Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that the 'trans issue' isn't a big deal

242 replies

angiec89 · 16/04/2023 22:03

It just blows my mind how many people on here are so hung up over trans women. They're such a small percentage of the population. I have never seen an obviously trans woman in a women's toilet (not that it would particularly bother me if I did), in fact I very rarely see trans women out and about ever.
I'd be happy to listen to explanations but I really don't understand the issue. Surely there are thousands of more pressing issues regarding women's rights and safety currently than the 0.27% of the population (a USA statistic but I assume it's accurate enough) that are trans women. And even then it would be a minuscule proportion of those that are ill-intentioned towards women. It just seems like a big fuss about something so obscure when there are huge issues that deserve more attention.

OP posts:
Original poster
angiec89 · 16/04/2023 22:34

literalviolence · 16/04/2023 22:31

Normal women who don't need to label themselves also have it tough. Don't assume all women are cis. It's ascribing an identity to them which many find regressive and insulting. You need to look closer at thr data re TW risk because its skewed by South American sex workers and you're not making a valid comparison. You also need to know that most TW do not undergo surgery and you'd be labelled a TERF for suggesting that they're not actual TW. TW who'd you label as valid still have no place in women's spaces.

That statistic was from a study in the US

I didn't say all women were cis. Only the women born as women. It's a scientific description for women who aren't trans.

OP posts:
Pixiedust1234 · 16/04/2023 22:35

but the mortality rate of trans women is incredibly high, and 5 times the rate of trans men for perspective.

Please link to your source. I believe the mortality rate has been debunked.

Also using cis is a slur, so don't use it on me, thanks.

NamelessNancy · 16/04/2023 22:35

Satsumastocking · 16/04/2023 22:25

The problem is when people use the existence of trans people to pretend gender is more than an oppressive social construct. i.e. to pretend that boys and girls have some imaginary, elusive essence that makes girls worse at maths or boys unable to grasp basic emotional understanding. Very, very damaging misconceptions feminists have fought and fought to disprove, now swept aside.

I have no problems with anyone identifying as whatever they like. I'm not bothered by people of different sexes but identifying as an outdated and offensive "feminine" or "masculine" social construct using the same public loo as me (god knows there are enough real females pandering to offensive"feminine" stereotypes and far too many real men dressed as horrific "masculine" stereotypes). But...big hut...I respect and care that many women have good reason to feel scared and upset by it and they deserve to have their needs listened to.

What I do object to is people enforcing gender essentialism on us.

The view that someone can somehow be an opposite sex while biologically just jot being that sex is based on the ideology that males and females have ingrained, essential, biological character differences, different brains or something ludicrous and made up, and is reactionary, regressive and dangerous.

Thank you for explaining so clearly how I feel about this. It's a rigid reinforcement of gender stereotypes isn't it?

BIWI · 16/04/2023 22:35

I didn't say all women were cis. Only the women born as women. It's a scientific description for women who aren't trans

And it's totally unnecessary when we already have the word 'women'.

I am a woman. If you're a trans woman, then you use the descriptor 'trans' to differentiate yourself. Because you are different.

I am a woman. I need no other descriptor or differentiator. I was here first.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 16/04/2023 22:37

I didn't say all women were cis. Only the women born as women. It's a scientific description for women who aren't trans.

It's a description that is rejected as an unnecessary loaded slur by many, many women - and men. Would you be at pains to talk about a 'feline cat' or a 'canine dog'?

'Males' is also a scientific description for transwomen, but that doesn't seem to be quite so warmly received....

Original poster
angiec89 · 16/04/2023 22:37

Pixiedust1234 · 16/04/2023 22:35

but the mortality rate of trans women is incredibly high, and 5 times the rate of trans men for perspective.

Please link to your source. I believe the mortality rate has been debunked.

Also using cis is a slur, so don't use it on me, thanks.

Crikey who decided that was a slur?
It's a scientific term.

OP posts:
literalviolence · 16/04/2023 22:38

angiec89 · 16/04/2023 22:34

That statistic was from a study in the US

I didn't say all women were cis. Only the women born as women. It's a scientific description for women who aren't trans.

Show quote history

No. You're wrong. It means that a woman has a gender identity which matches their birth sex. According to stonewall. Most women don't have a gender identity. It's not just 'not trans'.

Where does the US study get it's data from.and how applicable is it here?

DdraigGoch · 16/04/2023 22:39

GladAllOver · 16/04/2023 22:07

Do we really have to explain this all over again?

I doubt it. The OP isn't looking for an answer, they're just being goady.

Original poster
angiec89 · 16/04/2023 22:39

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 16/04/2023 22:37

I didn't say all women were cis. Only the women born as women. It's a scientific description for women who aren't trans.

It's a description that is rejected as an unnecessary loaded slur by many, many women - and men. Would you be at pains to talk about a 'feline cat' or a 'canine dog'?

