DC15 wants to identify as female

[FrogInAHat23]

I'm still struggling to figure out how I feel about this, to be honest. DS (now DD?) wants to identify as female. They are 15. I fully subscribe to the 'do no harm' school of thinking, but it has raised so many questions for me. Saying they identify as female isn't hurting anyone (although there will be some close-minded individuals who are offended by that, which I don't think should be a barrier). However, what do I do if they say they want to use women's toilets or changing rooms (esp if a unisex version isn't available)? They identify as female (and is very effeminate, to be fair). We haven't discussed the whole sex change op situation yet, and I'm wary of bringing it up because I don't want to put ideas in their head (given the risks etc I'd rather they didn't!). DC has ASD and is very young (mentally) for their age. I've been buying them makeup and very feminine clothing, which they wear around the house. I had hoped it would just be a case of having a DS who was more feminine with feminine tastes, but it seems not.

I think my feeling is that, while DC has male genitalia then they ought to stick with unisex and mens changing rooms / toilets. I think. Argh.

What do you think? I know trans stuff is a hot topic at the moment, this isn't me trying to get a response from people. This is the genuine situation I find myself in currently!

If it helps

Assigned as a dictionary defintion really cannot be what happens at birth. An allocation/designation is arbitray, done. That is the point TRAs want us to hear. So they can say "And it was wrong, I am, in fact, a man/woman"

Observed sex at bith and genetically detemined at birth are not so abitrary and cannot be brushed off. A previous poster was vey determinedly trying to assert that DNA testing cannot determine sex. Look back at those posts and see how pretzel like the logic was! That's because of the twisting and undermining of the meaning words. It is quite different from the natural change terminology goes through, It is a determined effort to bastardise the language!

Sex is assigned at birth based on the appearance of the baby's genitalia

Really?
I knew my child's sex when I was 11 weeks pregnant thanks to genetic testing even before any genitals were formed.

There would be no ‘sexual’ element to it

Look up AGP.
Look up J.Yaniv with his period fetish.
Many other examples are available.

I'm just curious as to what gets under people's collars about this issue

It’s a twofold annoyance. Firstly because it’s a direct appropriation from the DSD community which is where the concept “assigned at birth” comes from. With genuinely ambiguous genitalia it sometimes isnt clear whether a baby is male or female so sex was “assigned” based on which sex the genitalia resembled the most. Surgical procedures were employed early to help with socialisation and acceptance into that sex category.

Of course “assignment” has been superseded by easy genetic testing and activism from the DSD community has resulted in early, non medically necessary procedures NOT being performed. Operations on genitals to make them look “normal”has been found to impair sexual function and sensation. Their request to the medical community has been that they be left to make their own decisions later on.

Anyone who has had experience with a baby with a DSD knows how stressful and difficult it is for their parents and having the trans activists appropriate their language and their biological differences to promote their “born in the wrong body agenda” EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED NOT TO pisses me off.

Secondly, it’s deliberately sneaky in its inference that sex is actually a bit arbitrary and is open to interpretation. It leads to the ridiculous arguments noted from a pp that humans have more than two sexes and that sex can change. Hugely confusing and dangerous for children to be told this.

Does DC also identify as “lesbian”?

If so, this could simply be an excuse for them to get into female changing rooms/ toilets....

Boys can wear dresses and make-up and still be boys. Boys can fancy boys and still be boys. What boys cannot do is change their biological sex to female. They can change their appearance. They may end up looking very feminine indeed, whatever that means but science has not yet worked out how to turn person with XY into XX.

‘There wouldn’t be any sexual element to it’

Hmm, I used to think that. Maybe it used to be largely true in the days of strict gate keeping. But a quick scroll through Twitter or the TransWidows threads suggests that for many, there is very much an element of ‘sexy dress up’ going on.

After all, there have long been men who got excited by wearing women’s undies. We used to be allowed to roll our eyes at them (or tut!) rather than have to pretend they were all poor vulnerable souls who belonged in the Ladies.

The only thing I was “assigned” at birth was my name. Everything else about me was a fact predetermined by biology before I was born and no one had the ability to make any decisions or choices about it, which the term “assigned” implies.

If so, this could simply be an excuse for them to get into female changing rooms/ toilets....

What an unbelievable suggestion - it is incredibly unlikely that someone is going to pretend to be feminine for years and then actually become trans - a group in society more discriminated against than any other so they can go into the women's toilets and hear someone weeing from behind a closed door. If they wanted to do that they could do it discreetly and easily without mentioning anything to their mum.Bloody shell should lesbians be banned from women's toilets too?

a group in society more discriminated against than any other

Citation please.

