AIBU to suggest it is time to stop the pretence that people can transition?

[happydappy2]

I really feel gender ideology is a cult, that has totally warped some peoples minds. It brings so many problems to society I’m not sure it’s sustainable. It damages the health of young people, shortens their lives and often rips families apart. At what point do we say no, this is not healthy, it’s incredibly antisocial to expect everyone else to pretend you are the opposite sex when they can see you aren’t….for the good of society let’s stop this madness. Gender dysphoria exists yes but I don’t think we’re treating it in the best way. We don’t affirm that an anorexic patient is indeed too fat so why do we affirm people who think they are the opposite sex?

Well the penis and testicles are removed

There's a delightful.documentary on one of the streaming services at the moment called The Eunuch Maker.

It's about a man who advertised himself as being able to remove the penis and testicles of men who hated them for a price. All streamed on the Internet. It's horrific tbh.

Every single one of those men is still a man - even those who underwent complete castration and total penectomy. They are referred to as men throughout the documentary. Nothing about the procedures resulted in any of those men becoming women. And that fact is not even questioned or raised once during the documentary.

So, no, having penis and testivles removed does not make a man a woman. And a boy without a winkle.is NOT a girl.

I agree that people should not feel pressure or incentivised to have surgery

I agree. The narrative that somehow one sub-group of male people who have had surgery have earned their right to be in female single sex spaces is inherently harmful.

It is repeated over and over again. The messaging must get picked up and influence some people. And it is fundamentally wrong.

No male people, no matter what they do, has done enough to be a woman. Brutal surgery does not earn them the right to use female single sex spaces. And yet people declare that the poor male person has finally done enough to need to be in female spaces. It seems to be out of pity, or out of ignorance of the fact they are still able to harm female people, or it is to comfort the person’s own needs to be kind or inclusive, whatever.

When really, there is no kindness there at all. It is unkind (horrific) to set such standards for the person. And it is still unkind to the many female people who need a space without that man in it, regardless of gender identity. Plus the added kicker, there is no kindness either in emotionally manipulating others to accept this man in female single sex spaces.

This is what I wonder. Does the commitment to the cause change anything? Or are they a trans woman entitled to their own rights but not at the expense of women’s rights? Does not having a penis and therefore the ability to rape make them safer for women to be around?

It’s funny as surely the whole basis of being trans is that your body does not dictate what gender you are (although of course by definition your sex is material reality – and this is again the entire basis for identifying as trans rather than cis).

To answer your questions.

"Does the commitment to the cause change anything?"

No. How would this work? Perhaps it helps to think about what other protected category causes there are and if someone who is not of that protected category wants to gain access to it, would that be acceptable. I cannot think of any. So why should this philosophical belief be treated differently.

"Or are they a trans woman entitled to their own rights but not at the expense of women’s rights?"

There is a discussion to be had about this point. They certainly need protection from being discriminated against where they are illegitimately discriminated against. Legitimate discrimination is, of course, exclusion where women's and girl's sex based rights should be prioritised.

"Does not having a penis and therefore the ability to rape make them safer for women to be around?"

No. It only makes them not able to sexually assault someone with their penis.

There are many ways to harm female people with male people being in female single sex spaces. Not just rape. When you consider that male people retain their strength and advantages, it reminds us that they are still male, just like all other male people - just male without penises.

But ultimately, penis or no penis, male people cause harm by entering female single sex spaces, through safety issues or privacy issues.

indeed.

Of course, the notion that you can change sex is nonsense.

A lot of this is rooted in misogyny, and the idea that women are somehow lesser than men - sissy porn, the idea that men can know what it’s like to be a woman just by a feeling (cause it’s not that complicated, right?), the idea that man is the default so “not manly enough” equals woman rather than another variant of man, the incandescent anger that we could dare say no to them about anything, the enforced gender stereotypes of dresses, nurturing, pink, softness, frivolity, make up, crying, bloody “kindness” being for women only (so authority, power and control are reserved for men) and if a man adopts these other traits he’s really a woman, but somehow a better woman than an actual biological one, (with their messy, smelly, awkward biology) - eg Dylan Mulvaney and his sudden shoot to fame (he met the president for no apparent reason other than his fetish!) - all the “brave” men taking women’s spots in “woman of the year” magazine polls etc. while manipulating their male advantage and simpering that they’re just “one of the girls”.

