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

Feminism: chat

Conciliatory Conversation On gender

1000 replies

FairAdvocate · 24/04/2025 02:43

Hello!

In the last few months I have been reflecting on the transgender and feminism debate and I feel I've got a few things to share with you on it from a perspective perhaps you wont maybe often hear.

To preface and explain, I am a transgender woman/female and I'm writing here today not to create any kind of argument or discord but because I am here to say that I think there are things that my side of the floor has gotten wrong.

I want to start from a position of saying that I can understand why some of you feel erased or afraid. I dont say that in a patronising way; I say that from a position of being fully periceved as female in society and I often to feel quite vunerable because of that in certain situations just like I imagine many of you do aswell.

I started down this road from hearing about how a 'A woman is person who says they are a woman'. I must admit I never quite got it. It makes no sense but yet, there are many transgender people and allies who say this like it has any kind of meaning. Just like when they also say that 'woman' is defined by a certain set of catagories etc. Its always bothered me and I didnt know why. For me, the more I have medically tranisitioned to female, the more Ive began to understand the word and defintion of female cannot be just removed from the term woman.

Now, I suspect this is where most of you reading this will be in decent agreement of. However I suspect what I say next will cause more issues. I believe myself to be female not just because of my physical aspect having been changed through medical transition (albeit its not a perfect process) but also because I believe my brain structure to have formed female in the sex differences between male and female likely at birth. There are quite numerous studies that do back this up to an okay but emerging degree and I am also aware that there also a few that dont say that exactly but say my brain formed in a kind of third way. Either way, I think it is clear from these studies that my brain developed differently to that of a male and it has manifested itself so I am quite closely alligned with being female.

To me, I feel like this makes a me kind of intersex person but perhaps in a different kind of way than we usually think of the term intersex. Though, through my medical transition obviously estrogen has, at least for me, solidified my mind to that much more towards female.

With this in mind, I find myself looking at the world as a woman but a woman who came with unique challenges and hurdles that are difficult to explain. For example, often I have been accused of saying its wrong that GRS gives me a vagina and have often been shouted at and saying im just sexualising it. However for me, the vagina isnt and wasnt the main source of my distress. The main source of my distress is that I will never have ovaries and will never have children and be a biological mother. I have never been interested in having a child as a male in anyway.

For me, it reminds me that I am not just a straight forward female and many will not accept me. After some deep reflection I think that I have also accepted that I will have to go through hurdles and I will have to remove my male form in such a succfient manner that I can be accepted by other women in certain areas. With that in mind I have also come to accept that self indentifcation shouldnlt be accepted. That tears at me because I wish I lived in that ideal world. But, as a woman who is only attracted to men, I understand frankly just how dangerous some of them can be. But ive come to the conclusion that if we keep pushing for this we are only making it harder for everyone and it will only lead to further division, more toxicity and we will just tear oursevles apart.

I do look at my rights from five years ago and I look at them now and see how they have reduced from prisons putting people such as as me in mens prisions, to the recent SC ruling, sports associations banning us. I do truly think that most women do and have historically accepted women like me but I also understand that came with agreements and understandings. Understandings which I think have been overstepped in the last ten years.

While I dont and will never accept calling me a man; I can understand why some of you that are reading this may have gotten fed up and stopped caring. I suppose what I am really trying to say is, can we all start again? If I can accept that women (including myself) need protections in some areas and I can accept the need for medicalising, the dropping of self identification, the need for due process in changing your sex legally can you accept that Im not a man? Can you accept that calling me certain things and the misgendering, using terms such as Trans identified Male is actually causing more harm than it is good?

Can we not as women actually just get our heads together and work out a decent solution? I do believe we might remain with some differences. For example I do believe a woman is a person who was born with a female gender identity by which I mean the overall average structure of the brain and therefore mind. And I do understand you will use a defintion to be defined by your anatomy. But I do believe that actually both of these can be true. While I cant be 100 percent true to your defintion I have tried to be because of where my defintion has led me and I understand how difficult that may be for someone who has all the correct anatomy to understand. But I have tried to understand how you feel so I am trying to ask for the same.

Finally, thank you for reading my long message. I am very nervous to be leaving it. Please can I ask you from refraining to calling me names and refering to me as a man, this is a request and not a demand. I have very much put myself out there with this and I hope that what is reflected back to me is the same spirit in which I wrote this.

Thank you

P.s I hovered over the 'Post' button for about five minutes before clicking it.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
Lolapusht · 24/04/2025 20:21

From the few posts you have written OP (and I’ve had the patience to read), you come across as arrogant and very entitled.

