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?

Whataboutery is generally the sign of someone losing an argument.

Whatever. Nice avoidance of the issue, by the way. I take it you've spent an equal amount of time tone policing and lecturing TRAs about empathy then?

The problem is that being a trans inclusive feminist means that you have, at the very least, skated over some serious issues.

Nope, not skated over, just come to different conclusions than you.

Fully capable of analysing a subject and it's wider ramifications, thanks very much. Perfectly capable of logical thought. Basically what I'm saying is whatever anyone thinks of my trans-inclusive feminism, I don't think anyone would say I have "skated over" anything in finding myself here.

Basically what I'm saying is whatever anyone thinks of my trans-inclusive feminism, I don't think anyone would say I have "skated over" anything in finding myself here.

Except that others disagree and find "trans inclusive feminism" ideologically problematic. You're entitled to your views, and so are they, no?

OK, Rat, if I ask you the questions that concern me, will you answer them? Because I haven’t actually reached any conclusions yet. Because of not having enough information.

You're entitled to your views, and so are they, no?

Of course. Personally I find troubling any feminism that defends to the death the patriarchal tool of oppression that is gendered pronouns, but I know others come to different conclusions from me. And I don't sit on my high horse professing that they simply haven't thought about it enough.

MillicentF sure, I have a little time (dc are worn out, sandwiches provided, TV's on...)

LVX

I think your tone is fine

I do not ignore entire threads with well thought out and reasoned arguments on BOTH sides of the debate because someone is being a dick

SOME posters may have views i dont like but i can agree with the majority of what they right but draw my line at purposefully misgendering for example

I dont see the point in complaining (for example....this isnt you at all) that there are no non-trans threads...You want a non-trans thread...bloody start one

Oooh sorry

But obviously if you dont feel welcome then you don't feel welcome

I do feel welcome...its taken ages but i do feel i can post

N isn't a welcoming place if you believe in trans inclusive feminism

Sorry one last thing I promise

The above is your opinion

But by stating it as fact then I FEEL () that you are saying i am trans exclusionary...when im not

Rufustheyawningreindeer - reappearing very briefly to say I don't think everyone on MN is trans exclusionary (#notallmumsnetters ) but I think as a social structure it is. And individuals may disagree, which is their right, of course.

I can't think of any analogies to describe it, though, without opening a great howling chasm of outrage at comparing MN to any of the other environments I feel people like me (queer, Jewish, disabled) are not welcome in. But there are other places where I don't think all the people are awful and may not even have the specific views that make me feel uncomfortable but the whole structure/culture has evolved to not be a great place unless you buy into certain attitudes.

What do you expect gender critical women to actually do though?

Thank you, Rat. Here they are in no particular order.(sorry there are so many)

1. Do you think that it’s fair that transwomen compete in women’s sport, considering that a person who has previously trained as a man is almost certain to win?
2. Do you think that if a male bodied but trans identifying person commits a crime it should be recorded as a crime committed by a woman?
3. Do you think that measures introduced to redress women’s under representation in various fields should be available to transwomen?
4. Do you think natal women should have the right not to receive intimate care from male bodied people without having to speak out against an individual at the moment when that care is offered.
5. do you think lesbians should have the absolute right to refuse to have sex with another person solely because they have a penis?
6. Can you define “woman” without using stereotypes?
7. Do you agree with the NUS’s decision to have two sorts of loos- Gender Neutral and Men? 8jWhat rights should transpeopke have that they do not at the moment?

LVX

Alright lovely, we'll leave it here

OK, Rat, if I ask you the questions that concern me, will you answer them?

Slightly less time now than an hour ago I'm afraid, what with bedtime rapidly approaching. Which is a shame if I could have answered your questions.

If you were genuine in your wanting another perspective please do pm me and I'll reply when I can.

That goes for anyone really.

Or perhaps we'll see each other on another thread some time.

Whoops, massive x-post!

Will read yours now...

Good questions! Possibly more than I have time to answer, but certainly not more than I have answers for ;)

May I answer the first with a linked thread?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228541-Max-testosterone-level-for-trans-athletes-to-be-halved?pg=3&order=

It's just I've harped on about sport on so many threads (it's my specialist subject!) I can remember my views were pretty well interrogated on this recent thread, plus I think I linked another thread in it where it was discussed prior.

Will have to multitask now as the toddler's just wet himself...

Yes, I know there are a lot of questions- happy to wait!