It’s like Germaine Greer said, we have no idea how much some men hate us.

Having worked in higher education for many years in an area with a disproportionate number of students with autism, I have encountered increasing numbers of trans men and women in the past ten years, in all instances, there were mental health issues. A majority had surgery. Mental health issues persisted. No perceptible increase in happiness. These are vulnerable young people I have supported through, amongst other things, estrangement from their families, name changes witnessed by friends rather than family members, suspension of studies, accommodation reallocations due to post-surgery needs. I am nothing but kind and helpful, but I have my views on trans issues which, certainly, up until now I have not expressed except to similarly minded post-menopausal mothers in the office (ie colleagues who have lots of experience in being a woman), as we would be labelled trans phobic and not given the opportunity to express our views in a civilised discussion. I don’t feel threatened by this group of young people, but I do feel for them and the lie they’ve effectively been sold as the answer to their problems.

This is what I wonder. Does the commitment to the cause change anything?

No

Or are they a trans woman entitled to their own rights but not at the expense of women’s rights?

Yes

Does not having a penis and therefore the ability to rape make them safer for women to be around?

Not necessarily.

But it was the trans agenda which moved us all away from talking about single sex spaces to safe spaces to obscure the issue.

No space can be guaranteed 'safe'. As people like to repeat - if a man wants to rape a woman in a public loo, the picture on the door isn't going to stop him walking in.

Improved safety is one aspect but single sex spaces offer more than just safety from being raped!

Take this example.

A woman attends a lesbian social group in a local pub. Its a smallish group of around 15 or so but there's a wide range of women there. They're not interested in dating - that's not why they're there - it's just an opportunity to get together with other lesbians because, in the rest of their lives (work, family, friendship groups), many of the people they know are straight. These women range between early 20s to mid 60s. Some women are very feminine presenting others are quite butch. But all women.

Over the weeks, polite chat gives way to sharing dating experiences and occasionally they have a laugh about sex. Some will share sensitive personal information, childhood experiences etc. Others will talk about men's attitudes towards them (Inc "But how are you gay? You're so pretty!", sexualised remarks and problems at work because they work in an all male environment but the men have nothing to gain by being nice to them. So they're not).

Sometimes they discuss the general female experience - what a pain periods are, how period pants are a game changer, how they're so glad they've left all that beind them now they're in their 60s! Sometimes, they discuss films and TV programmes, books, what they cooked for dinner last night. Politics, music and how annoying their colleagues are etc. Just life stuff.

All in all, it's a great supportive environment where friendships are made. Some of the women meet up outside of the group.

And then, one day, a TW joins.

Some of the other women aren't happy about it but the organiser says they need to be inclusive. Some of them don't really care - BeKind, right?

So, they try, but it completely changes the dynamic of the group. Talk of dating and light hearted chats about sex are now off the table because this TW is far too interested and asks too many questions that feel intrusive. He also overshares about his own lesbian sex experiences that no one really believes but can't challenge. Some of his comments are sexualised and personalised towards individual members. He clearly fancies a couple of the younger, lesbians and tries to manoeuvre them away from the group to chat one on one. They don't like this and look towards the other women to bring them back into the group. This man is in his 50s and a fairly recent tranitioner. He's well practised at this behaviour and the (invariably) young women aren't and they don't quite know how to handle it without being perceived as being rude. So they stop going.

Some of the older women have had a lifetime of watching men behave like this and can't be arsed dealing with that shit anymore - esoecially not in a women's group. They know the organiser is in a difficult place - she now no longer wants him there, but he says he's a woman and TWAW and all that so her hands are tied. The older women start to meet up on their own and move on from the group.

The remaining women find they can no longer talk about the female experience because this TW always wants to share his own and he's not really interested in their boring actual female experiences and periods have always grossed him out a bit so he'd rather talk about how he's done his hair, his new make up, how well everyone tells him he passes and this lovely new dress he bought which accentuates his fake breasts.

He asks for reassurance that they look real and even invites the other women to touch them so they can also experience how real they feel. He really likes the fact that some lesbians are touching his breasts and being so accepting and it gives him an erection which is visible through his dress.

