AIBU to state that no one thinks Self ID for Trans gender people should be passed as law.

[Shiklah]

Thank you for reading my thread.

I would appreciate respectful debate on this issue as I am utterly bewildered. Please do not attack me and call me a transphobic person. I am not. I work with vulnerable women and children, including victims of grooming gangs, in Calderdale. I live in a town very close to where Karen White lived and abused his victims which has made me research this topic.

I posted on MN yesterday asking for views on the media calling Karen White - a male rapist - she. I have researched and read continuously for the last 24 hours and am now utterly bewildered. It seems that the government, media and many trusted organisations are willing to pass over the rights of women and children to support the rights of men who may or may not be transgendered.

Transgendered people have dysphoria, this means that being a trans woman and being a rapist are exclusive - you cannot be one if you are the other. it makes no sense. It seems very clear that if self ID goes thru then any man which a personality disorder and fetish can ID as a woman and use this loop hole to gain access to hospitals, prisons, detention centres, children's homes, refuges and rape crisis centres. As women, we must protect those that are vulnerable, it cannot be right that to meet the needs of a maligned group (trans gender people) we sacrifice the rights of another?

We have a system that seems flawed - maybe it needs to change, maybe it needs review, I am not trans and would like to hear from those that are to advise on this, please help me understand........ but AIBU to state that self ID is unacceptable to women, children and truly transgendered people who will suffer if the likes of Karen White are considered to be 'women'?

Thanks for reading.

I am really surprised that Woman's Hour haven't covered this issue. I would have thought that the month of October could have been spent doing a real in-depth investigation into all the different facets that people are worried about.

wrenika a lesbian can’t rape, impregnate or overpower you due to male physiological advantages, nor are women anywhere like as inherently violent as men. But you know this. I am sorry about your friend but the rights of the individual do not and cannot negate the rights of the majority - and anyway, your friend has all the rights, apart from the right to force others to accept her beliefs.

I don’t accept transsexual just as I don’t accept transracial. It is not possible to change sex, nor is it possible for a man to know what it means to be a woman and vice versa. The whole thing is an edifice of deceit, delusions and lies, both to the individual and to society in general. I will not pander to it any longer. And I don’t have to, no-one can force me to have those beliefs, to accept them or to express them. No one.

I’ve just sent the following message to Woman’s Hour;

Please be aware before you broadcast that the BBC is currently (and widely) perceived as supporting the trans activists agenda above the rights and welfare of natal women. For Women’s Hour to continue this damaging pattern would be a disgrace. Please try your level best to present this deeply important issue from an adult human female point of view.
The British public at large have no idea what the implications of the GRA reform could mean for women’s current sex-based protections.
Most people assume this consultation makes life easier for transsexuals, and have no clue that most self identified trans individuals retain their original genitalia, and that the GRA consultation is also criticised by actual transsexuals like Miranda Yardley.
Vulnerable women are already at risk from trans women in previously protected spaces (see Karen White et al), and trans women taking women’s places across society (Pips Bunce the autogynephile winning a women’s award, the cyclist winning today’s race with their male-grown body, etc etc).
Being gender critical is by no means transphobic, and trans activists are consistently shutting down debate by stating it is.
PLEASE ask a trans activist ‘what makes someone a woman’, and insist on a coherent reply.
A woman is a female bodied person with ANY personality, not any body with a ‘female’ personality.
Most gender critical feminists have no issue with those who suffer gender dysphoria, but we have a massive problem with the erosion of women’s rights and the threat to childrens and teens mental health by the trans ideology.

Wrenika I sympathise with your friend, but you contradict yourself.

In the first paragraph you state they couldnt use toilets suitable for their gender so tried to kill themsleves.

In the second you say it doesnt matter whos in the next cubicle.

Can you clarify whether its so awful it makes people suicidal or if it doesnt matter?

Personally Im with your friend, theres no way Id want to share a loo with a male, I couldnt use those gendered unisex facilities.

RiverTam - I'm not trying to be goady and am not saying you are being but in terms of your own personal beliefs. Would you consider yourself to be transphobia? And if not how would you define transphobia?

I see a phobia as a fear of something.

Transphobia woukd therefore be what? A fear of transgender people?

Oxford dictionary definition: transphobia - Dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.

True the etymology hints at fear but like with homophobia it goes beyond that.

Ok so knowing the reality that you can't change sex really doesn't come into that category does it.

I have an anorexic friend and keep telling her she's not fat and I love her to bits but I know that she is not fat so knowing that she's not fat does not make me fear or hate her.

No, I simply don’t think a) it’s possible to change sex and b) that trans is a thing.

And a phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. I have perfectly rational dislike of people wishing to trample over the rights of women and girls.

I don’t agree with self ID.

But then I don’t personally see the problem with being a feminine man. In amongst all these trans threads and news articles and social media coverage, I’ve not seen any justification for males believing they are females that isn’t about clothes, makeup and having long hair. Heck, I’ve even seen that lots of trans women are opting not to get rid of their penis’s.

Instead of opening up the definition of women to include feminine men, why can’t the definition of man be broadened? The bathroom argument, for example - many women argue that they don’t want ‘fully equipped’ transwomen allowed in women’s spaces for safety reasons. Trans woman argue that their safety is far more at risk if they had to use the male bathroom. Am I being stupid in thinking the issue here is men?! If masculine men are prone to violence towards feminine men (e.g ones wearing dresses and makeup) which I can very much believe, why are we not focusing on that as a problem?

