MNHQ transphobia guidelines part 2

[QueenStromba]

First thread here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2120841-MNHQ-are-going-to-decide-what-constitutes-transphobia-on-MN-What-advice-guidelines-would-you-give-them?

Sitestuff thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2117350-MNHQ-now-email-posters-with-how-to-get-around-the-talk-guidelines?

The thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2107862-Following-on-from-the-TERF-thread?

Don't worry almond, we will have no need for biology teachers soon.

So Myrtle, presumably by the same token, if I attach the leg of a pair of tights stuffed with newspaper to my arse, I'm a cat if I choose to define myself as one?

I wasn't satirising you, Buffy

I might have been slightly satirising the female tendency to not apply for professorships (once you get to that stage) because you don't see yourself as good enough, so I think we should start calling you prof now then in 20 years or so you'll start to regard it as your due!

Also, if this doesn't happen then what happens when female foetuses turn into male foetuses as happens to everyone?

This does not happen, although I believe Germaine Greer's The Whole Woman characterised it like that.

I am going to explain this from the beginning. Ignoring intersex conditions and any other similar chromosomal issues, conception occurs when a haploid egg cell (with an X chromosome) combines with a haploid sperm cell. This sperm may carry an X or a Y chromosome.

If XX, the new zygote is biologically female. If XY, male. Female fetuses do not become male. The issue is that from sight alone, at an early stage of development, male and female fetuses are indistinguishable, as the sex organs haven't began to develop. Chromosomal testing (CVS, amniocentesis) is required.

But males do not start off as female. We all start off looking like strange little fish, is what it is.

Buffy I would go with the second - that there are lots of genders and society runs on an artificial gender binary, and that gender is unrelated to sex.

Cote er that's not how language works. The whole point of languages is that it changes and you can indeed realign definitions. You may believe that I am a woman because I have XX chromosones, but to me my chromosones are irrelevant to me being a woman.

Tilly thank you, that's really helpful.

*haven't begun

FFS.

Female foetuses don't 'turn into' male foetuses.

Female foetuses are female from the moment of conception, when they reproduce their XX chromosomes into, first 2, then 4 cells and away they go.

Male foetuses are male from the moment of conception, when they reproduce their XY chromosomes into, first 2, then 4 cells and away THEY go.

The whole, everyone is a female until 'x' point in development is what Terry Pratchett calls 'lies for children'. It's an easy way of describing something, a shorthand, if you will.

And, before you leap on my post to tell me about people with different sex chromosome set ups, I know. But the XX XY binary is by far the most common, and so, for illustrative purposes, I used that.

I have female genitalia, I have no clue how to 'feel like a woman' most of the time, I feel like a bit of a loose cog. I reject cis as a label.

TERF is also a load of bollocks. It's not radfems deleting and silencing transpeople, it's not radfems killing Transpeople, it's certainly not radfems who make budgetary decisions about Transpeople or policy decisions. The people you want to tackle about inequalities are men. My personal opinion is that it's way easier for the type of Transactivist who tweets that women should die in fires and be raped don't actually understand very much about the world as it is, and are picking on soft targets, the low hanging fruit, if you will, because radfems are so easy to pick on.

I think a person telling me that I MUST identify as a woman because of the biology of my anatomy is remarkably un-feminist.

No there aren't "lots of genders" there are lots of people who are all individuals and should be allowed to get on with whatever the fuck they want to get on with without having to try and fit in a box, whether there is a choice of 2 boxes or 10 or 100.

Those chromosomes that allow you to carry children (or not) breastfeed (or not) produce sperm (or not)

they have absolutely NO bearing on whether you are a woman or not?

So what exactly do they have a bearing on? Because the way I see it is that the only thing changing is the bastardisation of the term 'woman' and 'female' so as to encompass people with different chromosomes.

What have I clicked on!?

My brain hurts.

I hear you Hakluyt.

Seven that would depend. Some people identify as being agender, that is having no gender whatsoever (different from what ICan is saying because they generally go by gender-neutral pronouns). ICan for instance says 'I am female' but also says 'I have no gender', so she is female. So it depends what exactly people mean by not having a gender.

