Men wanting to be Women

[bert3400]

To think transgender women really have no idea what being a women is ? . Maybe it's time we had a 3rd Gender . Be interested in hearing what real women & transwomen feel ?

I think that most men and most women below a certain age don't really understand the differences between the sexes. I certainly didn't until I had children. Men and women are no different until they start having children or facing health problems. Women have better access to things like fertility treatment and mental health treatment while men are actually taken seriously when they raise concerns about their reproductive organs outside the context of fertility. The brunt of the work re having and raising children falls to women, partially because of biological imperative partially because social expectations prevent/excuse fathers from taking a more active role. The majority of the contraceptive burden falls on women while men have limited access to relative contraceptives. And so on. The differences between the sexes that persist in society at large are not all biological but they all stem from our biological differences. Until we find a way to make trans women biologically female they are just as unlikely to understand the difficulties faced by natal women as natal women find it to understand difficulties face by transwomen.

I think that, having certain similarities, it is in everyone's interest that we all try to have a little bit more empathy for each other but saying that we are all the same is a blatant lie and submissive of the niche sufferings that are unique to each group.

Pratchet I think it would solve many people's problems. He "feels more comfortable identifying as a woman in social situations", but doesn't mind the family using the pronoun "he" or his real name. It's very complicated and difficult for me to get my head round. I'd be quite happy to have 3 DDs and 1 DS, but he's not asking for that. He can't have surgery because of an illness he has.

shotsfired

I have just looked at that Twitter account.

OH MY.GOD

I think feeling like a woman and being a woman is mostly about being identified as a woman by other people. So that is what trans women I imagine are looking for. To be seen as a woman and treated as one.

I don’t see why they can’t be and many who look as much like a woman as anyone achieve that easily, some are not so lucky and their masculine features let them be singled out by the less supportive people who’s paths they cross. I see no reason to not accept that they are women.

And don’t try to claim that there’s no such thing as treating someone like a woman. At a very basic level it’s simply recognising someone as one. I feel like a woman and I am one. When I walk into a room people naturally refer to me as ‘she’ and ‘that woman’. They do that because they’ve identified me as a woman. It’s the behaviour of other people and their recognition of me that makes me ‘live like/as a woman’.

So I don’t find it hard to treat and view a trans woman the exact same as any woman I come across in any setting.

Should I encounter anyone who is committing a crime and also happens to be a trans person I will treat them like I would any criminal and not have that as the benchmark for how I treat trans people. People’s argument for not treating trans people as women always comes back to the behaviour of some criminals who are trans. That is discrimination in my book. And why I can never be outraged at trans people and their request to be seen as women unlike the many on here.

A friend passed away recently.
I always knew "her" as female, unaware that "she" had transitioned years ago. I have no idea whether extensive surgery was involved, I suppose hormone treatment was.
The death certificate clearly stated sex as MALE.
This person lived life as female, quietly and with dignity.
About as far removed from the behaviour of the current mob of shrieking, bullying TRAs as it is possible to get.
I simply don't believe the current circus is necessary or appropriate.
I do believe it has a sinister agenda for damaging the rights of women.

I think feeling like a woman and being a woman is mostly about being identified as a woman by other people.

Well yeah I guess. I mean when I was in the doctors office the other week legs akimbo with 3 of them them struggling to get the mirena coil out of my uterus, through my cervix and out through my vagina, I suppose they identified me as a woman. I certainly felt like a woman.

going to respectfully bow out of this discussion as a few posts are making me quite sad

The usual fake mournfulness at our non-existent bigotry

Women are fighting for their lives and their safety here - we don't have the luxury of giving up because we feel sad.

And don’t try to claim that there’s no such thing as treating someone like a woman. At a very basic level it’s simply recognising someone as one. I feel like a woman and I am one. When I walk into a room people naturally refer to me as ‘she’ and ‘that woman’. They do that because they’ve identified me as a woman. It’s the behaviour of other people and their recognition of me that makes me ‘live like/as a woman’.

Yep. I mean when John Worboys decided to rape the women he drove around in his taxi, and leave the men alone, he recognised them as women.

