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.

Twenty years ago who amongst us ever used/heard of the expression gender identity? I knew of gender roles, gender stereotyping - but these were societal things and never viewed as positives (not by people inclined to equality anyway)
And now we talk firmly about gender identity and gender expression as if they are tangible things we can measure in a science lab, rather than (possibly) by a psychologist.

Agree with much of what has been said in the last few posts but I also think to focus too narrowly on GD when we talk about what trans actually is maybe isn’t that helpful. I believe GD is real and has likely always existed in one form or another, while definitely enhanced by societal expectations around sex and gender, as PP said. But the people who are causing issues are the new wave of trans people who maintain GD is not necessary to be trans, and do not have GD themselves. I just don’t even know how to begin to make provisions for such people, or to understand their experiences... they CLEARLY should not be using disabled facilities, surely? And increasingly I think this group makes up the majority of trans people.

And now we talk firmly about gender identity and gender expression as if they are tangible things we can measure in a science lab, rather than (possibly) by a psychologist.

To be honest I think “gender identity” is just personality. And dysphoria is discomfort with the physical sex of the body. Two unconnected things that have been conflated.

It would sort out a lot of these problems. You have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (as is currently the case!), And then you can get your gender recognition certificate, after two years 'in role'.

Without the certificate, you get no special treatment.

The certificate is the key, but there are conditions to be met before you get one.

And exemptions still apply.

Then the Philip Bunces of this world would be recognised as a cross dresser, not a transwoman. And wouldn't be able to lord it over all the women at Credit Suisse.

Men with AGP would not get a certificate, so the persecution of lesbians would end.

If you don't have GD, how on earth do you justify using the spaces of the opposite sex to yours? If you don't have that sex or that gender, where on earth's the argument?

Sloth

The problem is that the new wave can identify as whatever they like and nobody can gatekeep either the women’s or the disabled toilets.

Datun

I think AGP is still GD so it’s still complicated

I know it isn't meant in that way, but is it useful to discuss what makes people trans or not? Or whether trans people have a mental health problem? I'm sure it's not meant in that way but it reminds me of the arguments people used to use (and in some circles still use such as in those where gay conversion therapy is still considered valid) about gay and lesbian people. If the concrete issue is about women's spaces, women's lists, who should/shouldn't speak for women isn't it more useful to focus on that?

And the ideology is important, yes most posters here cite biology, but in other circles different disciplines are being drawn on, and these are from areas such as Queer theory. The areas of knowledge are poles apart in terms of what is considered valid so there's no way forward in debating them. They just cancel each other out. It's like an atheist arguing with an evangelical Christian they are never going to convince each other. The place they're coming from is too different.

Don't we want a practical solution that protects women's spaces that is not anti-trans?

I just don't see what that is at the moment.

If you don't have GD, how on earth do you justify using the spaces of the opposite sex to yours? If you don't have that sex or that gender, where on earth's the argument?

Well yes, quite. But I see it said constantly now that having GD is not necessary to be trans.

Honestly thinking about it logically even having GD doesn’t mean you should be able to use the opposite sex’s facilities, but most people would accept this as a sort of kindness to people going through something difficult. Also because most people with GD were traditionally gay. But it’s now expected to just extend that same courtesy to anyone who fancies giving womanhood a shot, often with no commitment other than nail polish, if even that.

Elletorro

Yes, I think you're right. But AGP should absolutely exclude a man from accessing women's spaces. It's repugnant to enshrine that in law.

It should not be impossible to make a distinction.

Everyone involved in this knows that these are all competing characteristics within the trans ideology. Everyone. Trans people themselves, women, medical professionals.

It's only the general public at large, who have no clue. Which is how wool is being pulled over so many eyes.

And actually the 'atheist versus evangelical Christian' example is valid here. We do have a society in which people with beliefs that can't be verified by science, such as faith in some sort of God, are given rights and accorded access to certain spaces etc So arguing that something is not verifiable for people outside that group doesn't really change anything either

Hi spanna, I just wanted to say how much I've appreciated your posts on this thread. I support your point of view entirely (incidentally, I'm an academic too and work on gender theory, though my main discipline is different to yours). I admire your ability to express yourself calmly and compassionately. I find MN such a hostile space to transpeople that I've given up trying to intervene in the debate here -- all I can do is keep supporting the trans and non binary people I know in RL. But your views are a refreshing change to what has become in the MN status quo. Thank you.

Dottierichardson

The difference is we respect a Christian's right to their belief, we don't give them the right to force us to believe it, too.

oops, 'in' in last sentence is a typo!

People blindly supporting posters, but offering no arguments, and saying they have given up on the debate, does, indeed, reinforce the idea that it is a belief system.