As for labelling, personally I find it helpful from a LGBT perspective where femme lesbian/bisexual women are relatively invisible. No more than that. I don't think labelling is necessary, it's just helpful for me personally.

Buffy honestly I don't know beyond 'I feel like a woman'. When I try to define it, I can't. But I know I am very comfortable having a female gender.

Odd no because that's outside of the parameters that are being used - people get to identify as whatever gender they are, or none. That's different from identifying as a different species, and is a different argument, IMO anyway.

I was just looking at a list of meanings here here

and apparently I am gender queer. And possibly bigender.

Well ok.

So now what. Do I get a badge?

How will the majority of the population react when they find out they are now "genderqueer"? Is there a need for a special term, and labelling, for something which is just so normal and standard that it goes unremarked on even under patriarchy?

ICan but I'm not telling you that you MUST identify as a woman at all! You are a woman. For me it has nothing to do with your biology, for you it does - but regardless, you're still a woman.

Buffy sorry, the second option you posted about gender, that there are lots of genders and they are unconnected to biology.

ICan sure. For me personally, my XX chromosones and reproductive system are not what make me a woman. For me it's utterly irrelevant. They have a bearing on how someone reproduces, that's it.

I read a twitter account by Tara Hewitt. She is a transgendered woman who wants to be the first trans MP. I think she is standing as a tory candidate.

She is anti-abortion, anti IVF, anti-surrogacy and describes herself as an 'abortion survivor' on account of being adopted. As far as I know, she was called on this because there's no evidence that her birth mother attempted to have an abortion. She thinks women are 'talked into' having abortions.

She has some very interesting views on women's issues, most of which will never apply to her because she doesn't have a womb. I can't get my head around it. Am I being transphobic by stating the obvious - that these issues will never apply to her? She does not have a womb - that's fact.

I can accept that she is a woman (though I'm not clear she has had the operation, I think she talks about her 'transition' but doesn't answer questions about whether she still has male genitalia).

She accuses people of transphobia quite a lot. Sometimes I honestly can't see what was transphobic about what they said. But she can accuse that and people have to shut up, don't they?

Feels like silencing people to me. Scary, that.

Myrtle - I was going to say exactly the same thing to you: That is not how language works.

You can't go defining words because you think they should mean something else. If your self-proclaimed license to redefine words according to your agenda were commonplace, we wouldn't be able to understand each other.

"The whole point of languages is that it changes and you can indeed realign definitions."

The whole point of a language is that people agree on a definition for each word so they can understand each other. Words sometimes do change definition slightly, of course, but that happens over a long time and/or through putting a lot of distance between two tribes (like English & Americans).

Wow - I go off to cook dinner and it all kicks off. I've spent the last hour running to keep up with the thread.

Myrtle - the only person who I have seen on this thread or the last one spewing hate speech is you. You say you are a "ciswoman" - do you really have no horse in this race?

Seven some people find the label helpful, some don't. It doesn't matter either way.

Beachcomber, Tunip and others, could any of you tell me this?

What proportion of trans people are women, and what proportion of trans women are sexually/romantically attracted to women?

Say 0.3% of people are trans, and 0.1% are trans women attracted to women.

That would mean that there is one straight trans woman to every five hundred straight men and one lesbian trans woman to every fifty lesbians. That would have a much bigger impact on lesbian identity, surely?

Or am I completely wrong on those numbers?

So a biological man (with XY chromosomes and a penis) who defines his gender as female is, to myrtle defined as a woman? And I, with my xx and my vagina am now a ciswoman? So here we are again defining born women against men and their interpretation of womanhood?

If you identify as a woman, and want to be called Miss/she/her, perhaps you want to live as a woman, dress as a woman, maybe even alter your body to look more like a woman, that is A-OK. You should be free to do so, and you should not face discrimination or punishment or live in fear of violence. I support your right to live your life and be happy however you choose. But to be very clear, doing all those things does not make you a woman. It makes you a transwoman. And you can 'but but but ... othering!' at me until you are blue in the face and I still will not accept that you are a woman, and have my identify once again reduced to a comparison against a different shade of man.