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?

Well, today is disability rights chez mad, and I've got several hours worth of rl volunteering to do on an all gender basis, so I'm disappearing.

Apols if you think I was misrepresenting you, sea. Not my intention.

Madwoman, because most of your arguments are not to do with trans people in particular, but you are framing them as discriminating against trans people.

When I suggested a group for women who were not trans, you objected to the exclusion of trans people. You did not object to the exclusion of men. That makes it seem as if you have a prejudice against women who are not trans.

The same applies to Annie's arguments.

You are comparing allowing women who are not trans to racial segregation. You are not comparing the segregation of men and women to racial segregation.

Your focus on not allowing women who are not trans to segregate on certain occasions while not commenting at all on not allowing all men into women's changing rooms etc makes it seem as if you have an issue with a particular type of woman.

Otherwise, can you explain why you are constantly singling out this group's spaces as prejudiced but not making the same comparisons to Enoch Powell, the KKK etc with other forms of gender segregation?

I don't think your intention is to misrepresent me; I think it is probably unconcious prejudice on your part. I think you are simply conveying prejudiced sentiments to women who are not trans so consistently attempt to deny this group an identity or space while allowing other groups identities and spaces without comment.

"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. "

And I'm saying that if they're that picky they might do with lightening up, unless the circumstances are truly exceptional.

Anyone else reminded of that gay marriage thread where the OP started off by saying it was fine but a bit pointless really, then eventually came out as a committed anti? This is reminiscent somehow.

I also must bow out for now, got work tonight #sigh#

Likewise, I wasn't deliberately trying to misrepresent you. I picked up a remark about exclusive women's groups want to discuss things like childbirth and infertility, saying that they were not relevant to trans women. As I posted, infertility would be very much part of a trans woman's gender. The rest of my post was an attempt to illustrate why focusing on reproductive equipment is a retrograde step for all women, inclusively.

Also I have been offended at various points in this thread by what looks like a merry assumption that real women have babies. I shouldn't have spoken personally but, well, it's personal to me - my grandfather and father thought I wasn't a real woman, for reasons stated. No feminist would want to be aligned with them, believe me!

Again with the prejudiced remarks Annie?

Because somebody with a female body has an identity, she needs to lighten up.

Why do you constantly apply a standard to this group that you do not apply to others?

Why do you apply this standard only to people with female bodies?

But I haven't said that GN.

I would also ask you, why do you apply one standard to people with female bodies and one standard to other groups?

Why is it wrong for people to see having a female body as part of their identity? Why is that seen as a really trivial kind of identity? Yet every other kind of identity is seen as extremely important and in need of protection?

Sea, I don't understand why you've asked me those questions. They don't resonate with me in the slightest. We must be at massive cross-purposes.

And I've spent too long on this already - will have to catch up on the stuff I should have been doing! (Subbing a very old man's autobiography, as it happens: that certainly sheds light on feminist issues, if not this issue!)

I'll catch up later.

That kind of prejudiced remark is actually a classic.

Why do women mention their wombs. Why does that matter? Why do they go about pregnancy and inferility all the time? Does having a female body define them?

Really similar to:

Why do gay men have to tell people? Why does that matter? Why do they go on about having a boyfriend? Does being gay define them?

Why do people in wheelchairs call themselves disabled? Why does that matter? Why do they keep going on about ramps, not being able to get through a door etc? Does being in a wheelchair define them.

What???? It honestly sounds like you're talking to someone else

Definitely time I closed this window.

'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.'

No indeed - but neither would many born women have experience of this situation. I would absolutely support your friend if she wanted to set up a group just for women who had had ectopic pregnancies or spent years trying to conceive without success. Of course trans women would not be welcome - and nor would women like me who have never even tried to get pregnant. The point is that any discrimination is based on individuals' experience rather than sex/gender.

MG, I probably shouldn't have used that example because I would not want to make statements on my behalf.

But certainly when I have had fertility issues, I have wanted to talk to women who have been through the experience of attempting to get pregnant, both those who have ended up having a baby and those who have not, because I felt that people who'd had tried to become pregnant had an understanding of the feelings involved.

Asides from this rather emotive, the point is again that it is again basically an argument where people are saying that people with female bodies are all different and have no group identity.

