Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:57

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:56

Women work for and make up some of those establishments.

So?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:58

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 20:57

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.

Exactly this.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 24/04/2025 20:58

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 20:55

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.

Damn fucking right!

everyone soneone starts with “jkr something something billionaire who was representing trans ppl eh?? EH??”

I don’t know how to engage because how can someone genuinely not get that FWS were opposing the actual Scottish government!!! As if the Scottish government doesn’t have access to more money & resources than JKR however wealthy she is

BaseDrops · 24/04/2025 20:58

Did I miss the conciliatory statements covering abuse, threats, enforced mixed sex changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, shelters, intimidatory behaviour and violence at women’s meetings? Women forced out of jobs for not chanting the desired mantras?

Is this the new phase of trans activism and propaganda - let’s talk about it?

There is nothing to talk about. Women are not conceding their sex based rights. We didn’t agree when it was almost impossible to disagree why would anyone believe that women could be talked into it now?

Women do not owe trans people emotional labour. Women are not on demand human shields, support humans or gender affirming props. If you want to campaign for something to change crack on and do it.

Endless justification, quoting of studies, feelings it all comes down to this.

Women - will you agree to let some men who want to in anything that is specified as single female sex?

No.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:59

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:57

So?

So, as ever.

She wasn’t supporting women (which the post I replied to said). Because that would imply that the women who make up those establishments aren’t women because they were on the ‘wrong side.’

She heavily supported a specific group of women.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 20:59

I’m sure if you did a poll of all women who are employed by the Scottish government it would come out along the usual lines, that women don’t want intact males in female spaces.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 21:00

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:59

So, as ever.

She wasn’t supporting women (which the post I replied to said). Because that would imply that the women who make up those establishments aren’t women because they were on the ‘wrong side.’

She heavily supported a specific group of women.

Yes @SleeplessInWhereverthe majority of women.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 21:01

I’m sorry that it offends you so much when women say they are campaigning for women’s rights.

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 21:01

Ooh and transmen. Don’t forget they benefit massively from this ruling.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 21:02

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 20:59

So, as ever.

She wasn’t supporting women (which the post I replied to said). Because that would imply that the women who make up those establishments aren’t women because they were on the ‘wrong side.’

She heavily supported a specific group of women.

She supported all women. Women's right to exist as a category in law, and to have sex based rights. That benefits all women, even the ungrateful uneducated ones currently whining "but what about trans people".

Ordinary women who work for the Scottish government or anywhere else in the public sector aren't responsible for their employers' trans activism. The idea that they must support it if they continue to work there is bonkers.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:02

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 20:57

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.

If they didn’t have a coherent case, which you’re right - the outcome would suggest, then nobody needed her money, because by that logic it didn’t help.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 21:03

We’re back to women not consenting to other women opening up our spaces to men. It doesn’t actually affect your rights that males can’t use women’s spaces. It does affect mine if they can.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 21:03

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:02

If they didn’t have a coherent case, which you’re right - the outcome would suggest, then nobody needed her money, because by that logic it didn’t help.

You need a lot of money to get your case heard in the Supreme Court.

You can have the most watertight case in the world, fat lot of good it will do you if you can't get it heard by a judge.

And it cost FWS a lot more money than it should have done, because Lady Haldane got it wrong.

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 21:05

umm… you still have to pay solicitors etc…. Or do you think they work for free? Why are you so upset women now have their rights confirmed? I feel sorry for all the Scottish people having to foot the bill cos some men refused to take no for an answer. If I was Scottish I’d be so so angry, think of what that money could have been used for.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:05

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 21:03

You need a lot of money to get your case heard in the Supreme Court.

You can have the most watertight case in the world, fat lot of good it will do you if you can't get it heard by a judge.

And it cost FWS a lot more money than it should have done, because Lady Haldane got it wrong.

Edited

I’m sure it is expensive, yes.

