Please help me understand the transgender issue

[Flippetydip]

I fully admit that I don't understand this issue fully at all. I consider myself fairly liberal but I do not feel that this is fair. It seems to be the Emperor's new clothes. The fact that the comments towards JKR on Twitter are so full of vitriol does not persuade me towards the thinking of those shouting them.

So my questions:

Emma Watson saying on Twitter
"Transwomen are who they say they are"
If I say I am a size 8, intellectually brilliant woman, does that make me so? (Currently size 12, edging towards a 14 and intellectually fairly mediocre).

What is the difference between appropriation of sex and appropriation of race?
If I say I am black and I'm not, why is that so horrific, and yet if I am a man and say I'm a woman, that is OK?

Why is JKR wrong to say that women menstruate? Surely that is just biological fact.

@AMemeByAnyOtherName

Actually perhaps that would be better as 'physiological gender at birth' as I understand that there are trans people who feel that they have been in the wrong gendered body from birth.

I kind of see what you are trying to do there, from kind motives, but that would muddy the waters even fucking further. Gender has no physiological basis.

you would be better off googling and looking for articles and reports from reputable sources.Could you post some suggestions? FWR is full of reputable resources. It would be good to have some reputable resources that show the opposing view.Thanks!

Whenever I've asked the exact same in the past, ie for a source, I've always been told in no uncertain terms "do your own fucking work, I don't owe it to you to do your research for you"
If you wanted to see both sides you'd have a look, like I did.

You are unlikely to find any reputable sources that show the argument from the genderists. Because the opposing view is simply 'be nice' (to male people). Thats it. Or all I have ever found when actually searching. A whole load of abuse to anyone who believes even a single thing even slightly differing, and a whole load of 'you are responsible for suicides unless you lie and hide your true views and just be nice, total capitulation is required to be a true ally' etc.

I have searched for hours, for a rational argument. I genuinely would LOVE to read one. But it does not seem to exist sadly. Though people will claim it does, over and over, though refuse to show/answer you because you are a bigot for even asking and its 'easy' and 'everywhere' etc.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed. It's been educational.

Thanks particularly to those who have tried to put the point of view from the non-GC side. I'm afraid however, I'm unable to reconcile myself to the fact that you can change sex. I'm afraid I don't want to share women-only spaces with someone with a penis. Once the penis is gone, then that's all good for sharing women's spaces in my view, however, the same does not apply for women's sports. I still don't feel JKR should have been as vilified as she has been for stating a biological fact.

What I do think is that everyone should be afforded respect. Women, transwomen, men, transmen and whoever falls in between.

[quote PrimalLass]twitter.com/godblesstoto/status/1270875089161072640[/quote]
That was awesome!
Even D Muscato got a word in

twitter.com/DanielleMuscato/status/1271081998677872642

Going back to reading the rest of the thread now.

@sleepyhead

Obviously the difference is the transmen generally aren't then threatening to rape or kill the gay men using a baseball bat.

It all trans women are either.

*not

Look at @zscaler post a few pages back there are some quite interesting links.

slate.com/human-interest/2015/06/rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenner-how-transgender-is-different-from-transracial.html

medium.com/verve-up/transracial-is-not-the-new-transgender-why-race-and-gender-are-not-synonymous-b2c688ef0fae

I’ve finally read these.

Thanks for posting these links zscaler. It is interesting that to see what people are reading. However, I doubt the voracity of these to argue the distinction between tranracial and transgender though.

The first one has made a huge assumption, without anything to back it up, that Rachel D’s need to change race was superficial in nature and not a deep seated need. That everyone who is transgender has this need and Rachel simply did not. Was she assessed by a psychiatrist?

If not, this is worrying.

The second is a blog piece with no expertise.

They seem to be rather hypocritical too if you look at these statements with a gender critical lens .

‘They haven’t grown up torn between two cultures and are undermining the identities of these millions of children. They’re taking away a word that explained the experiences that these children were faced with, appropriating it for their own gain.’

They also conflate sex and gender and well .... miss the hypocrisy.

‘2. Race and Ethnicity is Rooted in Ancestry… You Can’t Just Pick and Choose
Unlike gender, which is assigned to you at birth, your race or ethnicity is rooted in ancestry.’

Or

‘Transitioning as a trans person is a violent, painful, long and difficult process that can result in job-loss, isolation and rejection. You can’t compare the Trans experience to some white people deciding to get a tan, perm and changing their names to something more African.’

Umm.. in my head I kept putting my own take on transitioning on (yes, growing up a female can be violent, painful, long and difficult ...)

Yet when someone writes anything such as this from a critical of gender ideology point of view it is transphobic.

These are interesting reads, but do you have a study that you have found that argues with some expertise and some research behind it.

I did some research yesterday. There are real American sites positioning the uk as massively transphobic particularly mumsnet. Very patronising take on what mumsnet should be.

Forgot to add

@dkl55

Forgot to add

yikes. I would never have used MN just to find the best baby changing Facilities. Misogynistic much.

