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?

Yy, sorry, read the RR account now. Their account naturally differs slightly from the legal summary. I don't like the 'no logical or scientific ' basis for their beliefs line though. I can understand why they left it out of their account.

Mind you F4J also liken themselves to the suffragettes.

It was the one area white middle class men couldn't claim any foothold in whatsoever - being victims of oppression. So they had to invent some for themselves.

Yy. Unless you are the someone who is prepared to do desperate things for equality. I can see the difference. But I'm equally sure Kimberley Nixon would see a parallel.

Well it's written by Gwendoline Allison, Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP and Professor Christine Boyle, University of British Columbia School of Law, not VRR people.

Kimberley Nixon was oppressor. Why would you take Kimberley's view on anything or expect anybody else to?

Part of trans/ fathers fight for freedom?

Not being deliberately provocative, but people do have a nasty habit of validating their own actions as part of a quest for greater equality on behalf of their own group.

I'm not.

I'm seeing both sides of the picture.

Kimberley Nixon cost the Vancouver Rape Relief Shelter $100,000.

I don't think it was anything to do with money in her head.

So Pan if you know the case very well, then why didn't YOU provide links? It wouldn't have been hard to do. Good night and I hope to see you in the morning. Discussing such 'ishoos' as say this:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/17/mps-vote-protect-women-legal-aid?INTCMP=SRCH

And no doubt Kimberley Nixon used up money that would have helped women get legal aid too.

I didn't say it had anything to do with money. Kimberly Nixon didn't see any money. It was about bullying women as far as I can see.

Attacking a poorly funded marginal group like a rape crisis centre, who would have very few funds to defend this kind of action though, deprived an organisation that helps and supports female victims of rape of $100,000. Why would anybody who had already volunteered to help rape victims want to do that?

It's nice that you're putting KN's side here madwoman.

Mad how would you know what went on in Kimberley Nixon's head? You can only go on the facts presented, which are straightforward. Nixon sued the Vancouver rape centre for damages to 'her dignity'.

Who are 'these people'? All mtf trans? Or just the ones that are rapists etc?

I have no particular issue with a group trying to get protection in whatever way they can, but I have no issues with suggesting that some actions aren't well thought out and may cause harm to a more vulnerable group. They aren't on.

The more vulnerable group will be a different one in every instance though, and sometimes it will be those that identify as trans.

So we are down to descibing people as being "xy" as if experience, learning, emotions, intelligence, soul, all count for nothing if you "had" xy then you can never be judged as anything else as xy?. Nice!

Putting both sides, nyac.

I've only really seen you putting KN's side madwoman, but I'll take your word for it.

Can we not call people XY people if that's what they are? I mean "woman" has been reduced to a feeling a man has. I can't see why we're suddenly getting picky here.

She wasn't bullying women. She was making a poorly thought out attempt to force her way into a born women only space, to vindicate her womanhood and to effect a change in the law. That ain't bullying.

That said, she must have been a crapola rape crisis counsellor if she couldn't understand that in this case the vulnerable women might have trumped her own need for vindication.

I find it all rather sad, and am in no way attempting to say the ruling was wrong. Just that it was an awful mess and motives may have been ascribed that weren't necessarily the case.

But pan is right. This thread will be gorn.

I don't think that's how VRR saw it, or a whole lot of other women, including many of us who are rape victims.

Moo who the heck is threatened by a person with a chromosomal birth defect? WHO?

Sorry but xx and xy is not the same. No scientist would ever argue that it is. It's how we as a society raise xx as opposed to xy that feminists argue about. Both should be raised as equals. End of.

Once again, I find what you have written very insensitive.

I was speaking up on behalf of RR when I said I felt the judges rationale regarding religious conviction was a pile of old tosh.

If someone had patted me on the head and told me it didn't matter if I had no logical or scientific proof for something, but that they'd acquiesce as it was clearly something I believed I'd be livid.

V patriarchal to be prioritising science and logic like that and yet ruling in favour of the wishy washy feminists with their inferior beliefs.

I would imagine women will be picky about only being a woman as a result of chromosones. If they feel a woman, or feel like the loch ness monster has much more to do with how they are socalised and how they internalise that than it has to do with dna. Many women go to huge lengths to change their bodies that is not becouse they do not recognise themselves as women, it is rather that they know they are women and feel the need to reflect that in a way that makes them happy.

Not saying it is how you see it, nyac. It blatantly isn't.

It is interesting sometimes to consider how other people feel though.

But we're back to the same old thing again. V circular.

Gotta go and take dd2 to dance.

I suspect this will be gone when I get back.

What do you mean, LL? I doubt many people judge intelligence based on XX and XY any more than they judge intelligence on whether or not somebody is British. It is possible to have a range of characteristics other than biological sex.

Do you think VRR had science and logic on their side then Madwoman?