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

[EyeRollChampion]

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?

It's kind of darkly amusing how those who are opposed to self-ID seem to have so thoroughly co-opted the language and rhetoric of the far right. Do the posters who are arguing that "Biology is not bigotry" know that this was the slogan of Christian right opposed to gay marriage, and gay rights?

The anger at the erosion of 'hard fought for rights'... everybody's rights were hard fought for. Everybody has been asked in turn to make a little room for the rights of others. Drawing a line around women's shortlists, access to rape and DV support, women's spaces and excluding those deemed to be not REAL women looks like protectionism, pure and simple.

Is THAT clear?

But TERFs are only a very small minority movement within feminism

Feminism, the movement to liberate women from sex based oppression, has often been subject to concerted attempts by males to defang it and attack it. While radical feminism may have been overwhelmed by so called "intersectionality" (another concept which has been appropriated by male centred activism) as a vacuous "all lives matter" catch all because women apparently don't deserve to have our own movement about us, despite being 51% of the population, I don't accept that our general beliefs that women's boundaries should be respected are in any way a fringe view. There are many women who are not happy with men in female spaces.

Drawing a line around women's shortlists, access to rape and DV support, women's spaces and excluding those deemed to be not REAL women looks like protectionism, pure and simple.

Is THAT clear?

It's very clear how misogynists who don't give a fuck about women's boundaries, concerns and feelings see it, sure.

@notafeeling

No, it's pretty unclear.

Biology doesn't matter except to people like you as it gives you the opportunity to treat 50% of the world with suspicion; you're a perfect example of that 'we're under siege' mentality mentioned a few posts up.

"I do not believe in gender"

So? I and many others do including well respected scientists.

That clear?

TERFs are not anti-trans rights. A person can and should have full enjoyment of every single right listed in the universal declaration of human rights, but will still not have the right to force other people to believe something contra-factual that they personally choose to believe.

Sometimes in pursuit of universal human rights, additional facilities, accommodations, adjustments and opportunities are set up to benefit particular disadvantaged groups who historically have not enjoyed full access to all human rights. IT IS NOT an infringement of anyone's human rights to prevent someone who is not in fact part of one of those disadvantaged groups (whatever they have the freedom to believe in their head) from accessing those additional facilities, accommodations, adjustments and opportunities.

So? I and many others do including well respected scientists.

what does that even mean?

drspouse you took the words right out of my mouth there
I've got to add, many people who don't describe themselves as feminists at all, let alone radical feminists, do not agree with the 'transwomen are women' concept, or agree that any man who identifies as a woman should have access to womens toilets and changing rooms, etc. Those are actually quite mainstream opinions, and nothing to do with radical feminism at all.

Sometimes in pursuit of universal human rights, additional facilities, accommodations, adjustments and opportunities are set up to benefit particular disadvantaged groups who historically have not enjoyed full access to all human rights. IT IS NOT an infringement of anyone's human rights to prevent someone who is not in fact part of one of those disadvantaged groups (whatever they have the freedom to believe in their head) from accessing those additional facilities, accommodations, adjustments and opportunities.

This. Brilliantly articulated.

many people who don't describe themselves as feminists at all, let alone radical feminists, do not agree with the 'transwomen are women' concept, or agree that any man who identifies as a woman should have access to womens toilets and changing rooms, etc. Those are actually quite mainstream opinions, and nothing to do with radical feminism at all.

YY. I think certain posters here either don't grasp this, or are being a teensy bit disingenuous.

but to try and switch to the opposite gender completely

I genuinely don’t understand how you ‘switch to the opposite gender’.

Clearly there are cultural expectations of how a man or woman should behave (Men shouldn’t wear dresses, assertive women are ‘harridans’), but I genuinely don’t know what you are talking about when you say that assumed ‘gendered characteristics’ aren’t a product of socialisation or why a particular characteristic wouldn’t be normal in a man or a woman.

Any special rights beyond the most basic of human rights.

What are the ‘special rights’ that only women have?

So? I and many others do including well respected scientists.

Please could explain what these people believe.

So just to clarify. You want everyone to be happy. Tick

You want us to consider trans right (we don't how they differ from human right which we all have? So if you could elaborate that would be good.

You are happy to accept that what makes a woman is a feeling and that the girls that are raped and abused would NOT be raped and abused if they felt Like boys or told the rapist they identified as boys

You are happy to accept it is perfectly acceptable that any woman, for personal, religious or any other reason (oh let's say having been gang raped the week before) to have no right for male (penis) free places regardless of the fact that for many woman it could result in them being house bound..

You believe it will probably be okay if the 1% (that's 800 penis bearers) of trans people in prison are sent to woman's jail (a 20% increase). It would all be hunky dory!

Exactly how many woman are we prepared to lose to this experiment. 1.2 50? Just so we know?

Cool.. As long as you have thought it through....

