely not trying to be goady here and still don't fully understand the issue but am I correct in thinking this is going to affect health figures (and more importantly funding for it)? Could there potentially be a rise in figures of women suffering prostate cancer and a decrease in women suffering breast cancer? Or does it not work like that? Sorry if that's a stupid question.

MillicentF · 03/05/2018 16:58

“Doug you are right, I will rephrase. So far I have not seen any issues with it.”

So you haven’t seen any of the issues that are already occurring in women’s sport?

BoneyBackJefferson · 03/05/2018 17:16

KatherinaMinola

No-one on FWR is against trans rights.

But you are, they are against what you support, you are against them.

However, there is a group of TRAs (basically MRAs) that is intent on eroding women's rights in the name of trans rights.

They are not MRA's for a group that is so against the CIS label you are happy to label others you are just promoting an agenda

ThisIsTheFirstStep · 03/05/2018 17:19

boney what, for you, is the difference between expressing and opinion and promoting an agenda?

Because it seems to me that when someone disagrees with something, it’s promoting an agenda, and when someone agrees, it’s expressing an opinion.

BoneyBackJefferson · 03/05/2018 17:22

ThisIsTheFirstStep

The agenda is saying that MRA's are the same as TRAs.
Its the same as saying that Trans women are women.

They are not.

SilverDoe · 03/05/2018 17:28

Boney

"No-one on FWR is against trans rights.

But you are, they are against what you support, you are against them. "

Can you explain to me what that means? I don't understand

MillicentF · 03/05/2018 17:28

Sometimes rights do conflict.

KatherinaMinola · 03/05/2018 17:30

Boney, I am not against trans rights. We may, however, disagree on the detail. Yes, I do disagree with some of the things TRAs are asking for.

I do support the right of anyone to present in the way they choose.
I do want trans people to be able to go about their business free from harm.
I don't want trans people to be discriminated against in the workplace or when applying for jobs (with specific caveats around biological males working in rape crisis centres etc).
I believe trans adults should be able to access appropriate NHS treatment if they choose.

It's where women's provisions and rights are eroded in the name of trans rights that we may be at variance. If I have an agenda, it's pro-women rather than anti-trans. (Actually I would just like to overthrow the patriarchy and be done with this tinkering around the edges.)

Not all TRAs are MRAs of course. But I think the trans agenda has been appropriated by MRAs, yes.

MillicentF · 03/05/2018 17:35

I think the recent NUS action about loos makes a very good proxy for this whole debate. They provided 3 loos. One for people with disabilities. One for men and one gender neutral. So there was a loo for the exclusive use of cis men and trans men. One for people of any sex/gender who had a disability, and one for anyone of any sex/gender. Women just do not feature. Is that the way forward? Men and non-men?

Ceinwen2 · 03/05/2018 17:39

I've seen some references to shocking stuff put out by Transmedia watch in evidence to Parliament, and as I have reason to be sympathetic to some if not all transsexual people I thought I'd have a look at it. It is quite a lot to read through, but I couldn't see a thing in there that anyone could reasonably object to. It does in one section talk about what looks like a campaign by some people, via Mumsnet , to worsen the position that transsexual people are in, and to be honest what I have seen here does chime with that. And anyone who has any other, more nuanced view ,certainly is " piled in on". I'd suggest that anyone who want to know what transmedia watch said, rather than rely on rather fierce and one sided summaries on here, should consider googling it and deciding for themselves

BoneyBackJefferson · 03/05/2018 17:43

SilverDoe

Do yo agree that transwomen should be allowed access to women only spaces?

Do you agree that people should be able to self ID as women?

If the answer is "no" then you are against transrights as put forwards by TRAs.

I have only seen a couple of transwomen put forward their view and they are different from TRAs, in the same way that RadFems are different from other feminists.

DN4GeekinDerby · 03/05/2018 17:46

The " 'aren't I brave posting the same viewpoint as the overwhelming majority? I will not be silenced! (Now tell me how amazing and inspirational I am)'" happens on pretty much any platform or group. I don't get poking MN feminists specifically for this.

Please stop perpetuating a victim narrative particularly when you have mocked it in others EyeRollChampion, it doesn't help trans and other dysphoric people to go on about how at risk we are. Many are at no more risk at being harmed than anyone else. Even the hate crime legislation covers those undergoing gender reassignment and most police forces also use it for gender identity. Very few do so for sex-based hate crimes even for those attacked for being sex role nonconforming. I'm not particularly a fan of UK hate speech or hate crime laws as they are but in terms of recognition and rights, there is pretty much equality before the law with the difficulties in enforcing that more a money/class issue than a trans right issue.

