What’s the problem with Trans?

[Karenista]

Posting for traffic:
Can someone please take the time to explain to me what the issue is with trans women? Or trans rights in general?

I consider myself a feminist, but since reading all the posts about publicly ‘coming out as GC’, I now feel... almost... not feminist enough because I believe in trans rights.

Where’s the middle ground? Or am I now going to feel alienated from ‘GC feminists?’

OP, what are your thoughts about this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3968781-Action-Aid-no-such-thing-as-a-biological-female?msgid=98340655?

Actually, can any feminists who include transwomen in their feminism put a different spin that what has already been posted on that thread? There have been a few people doing the "MN is transphobic" thing on here, so that thread seems to be the perfect opportunity to expand (always easier with a live example). I would genuinely love to hear why feminists think that is OK because I'm baffled.

The "issue" is that it is to all appearances the last acceptable bigotry, especially around here. Stick with your original thought, there are plenty of us feminists who support trans people's human rights. If you feel alienated from bigots you are better off.

Can I ask why you feel the need to use such aggressive hyperbole just because many women here don't share your faith based belief system?

TRAs are making life so much harder for the vast majority of trans people by being divisive and trying to turn a nuanced discussion into a goodies and baddies situation.

To be fair TRA allies, such as some on this thread, are almost as bad for doing this.

If lesbians can have penises and men can have cervices why promote binders and top surgery and organ removal at all? Why the need for hormones? It's fighting against its own message.

Yes, it is interesting how males who transition after puberty, and have felt sexual pleasure from their penis, arent all that keen to have surgery (because as Magdalen said 'of course it terrifies you Alex, they chop your cock off) and therefore have a.' lady penis'. But at the same time, these same people are ever so keen for young children, who have not yet felt that sexual pleasure and so won't miss it, to be started on drugs and go onto surgery ASAP, even though its highly likely to result in sexual dysfunction.

Paris Lees has been very vocal about how we should start 'trans healthcare' on children before they go through puberty, as they wish they had had that opportunity so that they hadn't gone through puberty. However, Paris has also been very vocal about how much they love sex and has written multiple articles about sex and arousal. They seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that had they not gone through male puberty then that sex life that they so famously enjoy probably wouldn't exist.

The "issue" is that it is to all appearances the last acceptable bigotry, especially around here. Stick with your original thought, there are plenty of us feminists who support trans people's human rights. If you feel alienated from bigots you are better off.

You are supporting a political agenda that is, right now, depriving female taxpayers of any services in order to prioritise offering males their choice of all the services. How are you a feminist who does not give one flying fuck for those females? Why does 'supporting trans people's human rights' necessarily involve harming and excluding vulnerable females? Why are you sneering in this highly superior way at females who are not hurling aside female rights and needs and ignoring these excluded, harmed females as if caring about females and wanting equality of care is an act of harm against trans people?

Seriously, what are you on calling other people bigots when you are talking such hypocritical, uncaring, excluding, harmful nonsense? What on earth are you on?

It is not in any way "faith based' unless you think respect and humanity is a religion. As for the other replies, I guess QED. Or are we only allowed to be passionate about approved people's rights?

@toconclude

It is not in any way "faith based' unless you think respect and humanity is a religion. As for the other replies, I guess QED. Or are we only allowed to be passionate about approved people's rights?

Can you explain what you mean? I don't understand.

How is a feeling in someone's head anything other than faith based?

I'm a biological female. Always have been. Always will be. I honestly don't care if a biological male wants to live as a woman. I don't care if I biological female wants to live as a man. Live your life completely as a lass and I'll call you a lass. That's fine with me personally.

However, I am not okay with crushing hard earned women's rights to appease a small minority. If a man chooses to live as a woman, goes through all the hormone treatments, surgeries and is passed and certified by doctors and psychologists as a genuine transitioner then fine, I'm okay with sharing my safe spaces.
I am NOT okay with demands to change the laws laws to allow any random bloke to say "I'm a woman!" and be automatically allowed entry to women's prisons, women's changing rooms, women's toilets, women's fucking refuges and even rape crisis centres. Self ID rules would allow a fully bearded bloke to wander in anywhere he wants.
I don't want self ID to overrule actual women's rights.

I'm not okay with companies removing the word woman, women and girls but leave the words man and men on their websites (Bodyshop I'm looking at you, Good luck surviving after removing mention of almost your entire demographic!).
I'm not okay with shopping centres making all the female/women's toilets unisex but keeping the men's toilets men only. (Stoke is it?)

