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?

You again miss the point completely.

I haven't missed the point at all.

What percentage of paedohiles are men? Well up into the 95%/96% region i would think.

So statistically a male teacher is far more likely to abuse a child than a female teacher.

We can check and safeguarding as much as possible to protect children but, statistically, some peadophiles will become teachers to get access to children, so whats the answer there. Stop men becoming teachers just on the off chance?

Even less statistically unlikely is a man becoming a prison officer just in case, one day, a trans man comes to the prison and requests a male prison guard for their search. Realistically, how often would that happen, certainly not often enough to warrant a whole career for someone to have to possible chance to sexually assault someone in front of a chaperone.

removing sex segregation with regards to searches of prisoners

Now you're just making things up. I never said once that it should be removed, I said there should be discussions had, and safeguarding implemented, for trans individuals.

Well either trans people are searched by members if the same sex or they aren't surely?

If you allow them to chose then you are asking staff to operate outside safguarding policies. Which will not only attract the kind of staff you don't want and puts particularly female prisoners at the increased risk of harm.

You can talk about discussions all you want but if you take affirmation of identity as the most important factor then that will be opposite sex searches.

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.

The person explained the group was inclusive and the op had to answer a question to confirm she understood. Thousands of groups do this.

I really cannot see what is aggressive about stating they are inclusive and asking a question.

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.

'Everyone' isn't dehumanising language. Op never asked the question about men, or transwomen being part of the group. They would have clarified had the op asked, I'm sure.

I mean what other option is there?

If you allow them to chose then you are asking staff to operate outside safguarding policies.

No I'm still saying that safeguarding policies need to be discussed and implemented for transgender individuals. The staff will then work within those guidelines with the transgender individuals.

But what?

Safeguarding is same sex searches.

What is it that can be done differently that doesn't involve removing the sex segregation layer of safguarding ?

What is it that can be done differently that doesn't involve removing the sex segregation layer of safguarding ?

Again, its not for me to make policies, that would be for those who actually make the safeguarding policies in prison to thrash out and decide upon in a way that is suitable for everyone. Do you expect me to have a fully formed 10 page document on every issue that needs solving surrounding this debate with every conceivable answer to every situation that arises at hand?

No but I do expect you to acknowledge the obvious. That people are either searched by members of the same sex or not.

One is current safguarding practice the other is not.

Forget fine print bullet proof policies. It still all starts with the one same question.

Who searches who.

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.

Right. But this is NOT happening. There are now a growing number of transwomen taking women’s officer roles etc. they are political roles that then feed up into government positions and advisory positions. Advising about the needs of females!!!!! Not advising about the needs of transpeople.

Please understand, I’d say most people would be happy to transwomen on a board, but taking a MALE position if a specific allocation was not available. But this is not what is happening. And it is happening now. Right now.

The fact so many people refuse to use inclusive language, refuse to acknowledge that transmen need help with their vaginas,

Women on this board are NOT denying that transmen are needing help with their vaginas. And how does it help women to use language that alienates them. It doesn’t. Many feminists advocate using phrases like women, transmen and non-binary but it gets rejected. Why? And why do the majority of women have to give way when a group refuses to compromise at all?

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.

So, tell us in your mind how many women are enough to recognize there is an issue? For many advocates of allowing transwomen to access female single sex spaces, education, employment and sports opportunities, it seems to be an n+1 situation. Ie. There will never be enough for them to accept harm is already happening to women and children in this push for accessing the rights they seek in the way they seek it.

And by that, I mean, aggressively adhering to a strategy of no debate, naming any opposition as transphobic and convincing organisations that the lobbyist interpretation of the EA2010 is correct when it is not.

Did you see the material they were allowing into our kids classrooms in the name of inclusiveness? Teaching children they can indeed have be born in the wrong body. Teaching tweens about anal sex but always from a male perspective. Teaching teenagers about fisting. Having students look up porn terminology on the internet (absolutely no potential problems there!!!). Some of the people who were involved in setting these education standards and materials were prominent LGBT activists. And at least one has been an advocate for inter generational sex. And they are telling teachers what is appropriate to be inclusive. So yes, there are people in positions of power who are taking advantage.

