Sending love to trans people on MN and beyond

[cassandre]

This isn't an AIBU. I just wanted to send love to trans people, in the UK especially, and to other members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

This hasn't been the easiest week for trans people, but there are a lot of us out there who accept you for who you are. We have your backs and we believe that eventually, tolerance and compassion will win.💖💖💖

Love from a longtime MNer and trans-inclusive feminist.

Oh give over

I agree with much of this but I'm a bit confused as to how having dysphoria would make a man or woman different from a cis woman. I'm sure that within the dysphoric community there are both good people and abusive people . I wouldn't expect there to be a difference in rates of offending or abusive behaviour . Someone with dysphoria feels like the opposite sex but biologically and in every other way they are not.

There is no difference between the rates of offending of male people with transgender identities and those with out any gender identity belief. This is the point that people who declare that they personally, see no issue, refuse to acknowledge.

I can post you the data that we have collected.

The incongruence between someone who declares so strongly that feminists should be reducing the abuse of female people by male people and censures them for campaigning for this clarification of the law is rather hard to miss. Because this is actually reducing the additional opportunities for harm to be done to female people by male people (remember it can be said there is statistically no lower risk compared to other male people in the UK).

It is also about reducing the ongoing harms of those abused and raped female people. By ensuring they can ask for female health care providers, including rape medical examiners. By being assured that the female only support group is female people only, including the facilitator (as we have seen with Midral Wadwha). By ensuring that the victims don't have to use demanded and coerced language to described their attacker. And by ensuring that that rapist or attacker does not have further access to female people in prison.

This is why 'it is just a few' is so harmful to use against women and girls. Because those 'few' make a huge negative impact in more than one female person's life. It is really fucking dismissive.

'Someone with dysphoria feels like the opposite sex but biologically and in every other way they are not.'

All that there is left to categorise it as is a belief about themselves, based in philosophical theories such as gender identity theory and postmodernism.

Absolutely and I'm so glad as a sexual abuse survivor that women only spaces are now protected in law.

I'd like to clarify a few points you made yesterday because there are arguments I seriously question - none of this is meant to offend, but I want to defend the notion of gender dysphoria being real and not just a belief.

In an earlier post, you compared anorexia to gender dysphoria arguing that medical professionals don't encourage or humour their patients in their beliefs. That is a terrible comparison. Whilst anorexia entails a warped perception of one's appearance, the main issue is control and it often - though not necessarily, because there are anorexic patients without that background - appears after sexual abuse. What medical professionals do is attempt to treat the disorder by addressing the fear of food. It's not about reaffirming or rejecting an identity. By the way, the root causes have in fact little to do with aesthetics and mentioning it alongside people who seek cosmetic enhancements was a very poor choice. Medical professionals who address gender dysphoria do not humour their patients by affirming a false belief. They attempt to realign a person with their identity because if they don't, it can and does lead to suicide- and that is not a belief any more than sexual orientation is a belief.

The notion of protecting women is paramount. I am one. I have daughters. I have personally encountered predators and suffered for it. I don't believe transgender people are better or worse than others by virtue of what they are. No, but I also agree that one pervert preying on women, especially in enclosed spaces like prisons or shelters is one too many. I just want to reiterate that transpeople are real, not a bizarre philosophical belief though.

Your other question was 'when would it have been ok to campaign for single spaces?' My answer is that I am not so arrogant as to prescribe to anyone when it's ok to campaign for something they deeply care about. I have already acknowledged that I probably shouldn't have used the word 'distraction' just because I didn't see the point. I got carried away emotionally. It's a social media trap that I've often criticised and I fell into it myself. Having said that, I maintain that for me the priority remains to address the dismal rape conviction rates because it will positively affect all of us when we do. When a transwoman attacks a woman or a girl I see 'perv' first, their gender identity second. I also don't think it defines all of them anymore than I think all men are rapists.

What's the solution? Probably to assign specific spaces in prisons - and I would argue that any sex offender should be isolated from the general population to avoid victimising other prisoners. Toilets? Where workable another unisex space with floor to ceiling cubicles. There are many other areas which have already been discussed at length. Whatever the solutions are though, I would not want to see a segment of the population, even small, unnecessarily victimised. That's all I wanted to say. There should be room for acceptance for them too. As for TRAs, every group in every part of the human population has its extremist arseholes, why should be different among trans...

Quick correction: not saying all TRAs are extremist arseholes! But among that group, like in any other group, there might be people who are! Give me a group of people and I'll find you an arsehole is my point.

Do you think that transwomen can only be transwomen if they’re nice people?

And can you give us a definition of a woman?

