Do I have a right to be angry about this? (Trans related)

[Nc109283485]

Nc for obvious reasons. This is a very personal issue to me which I am understandably sensitive about, so this may be why I feel this way. I am perfectly happy to be told I AMBU! I believe trans people deserve love and respect and a happy life just like everyone else. So why did this concern and anger me?

I have a condition called vaginismus which has been very traumatic and caused me lots of grief over my life. In my eyes it is a very personal and female problem. (Look if up if you're not sure what it is).

I have tried to join a support group on a social media platform to really get to the bottom of it and sort it out. I wont say which one as dont want to 'out' either myself or the group involved. My request was pending and a message sent. I assumed this was to confirm I definitely suffer from this condition and to make sure I wasn't some strange pervert, but no! The administrator messaged me to say that before I was accepted I would have to answer a 'test question' as this is a gender inclusive group. Will I be addressing group members as 'ladies, men or everyone'. The tone felt quite aggressive and if I did not pass this test I would not be admitted.

My first thought was are men allowed to enter this group? Do I really have to speak about my vagina in front of 'everyone'? Why not say hello ladies (and the occasional transman who currently has issues with their vagina) no I have to address everyone? Wtf?

I honestly don't know what to think right now but this group clearly isn't for me. But maybe I just need some re-education?

It's just gotchas and special pleading.

But after all, that is really all the arguments they have.

Yes prisons are renowned fir being gynacologists.

If you don't think there's anything dodgy about a group of men who are happy to disregard the prison safguarding policies and search females in prison then I'm.jot sure you are posting in good faith.

For someone who thinks its no big deal to play along ajd say what people want to hear, you have completely abandoned what humans have known fir centuries. That men opress those who are female and most abuse towards women is at the hands of males ajd there's a reason for sex segregation and safguarding. Its not to insult or insinuate a value judgment or to mock. Its to keep people safe and ensure the privacy ajd dignity they deserve.

Are you realky truly prepared to throw out everything we know, the entire reasons these rules and policies were put in place, to avoid acknowledging the truth. Woukd you realky sit by and watch harm done to maintain the falsehood that someone changed sex.

Do you realky believe mixed sex changing rooms and prisons are safe?

Do you realky think that no one will abuse the removal of safeguarding?.

Do you think trans s people will be safe and no one will take advantage of being given the green light to volunteer to search opposite sex prisoners?

So, we are to ask a transwoman who is to search them???

You know that there are some male prisoners who will abuse this? Who find this sexual. It is already happening in the US and Canada. How do you deal with the few who would abuse this? How do you identify them before a female suffers this type of sexual harassment?

scully what you wrote there ties in with the original dilemma in this thread. The OP didn't know if a male was going to be allowed to join, is that what they meant by inclusive. If so she might be forced to accept him as belonging there even though he absolutely 100% could not have the condition but was using the women's suffering to meet some need in himself.

Male wants to join in with group of women discussing their vaginas? People have observed dodgy men using women in such ways since the beginning of time.

I wouldn’t be happy about this. So sick of women’s rights and sense of safety coming a poor second to everyone else’s. 😡

If you are up for some reading on sports to get your head around it, this study might be the place to start.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

This is a review of numerous other studies (all peer reviewed ) and this one has been peer reviewed. There are a couple of others that show similar results.

Also, Dr Ross Tucker is a sports scientist and on twitter he has had many discussions about why other ‘accommodations’ simply don’t work regarding suitable changes to sport to allow males who have the benefits of male puberty to compete in any way with females unless it is a specific mixed sex team or sport.

I get you want to include trans people in sport. There is simply no way to do this fairly and most importantly safely. Safety is a massive factor. Transitioning does not remove the male puberty benefit. They certainly can compete in their own sex category. And frankly, why do you believe that they shouldn’t be competing against their own sex as per their sex at birth (and please do not bring in people with DSDs as they are irrelevant to this particular discussion).

And studies that have shown that they males have ‘lost their advantage’ are problematic because they had control group and the participants were self reporting and were very limited in their scope . So quite useless really.

