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?

@namechange873 I don't think the word cis is banned altogether - I think it depends on context. I'm assuming I wouldn't get my post deleted for referring to myself as a ciswoman - which I'm quite happy to do.

However, I understand your frustration. I very rarely take part in threads like these because it's usually like banging your head against a brick wall. I think the vast majority of trans-inclusive feminists do the same, or have left MN altogether, because these threads become more of an echo chamber every day. The GC posters will say that's because everyone is being "peak transed" but I don't know anyone outside of MN who considers themselves to be GC, and I know a lot of feminists.

name

I think most of us dont generally report cis, so i doubt they will go especially as you didnt seem aware

It does seem a shame you have to go but fair enough

It is a banned word but you won't be deleted unless someone reports it and they are unlikely to if you stop using it. You can use natal or, of course, just woman will do.

For the third time....testosterone would need to be lowered to the rate of a natal women

Which kind of negates the reasons for taking testosterone in the first place surely? So what you're actually saying is that trans men can't compete in sport, unless they are willing to reverse their transition?

4) How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted?

You can't stop people believing that sexual orientation is not demarcated by chromosomes. You can't stop people believing that some preferences arise from prejudice / social conditioning etc. You can't stop people disagreeing with the reasons some people have for not dating this group or sleeping with that group. You can't stop people from having general discussions about such matters.

Most you can do is disuade them from letting that manifest as harassment of individuals.

As for the other points, argue for why such and such should only be for the XX or XY-chromosomed. Then the points themselves can get examined without getting hung up on arguments over the labels.

peach

bertrand is attempting to discuss in a civil manner some of the issues

I think its going pretty well so far, and of course its going to be an echo chamber if people wont even engage with someone like bertrand who seems to want to resolve the issues

I think the Caster Semenya case confuses any trans debates. She does have testes hence the high Testosterone.

There is nothing biologically female about Caster, though. Caster is biologically male, with (internal) testes producing male levels of testosterone. The DSD resulted in underdeveloped male genitalia but there is nothing about caster’s body that is female.

NameChange873

The reason 'cis' and 'terf' were banned from MN was because of complaints from transactivists. They insisted that we stop using some terms including 'TIM' (trans-identified male) and that we shouldn't be allowed to use correct sex pronouns (and should use 'preferred' pronouns instead). In response to banning these terms which were not acceptable to transactivists, it was requested that terms which were offensive to women ('cis' and 'terf') should also be banned, to be fair to both sides.

So if you're unhappy with the banned words, blame the transactivists.

@nolongersurprised do you know that for certain? I was under the impression that Caster Semenya's precise medical condition remained private.

rufus yes, hence why I'm taking part in this thread.

Please can people not drop into this thread, say “you’re all vile”and drop out again?
I find it very frustrating and very surprising that people are prepared to refuse to contribute to what feels like a productive discussion over such a minor point. But so it goes.

So what you're actually saying is that trans men can't compete in sport, unless they are willing to reverse their transition?

No. They can't compete against women if they take testosterone. I don't think there's anything that would stop them from competing against men.

nolongersurprised do you know that for certain? I was under the impression that Caster Semenya's precise medical condition remained private.

The IAAF and CAS rulings - the ones that Caster was appealing - outline that the testosterone rulings affect XY DSD athletes who respond to androgens (ie are virilised. This excludes CAIS).

Yes it’s openly acknowledged now that Caster is male. The fact that they have competed as female for their entire career and has resisted scrutiny (understandable) means that it has now become a complex issue of unpicking what Casters continued rights to competing as a woman should be.

I think the vast majority of trans-inclusive feminists do the same, or have left MN altogether, because these threads become more of an echo chamber every day

I was referring to this peach, not you personally

I obviously wasn’t clear at all so apologies for that

I’m profoundly uneasy about Caster Semanya being discussed in this context. My understanding is that intersex people have made it very clear that they don’t want to be involved in the debate.

DSD XX athletes could compete without any testosterone restrictions. Which is a moot point because even a testosterone of 5 is very very high for a woman and wouldn’t be “naturally” achieved unless she was unwell.

What about if trans women's testosterone level has been lowered significantly with medication, to the level of a natal female's? Would you then accept them competing in women's sport? (Genuine question.)

Yes Transmen would have to lower their testosterone which would have the unfortunate side effect of stopping part of their transition

No. They can't compete against women if they take testosterone. I don't think there's anything that would stop them from competing against men

What will stop them from competing against men is if sport is sex segregated.

Noted Bertrand

Yes Transmen would have to lower their testosterone which would have the unfortunate side effect of stopping part of their transition

So effectively trans men would be prevented from competing in sports?

I don't think there's anything that would stop them from competing against men.

I think currently they are not allowed to compete at all because taking testosterone is banned. This would need to be looked at by sporting bodies.

You either go with sex segregation and the problems that causes or you don't. How can you introduce some kind of grey area within a binary system?

I thought the whole point of this is that we are moving away from binary and making provision for all. Of course there will be grey areas. That's why discussion is so desperately needed. It doesn't mean that we have to remove safeguarding, dignity, privacy and fairness for women.

@rufus no problem, sorry for being bristly. It is very difficult to be a trans-inclusive feminist on Mumsnet and I can understand why people give up. Some of the things GC feminists say (not on this thread) are incredibly offensive and hurtful to read (from a trans-inclusive perspective) and given it's pretty much impossible to change anyone's mind on such a contentious issue sometimes it seems easier to just give up. Especially when you're so overwhelmingly outnumbered! And we've all seen threads where a trans-inclusive perspective is drowned out deliberately with "recipes".

I'm all for a bit of robust debate but there's a line where it becomes too distressing and also feels completely pointless. Again, not this thread. But many others.

“So effectively trans men would be prevented from competing in sports?”
Actually, yes. If it means that women’s sport remains something that it is possible for natal women to compete in, yes.