You came here to have a “non-toxic debate” and when someone says “I don’t think of you as a woman and never will” or “…you can believe in GI if you want to, not everyone does” you’ve basically implied they’re toxic and arguing in bad faith. You shut down people’s views and quote misogynistic, claptrap as scientific fact. You’re stomping all over this thread patronisingly telling people why they’re wrong.

You stated that you feel you are very self-aware. Great. Now use that awareness to fix your problems. It’s not up to us to make you feel good about yourself. We can’t. Only you can fix yourself. You are not a straight woman. You are a gay man (probably). Whatever experiences you’ve undergone that make you unwilling to accept that, I know not. I do know that you can have as much surgery, take as many hormones and wear whatever you want but you will never be a woman. It’s ok to be a gender non-conforming man. It’s ok not to be a masculine man or to be a man who likes wearing women’s clothes.

If society accepts you as a woman then all men who say they are women will get access to SSS and that is not acceptable. Do you realise that if the law stated sex = gender then TIFs would be ineligible to maternity benefit should they decide to have a child (as many of them do, in spite of their crippling dysphoria and the unknown effect of T on foetuses).

I started reading your thread hoping for sensible engagement but found self-indulgent lecturing and I’m done with it. It isn’t always about you. You are not the only one that matters here. I genuinely wish you no harm or ill will, but you clearly have many unresolved issues that you are masking by catastrophising around the SC judgement. What are you frightened of? You haven’t lost any rights so you’re no worse off than you were before the judgement. If you want to participate in sport events, compete with the other men who have benefitted from a male puberty. Don’t commit a crime and you won’t have to go to a men’s prison. Stop obsessing about all the things that might happen and just lead your life without imposing it on others.

Female brain <pfft🙄>

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:22

It’s not just about whether they are physically violent or not, it’s about whether you experience their behaviour as abusive.

BabyOrca · 24/04/2025 20:24

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:15

I’m almost loathed to type this, but I’ll wait for the inevitable accusation of being simple/misogynist/something else.

It isn’t anyone’s job to support someone who has abused them. But that analogy ends for me when we work on the basis that we don’t support all people who happen to share a biological sex with someone who has.

I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to refuse to support trans women because of male violence, unless they specifically are the ones doing it.

Do I want rapists in my space? Obviously not.

Does that mean I assume all males have the intention of harming me? Still no.

In extension, does that mean that all trans women, who were born male, have the intention of harming me? More no.

I can see, for example, that some TRAs have threatened violence. That doesn’t mean in my view that all trans people are categorised with them and shouldn’t have support.

Some women do things I don’t agree with. Doesn’t mean I think all women are anything.

If we’re not all a hive mind with the exact same behaviour, or likelihood of behaviour, neither is anyone else.

I am aware that my approach to it involves assuming the best in people and taking a gamble on being wrong, but I genuinely prefer that to the alternative.

But there are tens of millions of us in this country, and just tens of thousands of them. Some of them is much more meaningful than some of us

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:27

BabyOrca · 24/04/2025 20:24

But there are tens of millions of us in this country, and just tens of thousands of them. Some of them is much more meaningful than some of us

I’m afraid I’ve got absolutely no idea what you mean.

Furtivenasturtium · 24/04/2025 20:28

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 18:44

Fair enough, that might be where we differ in opinion then. If a brain can be affected by society and cultural patterns, it can be gendered.

It can’t be sex based fact if it can be affected by gender stereotypes etc.

You can’t gender a uterus into someone, but you can gender a brain.

Nobody here, as far as I'm aware, has any issue with anyone identifying with any gender. The issue is with claiming that gender = sex.

NumberTheory · 24/04/2025 20:30

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 19:43

I’m not anyone’s mum, doesn’t mean I can’t be supportive of anyone?

It’s really not my job to care about anyone, but it’s also not difficult.

Women can support people outside of their biology, I assume.

Women can support people outside their biology and, thanks to female socialisation, we tend to do that quite a lot. But that doesn’t mean there is an obligation on us to engage in any particular campaign for other people.

My plate is full enough and when I did used to campaign for trans rights the discourse was frequently pretty nasty and insulting to women, steeped in gender stereotypes and demanding that we abandon our own sense of self to validate theirs. It’s really not women’s job to immerse themselves in that because you or anyone else wants them to.

Why should I spend time on the thing you think is important for me to do rather than the things I think are important for me to do? I work mainly on women’s rights and food security. I’m not going to campaign against trans people agitating for other provision, but I’m not joining in anymore.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:31

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:15

I’m almost loathed to type this, but I’ll wait for the inevitable accusation of being simple/misogynist/something else.

It isn’t anyone’s job to support someone who has abused them. But that analogy ends for me when we work on the basis that we don’t support all people who happen to share a biological sex with someone who has.