From the research I've seen, the trans people who have a higher risk of murder or other forms of violence are those who are at higher risk by other factors - race, location, and - mostly - prostitution. It's pretty disgusting to erase that and act like being trans is the main factor there. Really, the things really connected are history of childhood abuse - particularly sexual abuse which was at around 1/2 those asked in the largest US study - which most report as happening before they experienced dysphoria or identified as trans and suicide rates, which hormone treatments, surgery, and even supportive family structures do not ameliorate well without other therapies. It's still close to ten times the average rate. There is a reason why those fight to actually make things better for trans and other dysphoric people focus on things like the need for wider ranges of treatment and mental health care, as much as neo-progressives hate connected trans people with mental health problem even with decades of evidence showing this issue.

The evidence that legally or otherwise confirming someone's gender identity will reduce any of those things is non-existent. We do have evidence in self-ID countries of people changing their legal gender for things like cheaper car insurance, earlier pension, and other things that some might argue is systemic abuse while others say is just making use of the system as is. There is no evidence I've seen that it has actually helped trans or other dysphoric people, that it helps with access to much needed medical care or jobs, or has done absolutely anything for us other than let people in power pat themselves on the back while we contine to have long waiting lists for care and a massive issue with self-medicating that they push under the rug.

Personally, I think people who think the most important trans right is the right to legally self ID by a statutory declaration that is already part of the process minus the parts that could actually be legally enforced because there is no legal or ethical way to prove someone is not living as a woman or a man are people who seem to forget all the horrible things about dysphoria, the medical problems, the drugs or job issues, even the violence in places where that is an issue and suicide risks don't go away with a letter on a piece of paper. It will do absolutely nothing for most of us and, in my opinion, will only encourage the self-medicating DIY transitions we're seeing and put more dysphoric people of all identities at risk of a range of physical and mental health issues.

We can identify however we want, all of us can, we do not nor should we have the right to force others to act like they see us as we see ourselves. Freedom of expression and all that. Altering our legal identity, our rights and duties before the law, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a fair and accountable process that recognizes the individual and society. No amount of identifying or 'living as British' means I can use a statutory declaration to be a British citizen. To be legally employable in the UK, I require a biometric ID card which I seem to recall a lot of British people say was a violation of several human rights when it was suggested for UK citizens. Much like trying to get equal hate crime legislation coverage for sex-based crimes, there has been a lot of silence on that difference by those claiming to want equality and rights for everyone.

Our identities always have been and always will be a mix of the intrapersonal, the interpersonal, and legal, acting like the intrapersonal must be recognized by the other two...I can't see that being either ethical or realistic nor something that will actually help anyone. The push for legal self-ID, as I've said many times, is a smokescreen to virtue signal caring and I think it is ridiculous that those who disagree with self-ID are told that because of that we are somehow against trans rights. I see no reason to consider or respect the assertion for self-ID until sufficient evidence is provided that it will be helpful and beneficial for trans people and wider society and not just people in power. Right now, the Tory chant to 'demedicalize' looks suspiciously like people who want to be seen as progressive and have a way to make cuts to services.

BoneyBackJefferson · 03/05/2018 17:46

KatherinaMinola

You disagree with a specific group of people putting forward their views (agenda). I didn't say that this was bad or that I disagree with you.

But we should at least be honest about what we are doing.

MillicentF is correct in that
Sometimes rights do conflict.

In my view sometimes those demanding rights are in fact (in this case biology) wrong. This makes me an outlier in many many areas.

KatherinaMinola · 03/05/2018 17:54

No, I don't disagree with them putting forward their views at all. They have every right to do that (as do we all).

I might disagree with (some of) their views, but that's a different matter entirely.

OddBoots · 03/05/2018 18:00

Looking back at the thread title, feminism is a social construct not a biological one, if you identify as a feminist then no-one should tell you that you are not.

Equally though, if someone else tells you that they see something as a feminist issue (such as the changing of the definition of the word 'woman' as has been expressed in this thread) then you shouldn't be telling them it isn't.

You do your feminism your way, others will do it their way and there is plenty of room to discuss and debate ideas, it does us all good to see a range of view points including those with which we disagree.

SilverDoe · 03/05/2018 18:06

Boney

But why does one person or one group's views dictate exactly what rights should entail? Do you have any statistical evidence to suggest that all or the vast majority of trans people agree and share the same view as TRA's?

And the answers to those questions are not black and white either. I actually morally fully support the right to self ID in terms of somebody identifying themselves as female. But the reality is that that decision carries weight, especially if considered in a legislative capacity.

Does that mean I am blanketed immediately as against trans rights? Who has even defined trans rights? If it is just TRAs, then well, every socially progressive movement has people at the extreme end of the spectrum, feminism included.