Funnily enough, Scott Wilson, the trans man who was raped in Newcastle said that their rapist 'saw me as a woman' even though apparently, Scott is a 'man'.

Aw man, I'm so late to this discussion!

Personally I think that there's no reason why either group's feeling on whether a transwoman is a woman or not needs to win out over the other.

I mean I have my opinion on that, it's credible enough for me and others who hold this opinion, but those who think otherwise have equally credible reasons.

We could argue it in an ideological sense until the cows come home!

But I don't think, in practical terms, that needs to matter.

Because here's the thing; we don't exclude anyone from anything for no reason at all; that's discrimination. But what we do do is lawfully and rightfully exclude people when there is good reason. If there's a good reason to exclude males from something so that it is "female only" that sure, crack on. And similarly if there is good reason to exclude someone who has the protected characteristic of "gender reassigment" from something then we can do that too!

If for some reason there is situation where it would not be appropriate for transwomen to be socially and legally treated as women (i.e. in a woman's shelter for example) then we don't need to say "they're men!" in order to do that; we can simply say their gender reassignment poses a problem, and exclude them as required.

Ultimately I can't see that it matters much whose ideology is more credible. Society and the law doesn't seem to rely on it, from what I can tell.

Whenever I feel confused/unsure about the potential ramifications of an amended GRA and the creeping erasure of sex-based protections for women currently enshrined in law (Equality Act) I think of Ibi-Pipi.

This is Ibi-pipi:

www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/28594985

Ibi-Pipi lives in Denmark where self-ID has been enacted. She is married to a woman and is dad to 6 kids. She says she is a lesbian trapped in a man's body. She has legally changed her gender but has no intentions to pursue hormone treatment or to present as female.

So, the article says Ibi-Pipi is an artist and a provocateur, so maybe there is some artistic angle to her activities (in the article her activity is claiming she has the right to use women's changing room at the local pool). However, whatever her motives her friends think she is pissing all over 'trans' issues.

I agree with her friends. She is also pissing all over women's issues and concerns. Ibi-pipi, and the potential for similar idiots to exploit self-ID for whatever motive, are one reason why we need a proper debate.

Clearly the self-ID system in Denmark did not weed her out or say, hang on a minute, your motives might not be genuine. No, the Danish system gave her a GRC. With that GRC she could argue her way into rape crisis centre's and women's shelters, where vulnerable women who object to her would potentially be breaking the law. It's farcical. There has to be a debate. It is not bigoted to ask for that. It's common sense.

I didn't mean to put trans in inverted commas or whatever that symbol is called. I recognise and respect transwomen and transmen and I also recognise that self-ID needs to debated to ensure women's rights and protections are retained.

To say their gender reassignment poses a problem is wrong (and also transphobic). It is specifically NOT because they are trans. It is specifically because they are male.

we don't need to say "they're men!" in order to do that; we can simply say their gender reassignment poses a problem, and exclude them as required.

But we can’t. The proposed changes to the law would make that illegal. The law is based on single sex exemptions currently. If you remove that, and if you remove the ability to say ‘this person is male , hence they cannot access this female space’ then the framework falls apart. So the right to say that this is a man is vital. Gender reassignment (whatever the heck that actually mean since gender isn’t objective anyway) is a protected category you can not discriminate on the basis of it but you can invoke a single sex exemption. So the definition of sex has to remain.

That’s before you even get to the more troubling aspects of TRA groups pressing for policing of language. I don’t want to live in a world where I have to watch my language in case I slip and say something that is a statement of fact. Such as transwomen remain men. They do. Humans can’t change sex. To legislate so that I can’t say that is to codify belief in law. Right now the only societies that codify belief are theocracies. Funnily enough nonone is beating the door down to go and live in any theocracy of any type.

It’s be great to live in a world where anyone can express themselves however they wanted. In such a society the very idea of gender would be redundant and a few sex segregated spaces would remain to account for the times when sex matters. And it does matter in some circumstances.

It IS important to be able to say transwomen remain Male. It IS important to have sex segregated spaces. It IS important to have honest and accurate use of language.