I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to refuse to support trans women because of male violence, unless they specifically are the ones doing it.

Do I want rapists in my space? Obviously not.

Does that mean I assume all males have the intention of harming me? Still no.

In extension, does that mean that all trans women, who were born male, have the intention of harming me? More no.

I can see, for example, that some TRAs have threatened violence. That doesn’t mean in my view that all trans people are categorised with them and shouldn’t have support.

Some women do things I don’t agree with. Doesn’t mean I think all women are anything.

If we’re not all a hive mind with the exact same behaviour, or likelihood of behaviour, neither is anyone else.

I am aware that my approach to it involves assuming the best in people and taking a gamble on being wrong, but I genuinely prefer that to the alternative.

But what does "support trans women" mean?

I think most of us "support trans women" in the JK Rowling "live your best life" sense.

Just not at our own expense.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:31

Furtivenasturtium · 24/04/2025 20:28

Nobody here, as far as I'm aware, has any issue with anyone identifying with any gender. The issue is with claiming that gender = sex.

Gender doesn’t equal sex.

I, as others have pointed out, am not GC in anyway shape or form. I’m still aware you can’t argue with science. Biology is biology.

Where the difference is for me is whether gender (rather than sex) is enough to allow access to women’s spaces, without reverting to sex to make that decision.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:32

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:31

Gender doesn’t equal sex.

I, as others have pointed out, am not GC in anyway shape or form. I’m still aware you can’t argue with science. Biology is biology.

Where the difference is for me is whether gender (rather than sex) is enough to allow access to women’s spaces, without reverting to sex to make that decision.

Gender isn't definable, and there are infinite numbers of gender identities.

I don't see how we can organise society according to something so nebulous.

commonsense61 · 24/04/2025 20:33

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:33

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:31

But what does "support trans women" mean?

I think most of us "support trans women" in the JK Rowling "live your best life" sense.

Just not at our own expense.

I mean this with all of the humour that you’re able to take from it.

Please don’t JK Rowling me, she’s a touchy subject. Card carrying HP fan, riddled with disappointment here!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:37

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:33

I mean this with all of the humour that you’re able to take from it.

Please don’t JK Rowling me, she’s a touchy subject. Card carrying HP fan, riddled with disappointment here!

Genuinely, why?

Have you read her essay on this topic?

She's always been very clear that she supports trans people's right to live their lives in safety and dignity, free from discrimination. Just not at women's expense.

She has been instrumental in getting women the justice they deserve.

Without her influence and financial backing, the For Women Scotland case may not have made it to the Supreme Court.

And yet, she isn't responsible for the outcome. The Supreme Court decided all on its own that women have the right to exist in law and to have some single sex spaces and sports.

Without JK Rowling we may well still be living in (legally incorrect) "women don't have the right to exist" territory.

She could have just sat back and enjoyed her fabulous wealth and been adored forever. She could have done a Margaret Atwood and sacrificed her integrity for popularity. But she spoke out because she knew she never had to work again, that it didn't matter if she got cancelled, that she could protect herself from the fallout when so many ordinary women just couldn't risk it.

She has really taken one for the team here and women everywhere should be grateful to her.

BabyOrca · 24/04/2025 20:40

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:27

I’m afraid I’ve got absolutely no idea what you mean.

Some women might do bad things but that's just some out of tens of millions. When the group you're looking at is much smaller, "some" of them showing violence is actually a pretty high proportion.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:44

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:37

Genuinely, why?

Have you read her essay on this topic?

She's always been very clear that she supports trans people's right to live their lives in safety and dignity, free from discrimination. Just not at women's expense.

She has been instrumental in getting women the justice they deserve.

Without her influence and financial backing, the For Women Scotland case may not have made it to the Supreme Court.

And yet, she isn't responsible for the outcome. The Supreme Court decided all on its own that women have the right to exist in law and to have some single sex spaces and sports.

Without JK Rowling we may well still be living in (legally incorrect) "women don't have the right to exist" territory.

She could have just sat back and enjoyed her fabulous wealth and been adored forever. She could have done a Margaret Atwood and sacrificed her integrity for popularity. But she spoke out because she knew she never had to work again, that it didn't matter if she got cancelled, that she could protect herself from the fallout when so many ordinary women just couldn't risk it.

She has really taken one for the team here and women everywhere should be grateful to her.

I’ll answer genuinely.

I don’t share your views on the debate full stop, so haven’t had the same admiration for her commitment to it.

I followed her on X, because HP, and for the last few years it has just been littered with a rhetoric that I don’t agree with personally. I should have unfollowed her by now but for whatever reason, haven’t.

I find the ongoing debate she has with India Willoughby genuinely pathetic. On all sides.

