AIBU .... to open a transgender discussion thread for respectful debate !

[wrexhamtrans]

For the last couple of days I enjoyed a great discussion over transgender rights on a thread that has now closed. Despite over 1000 posts it was on the whole very respectful and insightful.

So let's have something new.... let's have a thread started by myself, a transsexual woman where we can have a healthy dialog. No TRA agenda, no erasure, no abuse or disrespect......

To kick things off I'd like to pick up on a comment made on a previous thread.
I fully accept many other women, who would previously allowed this [transgender women in women's spaces], now wouldn't because "we gave an inch and they stole a mile"

In the past there existed generally a happy coexistence between transsexual women and women.

Unfortunately the goalposts moved and we now have this broad umbrella of transgenderism which I will be the first to say is completely ridiculous. It is this new label that campaigns for cross dressers rights and acceptance of those who are sexual motivated. And of course self id is a dangerous and foolish idea.

Please remember there is still a quiet minority of transsexual women who do want to live their life in peace and who are as much against this as any woman. These TRAs do not represent me.

Being a woman for me is who I am. It's how society sees me because it cannot accept the way I am as permissible as a man. I am castrated and hormonally transitioned and awaiting surgery. I live every day as a woman and i am treated as one in many ways including misogyny, oppressed by male privilege, sexualisation....For some transition was the only way to have a life.

Those who cross dress and are sexual motivated are making a choice. Those with gender dysphoria are not.

There needs to be compromise on both sides, probably more so on the TRA side.
As transsexual I would like to have seen the following...

1. No self id. All those identifying as women to be psychologically evaluated and screened. Gender Dysphoria is no joke.
2. Any rights given to trans women go to dysphoric transsexual women who are in physical transition. No rights at all to other groups eg cross dressers....in other words is transsexual rights not transgender rights.
3. Access to some women's spaces permitted after X months of HRT and testosterone blocking therapy ie when Oestrogen and Testosterone levels are that of a natal female.

Unfortunately I think too much has been conceded already to revert.
I am fed up having my identity hijacked and turned into something it's not. I wouldn't wish gender dysphoria on my worst enemy. People with GD are damaged people who struggle considerably with gender identity and face daily abuse, ridicule and violence.

I absolutely do believe it is possible to born in the wrong body.....to have a brain chemistry of one gender and a body of another. Indeed we know of one generic condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome which does exactly that. The idea though that it's ok to mix this up with sexual fetishism is sooooo wrong.

Can you think of any other medical condition where it would be accepted for someone else to claim that condition because they like to pretend they have it ? If I applied to the Council for a Blue Badge because it turns me on to sometimes pretend I am disabled I would be told, rightly so, where to go. Why oh why would the Government capitulate that with gender dysphoria ? You were born in the wrong body, have significant mental health issues ? Yes, we will help you. You like to pretend you are a woman because it turns you on ? Of course, jump in there too.....

My right to consent to male strangers seeing me naked trumps your desire to virtue signal.

My right to consent to male strangers seeing me naked trumps your desire to virtue signal.

Indeed. This isn't just a disagreement. That's not how consent works. Other women can say they don't mind all they like. They don't get to force it on the women who do. It's not a question of 'winning an argument'.

My right to consent to male strangers seeing me naked trumps your desire to virtue signal

Exactly

Women wanting sex segregated spaces is born out of experience, history and common sense. We fought for it

You refer to "you and every biological male". I am not like most biological males. As I said before sex and gender aren't the same thing. You don't have to agree with me but please respect me enough not to lump me in as just another biological male.

But you do have more in common that can be quantified and measured with every biological male than you do in common with every biological female. In a quantifiable and measurable sense.

Gender identity can’t be measured as any identity issue cannot be measured.

You have the most in common with other biological males who identify their gender as female and have taken medical steps to align their body to their internal sense of identity.

So that should be the basis in which your rights are based - the right to be a trans woman. Which you have, I think.

Self ID is the enemy, not you or your existence.

You don't get to consent to men in my spaces on my behalf. You don't get to give away my rights. Get it through your skull.

The law says a GRC means the person can be legally defined as their new sex, thus using the facilities appropriate to their new sex. This is not ‘giving away your rights’ the same applies to men and transmen.
A transwoman with a GRC can use the woman’s facilities legally in the same way that someone with an invisible disability can use the disabled toilets or have a priority train seat if there disability permits them too.

Thinking that your rights and reasons are more valid or important than there’s as your reasoning, is narcissistic.

I stand by my comment that a person who expressed, to a forum if women that they have 'female psychology' is sexist, presumptuous and insulting.

I can withdraw the expletives.