Sorry. The scope of this is so far reaching. But it all comes down to a group of people taking advantage. Because they can... because while there is no debate, no discussion, no view to work out solutions- no one can point out those taking advantage.

Do you see the problem? You propose third spaces. Yes, please!!! Many things you wish for, are reasonable. But they have been and will continue to be rejected. Not by some reasonable trans people and feminists . But by the activist community.

All the other layers of safguarding shud be standard practice for everyone einvoved anyway. If extra is needed its needed across the board for all prisoners.

There's only one part that creates the issue ajd that's the sex of the searchers and the searchees

Now you're just making things up. I never said once that it should be removed, I said there should be discussions had, and safeguarding implemented, for trans individuals.

There should be discussions to be had also about the females involved. No female person should have to do a search, even a pat down, on someone who is male and identifies as a woman. No female while there is any chance that transwoman has a thing about being searched or patted down by a female. No female should ever be in a position of participating in a male’s fantasy life unwillingly or unknowingly.

Who searches who.

Men search men, women search women, trans individuals get to choose who they are more comfortable with, as long as that person, or someone is there who trained, is comfortable searching them.

I answered this already.

And there's me getting accused of 'whataboutary' upthread. There are a million different scenarios, these would be for the people who know the issues and make the policies to decide upon as they know the dangers, the staff the policies the prisoners the statistics etc far better than I ever will.

So you think that staff members should search members if rhe opposite sex?

Ajd it doesn't concern you tat a) female staff members are now at greater risk of assult even if they say they consent to searching and b) the trans people will fall victim to dodgy staff who are no longer constrained by single sex searches policies

How's that good for trabs people ajd women?

Why do trans people not deserve full safeguarding practice?

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

Sure. So define “man”, “woman” and “trans” would you?

Men search men, women search women, trans individuals get to choose who they are more comfortable with, as long as that person, or someone is there who trained, is comfortable searching them.

And again. How are we defining any of those categories these days?

Right. But this is NOT happening

It should be happening. I agree it should.

And how does it help women to use language that alienates them

Genuine question here, how does the op being asked to use the term "everyone" rather than "ladies" alienate anyone?

Did you see the material they were allowing into our kids classrooms in the name of inclusiveness? Teaching children they can indeed have be born in the wrong body. Teaching tweens about anal sex but always from a male perspective. Teaching teenagers about fisting. Having students look up porn terminology on the internet (absolutely no potential problems there!!!). Some of the people who were involved in setting these education standards and materials were prominent LGBT activists. And at least one has been an advocate for inter generational sex. And they are telling teachers what is appropriate to be inclusive. So yes, there are people in positions of power who are taking advantage.

I know this, and, no, its not right. There have always been people with less than pure motives who get themselves into a position of power for their own purposes though.

Because they can... because while there is no debate, no discussion, no view to work out solutions- no one can point out those taking advantage.

I agree, but the discussion is getting shut down on both sides. If you read this thread back I have spent hours discussing where I come from on the trans debate. I have been called misogynistic, been told I have no comprehension of English, been told I'm clearly young with no life experience, been called a racist, had my spelling corrected, been told every point I make is 'whataboutary' when others are 'what abouting' all over the place, been accused of reporting posts to shut down discussion (despite being the only person on this 'side' discussing at length), been accused of running away because my points are invalid and been slated for not having answers for everything, among other stuff.

No wonder discussions are nearly impossible.

Not by some reasonable trans people and feminists . But by the activist community.

Agreed.

There should be discussions to be had also about the females involved

I already said nobody should have to do this if they aren't comfortable doing so.

The person explained the group was inclusive and the op had to answer a question to confirm she understood. Thousands of groups do this.

I really cannot see what is aggressive about stating they are inclusive and asking a question.