'In an earlier post, you compared anorexia to gender dysphoria arguing that medical professionals don't encourage or humour their patients in their beliefs. That is a terrible comparison. Whilst anorexia entails a warped perception of one's appearance, the main issue is control and it often - though not necessarily, because there are anorexic patients without that background - appears after sexual abuse. What medical professionals do is attempt to treat the disorder by addressing the fear of food. It's not about reaffirming or rejecting an identity. By the way, the root causes have in fact little to do with aesthetics and mentioning it alongside people who seek cosmetic enhancements was a very poor choice. Medical professionals who address gender dysphoria do not humour their patients by affirming a false belief. They attempt to realign a person with their identity because if they don't, it can and does lead to suicide- and that is not a belief any more than sexual orientation is a belief.'

Yes. Clinicians do work with the patient to address their issues. If you haven't worked out that gender dysphoria also likely has a control issue in many cases, you have not kept up to date. The latest research in the Cass Review states very clearly also the many co-morbidities that can cause that dysphoria. Including sexual abuse, and any trauma (including parent's divorcing or a parent having a cancer scare).

The use of weaponising suicide in relation to affirming care has been well addressed by now too. There is no increased suicide risk when all the other comorbid issues are considered. Suicide became a leverage tool for campaign groups to use to get affirming only care put in place. The very discussion of it within support groups and the way it has been used in media needs to be addressed. But even in a USA court case, Chase Strangio admitted that there was no increased risk in suicide rates as had been publicised when the other comorbidities were considered.

I can link you to papers from clinicians where they have reported their concerns that patients have come through and used phrases that groups have told them or their parents would get them hormones. One of those was about suicide ideation.

You seem to believe that gender identity is based on something other than belief. Yet, there are no biological markers. There are no neurological markers.

This identity is also based only on the concept that the person has that this must be what being the opposite sex 'feels' like. Which, as I said, is a fabrication of the stimuli that the person has processed in their life. And maybe even from people mistaking them as the opposite sex. But it is not based on them ever experiencing anything in the way of being the opposite sex, so it is purely belief.

And yes, some medical professionals absolutely affirm a false belief. There are so many instances now it is overwhelming. But I remember at least one investigative journalist who contacted Gender GP and got a prescription for hormones based on one or two phone calls (no video) and a completely made up back story.

'The notion of protecting women is paramount. I am one. I have daughters. I have personally encountered predators and suffered for it. I don't believe transgender people are better or worse than others by virtue of what they are. No, but I also agree that one pervert preying on women, especially in enclosed spaces like prisons or shelters is one too many. I just want to reiterate that transpeople are real, not a bizarre philosophical belief though.'

'I don't believe transgender people are better or worse than others by virtue of what they are.'

I don't believe one poster has said that all transpeople are predators. For a start, that would be ignoring the very large % of female people with transgender identities.

'by virtue of what they are'.... please understand - MALE people with transgender identities are MALE PEOPLE. That is what they are. All the way through this discussion, I have been trying to point this out to you.

They are male people and therefore they carry the same risk of committing male pattern crime as all other male people in the UK.

Do you genuinely think that they are a special subgroup of male people that should removed from the category of male people for safeguarding?

What other special subgroup of male people should be removed and exempt from male risk assessment? Priests? Teachers? Male people over the age of 75?

"I just want to reiterate that transpeople are real, not a bizarre philosophical belief though.'

You are the one now calling it a bizarre philosophical belief.

The people are real. They exist and it is a facile argument to infer that because they share a belief that they are not 'real'. They are people who present themselves how they identify.

Wholly agree w OP

'Your other question was 'when would it have been ok to campaign for single spaces?' My answer is that I am not so arrogant as to prescribe to anyone when it's ok to campaign for something they deeply care about. I have already acknowledged that I probably shouldn't have used the word 'distraction' just because I didn't see the point. I got carried away emotionally. It's a social media trap that I've often criticised and I fell into it myself. Having said that, I maintain that for me the priority remains to address the dismal rape conviction rates because it will positively affect all of us when we do. When a transwoman attacks a woman or a girl I see 'perv' first, their gender identity second. I also don't think it defines all of them anymore than I think all men are rapists.'

Great. YOU maintain your limited focus.

Other people will focus across different issues. And together we will make it better for our children.

I am glad that you can acknowledge that you see 'perv' first, but you still seem to have this block that says that some male people with transgender identities should be exempt from the male category for safeguarding measures. Because, you personally don't see the need. Yet other people do see the need and you dismiss them and you seem to be trying to position them seeing the need to treat them as any other male person as being done through hate. Your posts seem to be all written from that perspective, that it is somehow hateful to treat a male person as a male person when safeguarding decisions are involved.

Yet, that is the very thing needed for strong safeguarding decisions.