'Males' is also a scientific description for transwomen, but that doesn't seem to be quite so warmly received....

Obviously you wouldn't need to differentiate between cis and trans in every sentence about women. But in certain specific examples it's a useful word.

OP posts:
EmmaEmerald · 16/04/2023 22:40

Pixiedust1234 · 16/04/2023 22:35

but the mortality rate of trans women is incredibly high, and 5 times the rate of trans men for perspective.

Please link to your source. I believe the mortality rate has been debunked.

Also using cis is a slur, so don't use it on me, thanks.

This
OP are you familiar with how self ID is working?

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 16/04/2023 22:40

Obviously you wouldn't need to differentiate between cis and trans in every sentence about women. But in certain specific examples it's a useful word.

In which case, you simply use 'women' and 'transwomen'.

BIWI · 16/04/2023 22:42

Exactly @WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Transwomen are not women.

Women are not ciswomen.

You cannot change your biological sex.

(Do we really have to go through all this again?)

DdraigGoch · 16/04/2023 22:43

angiec89 · 16/04/2023 22:13

That's understandable. But surely men could do that anyway? There's nobody standing outside checking, any perv could just walk in if he so desired to

Show quote history

Because there is a social convention that men stay out of women's spaces. Any man who invades such a space risks consequences, because no man ever invaded women's spaces uninvited with a good motive. It is important therefore that the social convention isn't undermined, such that some men are now permitted access (because reasons) because once you give an inch, suddenly you've lost a mile.

Noicant · 16/04/2023 22:44

Cis isn’t a scientific term when used in this context. For it to be so someone would have had to prove there is such a thing as gender identity and it is completely unrelated to biological sex and we all have it . Please point me in the direction of such evidence

daughtersanathlete · 16/04/2023 22:45

Op can you explain to me why my daughter should be precluded from representing Great Britain purely on the grounds of her sex.

Thanks.

sst1234 · 16/04/2023 22:46

Wait, wait, OP is now pulling the science card in schooling you all on cis being a scientific term. Yet the whole premise of the thread is dismissive of science as she doesn’t think that a dude calling himself a woman is a big deal, nor scientifically inaccurate.

Honestly, this thread is such a poor attempt at winding people up.

Dontbelieveaword · 16/04/2023 22:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Pixiedust1234 · 16/04/2023 22:50

angiec89 · 16/04/2023 22:37

Crikey who decided that was a slur?
It's a scientific term.

Show quote history

Its not a scientific term in the biology world. However it is a scientific word in the chemistry world.

Learn your sciences, they can be rather helpful. Especially biology.

GarethSouthgatesWaistcoat · 16/04/2023 22:50

Maybe it's goady but I'm enjoying reading all the logical replies from strong women! Who knows maybe it'll peak a few more people passing through AIBU 🙂

daughtersanathlete · 16/04/2023 22:51

I'm all ears here waiting to hear from the op why my daughter shouldn't be able to represent Great Britain purely on the grounds of her biological sex.

PonyPatter44 · 16/04/2023 22:54

Cis isn't a scientific term, it's a linguistic term.

Transwomen are biological men, why don't you go and lecture men about tolerating non-conforming men in THEIR toilets? After all, TW just want to pee in peace.

TrombonesAreNotBones · 16/04/2023 23:02

I remember when the Green Party wanted to recruit men and non-men, halcyon days they were.

Ahem.

Back to tonight's efforts at wide eyed faux innocence bad faith OP. Yeah, no. Sorry you find it perfectly okay to incarcerate men with women, 200 years after Elizabeth Fry campaigned for sex segregation in prisons.

Lolaandbehold · 16/04/2023 23:02

That you, India?

literalviolence · 16/04/2023 23:03

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

It's true that the OP is just another MRA and doesn't care what we're saying. But there are lots of women who get their eyes opened when they read threads like this so the OP is just helping to show the uninitiated what the actual problem is. He might be laughing but that's cos he doesn't understand the damage he's doing to his anti women movement when he plays these silly games.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 16/04/2023 23:06

Oh ffs, can't you see you're all getting goaded and trolled, getting frustrated and angry at OP, which is exactly what they want? You're just providing material and entertainment for them.

Where are you seeing the anger? It's interesting how the GC, science-observant perspective on this matter always seems to be the side with the calm, well-reasoned, non-angry responses; whereas the other side.... frequently not so much.

If nobody responded and the OP was left hanging there completely unengaged, it would be found and identified as 'proof' that the GC side either 'cannot give a response' or otherwise is only comfortable within an echo chamber of other like-minded people. Remember: WE are not the ones who run away shouting "#nodebate" behind us, through fear and/or inability to discuss the matter and the contrast of provable science with summarily unprovable belief.

Whatever the intentions of OP and anybody else who sees this thread, let it stand as a testimony to a simple (many would say naive) question soundly answered by those with actual understanding of the matter and the basic science behind it all.