to think that we could have a different sort of discussion on trans issues that might be helpful?

[BertrandRussell]

We can discuss the nature of womanhood endlessly. Philosophical discussions are always absorbing and interesting and very necessary and there should be plenty of space for them. However, it seems to me that there are practical discussions that need to happen which always get subsumed into the theoretical. There always have and always will be transpeople, and for the vast majority of the time it’s not an issue. Or shouldn’t be- there are transphobes in the world who should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Of course trans people deserve all the rights and protections that everyone has. However, there are some areas where the rights of transpeople are in direct conflict with those of non transpeople, and the conflict looks unresolvable. But we need to find resolution- and quickly. Could this thread concentrate on how we do that, and not be sidetracked?
To me, the urgent issues are-

1. How do we make it possible to preserve spaces where women who have been hurt or traumatised by a man can be sure they won’t meet a male bodied person?
2. How do we record crime so that it does not look as if there is a rise in violent crime-including rape- committed by women?
3. How do we preserve women’s sport so that it is not taken over by male bodied people who have an automatic physical advantage over people who were born female?
4. How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted?

I'm willing to accept a slight increase in the risk to natal women in order to protect transwomen I must have missed that or I would have shouted ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

You will accept one additional woman raped, batterd, dead in order to make some men feel more comfortable?

And please can you take on board that what has been happening for the last few decades has now changed? That the extension of what it is to be trans, Self ID and TRA behaviours are a far cry from the trasnsexuals of yore. It is that change that has fuelled this entire debate... you can't just dismiss it!

Sorry Bertrand I was trying...

It's been stated on other threads that whilst trans women appear to follow the male trend in crime statistics trans men seem to move away from the female trend and follow a more male pattern so why is everyone so keen for trans men to be given access to female spaces but not trans women?

@datun I don't understand what a definition of homophobia has to do with anything?

Because as it's legally based on sex, not gender identity, I wondered how you could ever formulate an equality policy around it.

What about sexism?

Say I don't want to employ women in my sales team, in case they get pregnant. So I've employed all transwomen.

Women might think that I'm being sexist. Do you think I am?

So peachgreen, in your ideal world, what happens to the (many) women of good will - plenty of them left wing, progressive, lesbian or lesbian friendly - who simply do not share your beliefs around the literal womanhood of trans IDing males ? Who believe that transpeople should be free from violence, free to gain employment and housing, and able to access medical care pertinent to their needs, but who do not share the faith in gender that you have ? What is your suggestion to resolve the conflict of rights that involves for many women ?

I am really unhappy to hear people apparently deny the reality of same sex orientation. I have a lesbian dd, and she is NOT attracted to gender (having had both butch and femme girlfriends) but to sex - female people.

You are free to describe your own orientation as one towards gender, regardless of sex, but you are not free to undermine the reality that lesbians are females who love other female persons, of the same sex as themselves. I find that concept really, really, homophobic, tbh.

Sorry if that feels like stirring the pot - homophobic attitudes can definitely be unwitting - but it's a line I don't ignore.

everyone in my life - including the gay people - are trans-inclusive and their attraction (or not) to someone is not based on their genitals.

How do they know they're gay then?
What do they define as same sex attraction (as in, what makes them gay), if not a preference for the male or female body?

so why is everyone so keen for trans men to be given access to female spaces but not trans women? Not everyone. I think I wasn't the only poster to say that I wouldn't necessarly accept any male bodied, or seeminlgy male bodied person in female only spaces, here or on another thread.

After a few years of hardening my viewpoint I am coming tothe conclusion that if you modify your body, present yourself as something you are not then you have to expect to be 'othered' and to accept that you are the one at odds with the majority of society.

Having accepted that you can then start to work on how to become more integrated, raher than shouting at, berating, threatening that wider society.

And, as I have said before. It is for men to decide on how transmen are treated in male toilets. If they choose to accept them that is their prerogative.

BertrandRussell

**

I think that peach is very helpfully demonstrating the logical conclusion to a lot of your questioning, here bertram

Calmly and patiently. Well done peach.

trans men seem to move away from the female trend and follow a more male pattern so why is everyone so keen for trans men to be given access to female spaces but not trans women?

I'm sure this will change in time once trans men start assaulting, raping and murdering women. Because as the risk increases then the mitigations to that risk will increase. For now that risk is pretty low, especially as most trans men seem to be teenagers.

Whilst I appreciate Peach's willingness to at least try and engage, it is infuriating that (a) she's bringing it back to the nice individual trans people in her life and trying to base policy for all women on them; and (b) seems to assume she is the only one who has nice individual trans people in their life.

We can't make laws and protect entire populations based on nice individual trans people in one person's life.

So the risk is low but higher than the risk that women pose to other women? I can't really see the logic there tbh. If there is a increased risk then why is it ok to expose women to it?