But they probably were close with the US tradition of ‘liberal individualism’ being a political difference in perspectives.

@theonlywayisapple
That is just NAMALT or rather NATWALT. We get that. And yet there are a proportion, who are. And we don’t want this new wave of privileged male bodied people in our spaces.

The transwoman respectfully going about her business, who recognises the biological reality that she’s male and no amount of identifying out of it, is also under threat by this privileged new wave. This tw, I have no issue with as she has chosen to pose no threat. She wouldn’t destroy my boundaries, threaten me, rape or kill me.

I came to MN for the swears. And the intelligent women.

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]@theonlywayisapple
That is just NAMALT or rather NATWALT. We get that. And yet there are a proportion, who are. And we don’t want this new wave of privileged male bodied people in our spaces.

The transwoman respectfully going about her business, who recognises the biological reality that she’s male and no amount of identifying out of it, is also under threat by this privileged new wave. This tw, I have no issue with as she has chosen to pose no threat. She wouldn’t destroy my boundaries, threaten me, rape or kill me.[/quote]
I don't care that it's not all men or not a transwomen. We know. How many women would be acceptable collateral damage?

Women are entitled under the Equality Act to single sex spaces. We're entitled to these spaces for privacy, dignity and safety. We had to fight for them.

It's not up to women to have to justify what we need. I'd happily fight for third spaces.

Missing a few pages here but thanks @zscaler for the links on page 3. Iv been quite engrossed by this subject since jkr posted and my stance has wavered. I’m moving away from social media as I find the name calling of jkr and her treatment thoroughly depressing but that said I’v realised how uninformed (ok ignorant!) I am.

@Winesalot I apologise as at the moment I don't have the time to read the articles that were linked by zscaler, I have a question I'm hoping you can answer as you've read the articles:

"‘They haven’t grown up torn between two cultures and are undermining the identities of these millions of children. They’re taking away a word that explained the experiences that these children were faced with, appropriating it for their own gain.’"

Is this quote attempting to explain why 'trans race' is essentially immoral?

I really can't wrap my head around it, as for me, I feel only a few words in that quote would need to be changed to explain how some women feel about the 'appropriation' of their gender. Which, as has been mentioned before, isn't the agenda of all or even most trans people; but there are a select few who seem determined to encroach on single sex spaces, which seems to be where the discomfort lies?

AMeme

The implication IS that Rachel Dolezal 'brought the word transracial into the mainstream'. The article states that it was an academic term to reflect children who were interracially adopted/fostered. It states that to be truly transracial a person must have been denied access and knowledge of their birth race. The author is stating that by people using transracial as a descriptor removes the experiences (the denial of identity) of the people it was originated to describe.

I feel only a few words in that quote would need to be changed to explain how some women feel about the 'appropriation' of their gender.

Yeeeesssss ....... I am glad to see that I am not the only person who felt this article's 'gotcha's' might not be as clear as they intended.

I would like to know zscalers thoughts though. They obviously found this very explanatory to why appropriate of race is nothing like appropriation of woman, so there must be something I am missing apart from 'be kind'.

There is literally zero difference between transgenderism and trandracialism. If anything, trandracialism probably has the edge as most people will have ancestry of a difference race. You cannot have a 'bit' of the opposite sex in your DNA unless you are an intersex person. At the end of the day, it is all appropriation. When the Rachel Dolezal thing broke, I actually felt some sympathy for her and somewhat understood where she was coming from (bar the lying). However, understandably African Americans felt betrayed, cheated and usurped by yet another white person intruding into their protected spaces. Generally the press and public sided with the African Americans. It's a real shame nobody will side with women on this issue, but then it is driven by men so what did we expect.

Sorry, let me make that clearer as it is a bit clunky.

The author is stating that by people using transracial as a descriptor for instances like Rachel Dolezal which they deem as being cultural appropriation, removes the experiences such as the denial of identity, (rights of that group maybe such as access to educational resources relevant to their birth race, for instance), of the people it was originated to describe.

This is just my take on that use of transracial in this article. As I said, it also conflates gender and sex but it was written at the start of 2019 so maybe it was ok then.

"Intersex" is the old fashioned, outdated, inaccurate term for disorder of sexual development. DSD.
All people who have DSD are either male or female.
People with DSD have repeatedly asked not to be dragged into or used as props for the transgender debate.
It is really irritating when this happens.

I just watched this BRILlIANT interview which discusses identity politics and the trans debate with incredible clarity. Well worth it
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTviaHRguVU

It also explains why the cataloguing of people into smaller and smaller classes like transcranial is a waste of time and ultimately, destructive.

Wtf is transcranial. I meant trans racial.

@endofthelinefinally sorry, I thought intersex was the correct term but I wont use it anymore.

I wasn't mentioning it in terms of the trans debate, only when talking about sex in terms of DNA.

@Guineapigbridge google Rachel Dolezal.