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.

I’ll tell you who really is at the bottom of the pile in this society, and that’s people with disabilities. Genuinely revolted by anyone who thinks taking their hard won facilities is the way to deal with this. This is self centredness taken to pathological levels.

karenna

I'm sure I, and many of the women here, would far rather be spending our time doing something else. Reading about the impact of transgenderism is something we are being forced to do, it's not my go to pasttime, I can assure you.

I do know that you should not be taking provision from disabled children. Disability is a protected characteristic.

You might want to google impact assessments in terms of the equality law as to what your responsibilities are when promoting one protected characteristic over another.

Because sex, too, is a protected characteristic, which carries equal weight to gender reassignment. As does disability.

Gorgon there's no point in querying people's academic credentials it doesn't get a response. There was someone on a similar thread yesterday citing Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, but actually inappropriately, when I asked them about Nussbaum's refutation of Butler no response - it is usually taught alongside Butler - because as any academic knows counter-arguments have to be considered. Similarly someone put forward an argument apparently from philosophy but when I asked if it was 'continental' or 'analytical' and which school of philosophy - resounding silence. Also ironic that an academic makes pleas to kindness, when everyone knows academic conferences are places where people's arguments get torn to shreds, and academics get used to it. And this forum far more polite than that.

Furthermore karenna, You really might benefit from looking at the transgender trend schools advice.

Whatever your take on transgenderism, it certainly sets out the law and what is expected in terms of ALL the protected characteristics, not just gender reassignment.

It stops people breaking equality law.

I'm deeply concerned about these children who are being told that reproductive sex is "more than biology".

I absolutely disagree with the parasitic hijacking of disabled facilities (not the children's fault) and I absolutely disagree with lying to these children about their material reality.

I find the beliefs of karenna and the OP with regards to reproductive sex and sexual politics terrifying and dangerous.

Every time, people flounce off on the pretext of transphobia. So we aren’t allowed to defend disabled spaces. We have to ‘be kind’ and allow trans people priority every time or we are bigoted. It’s such a predictable pattern. You run out of arguments attempting to defend the indefensible and hide behind unfounded accusations of transphobia. It’s so obvious that you have nothing to support your arguments when it really comes down to it.

Being female isn't just biology. So what is it then? Is it a feeling in a man's head? Is that all women are to you - background for men to ignore/use/abuse/appropriate at their whim?

You’re really telling women to get over their trauma, while telling us that we have to think the trans identifying mens’ feelings. Their feelings are more important than ours. That’s what it boils down, isn’t it, OP? You can throw about the academic label and use all the excuses you want, but you really don’t give a shit about women. Mens’ feeling come first.

A long way from communal changing - if it ever happens - and one for huge debate. I can see a lot of the rationale both for and against.

I'm interested in the rationale "for" letting male-boded people into changing rooms with girls and women. Because anyone arguing that is surely arguing for no segregation of spaces at all.

when I asked them about Nussbaum's refutation of Butler

That was fantastic. I was going to post it but couldn't remember her name

karenna

No one is suggesting you force children into the toilet of their sex, against their will. In fact the EA specifically talks about it.

What you can't do is take provision from another protected characteristic.

Schools out having to dream up ways of satisfying the equality law. Which does not impact detrimentally on certain protected groups. Including girls and disabled children.

I'm sure it's a complete pain in the arse.

I'm done again. I hid this thread last night because the diatribe of transphobia - and the vitriol and name calling was just awful - from supposedly educated women

The only name-calling I've seen is that people offering cogent arguments against self-id, allowing men into female spaces, etc are called "transphobic".

As a vaginaphile I'd be examining your own transphobic tendencies OP.

Karenna I appreciate that it's not nice to be disagreed with and of course you have every right to leave a thread.

But your lack of substantial reasoning as to why reproductive sex is "more than biology" and how that makes male bodied children female is really concerning.

I say this because your posts here are very much like everything I read on trans ideology. Lacking in substance.

I'm very concerned that important and far reaching legislation is changing on the basis of so little. Fair laws cannot be based on the unsubstantiated beliefs of some.

There never is a substantial argument.

Either the goal posts move, or there are relentless calls to female socialisation, along the lines of your're just being mean, how dare you be horrible to children, etc.

Followed by flouncing. And accusations of transphobia.

There can be no justification for dismantling safeguarding protocols.

It gets more nuanced when you're talking specifically about gender dysphoria in children. Because of course, most women can relate to an unhappy child. There is no doubt that some children do have gender dysphoria (along with all those who think they do, but don't).

