Trans woman in Riot Women! WTF?

[OneBadKitty]

I usually love anything by Sally Wainwright, but what was she thinking by have a trans-woman in a band called Riot Women that is supposed to be full of menopausal women singing about HRT and other female related issues?

OK, so those of us who think that men who actually rape and assault women are more misogynist than a fictional character in a show, when we are not even sure of the writer's motivation, are trans activists. Even when we consistently refer to 'transwomen ' in the context of the discussion. Failure to agree makes us TRAs who aren't feministing right. I am a lot more scared of those catcalling local men than I am of any transwoman I know. Because hey, nuanced thinking.

I could have worded that more clearly.

The cause of ‘trans’ and attempting to normalise men calling themselves women is irrelevant to this drama.

The writer clearly found it relevant. It’s her decision and your opinion is irrelevant.

Oh, the writer put stuff in that you consider irrelevant. The off switch is >> over there. Why should the writer, or anyone else who isn't trans-fixated give a shiny shit about your opinion?

Your repeated claim that men who rape are far more misogynist than men who don’t rape but are engaging in other anti woman activity is a bit of a false flag. It’s not a race to the bottom.

You do know that men who identify as trans rape and hurt women too? You know that some men, regardless of their identity, indulge in misogyny?

Matey in this drama posed on social media in a t shirt with ‘Fuck terfs’ written on it. That sounds pretty misogynist to me.

You’re a charmer aren’t you.

Being trans isn't anti women activity except in the heads of you and your like.

Don't patronise me about what men do. I am fully aware that transwomen largely conform to male offending patterns. None of that means transwomen are all dangerous and should be reviled at every turn.

Totally agree. Apart from a few posters, this thread is devoid of nuanced thinking. It feels like the kind of conversation you might try to have with a religious fundamentalist or right wing nationalist. Also no acceptance of dialectical thinking: I’m in no way a TRA but am automatically branded as one because I care about the human rights of trans people.

If you are such a nuanced thinker then please do share with us your nuanced thinking around how transwomen may retain their ideas of how their human rights are upheld without degrading the human rights of real women??
How do they both exist whilst retaining fairness and dignity?
Thats all it boils down to

You know, there’s a whole board here on mn for gnawing over the rights and wrongs of trans people existing in the world.

This thread isn’t even an AIBU at all - the OP isn’t in any doubt that it’s completely reasonable to be outraged at the very dangerous consequences of this tv show featuring a trans actor in a minor role within a mixed cast, and set in the queerest town in the whole of the UK.

If you’re one of the people hopping mad and predicting dire things that will destroy womankind as we know it, why not jog on over to the sex and gender board, where you will find plenty of cheerleaders for your viewpoint.

I mean, if you’re that hostile to trans people that you can’t bear to see one on tv without declaring it’s the beginning of the end of all things sacred and womanly, don’t watch a show set in Hebden Bridge.

It's not hostility. It's about the consequences of actions and decisions taken.

My question is this. If people think it's a positive thing for a drama like this to show a man being 'accepted as a woman', what are the limits of that?

Should men be 'accepted as women' in all circumstances? Would that include sports/changing rooms/rape crisis counselling/domestic violence shelters?

If not, at what point do you draw the line? When do you say 'right, for this purpose you aren't a woman, sorry?' Isn't this a very mixed message/ultimately not fair on the individuals involved?

Obviously this show is too smart to tackle this controversy head on, but it can't avoid it on a more theoretic level. How do we 'accept men as women' in some circumstances, but not others? How is this a workable approach?

I’m sure that’s a very deep and fascinating discussion just waiting for you to start it over on the sex and gender board, specially set up and named by MNHQ to provide a place for people (who are of course definitely totally not hostile to trans people) to discuss trans people appearing in public at never ending length.

Would you like me to drop the link so you can find your way back to your friends?

Back in the real world, OP, YAB very U

But it's relevant to this show, so why not discuss it here?

It's not hostility.

Really? “Men in frocks” and “pervert” looks pretty hostile from where I’m sitting.

I didn't say anything like that

It’s not. This series contains a teeny, tiny trans woman role. I’m pretty sure if Sally Wainright intended to start a debate about trans people in our society she’d have put one at the heart of the piece, they’d have been the main protagonist.

Well of course it's relevant. Are you saying we're not supposed to take anything from this in terms of how men identifying as women are viewed by society?

Earlier in the thread, someone said that it was great that this programme showed this character being 'accepted as a woman' by the community.

So if that's a great, positive takeout, then I'm asking that we think through the consequences of that. Is it a good thing if men are accepted as women? What about when that starts to infringe on women's specific needs and experiences? Where do we draw the line?

The line has already been drawn.

Has it? Where?

The Supreme Court was perfectly clear in April.

All we’re saying it’s ok to represent trans people being accepted in their community on tv. It’s part of social reality and is not trying to ‘endorse’ or ‘promote’ anything. The consequences are someone watched a tv show. You don’t have to agree that it’s a great positive takeout, that’s fine. Please remember to pick up your straw man on the way out.

And yet there are so many groups dragging their heels and trying to avoid implementing the Supreme Court judgement.

However leaving that aside, dont you see the contradiction in saying to someone 'yes we accept you as a woman, but not in this circumstance, or this circumstance.' Isn't that just fundamentally very strange and a confusing messsage to send to someone?

But where does that acceptance reach its limits? If we are telling people we should accept men as women in our communities, if that's what they want. How do we then turn around and say, but we're not accepting you in women's sports (for example)?

Life is full of inconsistencies. Long after women gained equal rights there were numerous male only private members’ clubs.