I think most gender critical feminists view it as a belief system.

I know it isn't meant in that way, but is it useful to discuss what makes people trans or not?

I know what you are saying and I find these conversations distasteful myself, but I do think it’s actually important to discuss, because IMO the whole reason this issue has blown up recently is that the definition of trans has changed and been extended. So yes discussing what trans “is” matters. When you actually start looking at this carefully it quickly becomes clear that several groups of people who have no right to claim transness as it was traditionally understood are piggybacking on the vulnerability of actual trans people, and if they weren’t doing this there would be no problem.

I don’t think it is the same as discussions about gay people at all. It’s a totally different dynamic.

Datun well the problem is that we do and we don't depending on where we are, that's why abortion is so under threat in the US at the moment.

Hi Dottie

And with Christians there is still critical thinking. So Christians cannot assert that they must be allowed to wear a crucifix at work if that’s not a core part of manifesting their faith.

I believe we are simply applying the same rigour. To simply oppose that there should be any protections at all would be anti trans.

Right now the central issue is self id. The exemptions will (in my opinion) be rendered unworkable if self-identify comes in.

I haven't given up on the debate datun, not in RL, I've just given up on MN because it feels too much like an echochamber and I don't think trying to intervene is worthwhile -- I did try to earnestly engage at the start. I do by now have a fairly good idea of the gender-critical, anti-'transwomen are women' stance that dominates MN, having encountered about a billion threads in the topic. It's not as though I haven't considered the opposing arguments, I've considered them and I respectfully disagree.

Also the people on the other side of the debate think that GC feminism is a set of beliefs too. So then we get into which side has more clout!

Come on spanna. Answer some questions.

You started this thread to tell us our point of view is "rubbish" at best.

ON the topic. Ffs trying to type on my phone on top of a mountain in wales isn't doing me any favours, ha.

The only way to avoid being branded anti trans in some circles is to accept what you are told at face value.

Well I like to look at evidence and make up my own mind. Evidence will include reviewing the interaction between transgender and GD. Also the interaction of transgender rights and women’s rights. I will take an intersectional approach and consider those groups of women who are most oppressed/disadvantaged and likewise those transgender people who are most oppressed/disadvantaged

I have a stake in this. I declare an interest as I have a daughter and GNC son

Is that bigotry?

. It's not as though I haven't considered the opposing arguments, I've considered them and I respectfully disagree.

No worries

Also the people on the other side of the debate think that GC feminism is a set of beliefs too. So then we get into which side has more clout!

I don't think they necessarily do. I think they know full well how women's rights are documented, and how women have been disadvantaged.

It's fairly public knowledge.

The difference is, many people think that women are, quite legitimately, a little 'lesser than'.

They don't quite understand how this translates into experience. Which is why a lot of men's attitude to the MeToo campaign was disbelief, then denial. And a lot of defensiveness.

The inherent power dynamic between men and women is undeniable. It's just a lot of people either think it's normal, or it's not relevant to them.

And it doesn't change, however people identify. You are not seeing transmen clamouring to get into men's prisons, beating men at sport, or insisting they use the same toilets and changing rooms as men. Because the power dynamic hasn't changed for them.

In fact almost the only time you see transmen mentioned is when they give birth, as in 'man' gives birth. Funny that.

I htink academics who research gender and the like should consider why they do feel MN is hostile to trans people. Many of us like the current law but are not "hostile". If there is some hostility try to find out why - eg women have to put up with an awful lot from men over the years from being hit by them to all kinds of other things so we may not take kindly to transwomen (men) telling us to be quiet or that our measured arguments are not valid or not accepted perhaps.

I agree with the suggestion above that we look for positive ways forward eg I don't want trans men in statistics about women whether that is women in positions of power, positions reserved for women because we are so under represented, on the census forms as it skews data, in the violence done by women statistics etc. So the solution to those issues is have a separate category for the very few trans women that there are so their data is not included and we collect their data separately - eg they may get beaten up a lot by men and it would be useful to know that rathed rthan just lumping them in with all women to no advantage of them or us. that would be my solution on that.

On issues like weirdo men wanting to change with 13 year old girls on Oxford St clothes shops on Saturdays (and yes sadly there will be a good few) the solution could be using the disabled toilet for example if there is one or having one gender neutral curtained off area and that kind of thing. (I rarely use public loos and never buy clothes in shops so those kinds of issues don't really concern me too much personally but I can see why other people are worried about them given how much history most of us have of the kinds of things men have done to us over the decades week in week out from casual sexism to worse stuff which many trans women will have no idea about as they have not lived from their teenage years the life of a woman).