To be saddened by the transphobia and homophobia on Mumsnet?

[spannablue]

I used to come on here for a good laugh. But now there's just so much casual, vitriolic, uninformed rubbish om here!

Do people really think that trans women are secretly trying it on to take over women's space? Have you not seen what they have to go through (for some, horrific surgery; for others, lashings of abuse; job losses; loss of contact with family; street attacks)? Why would anyone choose that?

Did you know that if your kid comes out as trans, they are around 48% likely to attempt suicide, and around half of them succeed? All the literature/research on this shows that it's transphobia, stigma and bigotry that causes this, rather than some innate pathology. When a trans kid is supported to be who they want to be, those suicidal feelings tend to go away. If you've ever had or known a child with depression, anxiety, or who self harms, you'll know the fear and terror that they might succeed.

We're talking about a tiny minority of people who are trans. But what I'm seeing on Mumsnet amounts to collective bullying.

When did it become ok to be so judgmental? Have you ever actually met a trans person and listened to them with an open mind?

There are people of all kinds on social media - trans, not trans, gay, straight, bi, lollipop ladies, lawyers, teachers, academics and bus drivers. Some talk a load of crap. And others engage in intelligent, informed, openminded debate. Please consider trying out your ideas thoughtfully with these people before perpetuating the sort of hateful kneejerk nonsense which can have terrible consequences.

For the record, I'm an academic researcher in the field of applied sociology. I'm not trans. I'm a lesbian with four kids aged 3 to 25, one of whom is nonbinary.

My motivation wouldn’t be to convince anyone that my view is the right one. Just to show solidarity to those reading quietly who may be affected by what they’re reading in the GC/TERF threads, and to ensure that the site isn’t completely drowning out voices in support of trans people.

Please don't use banned misogynistic slurs, even handed reasonable poster.

I’ve engaged in endless debate on trans threads under a prior username (I NC regularly for various reasons) and it’s immensely frustrating with little observable benefit. But it seems a shame to just allow them to rage without showing there are posters who don’t espouse those views. If only for the sake of the reputation of MN!

Some women will accept transwomen in female spaces, some won't, some can't.
You can argue until you are blue in the face one way or the other, but ultimately it will never be a happy compromise.

Transpeople's rights are not upheld to the detriment of others. This was the argument made against the Black Lives Matter movement. Some white people got all upset and suggested that 'All Lives Matter'. Of course they do, but the BLM movement was about flagging up unfair treatment against a minority. Saying BLM doesn't mean that other lives don't.

But this is the very crux of the problem with the trans issue isn't it? You cannot allow transwomen to have full access to women's sex based protections, without that having an effect on women? You just can't.

TRAs don't seem to have much interest in flagging up unfair treatment. If they did there would be far more campaigning for third spaces and things like that. It just seems to me that they want 'womanhood'.

Spanablue what have trans people’s rights got to do with heteronormativity? Being trans is not a comment on their sexual orientation. In fact a trans couple consisting of trans man and trans woman are a heterosexual couple surely? There seems to be a lot of playing with definitions and meanings to suit your argument.

"Re. Self ID and women's safety:

We don't currently check people's genitals before allowing them into changing rooms and toilets.

There's never been anything to stop a violent male criminal from putting on a wig and sneaking into a women's toilet to lie in wait. Self ID isn't needed here. I haven't seen evidence that this is the usual strategy of violent sexual offenders, so self ID won't affect this."

But it will, @spannablue - because currently, if the man who has put on a wig and is lurking in wait in the female changing rooms or loos is spotted and challenged, they have no legal justification to be there. If self ID comes in, that person will be able to say "I identify as female so I have every right to be here" - ^and the women/girls who are threatened by their presence will not be able to do ANYTHING about it!

"what’s a plopper? The beauty is that you can just comment and not engage. Try it with me! I just did on the thread about women’s only spaces/controversy on first page of AIBH."

You still have no respect for other women's boundaries and concerns, whichever way you slice it Rat.

Reframing prejudices as "boundaries" doesn't mean they are beyond question Ereshkigal.

But it seems a shame to just allow them to rage without showing there are posters who don’t espouse those views

Why are our posts "rage" while your inane platitudes about biological males being women are an important viewpoint which simply must be heard? Biased much?

Reframing prejudices as "boundaries" doesn't mean they are beyond question Ereshkigal.

Reframing women's boundaries around biological males as "prejudices" due to your personal quasi religious belief system doesn't mean that those boundaries are wrong, Rat.

Reframing women's boundaries around biological males as "prejudices" due to your personal quasi religious belief system doesn't mean that those boundaries are wrong, Rat.

If tolerance is a "quasi religious belief system" then I really don't know what the world is coming to.

Everyone is biased.

‘Rage’ in the context I used it means to continue with great force or intensity, or spread rapidly and uncontrollably. Like a storm can rage for days. Not in the anger sense.

“Them” in my sentence referred to the threads, not the posters! Though I can see why you read it that way.

LOL. Forcing women to have biological males in their spaces when vulnerable against their will is "tolerance" now in Rat's Big Orwellian Dictionary.

Rat, that’s exactly it. These rights and boundaries people keep going on about are prejudices. You have a right to a toilet in the women’s toilet, as to trans women. You don’t have a right to a toilet that excludes trans women. Excluding trans women is not a right it’s a predudice.

I should have a right to a FEMALE space. Spaces are segregated by sex, not your quasi religious belief system.

Munroe Bergdof, Lily Madigan and Paris Lees are subverting heteronormativity- the same heteronormativity that enables male violence against women and keeps our wages low.

Now you're just having a laugh at our expense, OP.