As with all things it comes down to risk. How many women/ trans ppl/ children/ whatever group of people need to be hurt or killed before a certain policy changes. Some people think the theoretically preventable death of one woman is too many. Some people think it's acceptable if it improves life for everyone else. It's unpallatable but how a lot of things work (nhs drugs etc). And there is often a problem proving that an outcome was a direct result of a policy. I guess what we're basically debating now is how much risk is ok. Most here would say 'none'.

On another note I understand why people post pictures of transgender women who look exactly like men - it's a reality check for many who don't understand what we're talking about, and sometimes it's useful if we're debating how someone might assume someone's gender - but it makes me really REALLY uncomfortable if it's a 'gotcha' cos the person looks manly. Appearance or degree of 'passing' should make not the blindest bit of difference. Women shouldn't need to worry if they look feminine enough so why should anyone else?

I too REALLY appreciate Peach's willingness to engage here, even though I have been little more robust that Betrand may have liked!

But we still have that glaring difference in belief and that is the stumbling block for all such discussions.

I would really like Peach, or any other poster, to be able to explain clearly how they come to the conclusion that a person's feelings, imagination, wants, can override biology and, having done so, then must be believed and unquestioningly accommodated by all, no matter the increased physical and emotional harm.

Okay. This thread is becoming very personal and I'm afraid it's impacting my mental health so it's time to go. Call that a flounce if you like but I have engaged in good faith and done my best. Sorry, I appreciate I've not answered some questions but I'm afraid I can't keep talking about this. We will never, ever agree with each other. Ever. So there's no point.

I've apologised for my error regarding attraction and I'll do so again. I understand now that some - maybe even most - people do base their sexual orientation on genitals and I have expressed that I respect their right to do so and have learnt something from this thread. I'm extremely sorry that my misunderstanding caused offence and upset.

I would really appreciate it if you didn't continue to address posts to me now I've left the thread. Of course I can't stop you but it would be very much appreciated.

Decomposing you missed a bit - if transwomen are and have always been women - as women have - then why are they a greater risk?

Oh! I see! Never mind.

Appearance or degree of 'passing' should make not the blindest bit of difference. Women shouldn't need to worry if they look feminine enough so why should anyone else?

Whilst I agree with that, there are a lot of people who think effort equals commitment, and if a man is committed, he should be allowed access.

Showing that effort is superficial, or in some cases non-existent, hopefully highlights the lack of logic.

I’m not sure that there will ever be a way to legislate, gather data, protect, provide healthcare or even define men and women, sex or sexuality based on peaches belief.

I think if we base everything on internal feelings, subjective, changeable and fluid, that cannot be defined or fixed at any point, then spaces of any kind become irrelevant. There will be no men or women.

Self ID then presumably is on the table for other protected characteristics too. Disabled people will no longer have designated space or support if I can define myself as disabled and so can anyone else. Age becomes self defined. Race too.

Appearance or degree of 'passing' should make not the blindest bit of difference.

I posted the picture of 'Karen White' in his normal state to contrast with the often posted picture of him in a wig and make up. He is a man who chose to impersonate a woman in order to obtain a transfer to a women's prison. According to people who work with offenders, this is a very common tactic.

Nothing to do with 'passing', just information about who this person really is.

Women shouldn't need to worry if they look feminine enough so why should anyone else? I know, and agree! But, given what we are actually discussing, cognitive dissonance is guaranteed!

Decomposing

I've actually been harassed by a transman 'friend' (no longer) who became quite aggressive on T (placebo effect possibly, an attempt to mimic male socialisation or the effect of T itself, I don't know), so actually, I'm not all that keen on sharing spaces with transmen on T either.

And so far as I'm aware, they are not all that keen to share spaces with me.

I still believe transmen share female vulnerabilities re rape and pregnancy, so I think prison is a no-brainer - transmen should not be in male prisons. And women's refuges could - if properly funded to to do this without endangering their work with women - have facilities for supporting transmen. And obviously pregnant transmen should receive care on the maternity ward. And I can't really see why transmen not on T should be excluded from women's sport, other than by self exclusion.

Other than that, though, it's an issue between men and transmen, not women and transmen. I personally am not clamouring for them to join all-female spaces.

I would really like Peach, or any other poster, to be able to explain clearly how they come to the conclusion that a person's feelings, imagination, wants, can override biology and, having done so, then must be believed and unquestioningly accommodated by all, no matter the increased physical and emotional harm.

It really does seem as though some people think we have male and female facilities because men's brains are different from women's brains, not because men's bodies are different from women's bodies.

So the risk is low but higher than the risk that women pose to other women? I can't really see the logic there tbh. If there is a increased risk then why is it ok to expose women to it?

The risk is as low as any other woman. Again if it occurs that trans men start to assault, rape and murder women, then that risk rises. Nobody can be 100% sure that anyone they meet isn't going to cause them harm which is why we have laws.

The problem is, with all this misgendering palava, is that we can no longer gauge risk across populations if crimes committed by males are lumped in with crimes committed by females.

It's like everyone in control of facts and statistics has forgotten about safeguarding completely.