AIBU to feel a rage at how my voice is silenced and mocked? (trans thread)

[DonkeyHotei]

The trans threads on here pop up every day. The overwhelming response from the Mumsnet Massive is that, in denying trans rights as human rights, they are standing up for the rights of women and girls not to be abused by predators. And in virtually any other thread apart from those dealing with the complexities of a transgender identity, yes they are.... I'm really proud of the vehemence of the battle-hardened feminist warriors in taking a stance for the rights of women and girls. But when it comes to transgender issues, this site seems to stand in a world apart, because there is a hardcore contingent on here gleefully counting every one of the more moderate but less well informed folk they rally to their cause. But you ARE on the fringes if you go with this. You ARE denying the arguments that extremely well-informed people from FEMINIST ORGANISATIONS have considered long and hard: In Scotland, the reality is that feminist organisations support self-ID for a number of complex reasons. A statement from Engender, which included Close the Gap, Equate Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Women 50:50 and Zero Tolerance, made that clear. You will ask me questions that are so infinitely complex that I'd be doing philosophical argument an injustice by trying to answer in a soundbite (I'll be asked, "What constitutes a women?"; I'll be told that I'm a traitor to the safety of women and girls. I am one and I have daughters.. Can i go for Bingo with this? First person who tells me I'm a scumbag and my view is invalid and damaging to the very people I am trying to protect: i.e., women, scores a bingo hit. I could bore on with the statistics of suicide and self-harm among the trans community, or I could get personal and tell you how it feels to lose a mother to the choice of taking one's own life. Horrific....I'd love to talk about it. You may bring out Karen and her foul predatory behaviour. And it's hard to come back from that one except to say she is a vile predator and I don't judge women by her benchmark. Include. Include. They are not "lady-dicks", they deserve not to be dead-named, Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria has no scientific basis...or if it does, please tell me? Include, include. You ARE on the wrong side of history on this one. I'm just a small person but thankfully I do have the weight of the better informed behind me.

I wouldn't say it needs to be removed. I would be happy to leave the law exactly as it is tbh. But I don't see what would be wrong with removing it as the reasons it was brought in no longer apply.

No we are not. We are members of the female sex class. Adult human females. Women. It isn't hard.

And how do you define female sex class without defining women by what their bodies do?

What reason could there possibly be for removing the diagnosis part of it? Except for that those pushing for this change, do not have gender dysphoria.

Exactly.

You are the ones defining women by their genitals.

By their sex. Sex is about more than just genitals. And women are oppressed on the basis or their sex.

And how do you define female sex class without defining women by what their bodies do?

It doesn't need to limit me. It's just a biological reality. One that is really quite important. "Gender" is the stereotypes.

No it isn't. At all.

You are wildly misinformed. Go and google ‘GRC’ and you will see.

Except for that those pushing for this change, do not have gender dysphoria.

Exactly. The term you’re actually meaning is body dysphoria, and this is NOT the same as transgenderism. Transgenderism isn’t a mental health condition and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Oh really? #metoo is a sign that campaigning against sexual harassment is getting worse?

Oh don't make me laugh. If you had seen what I have seen from men as a GC feminist you might grasp how misogynistic many so called "progressive" men are. And how little respect they have for women's experience.

Language adapts and we find new definitions to ensure that words are reflective of the reality of an ever changing world

That argument works in, say, astronomy (where a planet can be re-classified as a dwarf planet, rendering thousands of books and models of the solar system incorrect). Or other scientific discoveries where is is demonstrated that what we previously knew to be true about matter / a species of small mammals in the rain forests / microbial resistance isn't correct because we now know more information.

I've not seen anything that demonstrates that humans can change sex. Actually change sex, not have a series of surgeries to change the appearance of their primary and secondary sex characteristics plus take artificial hormones.

So at the moment, the words "man" and "woman" don't need re-defining, thank you very much

Transgenderism isn’t a mental health condition and shouldn’t be treated as such.

What is it then?

You are wildly misinformed. Go and google ‘GRC’ and you will see.

What does that have to do with whether gender and sex are understood as different things? Many many people conflate sex and gender. As do the GRA and EA, in some cases, but not in others. Even legal scholars find it confusing.

If it is true that it changes nothing else as you claim. Then surely its completely obsolete now. So whats wrong with repealing it? Given the reason that it was made, is no longer relevant anyway?