Personally, I wouldn’t have taken it to begin with. But I would also assume that the ‘majority’ of women would be able to fund it, without help, at actual grassroots level.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 21:05

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:02

If they didn’t have a coherent case, which you’re right - the outcome would suggest, then nobody needed her money, because by that logic it didn’t help.

This nonsense went a long way before finally the buck stopped with the Supreme Court. How much do you imagine all those hearings cost?

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:06

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 21:05

This nonsense went a long way before finally the buck stopped with the Supreme Court. How much do you imagine all those hearings cost?

Too much, I’d imagine.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/04/2025 21:07

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:06

Too much, I’d imagine.

No argument there. It should never have gone this far.

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 21:09

Well to be fair, indirectly Scottish women also funded the trans lobby side. Through their taxes. That could have been spent on stuff like schools, healthcare, social care, after school clubs, early years childcare provision etc. But the government decided women should just roll over and concede their rights. No one asked women if we wanted to give up single sex spaces did they?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 21:11

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:05

I’m sure it is expensive, yes.

Personally, I wouldn’t have taken it to begin with. But I would also assume that the ‘majority’ of women would be able to fund it, without help, at actual grassroots level.

It's a bit odd that you seem to be imposing different moral standards on the women here.

Why should the already massively disadvantaged side only accept small donations from "ordinary" people and refuse one from an uber rich celebrity when the other side is literally being bankrolled by the Scottish taxpayer?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 21:13

Also worth noting that the Scottish government probably paid a lot less for its legal representation than FWS did.

Annoyedone · 24/04/2025 21:13

@MissScarletInTheBallroom i was just thinking that. So women have to fund it themselves and are “cheating” if thry get a big donation, but the trans lobby get the Scottish government and amnesty international etc. I’m not saying I’m spotting an agenda but…l.

Witchymadwoman · 24/04/2025 21:14

FairAdvocate · 24/04/2025 03:26

I think that the ruling sadly doesnt provide clarity. I feel that all it will do is increase the fighting. Because we havent come to any middle ground agreements and thats the thing I took most away from it.
It will take time to build up trust. I think people have been hurt on both sides and Im hoping that can stop.

The Supreme Court judgement provides absolute clarity on the meaning of the terms sex, man and woman in the Equality Act.

There are many issues to resolve in terms of unwinding policies which are non-compliant with the law. My guess is that private companies will move rather quickly and our “captured” public institutions will continue to resist.

There is no middle ground. Sex is binary and immutable, and is unlikely ever to be removed as a protected characteristic.

its a great pity that a volunteer group of women had to fight our public institutions to re-establish the rights we were granted in 1975.

SleeplessInWherever · 24/04/2025 21:15

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 21:11

It's a bit odd that you seem to be imposing different moral standards on the women here.

Why should the already massively disadvantaged side only accept small donations from "ordinary" people and refuse one from an uber rich celebrity when the other side is literally being bankrolled by the Scottish taxpayer?

One of them is the establishment and the other is… a rich woman?

They’re quite different.

They’re not being bankrolled by the taxpayer, they’re spending taxes. In an argument that some would prefer they weren’t having, sure, but as soon as I pay tax it ceases being my money.

There’s no choice in how it’s spent, or there’d be loads of things I would refuse it for.

I am also genuinely asking. If the issue is a most women issue, how were the funds not already there?

WearyAuldWumman · 24/04/2025 21:15

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 14:11

A conversation is a two way thing. Not just the OP explaining to women how we are wrong about what a woman is and that the OP really is one, and not listening to any of the responses explaining why we disagree.

The ghost period finished me.

I'm 65. I've had to taken certain HRT because of the risk of osteoporosis and (ironically) the risk of oestrogen driven uterine cancer. (I can't take the normal osteoporosis meds and I now have a Mirena in order to stave off uterine cancer.)

I was warned that the HRT might give me uterine cramps and spotting - certainly not a period, however. Another possible side effect is a spot of bowel trouble - anyone can get that - and I'd hardly equate that with a period.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.