I am trying to get my head around how you rationalise affirming an objectively false belief and how far you would take that logic

We do it all the time on a lesser scale, a blonde woman dyes her hair a gorgeous shade of brown, do you describe her to another friend, who didn't know her as blonde as "the brunette i was speaking to in the pub that time" or as "the blonde woman who dyed her hair the shade of brown you saw in the pub that time" or "the woman with the dyed hair" (even though it isn't obviously dyed)

What about a couple who adopt a child do you say "the couple with the adopted child" or just "that couple and their kid"

What about someone who has a prosthetic leg, does that need to be pointed out.

To me its about balancing the person as a whole including their mental health.

If you had a child who has a really wonky nose (for example) and it really effected their confidence, they were withdrawn, upset, depressed and they were insistant that surgery was the only way they would get better, you try help groups counselling and every other avenue but your kid still didn't accept their wonky nose was part of them, would you discourage them getting their nose straightened because technically their straight nose is a surgical lie?

If your child had the surgery, became confident and happy, and a new friend of yours said your child was gorgeous and had a pretty nose (not sure what sort of weirdo would compliment a nose, but ill go with this for now) would you tell that person "actually they had a massively wonky nose so they got it fixed" or just say "thanks".

Believe me, i have struggled with this as much, if not more than anyone here, it has been an absolute roller coaster, but I am seeing this from both sides and wish to minimise the devastation caused to trans people as much as possible as well.

I don't wish for the only way for my loved one to be happy to be through surgery and hormones, however if they have to go through so much to be happy within themselves then the whole thing is negated by them being shunned out of trans inclusive spaces, and people choosing language that would upset them.

In my mind its like telling a depressed person they can't be depressed because they have a good job and a nice house. We would still acknowledge they are depressed despite their outward good fortune in life.

To me its about balancing the person as a whole including their mental health

Thing is though as much as you love or care bout someone, either something is true or its not.

Of you had a friend who thought they could fly how far would you take it?

Sure jumping off the sofa won't hurt them but you surely tell them the truth when they start talking about jumping off the roof?

I dont see how this is different. Maybe in the house amongst friends it doesnt seem a big deal. When they change the sex marker on their drs records and dont get a call for cervical screening or want to go shower in the mems changing room in the gym its ventured into harmful territory surely?

If someone is fragile, then isnt it a worry that if something happened, and reality had to be faced , and everyone around them had gone along with a falsehood, who do they have left to trust? Doesn't that leave them in a really vulnerable place?

I wouldn’t be happy about this. So sick of women’s rights and sense of safety coming a poor second to everyone else’s.

I think this is a large part of it for me, the depressing confirmation that we are second class citizens, and male feelings are more important than ours. This wouldn't be happening to any other oppressed group of people. It's pure misogyny and sexism. And everyone knows full well what sex people are when it comes to ignoring women's feelings and concerns and pandering to those of MTF trans people.

If you don't think there's anything dodgy about a group of men who are happy to disregard the prison safguarding policies and search females in prison then I'm.jot sure you are posting in good faith.

There should be a discussion about safeguarding around transpeople. Safeguarding shouldn't be abandoned for anyone but the safeguarding policies should be expanded to take trans people into account and implemented accordingly (by people who do risk assessments and have numbers and budgets and statistics and whatever else, not single handedly by me on this thread before you ask again)

Gay men may get a kick out of being searched by a male officer and sexualise him, lesbians may get a kick out of being searched by a female officer and sexualise her.

How do we get around safeguarding that harassment?

If you are up for some reading on sports to get your head around it, this study might be the place to start.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Thank you, I will read that. I'll be looking into the sport element of the trans debate over the next couple of days, as I'm not particularly informed, and I probably should be, so that's really helpful. Thank you.

But how can safeguarding be expanded in a way that doesn't mean males are searching females and vice versa.

Thats what it boils down to isnt it?

There is no way of doing it that prevents the increased risk of male on female abuse or sexually harassing staff by making them search members of the opposite sex.

It is such a hard position to be in where you wish to support family or friends who have transitioned.

However, do you understand the scope of this issue and how it actually effects the rights of women and children. In very real ways. How far do you believe society should go in effectively accommodating people’s need for living as the opposite sex vs the real needs of safeguarding and equal opportunity to participate in sport, education, employment.

For instance, are you happy that currently in Scotland a board that is supposed to be 50% male and 50% female may actually be 100% male because they changed it to gender. And please don’t say ‘it will never happen’. Have you seen just how many transwomen are in women’s officer roles in organisations where they have impact on policy about females? Did you know one such gendered committee has about 75% males now due to 3-4/8 women’s representatives being male. Notably none of the ‘male’ positions go to transmen.

Are you ok with positions put aside to help rectify millennia of sex discrimination being given yet again to males?

Don't you think that sometimes people need protecting from themselves and what they want/ask fir might not necessarily be the best thing fir them.

Of you had a friend who thought they could fly how far would you take it?

Jumping off a building is pretty certainly going to result in death so it isn't really a comparison imo.

When they change the sex marker on their drs records and dont get a call for cervical screening or want to go shower in the mems changing room in the gym its ventured into harmful territory surely?

If someone changes their doctors records and decide they don't wish to have screening thats on them, in the way that women who ignore being called for screening is on them.

This is why I am an advocate for a third space, those with a penis (born or created), those with a vagina (born or created) and a third space for anyone who doesn't really care. Either that or separate cubicles which I've seen in a few pools which were great and would actually be a lot better for families, dads and daughters, mums and sons etc).

What wouldnt be fair is if there was another space created that was inclusive of trans individuals and then had a woman come along and say "well I want to go in there" and the trans individuals then had to leave and find somewhere else.

Ots one thing to turn down screening because you know the risks ajd decided against it

Its another to not even believe you need one because you are a man .

If a delusion takes over to the point its causing them harm then hows it kind to indulge it.

Thats not abkut informed consent. Thats not about choices. Its about being in denial of reality amd not even thinking something applies to you. Entirely different

Where does choice end and destructive self harm behaviour begin

There should be a discussion about safeguarding around transpeople.

Absolutely! There really should. But not at the expense of forgetting the safeguarding for women and children.

Safeguarding shouldn't be abandoned for anyone but the safeguarding policies should be expanded to take trans people into account and implemented accordingly (by people who do risk assessments and have numbers and budgets and statistics and whatever else, not single handedly by me on this thread before you ask again)

Ok. But if trans people are not required to signal their status, how does this impact on safeguarding for women and children.

For instance. A woman needs to have a female do an intimate procedure such as a Pap smear. But if lobby groups have their way, a male identifying as a woman can be sent along regardless. It has happened that a woman who was a rape victim was called transphobic for requesting a female recently. How is this helpful? This has happened, this is NOT a made up scenario. A woman was denigrated for making such a request and used as a case study.

In fact, in some nhs trusts they had guidance telling nurses they needed to effectively shame women who would complain about a male being in the next bed in hospital. And remember, a male with a beard is to be considered a woman if they say they are. So, how does case by case safeguarding that you advocate for help women? It certainly helps males but how does it help females when the safeguarding person is told that it should always be decided that the transwoman is the priority. Not the rape or abuse victim. Not the woman who has religious belief that are ignored?

Does the female ever get priority in your book?

What wouldnt be fair is if there was another space created that was inclusive of trans individuals and then had a woman come along and say "well I want to go in there" and the trans individuals then had to leave and find somewhere else.

If it was a space specifically set up for trans people, why would women seek to enter? I have not heard of any such complaints and people should be called out for entering spaces not meant for them. Always!

The OP though was a group set up for females.

""What wouldnt be fair is if there was another space created that was inclusive of trans individuals and then had a woman come along and say "well I want to go in there" and the trans individuals then had to leave and find somewhere else."

But that is what is happening to women's groups up and down the country. Set up for women. Trans person (or trans sensitive person) comes along and decides they should be in the group. Group has to change their language and police the other members behaviour and language. Original members feel they are no longer able to speak freely in the group and end up leaving and having to "find somewhere else". Why is that fair?

Separate spaces and groups have already been suggested and rejected anyway.

They are transphobic. And othering.

Makes it very hard to believe that its about safety and comfort when suggestions that would offer just that are rejected and mixed sex provision accepted only when ots ^replacing" whats usually the womens facilities.

Id be happy with third spaces along side the rest. Gives everyone the choice then. But while there are womens spaces males will push to gain entry

There is no way of doing it that prevents the increased risk of male on female abuse or sexually harassing staff by making them search members of the opposite sex.

There is no way to stop sexual harassment from men to other men, or women to other women either. We implement what we can to minimise the risks though.

However, do you understand the scope of this issue and how it actually effects the rights of women and children.

I know. However I am also very aware of the massive amount of discrimination towards trans individuals as well.

I'm not saying there are perfect solutions. Nothing that happens will make 100% of people happy. But denying trans individuals needs isn't the way forward either.

I have had first hand experience of discrimination against women by men. I have had first hand experience of the rights of children being a by product of an adults wants. I have also seen, first hand the discrimination that my trans loved one has faced.

None of it should happen.

How far do you believe society should go in effectively accommodating people’s need for living as the opposite sex vs the real needs of safeguarding and equal opportunity to participate in sport, education, employment.

I'm not going to comment on sport at the moment, i have some reading to do.

There should be equal opportunities for education and employment. Including equal (not favourable) treatment and representation of trans individuals.

For instance, are you happy that currently in Scotland a board that is supposed to be 50% male and 50% female may actually be 100% male because they changed it to gender. And please don’t say ‘it will never happen’

I'm not going to say it doesn't happen.

Board members etc are trickier than a facebook group. This facebook group is trans inclusive, it was made clear in one message, op declined to join, that was ops choice.

If a board was set up as 45% men, 45% women and 10% trans (or whatever is a representative percentage dependant on the organisation), that would be better in my mind.

The fact so many people refuse to use inclusive language, refuse to acknowledge that transmen need help with their vaginas, the fact transwomen may have problems with hairloss or whatever is the thing pushing the insistance and allowing some people to take advantage, which they do. My problem is that they tiny number of people who say they are trans and take advantage of a situation that both sides are causing are then seen as representative of all trans people, as demonstrated in the threads on MN where the same, maybe, 10 stories and pictures get rolled out again and again.

Absolutely! There really should. But not at the expense of forgetting the safeguarding for women and children.

No, safeguarding is a must for everyone.

Does the female ever get priority in your book?

Of course. Do trans people ever get priority in yours?

The OP though was a group set up for females.

Within one message it was clear the group was trans inclusive. Many on this thread have stated this shouldn't be the case even though the group is already established as being trans inclusive. It was said many pages ago now that trans men should go and set up their own group, despite already comfortably being part of this one and that it was unfair for op to take the time and effort to set up her own group where she could use language comfortable for her.

But that is what is happening to women's groups up and down the country.

Why is that fair?

It isn't.

You again miss the point completely.

96+ percent of sexual crime against women at the hands of males.

So statistically a female prisoner being searched by a male.officer is at a much higher risk than a female prisoner being searched by a female officer.

That's a fact. We can't just ignore it to justify allowing prisoners to he searched by members of the opposite sex.

Couple that with the fact that removing sex segregation with regards to searches of prisoners will increase the chances of the person applying for an outside of regulations style job and there's no denying female prisoners are at a higher risk of harm from males.

Whatever the answer is its not pretending that the risk is equal therfore there's no point In safguarding

Id be happy with third spaces along side the rest. Gives everyone the choice then. But while there are womens spaces males will push to gain entry

As they always have. They are using a vulnerable group of people to try and do this which is causing discrimination towards that group.

That is why there needs to be a massive discussion and rules and boundaries set.

The thing making it difficult to do that is TRAs having such strongly help opinions which want everything to change. Then there is the other side who want absolutely nothing to change at all, and trans people are told that women had to campaign for years and suffer, so trans people should have to as well.

Let's face it, this discussion started off as op complaining that a trans inclusive group wants to use trans inclusive language and 93% of people agree that she is right to be upset about that. This is what transgender people are up against.

It was said many pages ago now that trans men should go and set up their own group, despite already comfortably being part of this one and that it was unfair for op to take the time and effort to set up her own group where she could use language comfortable for her.

I think many people on this thread would have been happy if the group took a different approach than the aggressive stance the person messaging took. Including clarifying that all members were female but included transmen. But clarifying there were no males.

No one disputes the need to be inclusive. It is how it is done that gets people off side and their backs up. People dispute the need to use dehumanizing language (many people are happy with women, transmen and non-binary people. Or simply saying female if it must be done. There is a need for accuracy and not for ambiguity) and to not be able to be confident that no males would be present.