This is bullshit thread #3

[HornyTortoise]

Following on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2716917-This-is-bullshit-Thread-2

Open ongoing discussion welcome for anyone to join in.

Just tried to reply to see max posts were reached, hope this is OK to do...

But are Mtt at risk from ftt

I think many women would be uncomfortable at having an apparent man in the female space with them.

"But if we have separate facilities for both Mtt and ftt, do we need separate again for genderfluid/pan-gender/agender/otherkin whatever. Or do they all have to share an additional third (fifth) space?*

I think it depends on the specific facility - toilet would ideally all be like disabled one are currently - enclosed toilet and sink in individual rooms.

And of course as the overriding issue is male violence that needs to be addressed, but goodness knows how...

Just going to apologise again for any other poor choices of language in my post - I have a fucker of a head cold and it seems to be messing with my ability to think straight and write sensibly.
My first line, for e.g. - this debate is FAR MORE than an "intellectually stimulating exercise" for my brain, it is making me re-think stuff hugely. I also may owe Dittany an apology - I can't remember if I posted, but I certainly read her vehement posts that were anti-transwomen being allowed access to women-only events - and thinking at the time, "how unenlightened, how unaccepting". Didn't see then what she foresaw - that it was the "thin end of the wedge". How right she was :(

^^ why? Why must we have those spaces? Why cant trans people just stick with their own born-sex space?

Because they don't feel like it? Or because there are so many arsehole men about that a man looking different to most men feels unsafe in the men's loos?

In which case that is what needs to be challenged.

Instead of teaching our children that if they don't feel as per long-standing social stereotypes say they should, that means they have the wrong brain/body combo so therefore they need to go around denying biological FACT, we should be teaching them that everyone has the right to be how they want to be within their own sex and shouldn't be predujuced against. (That's a long sentence - hope it makes sense)

Allowing spaces for trans is addressing the result, not the cause. It validates and escalates the issues and will take a hell of a lot longer to reverse and put right than it will to address the issues from the ground up to begin with.

One issue I have with the 'other' thread is that there are transwomen who you really cannot tell are trans. And yes, that does come down to 'judging' and 'passing'.

You may call them a bloke but society treats them as female - along with all the shit that can come with that. Being subject to male violence, being judged on appearance, sexism, being treated as a second class citizen etc - all the issues that are discussed by feminists and are real issues. Obviously there are some concerns that they won't ever face due to not having the biology.

However, society looks at them and treats them as female - you can call them male all you like but that does not hide the fact that society treats them as female.

Then you've got those transwomen who don't have that issue - but instead they are treated as transwomen, subject to the fear of male violence, ridicule, abuse and a lot of discrimination. You can call them male but again, society does not treat them as male but treats them as transwomen - along with all the shit that comes with that.

We should be fighting for everyone to be treated equally regardless of who they are. We should be fighting for women to be treated equally and not have to fear male violence, sexism and being judged / oppressed by their body.

You can call a transwomen 'male' but society does not see a 'male'. They see a woman or a transwoman and treats them 'appropriately'.

The problem is addressing the result is often way simpler than addressing the cause...

There was a thread over in feminism a few weeks ago about "What makes a woman" but I think this is the wrong question, as it's not really relevant to transwomen.

What we should be asking, is what does it mean to 'live as a woman'? As this is where the NHS comes in. How do we define living as a woman in anything other than stereotypes? And this is important when this definition is being used as part of a treatment for people who have mental health problems (depression, anxiety etc. not just dysphoria).

It seems there are many posters here who are happy to share space with transwomen who 'live as women' (for want of a better phrase) yet it also seems like the transwomen who most seem to live as women are the ones that understand that they aren't women as opposed to the ones shouting and stamping their feet that they are women whilst displaying stereotypically male behaviour.

Ego

Sadly society is fucked up. I'd don't even begin to know how to address that.

I also agree with Fugg

In an ideal world men and women should be able to "present" however they like without any fear, or any pressure to change to the "correct" sex.

I dont know whether many transwomen really pass. maybe transmen more? I also often wonder if the prejudice transwomen who dont pass face is actually homophobia (regardless of sexual orientation). women who dont conform often face homophobic abuse as well (again regardless of sexual orientation)

Noone is advocating that transwomen (or transmen) are oppressed Ego. But it's not the same path as women's oppression. Parallel paths perhaps, equally important, certainly but not the same. Lumping them all together is contrary to women's welfare.

see also many transkids - look like they are going to grow up gay - quick, make them a girl/boy

I dont know whether many transwomen really pass

I would disagree with that. And those who do do face a LOT of the same issues that women do and that women are facing everyday.

Some are different. Some are exactly the same.

maybe. its hard to say isnt it cos of course the only ones I know/have seen on tv or photos dont pass. but I suppose thats the point - if they passed I wouldnt have noticed, right? I read something the other week about how women can tell when another woman is ovulating, and they behave differently, even if they are not consciously aware of it. mad really how our primitive animal brain works. I think thats part of what makes it so hard to truly pass. but I have to say my issue would not be with a person who I completely believed to be female.