'What's the solution? Probably to assign specific spaces in prisons - and I would argue that any sex offender should be isolated from the general population to avoid victimising other prisoners. Toilets? Where workable another unisex space with floor to ceiling cubicles. There are many other areas which have already been discussed at length. Whatever the solutions are though, I would not want to see a segment of the population, even small, unnecessarily victimised. That's all I wanted to say. There should be room for acceptance for them too. As for TRAs, every group in every part of the human population has its extremist arseholes, why should be different among trans...'

There are already vulnerable male sections in prisons. In fact, an entire wing was built and ready to go and it was closed down by activists who declared it was othering to have that space.

Toilets? There are now many unisex toilets. These have a range of issues for female people as has been discussed. Luckily, the EHRC guidance is clear. Where there is single sex provided, everyone has to use the one relating to their sex, not to their belief about what sex they are.

'Whatever the solutions are though, I would not want to see a segment of the population, even small, unnecessarily victimised.'

Were you saying this with the many women and girls who were saying 'we don't want male people in our toilets and changing rooms'? You use the term 'victimised' and I think that again shows that you are not discussing this with the needs of female people in mind. It is not victimising male people to ask them to use the toilet suited to their sex category, when that was already the law and they were in fact, breaking the law.

What other group in society gets this special treatment (to use provisions set aside for a protected characteristic they don't belong to) for their belief about themselves?

And this is where you buck against the word belief. Because me pointing out all the logic and the arguments leaves people (general people) feeling a dissonance. Because they know now that there are biological markers about being transgender which leaves it as a belief about themselves. Whether you, general you, want to use the word philosophical or not it is a belief. What other beliefs are given this special treatment where someone not of a protected characteristic (in fact the opposite) should have access to the provisions of that protected characteristic.

Because they know now that there are no biological markers about being transgender which leaves it as a belief about themselves.

fixed that

Look, I think we're too far apart but I appreciate the time you have taken to lay out your points. I respect that it is important to you and other women to have single sex spaces.
You use the term 'victimised' and I think that again shows that you are not discussing this with the needs of female people in mind.
I wish you wouldn't immediately and constantly assume that I don't care about the rights of women in general though, that's regrettable. I have a different perspective. We will just have to agree to disagree.
As for victimised - Maybe marginalised or vulnerable would be a better word? I used the term because I think transpeople are a segment of the population that tends to have it rough, despite some vocal advocates. That's what I meant. Not because of the single-sex spaces debate, but because being trans still seems to be by and large a pretty rough road, even though not all transpeople are victimised. Just an observation from the outside.
Defining 'woman' - I am not satisfied with a pure biological definition. The female sex is defined as human beings with XX chromosomes (bar the few intersex exceptions), but we are more than our biology. Gender on the other hand is a very fluid concept, which again is hard to pinpoint if you want to avoid stereotypes. I'd ideally get rid of it entirely but it's not that simple and sexual orientation and sexual identity are essential to people's own sense of self. So no, I don't feel that any definition is 100% satisfying because wherever I look, I find it too restrictive.
We're human beings and we should all enjoy equal rights, respect and consideration without fear of aggression of any sort.

Defining 'woman' - I am not satisfied with a pure biological definition. The female sex is defined as human beings with XX chromosomes (bar the few intersex exceptions), but we are more than our biology.

I don't think anyone here will argue that we aren't more than our biology. But the word 'woman' does purely refer to a biological reality. Woman isn't a feeling, any more than left handed is a feeling: if right handed people started saying they felt left handed, that they should have been left handed, that they're really a left hander, that they like the things left handed people like and not the things right handed people like, we'd not affirm that, or try to expand the bandwidth of what being left-handed means, or decide that left handed means actually left-handed plus some right handed people. But that's what happened with 'woman'.

People can have any personality and interests and clothings choices they like, but those things don't use hospital wards or changing rooms or do sports. That why understanding that woman means biology is important, otherwise all discussion is at crossed purposes. Once that is accepted, we can sort out how to meet everyone's needs fairly.

Of course we are more than our biology, but the sex class of 'woman' is defined by biology which is binary and immutable.

There are many different ways of being a woman, encompassing all kinds of personality traits and behaviours.

I mean, is that so very difficult to get your head around?

'I wish you wouldn't immediately and constantly assume that I don't care about the rights of women in general though, that's regrettable. I have a different perspective. We will just have to agree to disagree.'

I have been trying to point out how your position harms female people, yet you cannot accept that it does. The use of victimised in the context you used it highlights that your priority is not female people, but it is male people. Do you see how that worked. You stated you did not want a male people to feel victimised by a toilet solution. That prioritises male people. It also reads that you really don't consider the needs of female people, as has been explained and show to be majority view of the UK female population, you just want to be kind to the group that you prioritise.

You seem to keep assuring yourself that you do care about the rights of women and girls while denying the harm that your position brings.

"As for victimised - Maybe marginalised or vulnerable would be a better word? I used the term because I think transpeople are a segment of the population that tends to have it rough, despite some vocal advocates. That's what I meant.'