Self ID is not the answer.

I am a member of a few feminist groups where self ID is vehemently supported.

The arguments basically are:

• the current route takes too long, is full of bureaucracy, doctors gatekeeping, expects everyone to have the same process and experience
• trans people already have many of the rights people are worried about so nothing will really change for anyone else
• not everyone is in a position to have surgery or take hormones and they shouldn’t have to
• men already manage to abuse women, they don’t need to change sex to do it

I can see where the first point is coming from - the current process is arduous and could potentially be looked at so that it works better.

Beyond that, I don’t agree with them. Under a self-ID system a man could be raping someone today and moving into a women’s DV shelter tomorrow. Simply saying “I am a woman” does not make a man less of a risk.

Men can and do abuse women but many go to great lengths to do so. Completing a form and gaining access to women and girls would be a lot easier than things they already do. Besides, people can still kill each other without guns - that’s no reason to legalise guns, is it?

I take a real issue with people who say being trans does exist ,as in its a delusion as biology States that it cannot be true, biology also states that humans r not made to procreate with same sex human's, being homosexual was seen as a mental illness a long time ago, im sure straight people seen gay people as biologically not correct and not a "thing". I also have no idea what it feels like to be gay but i dont need to feel it to know other people feel it. Thankfully times have changed and it is accepted. I dont believe most of transpeople want to trample on any other persons rights, they probably just want to use a bathroom or a changing room to do what they need to do in peace. Yes it can be used to for evil so that needs to be looked into. But denying it exsits just because of the concern of some few doing evil is wrong in my eyes.

RiverTam - I'm not convinced. If you're transphobia just own it.

Tooshy did you just post a dictionary definition?

Do you know what we get called for using dictionary definitions?

I don’t have an irrational fear or dislike of anyone. I have a very rational dislike of those who wish to trample over women and girls’ rights.

You can call that a phobia if you like, it won’t make it true, like lots of other things.

chicken that is such a load of mumbo-jumbo I don’t know where to start.

Is it mumbo jumbo really or just a convenient way of not engaging?

@chicken2015 I agree with you here re this bit being homosexual was seen as a mental illness a long time ago, im sure straight people seen gay people as biologically not correct and not a "thing". I also have no idea what it feels like to be gay but i dont need to feel it to know other people feel it.

Just because I have never experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As you say people used to think being gay was wrong when it's absolutely not at all.

I don't think that what is in someone's pants defines anything.

Interesting, do you disagree with sex segregation completely? What about areas more complicated than loos...refuges, prisons etc? It always seems to be brought back to loos, when other areas are MUCH harder.

You very likely wouldn't and would come to absolutely no harm.

How do you know that noone would come to any harm?
Most males are not violent, but some are.

I mean, I don't waste time worrying whether a lesbian is perving on me, so equally, I wouldn't worry that a trans woman was perving on me

This is homophobia nonsense, to equate lesbians with male people.

Homophobic nonsense, even. Lesbophobic specifically, and a usual tactic of those who support self ID. To equate male people with lesbians. Or say that saying male people are not women is just like saying black women are not women. As seen on newsnight (I think it was) a few days back. Racist nonsense, in that case.

Gender dysphoria clearly does exist. I disagree that it means people can change sex though.

I also think if there was less fuss made of stereotypes, then not many people would be trans. It would go back to being about transsexual people, rather than the all encompassing 'transgender' word that includes everyone from those who are not a walking stereotypes, to crossdressers. And the MRAs who are tagging along for the ride also.

Amnesty International are supporting the changes to the law. See their arguments here www.amnesty.org.uk/have-your-say-gender-recognition-act

I simply don't understand the logic of point number 4. 'TWAW, so therefore there is no threat to single sex spaces because the transwomen occupying those spaces are women'. Right: so any self i'd' transwoman can immediately, without any outside eye or monitoring or accountability, take part in women's sport, become a personal carer for a disabled teenager or be put in a women's prison.

No threat at all.......

If Amnesty are urging people to vote for this it has a strong chance of succeeding, I would have thought,

Both, if I’m being honest. Your notions have been addressed endlessly in threads, I think it’s almost wilfully obtuse to drag them up again.

Suffice to say that the current trans ideology has nothing to do with being gay (and is in fact pretty homophobic), your comments about procreation and gay sex are nonsense (guess what? You still can’t make a baby through gay sex! Who knew?) and it really isn’t just about wanting to pee in peace, which you would know if you properly thought about this for a second.

I understand the concern about self ID , it can be used for harm but that is separate to your views on what being transgender is or if it exists which you dont believe. Of course transgenget is not being gay i was not saying that. I was making comparison in relation to biology, the point i was making is biologically it is not natural to be gay for humans to evolve. That doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Or shouldnt exist. For the one amount of people it is peeing in peace and all other things in peace. For another group is it not. I can separate them you do not seem willing to.

chicken you do seem to be being a little obtuse - plus if I were you I'd steer well clear of stating that being gay is 'not natural'. Being gay is not necessary for human or other mammalian reproduction, but it's a well known and documented feature of animal relationships across many species, including humans. It is absolutely natural.
Name me a trans animal please.