It is hugely relevant for transgender people who want legal recognition of their gender. It is necessary for updating certain legal documents with ones acquired gender. Or many trans people the GRC isn’t a means to an end, like marriage - it is an end in itself.

I’m not saying the GRC isn’t important. I’m saying it’s abundantly clear from this thread that many people think self-ID is creating the right for people to have their gender legally recognised when people have had that right for 13 years without it having any discernible impact on women’s rights (to the point that, as illustrated here, people didn’t even notice that it was possible)

Even legal scholars find it confusing.

Who are these legal scholars?!

I’m sure the terms get mixed up in everyday use, but I’ve never seen any confusion about them in official use. Gender = your own innate sense of your identity as being male, female or other; Sex = your biological characteristics.

Oh don't make me laugh. If you had seen what I have seen from men as a GC feminist you might grasp how misogynistic many so called "progressive" men are. And how little respect they have for women's experience.

I’ve never said anything that contradicts this. Just pointing out that women are still able to create incredibly powerful and groundbreaking campaigns despite the existence of trans women.

Do non-trans people have recognised gender in law? I ask because I don't think my gender is recognised by law, so why do trans people need their gender recognising? My sex is recognised, but not my gender. Why is that?

I’m sure the terms get mixed up in everyday use, but I’ve never seen any confusion about them in official use. Gender = your own innate sense of your identity as being male, female or other; Sex = your biological characteristics.

There is plenty of confusion about them in official use. There are eleventy billion threads about it.

Exactly. The term you’re actually meaning is body dysphoria, and this is NOT the same as transgenderism. Transgenderism isn’t a mental health condition and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Why would people without gender dysphoria require a new birth certificate stating the opposite sex. If its always been clear that this is about gender, not sex?

How can you put gender in law?

What is gender? How would you define ‘female’ gender for the law? It’s just a set of stereotypes- which ones are going to be defined in law as the proper ones? What if I don’t display those behaviours?

It's all so woolly and messy.

sex dysphoria is a severe mental health condition.

Transgenderism, if not that, is therefore just a feeling, and shouldn't be enshrined in law. And if a GRC is solely about gender then why are people with GRCs getting to use single SEX facilities?

Do non-trans people have recognised gender in law? I ask because I don't think my gender is recognised by law, so why do trans people need their gender recognising? My sex is recognised, but not my gender. Why is that?

This is actually an interesting point. Could you get a gender recognition certificate if you wanted one? I expect it’s never been considered because nobody whose sex and gender correspond has ever sought one. From a legal standpoint this could be a fascinating question.

I suppose if a GRC conferred rights beyond having your gender recognised it would be more relevant, since it might lead people whose sex and gender correspond to seek one.

Also an interesting question is non-binary people. The GRC currently only recognises 2 genders. I wonder if it will one day expand to recognise non-binary or agender people?

How come I see awards open to anyone one who self identifies as a woman can enter for a women’s award
How come you can join girl guides if you identify as a girl or a woman even though you are a boy or a man

I’m sure the terms get mixed up in everyday use, but I’ve never seen any confusion about them in official use

You’ve got to be kidding. There’s a thread going with examples

If you put gender in law you have to define it.

So blanche define female gender for me. Not sex - not in relation to sex. Define what a female gender identity actually is.

Also by modern terms, I am 'a-gender'. Meaning I do not have a gender at all. I don't 'feel like a woman' I just feel like me. I think gender is a load of sexist bollocks tbh, seems to be all about stereotypes. Given the GRC allows people two switch between SEXES, why is there no option for people like me? Surely my birth certificate should be destroyed, along with any government records on me as if 'gender' is that important..I don't exist at all.

I don't see any reason why for those who feel 'gender' is so important, there is not a way made for people to get that recognised. But the GRA, is not that. The GRA was about transsexual people, and their right to same sex marriage and pension rights. It was written in a way that fudged sex and gender, and made out that a persons 'gender' was more important than their sex. It makes a bit of sense why they did it that way, given what it was designed for, and the tiny amount of people it would help. But if this is to be extended to cover all people who claim the 'trans' label, along with men who do not claim the label but wish to take the piss..then its clearly not fit for purpose at all. It either needs to stay exactly as it is, or be repealed. Certainly not extended..as near every person on this earth is actually 'trans' as most are 'non-binary' as noone is a solely feminine or masculine stereotypes.