SilverDoe · 03/05/2018 18:09

Sorry Boney I'm in a very bad mood and very busy and my last post looks like I'm being snarky when I am in fact in full agreement with you, many apologies :)

Boulshired · 03/05/2018 18:11

I am not sure if a country has self ID but biological exceptions can claim to be truly self ID. In fact the UK as it stands has more trans right already without self ID, I would be very willing for self ID with biological exceptions.

MargotMoon · 03/05/2018 19:23

@comaawakening But that article is about a man in a communal changing room, not a women's changing room?? That's a completely separate issue - and one which I agree is a problem - but not the same thing as questioning how many instances there have been on trans women entering women only spaces and violating them.

Caribou58 · 03/05/2018 19:51

But that article is about a man in a communal changing room, not a women's changing room?? That's a completely separate issue - and one which I agree is a problem - but not the same thing as questioning how many instances there have been on trans women entering women only spaces and violating them.

That's not the issue, though - the issue and fear is that self-id will allow men with dubious intent, who are not actually trans-identifying, to claim they are in order to enter women's spaces, etc.

What's more, people keep saying (and I've been told more than once by men dismissing my fears) that when I'm in my gym changing room, I can just "go in a cubicle" if a man enters and wishes me harm. They're missing a range of points here, the least of which - but no less an infringement of my rights - is that it means I can no longer shower there without fear.

ForalltheSaints · 03/05/2018 20:05

That's not the issue, though - the issue and fear is that self-id will allow men with dubious intent, who are not actually trans-identifying, to claim they are in order to enter women's spaces, etc.

I think that is one if not the major concern, and why I support there being some places that should be for biological women and those who have undergone gender reassignment only. Women's changing rooms for example.

Ceinwen2 · 03/05/2018 21:03

I'm new to Mumsnet, so sorry I don't know how to address answers to posts; this is to Silver Doe, a while ago, who asked someone ( me? someone else?)some questions; here are my answers.
Q; Should transwomen be allowed access to women only spaces; My answer; if you mean transsexual women ( ie made full commitment of hormones, probable surgery, then my answer is probably;it would depend on each case. But if you mean " transgender women"who had not made those commitments, probably no. Unless they had so clearly crossed some notional line that no-one could tell anyway. Second Q; Should self ID be accepted. ( or somesuch) A; No, if only because the current system , you would hope, would weed out those who were incapable of making such decisions... and there are some who think they are transsexual but are mentally ill, and aren't. But also, and mainly , how would one know if one could trust him/ her? The current system seems to take ages, and that may not be a bad things at all. It should not be easy, or quick. In my opinion.

EyeRollChampion · 03/05/2018 22:20

So to summarise : my original point was that anyone who held any different views to the generally held view that self ID is awful, are ganged up upon and not given any credence...
I dared to suggest there might be a way forward for both viewpoints; that women's rights could coexist with trans rights given the proper management. I've gone from decades of being called a rabid feminist to being accused of being:-

*a misogynist
*anti-women's rights
*anti-debate
*anti-science
*not tough enough to be entitled to express my opinion
*a man

I have consistently reiterated that I am completely open to considering both sides of the argument and not discounting anything. I want to hear it all. Women's rights are always at the forefront of my mind, but not at the price of dismissing all others. I am white but also am a vociferous defender of black rights.

If this doesn't reinforce my original point then I really don't know what does. It makes me so sad that what I once regarded as a salient forum of different points of view has come to this. Why can't I care about everybody's rights? I'm dismayed. By my age I shouldn't expect anything more I guess. But lord help me, I want more than that for my kids. I want hope. I want empowered daughters who expect nothing but complete respect. I want my sons to respect women and not see 'feminine traits' as a weakness. That's how I've brought them up. I don't want feminism to be a dirty word, seen as extremism. I want everyone to feel safe.

Well apparently all that is wrong. Who knew? Sad, sad, sad.

OP posts:
Rufustheyawningreindeer · 03/05/2018 22:24

Seems like every post in the feminism category atm is so vehemently anti-trans rights and that anyone who disagrees with this standpoint is ganged up on and ridiculed

You didnt say anything about self ID originally

So anyone who is concerned that self ID might not be the best idea in the world is a transphobe who doesnt want trans people to have any rights

Sorry.....completely misunderstood your OP there

SuitedandBooted · 03/05/2018 22:30

women's rights could coexist with trans rights given the proper management

I have no argument against that - and neither, I suspect, would most people on here.

You have obviously thought about this - so what would you actually like to see, re sport/changing rooms/ short-lists/scholarships & awards/refuges/prisons/hospitals/statistics/equal pay/ etc?

How do you envisage "proper management"? As always, the devil is in the detail.