Let me talk you through my equal pay claim. My then employer's own pay audit showed a systematic 10 to 15% pay gap between men (the old-fashioned be-penised variety, both gay and straight) and women (the old-fashioned cunty variety, both lesbian and straight). It was cock-up, not conspiracy. They hadn't sat down in the board room and said "hey, let's pay the women less." What they did have was very, very long pay scales which people inched up a tiny bit at a time. This meant that a woman with two maternity leaves - for which she would get a nominal annual performance mark of "satisfactory" - would find herself after 10 years in a role with her pay adrift from a man with 10 years in the role. No difference in performance - by 10 years, if you're not both doing your job properly, you should probably be sacked. (The company I worked for at that point had a very flat promotion structure too, so it wasn't unusual for people to spend 10 years at the same grade).

This sort of structural sex-based pay inequality as a result of long pay scales is widely recognised in the literature on pay inequalities, btw.

Furthermore, having worked in academia, I can tell you it will be exactly the same for you, especially having had 4 children. (There was a government report a few years back which admitted that the pay gap in universities wasn't down to more professors being male - if you looked at the stats grade by grade, male vs female lecturer A, male vs female lecturer B, male vs female senior lecturer... the pay gap existed at every single level).

This is not down to women liking glittery pink sparkles which can be subverted by a few men deciding they like glittery pink sparkles too. This is genuine structural inequality rooted in having not thought about the way women's reproductive biology impacts their potential earning potential at the time at which pay scales are set up.

No amount of Lily Madigan prancing around on twitter is going to change that one.

Hideandgo 👏🏻

A poster on another thread, when told she could use a cubicle at the swimming baths if she didn’t want to change in the main area, responded with ‘but what if I don’t want to?’

Well, no shit. What if a trans woman doesn’t want to get changed in the male changing rooms, where she’s likely more at risk of trouble/verbal abuse than she is in the women’s changing rooms? One person is considering their ‘wants’ in terms of what’s most convenient and enjoyable for them (they made no reference to their perceived safety btw, just what was most convenient). The other is considering their needs in terms of their personal safety and being able to access spaces congruent with their gender.

I know which seems more reasonable to me.

I should have a right to a FEMALE space.

Only when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

Otherwise it's straight-up discrimination.

All we should be arguing about here is whether or not something is firstly a legitimate aim, and then whether the exclusion is a proportionate measure. On a case by case basis.

The constant and incessant demonisation of transgender "ideology" is bigotry, plain and simple.

Re the sex/gender differentiation, the existence of nonbinary identites or feelings, and to some extent the self-ID and 'feeling female/male' thing:

To make an adult human being, lots of things have to happen.

• An egg and a sperm have to form
• The egg and sperm have to meet and combine
• Specific hormones are released which tell the developing cells to develop in specific ways to create testes or ovaries
• As the child grows up, the testes or ovaries release hormones which tell the body to develop in a certain way

As I understand it, outlying issues can occur at any of these points. The result can be intersex people, nonbinary people, or people who look one way on the outside and feel differently inside. This may or may not have a neurological component.

So that's the basic biology of it.

The on top of that you ahve the socialisation thing.

It's not an either/or thing. Anyone who knows about the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study will know that socialisation can actually change the way our DNA expresses itself. Nature and nurture are inexplicably linked.

You might not like the concept of 'transgender theory' (I can see people getting wound up by this- that's not my intention) but here's a good explanation from an academic article:

'In critiquing feminist theory for being too essentialist and queer theory for adhering solely to social constructivist assumptions, Nagoshi and Brzuzy (2010) maintain that transgender theory considers “the different embodied experiences and different social oppressions that are associated with having multiple social identities, as well as the narratives of lived experiences through
which individuals understand and negotiate these identities” (p. 437). This allows for an individual’s agency in “knowing” what they feel and deciding who they are within a rigid gendered system of expectations. Transgender theory also maintains the notion of a fluid, embodied, social, and self-constructed social identity that can inform an understanding of intersectional oppressed identities (Nagoshi & Brzuzy, 2010). This theory provides a deeper understanding
of the complexity of an individual’s identity in that it accounts for
the interrelationship of one’s construction of gender through one’s daily interactions and one’s physical body.'

Barron, Cecillia and Moshoula Capous-Desyllas 2017 ‘Transgressing the Gendered Norms in Childhood: Understanding Transgender Children and Their Families’ Journal of GLBT Family Studies 13:5 407-438

also see

Nagoshi, Julie L. and Stephan/ie Brzuzy 2010 ‘Transgender Theory: Embodying Research and Practice’ Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work 25(4) 431-443

This idea of bringing together nature and nurture (structuralism and post structuralism /postmodernism) isn't just discussed in gender theory but is filtering across most of sociology and cultural studies (Sara Ahmed on 'Affect'; Lisa Blackman on 'Hearing Voices' for example)

Reframing prejudices as "boundaries" doesn't mean they are beyond question Ereshkigal.

Hang on, so if a woman wants to say no to a male bodied person, she is prejudiced now?

How very progressive.....

Why should the feelings and issues of biological males take precedence on this over those of women as in everything, Lyndsey? You don't appear to realise what a misogynist you are.

Threads like this are great. More say I.

Only when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

So what would that be then? Can you give an example of when that would be a proportionate means?

Hang on, so if a woman wants to say no to a male bodied person, she is prejudiced now?

No, you've missed the point. If someone doesn't want to be touched by a person, for whatever reason, that is them asserting their boundaries. If someone doesn't want to be in the same room as someone else based on something about that person, be it their male body or any other thing, if there is no good reason for that that is prejudice not boundaries.