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?

The reason we have separate guides is because:

a. Of the reasons madwoman has said. Female issues and female voices often get sidelined because of the way society currently is. So girls like being a segregated environment for 2 hours a week. Once we get rid of a male dominated world, we can get rid of the 2 hours a week. But it has to happen that way around.

That means the girls get a chance to socialise in a different way and it means that we can focus on certain activities that are about women - charities for homeless girls and so on.

b. Males and females have different bodies and so it is harder to do competitive physical activities in mixed groups. We did a lot of this kind of stuff because the main guide leader was trained in a lot of this kind of sport.

c. We talk about things that are particular to female bodies, although this is maybe only a few times a year so is not as much of an issue as a and b. But guides ages are over the puberty years.

Scouts is integrated. Some people are not happy with this. I have a DS, and he went to cubs with girls. It hasn't been an issue to me, but I haven't thought that much about it, so wouldn't dismiss the concerns of other parents necessarily.

There is of course also the issue of some religious guides, who couldn't attend if it wasn't single sex.

Competitive physical activities aren't a part of either scouts or guides unless you choose to take part in external regional or national activities based on the same - completely anathema to the focus of 'do your (individual) best. To claim that competition is an intrinsic part of either is a complete fallacy. It is utterly wrong.

I can't even go anywhere near that rationale. I have kids with all sorts of social communication and physical difficulties in my groups, and competition between their members is the very last thing that either in satin promotes. It's about teamwork.

Yy, wrt to puberty. I think that's really interesting though - and I am always interested that so many institutions feel the need to instruct. Schools, all youth groups, parents. I like that puberty isn't secretive and everyone is involved, and it does provide a relaxed environment where different things can be brought up openly, but to claim it as necessary is interesting. I think you could have the same discussions at any point really.

The religion thing is interesting too - scouts have solved it by running separate groups that are linked by religion where cultural expectations differ (they have different rules wrt camps etc as well), but the guides haven't addressed it. If you believe what mn says, guides is for Christians anyway, as the uk still hasn't got rid of the faith based stuff in the promise. (we have here - and have changed the wording to taps etc to be more inclusive)

T be honest, I find it really interesting that the uk seems to be holding on to the traditional segregation in guiding, whereas most countries are looking to change it. Particularly with the uk being the home, etc etc.

Hully, I see your point.

But if a transwoman considers herself to be a woman, the existence of another group of women with another set of characteristics isn't necessarily what she wants to become.

I do see your point though. There are people who have complained about abortion being discussed as a woman's issue or a woman's reproductive issue because that implies wombs are somehow connected to women as a group. They would rather we didn't associate what used to be called the female body with any group of women.

The problem with that is that we can't neatly separate out the body from the gender there. Because society does associate wombs with women, and many people hold anti-abortion views because they are sexist towards women. It is almost impossible to separate out social attiudes to women and social attidues to people who have what used to be called female bodies.

So I don't know how we resolve that. I don't really know how to talk about women's rights without talking about pregnancy, infertility and so on. The two are connected to me.

There are people who have complained about abortion being discussed as a woman's issue or a woman's reproductive issue because that implies wombs are somehow connected to women as a group. They would rather we didn't associate what used to be called the female body with any group of women.

I don't know the answer to that! It seems a bit mad. There are plenty of "born" women who are sterile etc and they have to put up with hearing about potentially upsetting stuff. So I'd probs not go along with that.

We did competive activities between the girls in the group. Lots of competitive sport involves team anyway.

As for the puberty issue, I don't think talking about girls' bodies has to be instructive. Girls can want to talk about about those topics in group situations for a variety or reasons; it doesn't have to be about instructing people.

And no, it isn't necessary to talk about puberty with the guides. Just like, no, it isn't necessary to talk about breastfeeding; as OHM says I could just have coffee with my friends instead. And I suppose it isn't necessary to talk about pregnancy, or childbirth, or abortion, or infertility, or IVF, or the menopause, or clitoral orgasms, or miscarriages, or periods for any women meeting together anywhere ever. We could talk about something else instead.

But I'm not sure why my body is so offensive to people, or perhaps so dangerous to people, that me wanting to talk about my life experiences that are connected to my body with other people who have had similar experiences is analagous to hanging black people and burning crosses on people's lawns.

You have rights about pregnancy. You just legislate for the absolute.

Tis the same with mat/ pat pay. You just call it newborn allowance and anyone who is staying home for the first six months of a babies life can claim it. It doesn't have to be gendered.

Not sure what infertility rights?

Abortion and pg related stuff has to be discussed in terms of the person carrying the child/ terminating the child - whether that is someone who identifies as female, or who identifies as ftm and has been living as a man for ten years, and stopped the hRT because his partner can't become pg.

Sorry Hully. I cross posted.

No none is saying you can't or you shouldn't. Just that you shouldn't exclude other people. All of those things would still be freely available to you in a society that doesn't tie itself up in knots over gender.

You might have done competitive sports. That doesn't make it an intrinsic part of the organisation. And I was really meaning teamwork to solve problems, put up a tent, whatever, rather than 'I'm going to beat x at a sport which involves physical strenght'.

But people's social attitudes to pregnancy and abortion, and attempts to increase or reduce those rights, are situated in a world where people associate childbearing with the female body. So sexism plays a part in their opinion on childbearing.

That would make it a women's issue in political terms.

What would you consider to be a women's issue? If pregnancy and abortion are not women's issues?

And that exactly explains the uproar with the 'pregnant man', 'man pregnant again' headlines and associated hysteria.

It was a couple having a baby. And then another one. I found it v interesting that he had a beard and that the beard just stopped growing when he got pregnant, and didn't fall out. I didn't see it as in any way threatening any pregnancy legislation.

I idly wondered if he had had GRS, and how that would have worked for both conception and childbirth, but really it was none of my business. As long as he wasn't discriminated against because of his pregnancy, I couldn't give a monkeys. Same as if he's got pregnant and decided to abort it. As he was carrying the baby, the rights were his. I don't have to insist that he is a woman to give him those rights?

I was talking about why I joined a guides group and why I thought it was a good idea for it to be segregated. I don't claim to lay down what should and should not be an intrinsic part of guides.

Anyway, if you believe that no group should exclude people, then there should be no transgender groups, no women's groups and no women's facilities. In that case, there would be little point in any transperson having their gender legally recognised, because there would be no separate groups and no separate facitilies.

It is paradoxical to say that it is wrong to stop a transwoman from joining a group that excludes men because excluding people is wrong.

The existence of the women's group would then be wrong. Whether the person trying to join it is a transwoman or just a man is then totally irrelevant.

No, a transgender man giving birth doesn't have to be called a woman.

How does that make the term 'women's reproductive rights' offensive?

How does it make abortion not a women's issue?

What do you think is a women's issue?

That's kind of my point. There shouldn't be any need for laws to exist to protect and create 'trans'. That reinforces the binary in itself.

The legislation should seek to remove discrimination, not reinforce it.

Didn't ever say that the term women's rights was offensive. Just that i see women's rights in terms of the absolute childbearing potential or whatever. You can call it women's rights if you want to. but don't exclude a pg man with a beard from an antenatal class. And call it an antenatal class, not a pregnant women's class.

See how the terminology just ties up in knots? I just think that the creation of a third sex would increase discrimination further. And reduce the prospects of us ever, ever, ever, being seen as individuals.

I don't want my entire life to be mapped out by the fact I have a womb. My womb is completely and utterly irrelevant unless I happen to be pg.

Surely infertility, at least, is relevant to trans women? I can't shake off the feeling that a very restrictive definition of "woman" is being applied by women discussing these issues. I couldn't have children. There are women born without functioning wombs or ovaries. Nobody's ever rounded the lot of us up and told us we can't discuss with other women because we're "not proper women".
I will be very fucking angry if you tell me I'm less female than you because I have no children. How very dare you! Yet you're happy to create some definition of "woman" - which is not chromosomal - in order to support exclusion policies against trans women.

Some of you are actually trying to enforce the kind of binary definitions feminism fights against, it seems to me.

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.

Agree.

And women's rights is only such a huge movement because of discrimination against women. To seek to increase discrimination by the creation of more boundaries is something I can't get my head round. It genuinely doesn't make any sense to me.

How will the creation of a third sex stop discrimation against women by society?

Or stop discrimination against trans by society?

Yy, garlic, my 'women's rights' comment was supposed to reinforce that. Hope I didn't come across wrong, didn't mean to offend.

Then I'm not sure why you are arguing on a trans thread. Your argument isn't about trans people at all. Your argument seems to be that there should be no segregation of men and women, either on the basis of sex or gender, in any situation.

I'm sure many of us can think of very specific occasions where there might be a reason that women or men would wish to get together exclusively with people of their own sex (however defined). I don't think that invalidates the position that we should start from an assumption of no segregation, whilst being prepared to make a special case for any departure from the norm. The criteria would have to be a lot higher than just "I wanna discriminate, I wanna", mind you.

How is that not to do with trans?

And how is that not to do with feminism?

I'm all for equality, me.

I find it really hard that feminists argue against equality.

I want my trans friends to be able to go about their lives without endless discussion about where they can and can't go. I want me to be able to go about my daily life without being treated differently because I have a womb.

How is that not relevant to a trans thread?

Yy, Annie. And I'm aware that the opposite of that is 'I don't wanna discriminate. I just don't!' which is equally unhelpful given the fact that we live in such a discriminatory environment.

That just makes me more depressed that less discrimination isn't the default.

And that people continuously claim that more discrimination would help sort the whole sorry mess out. Third sex indeed.

I wish I'd written your post at 17:20, Annie.

The thread's really helping me firm up some of my ideas around this ... still somewhat blancmange-like at present, mind you!

Not offended at all, madwoman :)

But I'm not saying that women who can't or don't have children should be somehow categorised differently, GB. I think you're being rude to make such a misrepresentation. I never suggested they should be excluded.

All I am saying is this.

There used to be a thing called the female body. Some people feel that female body is part of their identity and will want to be only with other people who have that body in certain circumstances.

I am not saying that there can't also be groups for men and women.
I am not saying that there can't also be groups for transwomen and other women together.
I am not saying that infertile people with female bodies do not have female bodies.
I am not saying that all infertile people with female bodies would rather talk to a woman and not a man.

There may be fertility situations for some with a female body where they identify with trans people. But my friend, for example, has serious fertility issues and has had ectopic pregnancies. That isn't anything like the situation of a trans woman. It is to do with what used to be called the female body.

I understand MWITA's perspective if she is against all exclusion and all segregation. What I don't understand is

a. the need of some to misrepresent my point.
b. the need to argue against rights for people who identify by sex but for rights for people who identify by gender. Why can't both groups have rights? Why is one group trivial and the other important?