More discriminated against, than, say, those with disabilities ? The homeless ? Muslims ? Jews ? Women and girls ? Gay men ? Lesbian women ? People of color ?

An extraordinary unevidenced claim. I'd go so far as to call it a lie.

Stop fear mongering. It doesn't help kids with GD to keep hearing how they are more vulnerable than anyone else in the country. Ffs, what happened to 'It gets better!' resilience building.

should lesbians be banned from women's toilets too?

No, because lesbians are female regardless of sexuality.

group in society more discriminated against than any other

Bullshit.

It's a fucking joke when a bunch of privileged, mostly white, adult males can instantly become the most oppressed and "vulnerable" people in the whole fucking world by simply claiming womanhood.

Whilst at the same time using our teenage daughters as collateral damage for their own fucking validation.

*It's a fucking joke when a bunch of privileged, mostly white, adult males can instantly become the most oppressed and "vulnerable" people in the whole fucking world by simply claiming womanhood.

Whilst at the same time using our teenage daughters as collateral damage for their own fucking validation.*

This is where 'standing up for women's rights' merges into vitriol against another group, most of whom have done no harm.

isshoes - they are attempting to claim a vulnerability that is not really true - in order to claim access to women's rights and spaces.

A vulnerability that is not really true? Come off it. You might argue that they have no more right to claim vulnerability than other women but you cannot possibly deny that transwomen are vulnerable.

I would argue that transwomen are less vulnerable than women and girls, being born male and having the larger general stature that goes with that, together with a male socialisation. For example, Jane Fae is 6'3" and already has a well established media and journalism career.

There is a link in this very thread to the true statistics.

Transwomen in the UK are, for some reason, slightly less likely to be violently attacked than other men, and far, far less likely than women. Similar stats worldwide.

That Stonewall sourced data has been soundly debunked for a long time. Trying to introduce them here will always be soundly rebuffed.

Headline numbers:

No transwomen was killed in the UK last year
As usual 2 women a week were murdered
How many men do you think were murdered?

Violence? Women, then men, then transwomen... Proper stats based on real violence, sourced from the ONS. NOT relying on reports of trans hate crime

it is incredibly unlikely that someone is going to pretend to be feminine for years and then actually become trans

So the access to women's spaces requires years of pretending to be feminine first? No - with self-id it doesn't even require a single minute of 'pretending to be feminine'. It requires no more than a declaration that one 'identifies as a woman'. It then demands that all such self-declared transwomen must be treated exactly like women, which means that in effect everyone has to operate according to the rules of signs like this.

Can you not see how anyone following the directions of this sign is then unable to challenge any male in a female space, whether or not that male person is even making the tiniest effort to appear to be trans, or to appear to want to pass as female?

This is where 'trans friendly' social rules that seem so innocent and kind crash headlong into the social rules that protect women and girls by keeping sex-segregated spaces, and that allow us to challenge obviously male-bodied people going into women's spaces. They break the current system and do not put anything else in its place.

I'd genuinely be interested to see the source of this data on transwomen being less at risk of crime. A quick google search on my part suggests otherwise, and indeed there are several references to there being issues when the data (eg under-reporting). For example:

www.report-it.org.uk/files/trans-report-interactive.pdf

CuriousaboutSamphire has directed you to the stats already, isshoes.

Your report links to hate crime/incidents - and so includes stuff like Harry The Owl's limerick?

Unfortunately, we don't have any comparable figures for women & girls - as hate crime against women & girls isn't recorded at all. My guess is it is so widespread that the police wouldn't even have the resources to record it.

I don't see a link to the stats.

Yes the specific link refers to hate crime. I don't see your point.

This link explains more about issues with data. It supports the view that trans people may be less likely to be murdered (acknowledging limitations to that data), but also suggests that trans people may be more likely to be victims of other violent crime.

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

The point is no hate crime figures are recorded for women and girls.

isshoes the source of my data is, as I said, The ONS. It is linked to upthread somewhere and in many threads across MN. If I were not on my phone I would copy the link. Meanwhile there is a thread called Break it down for me, it has all the basic info in it

Your link clearly points out the issues I have been trying to explain.

I say 2 women a week, week in, week out, are murdered by their partner.

You say: but look Stonewall says that actual violence is more likely if you are Trans.

Who commits those murders and that actual violence? Men, some of them transwomen!