Seriously, WrexhamTrans perhaps you think that the way this works is that there exists some loophole that allows you to override womens' AND GIRLS' consent.
There isn't.
Absence of a no, isn't a yes. It never will be.

I wish you invested even a fraction of the effort in accepting who you actually are of what you are spending cajoling women to accept you as what you are not.

There's no need for me to distinguish between the billions of men or divide them into subcategories. I already accept the infinite variety of personalities that men possess. I know that men share their sex in common. But that their personalities differ.
Just as women share sex in common. And their personalities differ.

There's literally nothing any man can do to be not a man. Every conceivable way of existing is being a man, so long as the subject is in fact, male.

I don't demand recognition as a female on the basis that we are all the same psychological group, or similar personalities. That's ridiculous.

I'm female. That's what I have in common with females.

Well said Datun and Barrack. This isn't a negotiation. I'm saying no. This isn't about trans rights anymore it's a safeguarding issue now. Debbie Hayton predicted this backlash.

The easy peace we had is gone. This isn't our fault and we refuse to pay the price.

Too much gaslighting on this thread OP. Women are not a shield.

The law says a GRC means the person can be legally defined as their new sex, thus using the facilities appropriate to their new sex.

The law recognises they have not changed sex by allowing exemptions. And when the law was written no one realised (God knows why not) how it would be exploited.

The law is wrong.

It's not hard.

Actually early, luckily there are provisions in the Equality Act 2010, which mean that transwomen can be excluded from female only facilities/employment. Unfortunately they often arent invoked, where they could be

*The law is wrong.

It's not hard.*

Do you realise how you sound? Very dismissive. When the law was written saying employers couldn’t discriminate based on sex, they didn’t realise that woman would just have a baby and bugger off. That affected my small business and put me into debt, therefore the law is wrong as it was exploited and I will now only hire men.

Is that ok with you? I don’t agree with the reasoning behind the laws, I think theyre wrong so I’m just going to ignore them. My business is far more important to me than a woman’s right to work for me, the law can’t dispute that on my behalf, I don’t consent.

disclaimer - obviously I would hire woman before you all jump on me

The thing is EarlyWalker, we can get stuck on an ideological point for ever. With many posters deciding the line in the sand is surgery, or a GRC, or a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

But in real life it can't work.

You can fake it to get a diagnosis or a GRC.

And can't check if someone has had surgery. And you can't, on any practical level, demand to see a man's GRC.

So you have no way of knowing, at the coalface, what the status is of the man standing in front of you.

It may be different for prisons, refuges and wards. But again, you'd have to ask to see the GRC. And you're not allowed. Plus you can fake it. And anyway, having a GRC doesn't turn you into an angel or non criminal.

All these different criteria for deciding what sort of men should be allowed to ignore sex segregation completely dismisses the risk factor and that is that they are male.

Also, yet again I need to point out, that even if the man is castrated, and an absolute darling, why does no one think of the women who are being forced to share? They don't give a toss about this person's personality.

The law is wrong, should never have been passed and should be repealed. Women should not ever have to share single sex spaces where they are naked or otherwise vulnerable with males.

Early but the law is, quite clearly, wrong. Otherwise you would not have Karen White, Karen Jones, Travis Alabanza, Lily Madigan, Heather Peto.

The law makes no distinction between raping predators and transsexuals.

Because it can't.

Round and round we go. I don't see how this will ever be resolved. You can't argue with delusions, and we shouldn't be forced to. Another pointless thread unless it's up further point out the batshittery of all this in which case nice home goal.

The current law was only aimed at protecting 5000 people with gender dysmorpha (aka old school transexuals) and it did this job reasonably.

The problem now is that loads of other people who are either perverts, cross dressers, or for a million other reasons want into women's spaces, are trying to muscle into our spaces using a law that was never intended to be used in this way.

The problem is there is no way we can rewrite the law so that it only includes the original 5000 transexuals, whilst excluding all others.

So we are forced to take a step back and say, keep all male born people out of our spaces.

Whatever their stated feelings, identity or intentions...because all of these things are internal feelings and some people lie.

You can't argue with delusions, and we shouldn't be forced to. Another pointless thread unless it's up further point out the batshittery of all this in which case nice home goal

You’re just a typical person in this debate, causing #NoDebate aren’t you? Because I don’t agree with you am I delusional? No ones forcing you to argue anything, but it can be quite hard to ever learn anything new or expand your horizons if you spend your whole life only ever engaging with people who agree with you, or spending time in places where everyone has the same view.

The problem now is that loads of other people who are either perverts, cross dressers, or for a million other reasons want into women's spaces, are trying to muscle into our spaces using a law that was never intended to be used in this way.