Some are different. Some are exactly the same.

The issues may be the same in some cases, but transwomen are not the same as women.

The issues may be the same in some cases, but transwomen are not the same as women

Calling them 'blokes' as on the other thread does not mean society treats them as blokes. That's the issue I have with that thread. Society TREATS them as women or transwomen. They may not be the same - but society doesn't really care and does not treat them as blokes.

They may not be the same - but society doesn't really care and does not treat them as blokes.

But surely that is an issue with how society treats the sexes. And the answer is, to paraphrase Alex Drummond, to broaden the bandwidth of what it means to be a man.

But surely that is an issue with how society treats the sexes

That is what we should be fighting.

If we agree that 'living as a woman' is bollocks - we don't 'live as women' we live as people with the sexed biological experiences we have.
If we agree that 'looking like a woman' is also bollocks - convincing display of femininity maketh not a woman.
If we agree that gender is also a load of bollocks, and than non-gender-conforming women (lesbians, butch women, just women with no make up, short hair and trousers) are women.
If we agree all of that and that women who do not 'live as a woman', 'look like a woman' or 'perform feminine gendered roles' are still women, then if any MTT is a woman, then all who profess to be are, as surely the same 'rules' for 'this does not make you NOT a woman' must still apply?
It is nonsensical to have two sets of rules:

1. The 'wrong' behaviour, presentation and dress does not exclude you from womanhood. Womanhood is by virtue of your biology. (Applies to women.)
2. The 'wrong' behaviour, presentation and dress does exclude you from womanhood. Womanhood is not by virtue of biology, it is by virtue of something else. (Applies to MTT.)

If you disagree that you can consistently have 1 and 2 together at the same time, then no MTT is a woman. If you agree that they can co-exist, then you collapse into having 2 categories of woman, transwomen and ciswomen. Both are equally women.

There is of course a third option - which is that you accept that 'wrong' behaviour, dress, presentation etc does not exclude you from womanhood, but further assert that womanhood does not reside in biology, it resides in an internal feeling and conviction. This is a different way of obtaining consistency and coherence, and you end up with Danielle Muscato and her female penis.

And I disagree that the debate about access to women's protected spaces is about making sure that sex offenders are excluded. It is to the extent that for any given man, a woman does not know that he is not going to be a danger to her. That is (part of) the reason why we exclude all men from women's protected spaces, rather than only individuals that are proven to be known offenders (assuming that such a thing were possible).

If so, you can include all kinds of 'harmless' men in women's protected spaces. Gay men, disabled men whose disability is such that they would be unable to attack a woman no matter how much they wanted to.

But surely that is an issue with how society treats the sexes. And the answer is to broaden the bandwidth of what it means to be a man

^just this^

and to not make being gay so horrendous that cutting off parts of your body/binding is a better option

Morning all

Just catching up.

To summarise my catching up.

-We need rules that can form part of legislation ie not based on whether someone passes or is subjectively one of the OK ones
-The real problem is male violence. This is why women don't want males in female spaces and it's why TW don't want to be in male spaces.
-TW are male, but society doesn't treat us as such. Depending on the situation we are treated as TW or women.
-It would be desirable to stand together against gender stereotypes and male violence
-individual cubicles are great for the toilet and changing room issue.

These are all noble aims but we also have to be realistic and see this as a journey.

I would love to wave a magic wand and live in a world free of gender stereotypes and male violence. But that ain't gonna happen.

I still need to pee. I would still need access to services if I got raped by a man. I still need to live and survive in our current society in the real world. The world is imperfect and so we have to live with imperfect compromise whilst constantly pushing toward the end goal. We can't do the journey in one step.

And it's not even just about protected spaces. It's about access to women's colleges, grants and other funding ear-marked for women. It's about access to women's sporting events. It's about equal opportunities stats. Either MTT are women in every respect and for every purpose, or they are not women in any respect at all. You can't cherry pick, and say yes, MTT are women in these circumstances, but not in others. That is both inconsistent and unfair.

Oscar I'm not sure I agree with being so absolutist.

Is it a fair comparison to say that you can't have equality and segregation at the same time? You can't argue that makes and females should be treated just the same and st the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose.

I'm not saying I believe that by the way, just pointing out how your argument sounds to me.

^" the answer is to broaden the bandwidth of what it means to be a man
"^

YY, this.

Society tells boys from a young age that if you don't conform to masculine ideas of what being a boy/man is then you're a girl. "Stop crying and being a girl about it" etc. If you hear something often enough then you start to believe it, and then society is splitting itself into categories of men and not-men. I can understand why men feel like they fall into the category of not-men, especially gay men.

It goes the other way as well, when girls are called tomboys. But even then, it's more acceptable (IME) to be a tomboy than to be the male equivalent, which I suppose would be a sissy. And even writing that, I know that boys are called sissy as an insult, whereas a tomboy is much more a neutral statement.

I never really realised how much our ideas about gender go way back into our childhoods.

I'm willing to stand up and broaden the bandwidth of what it is to be a man.