Marginalised? Vulnerable? Those words are the very words that the group keeps repeating. And you believe it.

How marginalised do you think a group is that successfully had the UK acting under their interpretation of the law for 15 years? And who had trained and influenced organisations and people to suspend, cancel, abuse and actually marginalise any person who said 'hang on... this isn't right'?

How marginalised do you think a group is that successfully convinced the ministry of Justice to extend a woman's prison sentence because she, an abuse survivor in prison, called a fellow inmate the wrong pronoun? Or who convinced the courts standards committee to force raped women (and men) to refer to their rapists as 'she/her' referring to 'her penis' or face contempt of court punishments?

How marginalised do you think a group is that successfully convinced the NHS trusts that if a distressed female patient complained that there was a male patient in the bed next to their bed , that they should treat that female patient as being a bigot and then gaslight them?

How marginalised do you think a group is that successfully convinced one NHS trust to tell a female rape victim that they were lying and that they could not have been raped because there was no 'men' in the ward? Only, there was and yes, that 'woman' raped her but the hospital denied it was possible for 12 months until they could no longer lie about it?

Do you start to see the issue with repeating the words that a group have used to describe themselves like a mantra - 'marginalised' and 'vulnerable'? It is like the mantra 'transwomen and women'. It is meant to be reassuring so people don't have to think any further. Like repeating the suicide myth.

And it appears to be highly successful.

No. It is not victimising male people to expect them to join the other male people with transgender identities that have been successfully using the male toilets for decades. There are many posters on MN who have told us that their male transgender friends and family use male toilets when there is no gender neutral ones and have done for decades. No issue.

'Defining 'woman' - I am not satisfied with a pure biological definition. The female sex is defined as human beings with XX chromosomes (bar the few intersex exceptions), but we are more than our biology. Gender on the other hand is a very fluid concept, which again is hard to pinpoint if you want to avoid stereotypes. I'd ideally get rid of it entirely but it's not that simple and sexual orientation and sexual identity are essential to people's own sense of self. So no, I don't feel that any definition is 100% satisfying because wherever I look, I find it too restrictive.'

Yes, women are more than our biology. No feminist that I know has ever said they weren't.

You seem to have a belief around the word 'gender'. But do you see that if society cannot even adequately describe this word, it most definitely should not be used to describe the rights of people. Gender is a social concept and is a meaningless concept for protecting female people.

Meanwhile, female people need specific rights BECAUSE of our biology. Female people are not simply small male people. Therefore we need specific rights to protect us and our unique needs.

How about we get rid of the word 'gender' and just accept that every one has a sexed body that is either male or female and the rest is just personality? That is pretty much the definition I use. But the word woman, is simply the noun that describes an adult human who is of the female sex. Just like girl is a juvenile human who is of the female sex.

You cannot get rid of the fact that people have a sexed body. And I know of no one who fits into a 'gender' at all. Considering also that while so many people only ever focus on 'transwomen' or 'transmen' (transmen only when it is convenient), they forget that under the official transgender umbrella there is over 130 genders.

"We're human beings and we should all enjoy equal rights, respect and consideration without fear of aggression of any sort."

Yes. Lovely.

Although, female people need equitable solutions to bring about equal opportunites rather than being treated as 'equal'.

In the meantime, female people of all ages require strong safeguarding measures to be in place to protect them from MALE people. This is part of that equitable solution.

That requires ALL male people above the age of 8 years old to be excluded from the female single sex spaces. And for female single sex spaces to still be in existance because we have needs for them that extend beyond the 'unisex' cubicle provision.

And we don't need others to be shaming us for focusing on sorting this out, nor using emotional manipulation on us for stating facts and understanding the evidence that supports our needs.

is like the mantra 'transwomen and women'.

should be

transwomen are women

sorry

Oh, she did not. Stop with the drama and the clutching after things to be offended about. FFS!

Whereas a trans man is on average shorter than a man and has no Adam's Apple this also goes for some men.
However:

• trans men have thinner skin in their faces. This is the most obvious difference.
• smaller hands and feet in relation to their heigth.
• they move differently than men. Especially when they walk.
• less marked facial features.
• sound differently.

Also remember that women are, in general, more polite than men so the trans men might just inform any women in the bathrooms that they are trans men as to not alarm anyone. Unlike some people, women usually don't get off on making other people uncomfortable.

I read it during the "Brain Awareness Year" 1995. I don't know how many of those articles are online and am not willing to find the microfiches but here is a newer article.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

Or maybe just read her articles and not give her extra work.

In all fairness it is only the TWAW mumsnetters who have "trans men friends who are 6 foot and muscled up to fuck".

The rest of us have never met one, never seen a photo of one. Funny that.