I also don’t believe she’s a woman of the “people” when she’s celebrating on a super yacht (apparently, I don’t know her whereabouts). It’s not envy, I’m just not represented by an actual billionaire.

I think funding a legal cause gives less legitimacy to it. It’s not a “fair fight” when you’re backed by said billionaire.

I also think the way she speaks to people who spent their money on her art, for years, is disgusting. They were her achievements, from her talents, but don’t speak to the people who paid for them like shit.

Rant over 😂

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:49

It’s absolutely a fair fight when your opponent is the Scottish Government. She didn’t bankroll the whole case, FWS collected hundreds of individual donations. Rant about it all you like, but get your facts straight.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:50

Also, it’s a small point, but she isn’t an actual billionaire because she’s given so much money to charity. She’s always been generous to causes she supports.

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 20:51

Umm…. The trans lobby were supported by the Scottish government, the police, the nhs, the English government, the civil service, stonewall, many many employers. Women had JKR and their own money. So no, it wasn’t a fair fight, but not in the way you mean.

SleepyDormouse59 · 24/04/2025 20:51

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 19:40

So if women are supporting trans people, who was and is supporting women? It’s not transpeople, it’s not men. So who? Why is it women’s job to support transpeople? Where is our support? We’re not their mums. Not our job. We have enough to do supporting women.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was going to say

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:54

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:49

It’s absolutely a fair fight when your opponent is the Scottish Government. She didn’t bankroll the whole case, FWS collected hundreds of individual donations. Rant about it all you like, but get your facts straight.

Winning without that input would have evidently been more impactful, or at best would have been actual grassroots. There’s nothing grassroots about JKR, she’s not even in the same field.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:54

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:44

I’ll answer genuinely.

I don’t share your views on the debate full stop, so haven’t had the same admiration for her commitment to it.

I followed her on X, because HP, and for the last few years it has just been littered with a rhetoric that I don’t agree with personally. I should have unfollowed her by now but for whatever reason, haven’t.

I find the ongoing debate she has with India Willoughby genuinely pathetic. On all sides.

I also don’t believe she’s a woman of the “people” when she’s celebrating on a super yacht (apparently, I don’t know her whereabouts). It’s not envy, I’m just not represented by an actual billionaire.

I think funding a legal cause gives less legitimacy to it. It’s not a “fair fight” when you’re backed by said billionaire.

I also think the way she speaks to people who spent their money on her art, for years, is disgusting. They were her achievements, from her talents, but don’t speak to the people who paid for them like shit.

Rant over 😂

Okay...

I agree that she should stop engaging with India Willoughby because that vile individual is just completely beneath her. I doubt whether many people would remember who India was if it weren't for JK Rowling actually.

I don't think she's ever claimed to be a "woman of the people". She's a billionaire and she's earned the right to enjoy it. More than earned it, when you consider how much she's given away to charity.

The For Women Scotland case was a victory for David over Goliath. JK Rowling donated £70000 and the other £350000 or so was made up of mostly small donations from ordinary people. Trans people's interests were represented by the taxpayer funded Scottish government, and Amnesty International, who have very deep pockets indeed. I mean, it was hardly a fair fight, was it? Without JK Rowling's contribution those women may not have got all the way to the Supreme Court, which would have been a miscarriage of justice resulting from the huge financial imbalance between the two parties.

So I find that criticism quite odd, really.

Like I say, she wasn't responsible for the result. The law is on the women's side, but without her financial backing they might never have been able to clarify the law for the benefit of all women.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:55

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:54

Winning without that input would have evidently been more impactful, or at best would have been actual grassroots. There’s nothing grassroots about JKR, she’s not even in the same field.

But they might not have got a fair hearing without that input.

Frankly I think it's fucking disgraceful that Scottish women's taxes were used to fight against their equal rights.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:56

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 20:51

Umm…. The trans lobby were supported by the Scottish government, the police, the nhs, the English government, the civil service, stonewall, many many employers. Women had JKR and their own money. So no, it wasn’t a fair fight, but not in the way you mean.

Women work for and make up some of those establishments.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:56

JKR obviously isn’t grassroots, but the FWS campaign which started in 2018 doesn’t stop being grassroots because JKR was moved to make a large donation.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:57

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:56

Women work for and make up some of those establishments.

You could say that of just about any employer.

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 20:57

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:54

Winning without that input would have evidently been more impactful, or at best would have been actual grassroots. There’s nothing grassroots about JKR, she’s not even in the same field.

So losing with all the input the trans lobby had would definitely make it more impactful then. I mean, thru had the establishment behind them and still didn’t produce a compelling case, almost like… they had no coherent case. I mean though, it takes some balls to argue women don’t deserve single sex rights but they took that fight on and gave it their best shot.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread