New Trans thread as requested by HQs.

[oilfilledlamp]

Please forgive the intrusion but I've been out tonight and only recently got back. I wanted to respond to MadWomanintheattic earlier when she posted

"If I were an mtf trans (pre op or post op) the last place I'd want to fetch up is in a women's refuge, because of the potential for making other people feel ill at ease. But nothing is clear cut, really.

How often does this happen, really? Has there been any research into prevalence and motivation?

ps (and sorry for all the multiple posts), I have never felt the urge to discuss my cervix with anyone else in all my life. Occasionally it's been necessary to discuss it with medical practitioners.

OTheHuge

I don't have G breasts and it would make no difference to me whatsoever if you wanted to set up such a group. Why would it?

OHM, the same could be said for transwomen. Why do they need to come to a group for women who want to discuss something not related to trans bodies? Why don't they just have coffees with their mates? Either it is a triviality and we should both stop wanting things, or neither of us should.

"Why do they need to come to a group for women who want to discuss something not related to trans bodies?"

Er because... there's a little more to being a woman than how your body got to be the shape it was? (with apologies to Weightwatchers et al)

But I don't feel intimidated by trans people. I just have a different identity. You could just as easily argue that transwomen have a fear of men and refuse to integrate with them. It is equally ridiculous because transwomen are not claiming to be women primarily out of fear and I am not claiming to be different from transwomen primarily out ofear.

You seem to feel that because your analogy has some similarities, it is therefore appropriate.

There is no legal segregation in the UK of black and white people, so people who are attempting to decide who is black and white for the purposes of segregating people have a particular issue which most people disagree with.

But there is segregation of men and women. Most people do not disagree with that. So it isn't similar to racism to maintain separate areas for men and women, and to do that we have to actually have a definition of male and female.

Of course you don't have to have a shared identity to feel compassion.

And apols if it sounded like that was what I meant. My focus was on deliberate 'othering', to an even greater extent than now exists, building even greater and insurmountable (literal and metaphorical) walls between human beings. And creating an environment where even trans that 'pass' (and have been happily using gendered facilities for some time) won't be allowed to, and will be forced to use the 'third' space.

My comment re compassion just meant that it wasn't a very compassionate idea to think a 'third' sex with facilities was going to fly. I mean, really, mtf and ftm, pre and post op, non op, people who are in some sense revolted and triggered by their own genitalia, all herded together in one happy melee, without a herd of red blooded born men waiting outside the door to teach them a lesson or two? Because the 'real' binary human beings won't have them in the same room?

Introducing a third sex won't get rid of the binary in the sense that will be in any way useful for the people at either end of it. It will make those positions even more polarised. How long before caster semenya gets told she has to use the third sex changing rooms? How long before we are all jumping through even more ridiculously polarised gendered behaviour, just so that somewhere along the line someone doesn't rule that we aren't feminine enough to use the ladies?

SeaHouses - indeed. If I were a MTF transwoman and saw a notice advertising a weekly cervix discussion group, I might well conclude that joining might be a bit pointless. Personally I probably would too, despite being the proud owner of my very own cervix. But then (with the possible exception of survivors' support and group therapy type situations) I don't really see the appeal of special 'spaces' anyway.

I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from someone who does use women-only 'space' as to what, personally, makes it so important for them, as it's clearly something that a few people feel very strongly about but that I just don't get.

Yes, Annie. There are things that all men and woman have in common. So we have groups that both sexes go to.

There are things that only women have in common. SO all women can go to those groups, including transwomen, ciswomen and all other women.

There are things that only transwomen have in common. So transwomen can go to those groups.

There are things that only women who are not trans have in common. So women who are not trans go to those groups.

Why are people fine with the first three and not the latter?

And again, I will say that I am only using the term 'women who are not trans' because every name for that group seems to be offensive to somebody.

Also, the fact that you don't want to talk about a particular topic. So what? I don't want to talk about or participate in badminton. I don't object to the existence of women's badminton or insist that there group is shut down just because it doesn't interst me.

I am not claiming that the legal situation of transgender citizens is analogous to that of racial minorities in the UK. I don't mean it isn't, either, but that wasn't the angle I was coming from. I am saying that the argument that you don't feel comfortable sharing facilities or chat groups with transgender members is analogous to the discomfort some people feel about sharing their facilities etc with people of a different colour. It may be how you feel but that doesn't mean it can or should be pandered to.

Mm, I'm not saying your putative badminton discussion group should be shut down, I'm just putting it to you that if someone comes in saying "actually I play tennis but I'd be really interested in learning about badminton", they shouldn't be told to push off.

OHM, I think that is part of the issue. It shouldn't have to be called a weekly cervix discussion group because there should be a name for the group that used to be called women. We would then use that name for the group.

OHM, I have been in various women only groups. Some were specifically for women only and some ended up that way When I was younger, I was in women only feminist groups and as an adult I was a guide leader. Part of the reason I chose guiding over other forms of volunteering was because I like being in all female situations because I feel it is a different dynamic and because we can do things in a different way than we could do if it wasn't women only.

I have also been in other situations that have happened to be all female - playgroups and so on. Although I've enjoyed that, it wasn't an issue when people who weren't female turned up, as that was never the point of the group.

But unless you do narrow it down to cervix level, there's very little a women's discussion group would be discussing that a trans woman couldn't meaningfully engage in.

Annie, in that case, the argument also holds true for men, doesn't it? Not transmen, just men in general.

If women feel uncomfortable having to share changing rooms, showers or wards with all men, then that is analagous to white people feeling uncomfortable sharing changing rooms, showers or wards with black people. We can understand that discomfort, but there is no reason to pander to it. So there is no reason to have gender segregation at all, under any circumstances.

And by your argument about badminton, should I be able to turn up at a closed transwomen group even though I am not trans but just happen to be interested?

What is there to discuss at a women's group then that men couldn't engage in?

The reason I like guiding as a single sex activity is because at this moment it is necessary because of the binary and gendered expectations - so boys/ men feel they have to dominate, speak over, and be 'better' at any given activity than girls/ women. In a society where gendered behaviours weren't the norm, where boys and men were able to share nicely and play an equal and not dominating part in the proceedings, guiding wouldn't be a necessity.

So, single sex spaces at the mo are largely required because of the binary system and gendered expectations about male/ female behaviour. Quiet, slender and thoughtful boys lose out as well.

Reinforcing this flawed notion is bizarre. I don't want it reinforced. I want gendered expectations to be outcast, and people to be free to exhibit whatever personality traits they happen to have, and to be free to share them with like minded people. So if guiding becomes 'craft club' and scouting becomes 'adventure club' ( or the other way round) and the groups are attended by kids who like similar stuff and can treat each other in a humane way, that would be great. I'd still be nostalgic for the good old days, but I'd also remember the ludicrousness of a dad not being allowed to help with his dauhgter's group because he had a penis...

(should add I'm well involved in guiding, and have been a scout leader as well in the interests of disclosure. The recent decision to get miss Canada to speak at a seminar on girl greatness to prepubescent and pubescent girls on behalf of GGC was one that made me query whether I was in the right place)

We didn't do different activities at the guides than the scouts did. We didn''t do more crafting and less activity than the scouts.

I respect and understand how you feel Sea.

And I respect and understand how Trans feel.

It's making it all work together that intersts me.

Guiding isn't about personality traits.

Your argument seems to be topsy turvey. Transgender is clearly about reinforcing personality traits because it is (currently) based on the idea that there is a 'male feeling' and a female 'feeling' in people's head which are different from each other.

Guiding has nothing to do with gender based differences in people's heads.

No, I know. Neither did we. But that's the point. The reason that we did the same activities, but separately, is because of the gendered behaviours that have become entrenched because of expectations that men are more important and deserve more face time, more action time, and the women have to simpler and watch. The problem is gendered expectations. That is what needs to be changed.

But incidentally, you should have seen the uproar when I made my cubs vacuum and sew on their own badge, and iron their neckerchief. And ice fishing with the guides had to be carried out in secret because of the animal cruelty complications.

So why not just merge scouts 'n' guides?

Exactly! It is all entirely gender based, and that is the problem. Get rid of it.

Don't tell me what I can and can't do because I am a woman. Don't tell me what I can and can't do because I am a man. Don't tell me what I can and can't do because of any gender I inhabit. Treat me as a human being.

I don't see why it can't work Hully.

In much the same way as my example of gay men. In some ways they have more privilege than gay women. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to have their own group if they feel like it, and their own services. My place of work used to be connected to a service for 'men who have sex with men.' All my lesbian colleagues did not spend their whole time glitter bombing the service and insist it be shut down just because it didn't include them.

The problem with ananlogy is that the lesbians didn't want to BE gay men.

MtF or FtM feel strongly that they ARE the other sex. (Wrongly, in your view)

Well, to be honest, Annie, largely they do now. Scouting is open to girls, so there is a joint option . Guides is resolutely female, which at the mo they deem necessary to protect the interests of girls who might become invisible in joint surroundings. - although if you look at schools, it seems to be the opposite. Realistically it's because no boys would join guides as it's beneath them. It's for girls, after all. Whereas go getting girls join cubs or scouts to take part on an equal footing in what can be more adventurous activities.

The insurance for the two groups differs slightly and it is easier to get authority to do more adventurous stuff in scouts, although it is possible with guides, you just need go getting leaders.

Scouts and guides as organisations drive me potty, though. They really need to liaise at the top levels, there are rididiculous differences on costs etc that need to be ironed out.

what terrible typing

the problem with that analogy

See, if someone is utterly uttrly 100% convinced that they are the other sex, then being told they can't be part of a group for that sex (because of an accident of birth) must be heartbreaking and enraging. No?