Trans hate (I don't) and the same old, same old

[RetiringRita]

Well I've been on a few threads this weekend and the one that's been hijacked yet again was the question of trans hate on mumsnet.
The OP asked for opinions on whether that was a fair statement yet within minutes the question was ignored and the same FWR posters were out in force. They didn't want to answer the question so targeted their posts to state their agenda.

Sex as defined by The Surpreme Court ruling
TW perverts in women's prisons
TW perverts in female loos
Men in dresses
FTM having ASD or mental illness.

It appears those of us who sit on the fence are not entitled to be there. Those who cannot be bullied get shouted down.

I have been called the following :

Hand Maiden
Trans Ally
Not part of the sisterhood
Delusional
Captured
Shameful
Mentally ill
A liar (frequently)
A man

None apply to me.

Am I being unreasonable to ask for some understanding and compassion for trans people who don't fit the stereotypes listed?

OP on what grounds do you think this group of men should get access to women's spaces that other men are kept out of?

Just don’t come to MN then. If you want a balanced chat on Trans issues you have the real world to go to.

For the purposes of the EA sex has always been biological. The SC merely clarified the law as it already was, a move which would never even have been necessary had Stonewall et all not completely misappropriated it and contorted it to their own ends. To those women who have campaigned against this unjust state of affairs, many of whom have lost their careers and livelihoods not to mention their spaces and freedom to attend female-only rape crisis groups (not centres to the exclusion of all trans women, simply one group was too much to ask for) then yes, this marks a particularly important turning point and this was rightfully acknowledged. That you interpret that as 'gloating' only speaks of your contempt for women and the cost and sacrifices they have endured.

Relating to the comment on parents, there's a noteable correlation between transition and vulnerable young people, particularly autistic girls. The Cass report has been into this in some detail, showing why medical transition putting them on an irreversible pathway to future health problems isn't necessarily the best way of alleviating these children's distress.

Your comments about 'passing' and physical appearance are also interesting in this context. No, this is not the same thing as 'body shaming' (incidentally usually levelled at women) - it's the way in which women can differentiate between the sexes in a way that's hard-wired into us from the earliest days of our species. Identifying a man - the demographic well statistically proven to be a threat to us and who overwhelmingly pose a risk of rape or murder - has been essential to our survival. This is not a superficial comment on what people look like. It's about identifying those who are a threat to us - about naming men and women because without those definitions, it's impossible to legislate for their protection. This a far more serious and different issue entirely.

And this is your definition of 'hate?'

All the polling suggests that the 'real world' thinks along the same lines as Mumsnet

I’ll never ever laugh at someone’s appearance, I am polite and courteous to people I meet - well I try to be anyway. I just don’t believe or agree that you can change sex. If I saw a male person in a female space I would politely ask them to leave. That’s it. I’m not erasing anyone, I’m not stopping them calling themselves a female name etc
To me it’s like religion. I believe there is a god. Other people think there is no such thing. I don’t demand or even ask politely that they agree with me that there is a god. I respect their view is different to mine. Don’t mock me for believing in God and I wouldn’t expect you to join in prayers with me etc. I won’t mock you if you are trans but you won’t get me to agree that you are in fact the opposite sex to the one you actually are.

And this is your definition of 'hate?'

Meanwhile the TRAs hold up signs that say 'decaptitate TERFs' and 'death to the witch'.

But that's not an issue it seems

Exactly. It's completely indefensible, yet conveniently overlooked by all the ploppers who regularly infest this site for the pleasure and vicarious thrill of telling women off. And I do believe that is precisely the motivation.

'But women, ye shall Be Kind!'

No, thank you.

Words are words:

You don’t have to agree that trans women are the same as you. Of course they are not.

However, if you refuse to allow trans people to be the thing that makes them trans in all aspects of public life then yes you are erasing trans people from public life.

if you refuse to allow trans people to be the thing that makes them trans in all aspects of public life

What does this mean?

What things?

Read the thread

I've read it. I don't know what you mean. Can you explain?

The person you met is bothered about unfairness in sport but is 'completely unconcerned' about the harms to vulnerable women in prison and rape crisis centres (to name just two examples)?

That's...a really bizarre take, tbh.

Sigh.

if you insist that trans people must be treated according to their birth sex in all aspects of public life where men and women are treated differently , then you are erasing the very thing that makes a trans person trans from public life.

What makes them trans? I worked with a Transwoman. He detransitioned after 2 years. Is he trans or a man?

I'm always thoroughly shocked when I hear things like this.

Presumably these people think they're nice and kind, progressive and so on. Yet they don't share a thought for these women.

Please do list the 'things' that make them trans and let us know what it is that we can and cannot refuse.

Please clarify your statement so that we understand your position with some precision instead of the ambiguity that seems to surround positions such as this one you have expressed.

I’m not going to comment on your colleagues identity as it’s third hand info .
A trans woman is a woman who was registered male at birth:

So, what 'aspects' can male people be excluded from because they are male that will not 'erase' these people?

I treat men and women differently where their birth sex is relevant. Like access to womens spaces.

Why would I do anything differently?

Do you mean those situations? Or situations where their birth sex is not relevant, like if I meet them socially? Serve them in a shop?

do I need to repeat it: it’s perfectly clear.

I read some of the other posts ((with some horror) and did wonder what if the 'bearded man in the women's toilets' is actually a f to m trans person who is using the correct toilets?

I'd by far prefer unisex self contained cubicles, and no witch (wizard?) hunt.

You don't need to repeat it.

You need to clarify a statement that makes generalised claims that lack any precision and any useful information.

In fact, I suggest that you don't repeat it at all. Just answer with a list so that we understand your position.

In some specific circumstances if it is proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim there may be circumstances were facilities/ services are exclusively reserved for women registered female at birth; or disabled women, or black women, or any other category of women,

...TW perverts in women's prisons
TW perverts in female loos...
If you look at how these men who say they are women behave online (the most vile sexual threats and acts), at protests (piss protests! Physically attacking women!), when they are interviewed (I stole my sisters underwear), how they act towards women and children - then you can see what they are.
Thanks OP for bringing this subject to AIBU.

So if you tell a biological man that he can compete in sport with the men, but not the women, when sport is sex segregated, he is 'erased'?

What happens then? What does this erasure look like?