I agree with you, to an extent. I’m against self ID. Which is why the point I’m making is self ID is the issue and those with a GRC should be able to continue as they have been.

The problem is there is no way we can rewrite the law so that it only includes the original 5000 transexuals, whilst excluding all others.

This. And that's why the law is wrong. Writing a law that gives access to women's rights/spaces, based on a man's say so was always going to be exploited.

It was just a question of time.

It's a bad law.

But how do I know who has a GRC and who is self id?

Early but the law is, quite clearly, wrong. Otherwise you would not have Karen White, Karen Jones, Travis Alabanza, Lily Madigan, Heather

Again I agree that there are some awful transgender people, they are people and there are going to be some bad eggs. I don’t think it’s quite fair to put Lily and Heather in with Karen’s (don’t know who travis is so can’t comment) they may be not very nice but there not quite ‘raping predators’

There are bad people in every group, a minority or bad individuals is not a suitable reason for dismissing a whole group. We don’t do that with any other minority group.

This isn't a negotiation. I'm saying no.

As am I.

I came into this debate two or three years ago thinking of course there is a solution that will protect women and also take into account the needs of fully-transitioned (ie no bloody penis, FFS) transsexuals. Not least because I have such a friend.

But it is now clear to me that this cannot happen. You open even the tiniest chink in the safeguarding of women and children and the vile men rush at it and overwhelm it. The GRA was such a chink. The Stonewall umbrella prised it further open and now we are where we are.

I have no actual urge to throw old school transsexuals under the bus but I am afraid they are no longer a factor in my calculations. The dangers to women and children that have emerged in a social effort to accommodate them are just too great. I don't feel guilty about this.

I say no. And nobody has the right to say yes for me.

Wrexham your OP really helps to illustrate the two separate lines of issues here that often get blurred together as transsexual people have been as trampled on in the TRA ideology flood as women have.

a) Women's spaces should not be accessible to men. Any men. At any stage of transition. Mostly because women should have those apart spaces in their own right and not only be allowed them if no men want to use them, but also because as has been proved over the past few years if any male born people have access then women end up, as we are now, standing and watching male born people slug it out over where the line should be on who gets to use women and their spaces for their own needs while telling women it's nothing to do with them and they don't get a say. (and the line is usually placed for the best interests of the person arguing.) This illustrates exactly why sex based provisions are needed and must exist, protected, alongside gender based provisions.

b) The logical answer, that the trans group has been swelled large enough to now need their own spaces, their own provisions, is the compromise that meets everyone's needs. Unfortunately it also means that transsexual people would have to share with the crossdressers and APG men because of the massive umbrella, and they don't want to share facilities with that group any more than women do, and who can blame them? Not to mention the invalidation of transsexual people who have lived with gender dysphoria for decades, have often gone through significant medical processes to try and live with that dysphoria and are having their identities forcibly re defined and translated for them as women are, and being equally vilely mistreated if they dare protest.

Both groups have been backed into very difficult positions by the TRA movement.

The law is still the same! (For now atleast) That you must have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, have had surgery or a compelling reason not too have, lived as your sex for minimum of 2 years and plan to for the rest of your life. Then it gets looked into by an independent body. This is not the same as someone’s ‘say so’

OP, you've mentioned a couple of times living in your preferred gender. But what exactly does that mean?
I don't accept that men can feel like a woman. Because, as a woman, I don't know what it feels like to be a woman - I just am one. I don't know what my friends feel like. There is no mistaking I am a woman regardless of what I wear. So what does living in your preferred 'gender' consist of?
I feel a bit weary of all of this because gender seems to be a stereotype of what women should wear or how they present. And if I'm wearing jeans and a checked shirt, how is that different to what most men wear.
I also just don't understand the feeling thing - it almost ascribes a soul like characteristic to being a woman or man to imply someone has been born in the wrong body.
To me, it is a mental health problem and it is scary that the government are ignoring all safeguarding practices as soon as the magic trans word is uttered. No other condition would be treated in this way.
And I also can't agree with documents, that should be immutable, being altered - such as a birth certificate. This forces other people to collude in a false history and reality. Someone may 'identify' as a woman today but that doesn't alter history. So I cannot accept that TW are W. I am happy to accept that TW are TW. And that TW can wear whatever the hell they want - they are not women's clothes they are their clothes. But I refuse to collude in a lie.

Also, WrexhamTrans - in your OP, you describe yourself as a transsexual woman. This, in itself, is evidence of mission creep. It's appropriation. You are a transsexual. It's an identity that comes with deep personal struggle that should be acknowledged by everyone reading this thread. But you have not become me or anything like me. Own yourself; do not claim me.