Pratchet I believe the protected characteristic under the Equality Act is "gender reassigment".

There are nine characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010. They are:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

And you can lawfully discriminate against someone exhibiting one of those protected characteristics where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

That's not wrong, that's completely fair and legal. So you can say this is a service which discriminates against men on the grounds of their sex and against transwomen on the grounds of their gender reassignment, where there is a good reason of course.

No-one needs to call a transwoman a man to provide a service that need necessarily exclude them in the interests of other service users.

That's why I hate seeing it done so often; if it isn't actually necessary to say a transwoman is a man, the mind can conjure all sorts of other reasons as to why someone might be doing it. And invariably those reasons are very nice.

To say their gender reassignment poses a problem is wrong (and also transphobic). It is specifically NOT because they are trans. It is specifically because they are male.

Cross posted with Pratchet, who said it far more succinctly.

I don’t have an issue with transpeople being trans. I’m fully behind any attempt to break out of gender stereotyping. What I’m against is makes accessing female spaces.

To discriminate on the basis of someone being trans actually is transphobic - to discriminate using a legally enshrined single sex exemption is not. Yet.

But it will be if the GRA changes go through.

Gender reassignment ... is a protected category you can not discriminate on the basis of it but you can invoke a single sex exemption.

Bowl "invoking a single sex exemption" is actually lawfully discriminating against a group on the basis of their protected characteristic - their sex.

That is the lawful way to exclude a group when it is justified.

The same can be done to lawfully discriminate against any of the characteristics listed above - when justified.

There is no reason at all why this has to be about sex if you want to be able to separate transwomen and women when you have a very good reason.

There is no reason at all why this has to be about sex if you want to be able to separate transwomen and women when you have a very good reason.

The opposite is true- when you have a good reason to separate transwomen and women it will be due to sex.

What other reason would there be?

To discriminate on the basis of someone being trans actually is transphobic - to discriminate using a legally enshrined single sex exemption is not. Yet.

That's not true Bowl, see above.

What I’m against is makes accessing female spaces.

And you can still have spaces for people who were born female only so long as the Equality Act is confidently and knowledgeably applied and enforced.

Hey, I'm not saying I think people have the understanding and the confidence to do that - I wish they did, and I think that alone would alleviate a lot of the concerns knocking around, if there was clear evidence of it being sensibly applied - but I don't think we need to agree that transwomen are men.

No problem. Feel free to come back to the discussion when you reach the point in your personal development where your emotions no longer hinder your ability to take part in a debate with other adults.

This!

What other reason would there be?

Bowl I'm not sure I'm getting my point across; I'm trying!

There very clearly is a list of 9 protected characteristics, sex being one, gender reassignment being another.

If you're telling me there is a good reason to exclude someone born male then absolutely you can discriminate against that person for that reason. Someone who is born male either has the protected characteristic of sex (m) and/or the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. You can lawfully discriminate against that person for your very good reason on the basis of whichever of those two characteristics you like!

Someone who is born male either has the protected characteristic of sex (m) and/or the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

I was under the impression that if they had a GRC they had the protected characteristic in most cases of sex (apart from exemptions) (f) not (m). A TRA told me this so it may be suspect. Anyone know?

Why would transwomen and women need to be separated in a given situation?

There IS no other reason except the ones that stem from transwomen being men.

And hence, any situation where the groups would need to be separated is down to their sex.

And so we have to be able to name the sex of each class.

This is at least in part true as if they passed as female to people they could claim sex discrimination by perception.

But I think that would apply to all passing TIMs.

I was under the impression that if they had a GRC they had the protected characteristic in most cases of sex (apart from exemptions) (f) not (m)

I think that might be right Eresh, but you can still discriminate against them where there is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim on the grounds of their gender reassigment, even if you can't separate them out on the basis of legal sex.

Bowl I don't understand; you can get the end result you want of spaces for natal-born women only, as and when that is demonstrably necessary.

Why does it matter to you the way in which we get there? You can win the practical battle, why keep fighting the ideological war?