It seems stupid to me that TRAs are screaming that Transwomen are real women whilst simultaneously trying to have the word woman or female removed from every business and product they can. Now apparently women and girls don't menstruate. 'People' do.
Women and girls don't get cervical cancer, 'people' do.
Men have babies too, apparently.

So.... I guess I'll need my prostate checked one day huh?

It's not that the majority of feminists are anti-trans, it's that we are pro-women's rights.

@ODFOx

OP, Being Gender critical doesn't mean that there's a problem with trans people. Throughout my life (mid 50s) there have been gender dysphoric people who needed to change the way they looked, behaved and presented to be comfortable in their own skin. These people , quite rightly, in my opinion, deserve us all to be kind and inclusive. Meanwhile, women are still disadvantaged compared to men: not just financially, in the workplace, physically, victims of violence etc. , but in mundane ways that the second wave feminists (who I mostly ignored as a university educated middle class privileged young woman: I now realise I was mistaken). continued to fight for. Women's safe places to avoid male violence, women's spaces: I only found out very recently that it only became a requirement for workplaces to provide a women's' loo in 1992, for example. 199fucking2. For fucks sake.

Then, carried forth by a generation of older men who are used to getting their own way because 'male Conditioning' and a younger generation (millennial/ gen Z) for whom dissent is 'actual literal violence', the self identifying group came forth: the Stonewall definition of trans now includes any cross dresser, or anyone who says they are re a woman on any given day; so self identity isn't about what one needs to feel well, it's about whatever you want on any given day.

Now, if someone asked me to stand up for the rights of anyone to wear whatever they want, whether the clothes are stereotypically male or female, or use whatever pronouns they want, or have me speak to them using their preferred pronouns then I'm all
In. But now that trans people includes anyone who wants to wear a gender non conforming outfit or anyone who says on a given day that they feel like a different gender, I don't believe that the needs of women in rape centres, the positive discriminatory (albeit too little too late) women's a short lists and industry awards, the private places for women, should have to be shared. The more I read the more gender critical I feel. I say this as someone with an adult trans child who understands my view. The sheer self-entitlement of a group of people who aren't even distressed by their sex but are unsatisfied unless they dismantle the protections of another disadvantaged group for 'feels'. If the need to prove transgender ness is removed then all the safeguards are removed. It's not ok.

This bears repeating.

Hi all, we've had a look behind the scenes and it looks like the OP has left the site and won't be back to contribute. We'll mod any posts that break Talk guidelines and let the discussion continue for now.

It is not in any way "faith based' unless you think respect and humanity is a religion. As for the other replies, I guess QED. Or are we only allowed to be passionate about approved people's rights?

I think you just hoist yourself on your own petard there.

You say you believe in respect and humanity - but only for trans people, not for females. Raped females, traumatised females, disabled females, homosexual females, females of various faiths and cultures, in fact any female who will not put the needs of a male above their own - they are losing all services and being excluded in the philosophy you're advocating for.

Or are we only allowed to be passionate about approved people's rights?

You seriously can't see that this is exactly what you are arguing for? You're not passionate about everybodys rights, are you? You're only passionate about your own approved people's rights. If you have a problem with this, why are you doing it?

Trans people will not be left without services whether or not females continue to have access to female only provision. Trans people are not harmed in any way if female people continue to have access to female only provision. It would be very easy to provide mixed sex provisions alongside female only, or to allow females to opt for female only services or professionals. The people refusing this are the political lobby you are advocating for. Who are adamant that female people must lose everything and be allowed nothing of their own, not even a class based definition, and their sex based legal rights must be withdrawn.

Females, right now, are unable to access public toilets - the thread the other day with the Muslim woman no longer able to access the area public toilets because they've all gone gender neutral - female people right now are unable to access rape crisis support (and are trying to talk to the management who are plain to the faces of these females they are funded to support that they do not care, and then lie to the media that those females don't exist and there's no problem), there's a MNetter living rough and has done for months having fled from abuse because no refuge now is female only. These are female people in dire need right now because the TRA political lobby you support will not make plans that meet everyone's needs or allow female only support alongside mixed sex support.

They will not do intersectionality, or diversity, or inclusion. Or respect. Or humanity.

Where's the morality in this? Where? How can you stand behind this behaviour?

It is not in any way "faith based' unless you think respect and humanity is a religion.

The cornerstone of modern transgender ideology is not "respect and humanity" though. It is the belief that it's possible for a biological male to be a woman, in all senses. There is no compelling scientific proof of this, the evidence in such cases is very limited, so yes it does come down to a personal faith belief. And chanting TWAW as an answer to all concerns and objections does nothing to persuade people that it is a rational belief.