"Sometimes in pursuit of universal human rights, additional facilities, accommodations, adjustments and opportunities are set up to benefit particular disadvantaged groups who historically have not enjoyed full access to all human rights. IT IS NOT an infringement of anyone's human rights to prevent someone who is not in fact part of one of those disadvantaged groups (whatever they have the freedom to believe in their head) from accessing those additional facilities, accommodations, adjustments and opportunities."

Strongly disagree with this. If this were true, trade unions would still exclude women. As it is the Labour Party still has a bit of a male bias.

As it is the Labour Party still has a bit of a male bias.

Just a tad

Strongly disagree with this. If this were true, trade unions would still exclude women.

But could you unpack this a little? How exactly is excluding women from trade unions, as workers, like excluding males from female spaces?

many people who don't describe themselves as feminists at all, let alone radical feminists, do not agree with the 'transwomen are women' concept, or agree that any man who identifies as a woman should have access to womens toilets and changing rooms, etc. Those are actually quite mainstream opinions, and nothing to do with radical feminism at all

Yes absolutely

If I asked the people at my village coffee morning whether transwomen were actual women, despite not having any surgery, or in fact after surgery, they would laugh in my face. They are as far from radical feminism as you can get.

The reason they haven't minded so far is because, contrary to all the rhetoric, they, like most people, are tolerant of people's desire to live as a member of the opposite sex. Transsexuals have been around for years and as I've said in previous posts, usually treated with kindness and respect.

Not sure where all this new TRA activism has come from tbh, we seemed to have it worked out as it was.

As long as you have thought ti through...
This is what I have found on many forums. People mean well, but they don't think things through to the logical confusion. Cue shock and horror when convicted rapists decide to identify as women in an attempt to be moved to a woman's prison. What exactly did they think was going to happen? That is the logical conclusion of this policy.

everybody's rights were hard fought for

Except the rights of straight, white men. They’ve never had to fight. And straight, white men make up a large proportion of the new style trans identifying males.

Except they call themselves lesbians. And say they are literal women.

Tell me again why it’s not an issue for women’s rights?

How can you be sure the bias is male relief? You're not assuming their gender are you?

"Except the rights of straight, white men. They’ve never had to fight."

Jesus, really? I think a little bit of education about the trade union movement might be in order. Or indeed the enlightenment in general.

Relief

Ok. I’ll amend “Straight, white, middle class men”

You make a fair point about class.

" Everybody has been asked in turn to make a little room for the rights of others."

Well, apart, if I understand correctly, for TRAs. The only people being asked to budge up are natal women. Summed up perfectly by the NUS loo situation- providing one loo exclusively for men and trans men, and another gender neutral one, which by definition is available to everyone, including men and trans men. No mention of women at all.

ReliefOfChaos that's not a reasonable comparison. Trade unionists weren't (aren't) oppressed because they were male, but because they were (are) workers under the control of a capitalist system. That category obviously includes women so of course it was right to expand to include women. It's a false analogy.

Now to tale a more reasonable example of domestic abuse shelters. Obviously we acknowledge that whilst the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse are female, it is true that some are male. Those males should have protection and refuge from domestic abuse. However, you cannot provide that safety to a man by making space for him in a refuge full of women who are trying to recover from an escaped situation where male appearance and male bodies meant danger, pain and fear. That does not mean no refuge for male victims of domestic violence - just not THAT refuge.

And yimmini though many of those male victim's will have been attacked by a male perpetrator, will be gay and will be no danger either physically or sexually to the women, their appearance is still scary.

@Ereshkigal

I thought it was quite simple I'll try to make it simpler for you

"So?"

I was suggesting that the poster saying she didn't believe in has no bearing on anything whatsoever. I felt that she thought her opinion was relevant.

"I and many others"

I used the singular first person subjective pronoun as well as "many others" to show that I am not one of the "respected scientists" I went on to mention. I am not a scientist.

"do"

A verb referring to the posters verb believe but removing the negation. In other words, I do believe.

"including"

Basic set theory to explain this one. I'll let you read up on this.

"many"

numerous

"respected" done well in their field and their opinions are considered as having scientific merit.

"scientists"

People who apply the scientific method. They observe and come to conclusions based on available evidence.

Maybe I could rephrase.

"So? I and many others do including well respected scientists."

=

Your opinion has no more value than mine. Science is undecided but I personally see more issues with your stance and ideology than with mine.

@merrymouse

That nature (evolution etc) play a major role in sex-based differences in behavior of people and that social conditioning is not the main reason for typically different behaviors and attainment and aptitude between the sexes / genders.

It's foolish to think it plays no part but equally foolish (and quite arrogant) to think that men and women must be the same in the one area we're still unsure about. Our bodies are different from hair to eyes to bone structure to brain structure. To think that behavior must be learnt and not natural seems foolish to me.