I am missing something. No where did the OP say it was stated that it was trans inclusive. The first OP knew was an aggressive message (to use the OP’s words) and the feeling if she answered incorrectly that she would be excluded.

That question doesn’t make the demographic of the group membership clear either.

I am only going by what the OP has said though. Maybe I missed it mentioned that this group stated anywhere before this question was sent that it was ‘inclusive’.

Did the group advertise that it was inclusive? Did the group advertise its history as being always inclusive?

Or did it do a La Leche move and declare itself inclusive to transwomen ‘chestfeeders’ after a long history of being just for females as per another recent thread.

I really cannot see what is aggressive about stating they are inclusive and asking a question.

The OP said 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.

And again. How are we defining any of those categories these days?

I discussed that upthread.

No one should be doing it at all

It doesn't matter if they consent or not.

Make staff shkukd not searc female inmates ajd id be concerned about rhe integrity of any who did agree to. They are not someone you'd want searching your prisoners. Why don't you think transmen should be kept safe? Why are they put at more risk than the other women?.why is that acceptable?

The first OP knew was an aggressive message (to use the OP’s words) and the feeling if she answered incorrectly that she would be excluded.

I know the op said the message was aggressive.

I cant see what is aggressive about.

Hi, just to let you know this is a gender inclusive group, to make sure you understand the rules will you be addressing the group as a) ladies b) men or c) everyone.

That isn't aggressive. The op didn't wish to question further or to answer 'everyone' so didn't join the group.

Did the group advertise that it was inclusive? Did the group advertise its history as being always inclusive?

I am unaware of the groups history, maybe it was set up by a trans man, maybe it changed its policies 2 weeks ago. The point being that it is now inclusive and the op doesn't wish to join an inclusive group. The group doesn't have to advertise its inclusive, but they let op know within one message before she actually joined.

Had op joined 2 years ago and the policies were now changing, that would be different.

"Genuine question here, how does the op being asked to use the term "everyone" rather than "ladies" alienate anyone?"

If you think this is where it would have begun and ended, I think you are kidding yourself.
From the initial contact with the OP it was clear exactly what kind of group they were and where their allegiance lay IMO. If you think in a group where they were already unhappy about the word 'women' or 'ladies' being used, that she would then have been free to talk about biological reality (women have vaginas and associated problems specific to their sex), then I'm afraid you're wrong. You questioned who would be alienated. I'm sure if the OP HAD joined the group it wouldn't be very long before she was the one made to feel alienated by having to police her own language and beliefs.

I already said nobody should have to do this if they aren't comfortable doing so.

I read this and the language comes across as being more about the female who has to the search’s ‘comfort’ and not about ensuring safeguarding standards are maintained. It feels like the female should have the choice offered... well... in my experience, if a choice is presented, I would ‘choose’ what is expected of me to do my job and try to progress my career.

Sorry. That is how I read ‘if they are comfortable’. Too many times I have been made to put my discomfort aside because something was ‘optional’ but expected. I realize it probably wasn’t what you meant, but this is how it came across to me.

To make sure NO female is put in a position where this abuse, and it is abuse, can happen due to either internal or external pressure to allow it, that is where safeguarding has to be clear! Everytime.

Hi, just to let you know this is a gender inclusive group, to make sure you understand the rules will you be addressing the group as a) ladies b) men or c) everyone.

Sorry? Where was this in OP’s posts. I really must have missed it.

Whatwouldscullydo I have answered your questions, repeatedly, at length to the best of my ability. You can reword and ask the same questions over and over and over again all you like, but my answers aren't going to change.

It is so sad this happened to you and I hope you can find the support you need elsewhere. That is a painful and horrible condition. I have never seen the problem with acknowledging that cis and trans women may have different issues relating to the bodies they grew up with. I dont know what it is like to grow up in a body that feels wrong for me - and I have to listen to people who had that experience to start to understand it. Surely it is not too much to ask that people listen to the issues cis women may have to do with their bodies? Or common experiences growing up for either group? Where did the voice of cis women go? And who benefits from this?