Slowly, over the weeks, the group dwindles and eventually the only people who are left are the organiser, the TW and a couple of women who always go. The women feel uncomfortable talking now. The TW doesn't seem to notice or care and always manages to dominate the conversation and turn it to himself, finding women sexually attractive or performative femininity. Because those are the only experiences of both being a 'lesbian' and womanhood he has and it's all he's really interested in.

A few weeks later, the group folds.

No one has been raped but a single man has managed to destroy a whole group intended to be for women simply by being male.

Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario but one very much based upon my experiences of men and the experience of my best friend who joined a lesbian social group that folded. The decent 'just want to get on with their lives' TW probably wouldn't do this and they're not the ones who have caused the issue but they are also still not women.

Once you've said yes to some men in women's spaces it would be discriminatory to exclude other men on the basis that they're not wearing a dress, still have a penis, still call themselves, John.

Since the ruling last week, the organiser would be able to say, "Sorry, this is a women's group. You can't join." The group continues happily for many years.

And the TW? Well he starts a group for TW, which is very well attended. They also meet weekly in a local pub, are welcomed by the regulars and not one single person has spontaneously combusted into 'non existence'.

"the lie they’ve effectively been sold as the answer to their problems."

I am horrified by what they have been led to believe.

And when you consider who the driving force behind medicalising children and young people is, it is deeply concerning. It seems to have always been male people who have been behind the drive to medicalise children or young people.

You have to look at who benefits also. I am sure that there are some other obvious ones, but to me some of the most obvious is validation of the decisions made by those mature male people about their life.

It’s a huge scandal. The lies to children by adults on this.

In schools and institutions. I hope people are made accountable. Although there’s probably too many to do so.

for me, no. for others - I think so yes, it’s a really huge deal for them.

I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. That we should not tell people exactly "what a man is" or "what a woman is". That all of these are human traits and are on a continuum.

This is funny, because whenever a women tries to speak in support of trans people on MN, they’re invariably abused.

Can you give us an example of this happening?

You think a man chopping his dick off makes him not only no longer a man - but a woman?
Why?

When reading your post I assumed you meant feminine and masculine, not female and male. I didn't query it at the time, but is that right?

It's very weird that everyone's gone back to the 1950s and before, when it was widely accepted that 'gendered' qualities belonged entirely and exclusively to the respective sexes. It obfuscates & confuses the topic.

But yes of course you can have traits on a continuum. Because being kind or being violent isn’t male isn’t actually what determines if you are female or male.

Literally only biology defines that. Yes women are likely to be kinder because our biology says we aren’t pumped full of testosterone but hormones are the result of personal biology not a definition in themselves ( so men can’t lower testosterone and become women).

A male solider that steps on a land mine and loses all his tackle is still a man.

With the entire post
Which ironically was much more instructive about how I should respond to pronoun requests, what's right or wrong, etc than most people who change their pronouns. Disagreeing is allowed

Sure you can disagree.

But you are disagreeing to comply with someone’s philosophical belief which is fine. And others have every right to reject.

what you and others don’t have the right to do is to shame anyone who chooses differently. So crack on using someone’s demanded pronouns knowing it is collectively being used fo harm others and that it is only your personal choice.

It was you who was taking the aggressive, insistant approach. Even now using the phrase "demanded pronouns", although you're being demanding
I have made it clear that I would try to respect anyone's pronoun preferences, but would not accept being derided if I forgot
Your approach is less pragmatic

Point out where I have tried to shame anyone.
All I have done is point out the hypocrisy of your manner

If there is any pushback on not using pronouns, then it can be said that those pronouns are demanded. Because they are a coerced change in language usage. Just because they might be requested nicely by some, the fear of negative repercussions makes them coerced.

My approach? You mean, my pointing out how coercion works and my asking why people ignore the meaning of these demanded changes because of the emotional manipulation now attached to those changes? I think I was clear that any person can make the decision to use demanded pronouns or not. It is each person's choice. I merely highlighted aspects of pronoun usage as I see them.

Seems you are taking something personally when my post was a general one.

Or are you talking about my approach being one where I haven't used emotionally comfortable language and therefore I am to be labelled aggressive and insistent?

And a hypocrite too? Is that aimed at me as well?

All this from a post where I discussed a general topic that had been mentioned in the first pages of the thread, yet you have taken it to be somehow targeted at you.

Genuinely, there were no instructions in that post at all. And it was not aimed at any poster.