But should you sacrifice all girls, for the sake of a handful of boys with a medical condition?

Where is the justification? I've never seen anything even approaching a credible argument.

Karenna I totally sympathise with your position re: your child, my dc has a disability, for which already resources are insufficient. What you seem to be saying is that resources that are already scarce for my dc should be reduced further because of your dc's needs? Can you not see that puts two groups into direct competition? The rights of those with disabilities were hard won, as were the rights of women to 'safe spaces' but when people with disabilities fought for rights they did not ask for the rights of other groups to be diminished.

This could be an analogy for what is going on here, one oppressed group is being asked to give up rights that have been fought for and which are still fragile in favour of another oppressed group, but this brings both groups into direct competition. However when one group seeks to stand up for those rights e.g. to safe spaces, they are told they are being unreasonable and worst discriminating against the other group. Women just want the spaces they fought for, they have no problem with other groups fighting for spaces that are appropriate to them, if that group wants support from women fine but if the only offer on the table is being kind and moving over? Well that has never worked well for women. It usually means their rights end up being eroded. However polite people are/aren't we are never going to agree here. Now it may be that some people who are arguing for maintenance of safe spaces are using that as 'coded' transphobia, but I suspect on this 'liberal' forum they are in a tiny minority. One of the responses to women not wanting to sacrifice or open up certain spaces is to try to argue that these are not needed; or that the rationale behind those safe spaces aren't needed. In other words to tell women that male violence/oppression isn't real. It's like a white person telling a 'person of colour' that something isn't racist because they personally didn't see/experience racism, it's hugely inappropriate and patronising.

Additionally between the OP and the majority of posters here we also have an ideological divide (or since Foucault is the go-to, then competing discourses) one group believes that sex primarily defines what it is to be male/female and that gender is a social construct that largely leads to stereotypical gender roles/performance and is a shifting set of practices/ideas etc The other side of the argument here, but not in all fora, seems to be that sex is fluid and gender is fixed. So again there is never going to be agreement.

You're partly right about the ideological divide @Dottierichardson - I'm actually really interested in working out another theoretical approach which bridges the divide. Transgender theory is one way; affect theory is another; space/place theory also helps.

spannablue are you going to reply to any of the questions I have asked you?

Spanna well that would undoubtedly be interesting but the issue becomes infinitely more complex when it comes to translating abstract theory into concrete practice. I can theorise around male violence, the oppression of women etc but how does that impact on actual instances of violence/oppression?

Some people may have their opinion more informed by academia, which results in their ideological position.

But others, like me, don't. I've never read Foucault.

I do know human beings can't change sex. And I do know that sex is something that is observable, identifiable and verifiable. Gender identity isn't.

It's not really even necessary for me to argue about the existence of gender identity to know that it's pointless segregating on the basis of it. Given that it is subjective and unverifiable.

That's all I need to know. A) You can fake it. B) it doesn't change male pattern behaviour.

It's not really even necessary for me to argue about the existence of gender identity to know that it's pointless segregating on the basis of it. Given that it is subjective and unverifiable.
^
This.^

I was broadly still in support until you said about robbing disabled children's facilities from them.

disability is very real. No 'beliefs' required for those. This is outrageous, frankly. Disabled toilets were put there for disabled people. Not to be commandeered.

Next time my nephew needs the toilet I'll assume the reason it's busy is because someone with stronger beliefs is using it. His biological needs must be subservient to feelings and beliefs.

That's finished it off for me.

I feel like Alice in wonderland. Entering an alternate universe where strong beliefs and feelings override facts. This is beyond me now I literally can't read anymore of this.

Datun writes:

It's not really even necessary for me to argue about the existence of gender identity to know that it's pointless segregating on the basis of it. Given that it is subjective and unverifiable.

That's all I need to know. A) You can fake it. B) it doesn't change male pattern behaviour.

Datun is absolutely right

I don’t think it’s possible to bridge the gap because if a theory is based on false premises then you get unreliable conclusions.

Talking about Gender as a toxic social construct sidesteps the reality of GD and the use of gender to treat and assuage symptoms. In this particular instance gender norms are not oppressive: it is only when they imposed upon non GD sufferers that they become oppressive.

TWAW prioritises treatment of GD over treatment of women as it is based on the false premise that women are privileged and/ or equal to men

I believe gender dysphoria actually fits within the Equality act definition of disability so I wouldn’t say there’s any problem with a person with GD using the disabled loo.