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.

We’re specifically discussing trans woman, aren’t we?

Reverse the situation and talk about how trans men have the right to use male spaces congruent with their gender and it’s the exact same argument.

@RatRolyPoly

'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.'

Yes! This.

Moonkissed, it’s not that hard but I can see you’re clearly being obtuse.

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.

Intersex is the only one proven to be due to physical issues. Stop conflating that with pseudoscience like "non binary".

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

Even if that person is vulnerable? Like in a refuge?

And what do you mean by 'no good reason?' What would be a good enough reason?

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

The constant and incessant insistence that women should put biological males first and ignore their own feelings and needs is misogyny. Which is also bigotry.

if there is no good reason for that that is prejudice not boundaries.

Who gets to decide what is a "good reason", exactly?

where she’s likely more at risk of trouble/verbal abuse than she is in the women’s changing rooms?

Do you truly believe, with the level of peak trans that has occurred across the population, that a trans women would feel comfortable in the women's changing room now? Knowing that so many women do not want them there? I wouldn't feel comfortable in that position and would be campaigning for a third space. It would take a certain type of trans women to not give a shit about that, imo.

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

Say you have an open hospital ward for women where all the inhabitants are likely to in a state of undress around each other. You legitimately want to protect the privacy and dignity of everyone on that ward, so it is proportionate to segregate by sex, as you cannot otherwise protect both their privacy and the privacy of others.

If you have a trans woman who you expect would want to be on that ward if she had to choose between that and the men's, you have some choices to make. It would be proportionate to give her her own room on the women's ward, because that achieves your aim. It would not be proportionate to exclude her to the men's area because you can achieve your aim by lesser means (i.e. separate room). And also, if she were on the men's ward she would need a separate room anyway for both her privacy and that of the other men, so it causes no harm to accept her seeing herself as a woman because the steps you would need to take either way protect the privacy of others on the ward.

Who gets to decide what is a "good reason", exactly?

The law.

It would take a certain type of trans women to not give a shit about that, imo.

Indeed. And disregarding women's boundaries is a major red flag.

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

Well there is a legitimate aim isn't there. Pretty much every single time when it comes to male bodied people sharing personal space with women. To ensure privacy and safety for biological women and girls.

The law.

So say the law changes to not be in favour of biological males having access to women's spaces, your opinion on whether it is a good reason will?

Ever hear the saying "the law is an ass", Rat? Or "hard cases make bad law"?

What legitimate aim do you think is being considered when thinking about whether biological males should be permitted to apply for jobs counselling female victims of rape or DV?

How is that situation any different from using a separate cubicle in a changing room or public toilet?

It would be proportionate to give her her own room on the women's ward, because that achieves your aim

And walking in and out of said room into the women's ward, where women will be in different states of undress. Is that acceptable in your opinion? Because presumably they would need access into the ward in order to use the private room.

How is that situation any different from using a separate cubicle in a changing room or public toilet?

You tell me, how is it different? Either it is or it isn't, and that should be the question debated really shouldn't it. Not whether or not transpeople are mentally ill fantasists.

And if you don't think it's acceptable, as you say You legitimately want to protect the privacy and dignity of everyone on that ward, then really the only option is a third space. Isn't it.

And walking in and out of said room into the women's ward, where women will be in different states of undress. Is that acceptable in your opinion? Because presumably they would need access into the ward in order to use the private room

I'm not getting into the specifics of that because it was an example based on a very specific premise; not a statement of an actual situation that I'm aware of. I made it up to give the person who asked for an example something they could use to understand the point I was making.

And if you don't think it's acceptable, as you say You legitimately want to protect the privacy and dignity of everyone on that ward, then really the only option is a third space.

No. You may want there to be a "one size fits all" answer to this; oh, how easy that would be; but I'm afraid what's proportionate and legitimate in one circumstance may not be in another. Which is why the GRA contains exceptions, including the provision to make further exceptions on a case by case basis.

There's never been anything to stop a violent male criminal from putting on a wig and sneaking into a women's toilet

Don't underestimate how much laws control peoples behaviour.

I knew lots of very anti drugs people in RL who were taking M-cat by the barrel load because it was legal, even though it was potentially more dangerous then lots of illegal drugs. As soon as it was banned, they stopped taking it, even though it was still readily avaliable.

Preditory men may abuse the self id law to enter women's spaces. It may well be that the current law is the invisible forcefield stopping them going in women's spaces.

Normalising the idea of males accessing female spaces is not a good thing for women. Making women feel that they might get into trouble for challenging males is not a good thing for women. Allowing males to commit indecent exposure and voyeurism with impunity is not a good thing for women.

To all: read the Gift of Fear and try to get your head around why women need to trust their feelings about males.

I agree there is no simple solution.