2) Do you think that if a male bodied but trans identifying person commits a crime it should be recorded as a crime committed by a woman?

The short answer is that I think it depends on the crime, on who is doing the recording and for what purpose they are recording it.

I mean if Jane can be publicly exposed -against her wishes - by some grubby tabloid as having transitioned 20 years ago, simply for fallen on hard times and swiped a tin of beans from Tesco... That's not okay.

But if we're talking about the national collection and recording of sex crimes, for example, then I think it's fair to record as much information about the offender as possible. And if that means recording that ten years ago Jane's passport went from listing "M" against sex to "F", then so be it. Because that's relevant.

What it does mean of course is that we do have the means available to us to accurately record someone's transition status (even with a GRC - the original birth recording is not changed and police can access this - I have on good authority) by simply recording that they have transitioned, rather than recording them as the gender/sex by which they do not wish to be known.

Worth mentioning as well that we will always know how many GRCs are obtained. Right now that number is so small that most broad statistics taken that use gender won't be affected at all by the numbers currently transitioning, and that potential variance can be accounted for. Of course should the numbers skyrocket there's nothing to stop us looking at things again in the future, although like I say the Equality Act does allow you to do "discriminatory" things (like listing someone's gender reassignment) where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

3) Do you think that measures introduced to redress women’s under representation in various fields should be available to transwomen?

Yes, I do.

My aim as a feminist is to bring down the patriarchy, and to infiltrate and subvert the patriarchal structures which dominate over the lives of women; so parliament, board rooms etc.

To me, the patriarchy is based around the notion of the archetypal (white, heterosexual) alpha-male, the traits of whom must be either displayed or mimicked to achieve status. The further you deviate from this patriarchal archetype the lesser your ability to achieve status, retain resources or otherwise achieve within society; i.e. such people are oppressed by the patriarchy (see intersectionality).

Transwomen do not uphold the patriarchy. They are a clear deviation from it.

Therefore they contribute, in my eyes, to its being brought down.

Which to me is totally what all-women shortlists for example are all about! Others may see their function differently of course, but to me and for my feminism they are to bring down the patriarchy. And transwomen can absolutely be a part of that.

Sorry to go back to a post from ages ago, but while catching up I spotted this and was a bit perplexed...

Tibetan talked about their friend Mary - "She transitioned 35 years ago, happily married for 30 years"

Am I missing something here? How did Mary get married thirty years ago, when the GRA (allowing transpeople to marry someone of the opposite "gender") and civil partnership acts both didn't come in until 2004?

Mary surely can't have married a male - by my understanding - but if Mary married a female, then Mary was privileged enough to get a "same sex" marriage sixteen years before same sex marriage was legal (ish - civil partnerships anyway)?

Am I missing something here? How did Mary get married thirty years ago, when the GRA (allowing transpeople to marry someone of the opposite "gender") and civil partnership acts both didn't come in until 2004?

Perhaps Mary was already married to a woman and they stayed together? I think that was allowed?

But they transitioned five years before they got married? Unless they aren't still married and the thirty year marriage began first?

I have a tendency to focus on irrelevant details, I would say sorry but I'm really trying to do that less!

4) Do you think natal women should have the right not to receive intimate care from male bodied people without having to speak out against an individual at the moment when that care is offered.

I think it's right and appropriate that you can request an HCP of a particular gender for intimate care.

I think it's right and appropriate that you can refuse any care offered to you on any grounds whatsoever at the time.

I will not go further than that I'm afraid.

And if you are of the opinion (one I've heard here before) that that is insufficient to protect vulnerable women from receiving distressing intimate care from people they feel uncomfortable with, I would urge you to reconsider the solution.

The solution we should be looking for to protect women who are either il-informed or il-empowered about their right to refuse treatment is firstly to ensure women are better informed by either or government or charities; and secondly to push our NHS to actively seek positive consent from patients submitting to intimate care.

In my mind the responsibility for appropriately caring for vulnerable or traumatised women should be borne by the health service we pay to care for them, not the individuals simply trying to do their job within it.

not the individuals simply trying to do their job within it.

Can I edit this to say, "...not the tiny number of transgender individuals simply trying to do their job within it". Ta!

So women should have the right to refuse treatment by a male, even if he says he's a woman Rat? Or not?

Your "not prepared to go further" is a bit mealy mouthed, isn't it.

Are women entitled to refuse treatment by a male, yes or no?

And we're not talking gender here, we're talking SEX.