But posters are not holding transwomen (who are all different) or women as a gender group (who are all different) to the same standard and saying they have no group identity or no right to form groups.

And indeed the experiences of all people who have tried to conceive without success are all different. But you are not claiming they can't form a group.

Why does this standard apply particularly tothe identity or rights of people with female bodies as a group?

We know that fertility is roughly 50/50 please don't put blame on the women who 'fail' to conceive on this.

It's a brave mum who sends her son to Guides, dresses him up as his beloved princess, and paints his room in pink.

Right.

Because I don't want discrimination to exist in any shape or form, I am a racist and anti- women.

I wasn't discussing men in women's changing rooms because that wasn't the focus of the thread. It was born women arguing that they didn't want to share space with someone who used to have or maybe still had a penis. Or a born male, i'm assuming. If you're interested at all, I'm all for mixed changing facilities with cubicles, as they had at the leisure I used to use when we lived in scotland. It weirded me out for a nano second because I have successfully been conditioned to look for the little be-frocked figure on the door, but then I realised it was actually far more sensible, and got over the whole 'what do I do with my ten yo son with learning disabilities that everyone sees as a threat in the womne's changing rooms' debate. And I've shared shower facilities with men at work. No gendered facilities exist because there aren't enough women to justify it.

.

Scratchy - it's not an option, not a choice. The boy has a penis and is excluded from guides. The mother can send her daughter to scouts, but the son isn't allowed to attend guides, even if she does paint his room pink, stick him in a tutu and call him lulu. Or if he does it himself.

The daughter doesn't even need to dress up as a boy to go to scouts. She can attend as a girl.

The son isn't allowed to go to guides even if he dresses as a girl.

Completely irrelevant.

I'm not making a value judgement about that. I'm stating it as a fact. Bravery has feck all to with it.

Bravery has a lot to do with it. Parents should be happy with 'Fred' putting on a tutu and going to guides while his sister 'Freda' goes to scouts wearing her jeans.

Nothing is irrelevant. But this thread is certainly important.

My starting point is one of inclusion. I couldn't understand the refusal to include transwomen in women only events. But I have had the experience of being told that discussing women's reproductive health at a feminist event was excluding - I recognise that contraception/abortion are not issues for all women but I do consider them key feminist issues. And when I was told not to talk about them and then accused of transphobia when I refused I started to see the radfem point.

I realise of course that this is the behaviour of a few people - but it doesn't help the case for inclusion. The reason for some radfems' hard line position on 'women born women' is I think born from these experiences. I still prefer an inclusive approach but I can see where they are coming from.

I think if you are making comparisons with racism then you could say that it is like a group of black people wanting to meet separately to discuss their experiences of racism. Should they be forced to include a white person because that person identifies as black? What about someone who has discovered black ancestors but was raised white and appears white? And what if they decide to include that person who then starts telling them what issues they shouldn't discuss because they don't match with that persons experience? I am not saying that the situations are identical and maybe people should be able to self define their ethnicity but they both involve a historically oppressed group. Being told that they don't get to define their oppression or who they are.

I don't think it is unreasonable for women to be wary of men considering levels of male violence towards women. Obviously most men are rapists but the thing is there is no way of telling who is until they try to rape you. So wanting women only space is a valid response to that.

I don't want to exclude people. I have worked and campaigned alongside transwomen. But I understand the desire for women only space and the concerns about what that means if gender is seen as purely self defined.

I used the 'sick room' at work to lie down when pregnant with my second child until I was taken aside and told discretely what actually went on in that room. Not nice. But appreciated the advice ntl.

Falling: that was a lovely post: Obviously most men are not rapists is what you meant Falling. I get that.

Yeah sorry - most men are not rapists - mistyping!

Yeah sorry - most men are not rapists - mistyping!

But I have had the experience of being told that discussing women's reproductive health at a feminist event was excluding - I recognise that contraception/abortion are not issues for all women but I do consider them key feminist issues. And when I was told not to talk about them and then accused of transphobia when I refused I started to see the radfem point.

Really? I'm utterly shocked by this. How incredibly rude, not to mention strange.

I guess my perspective on the whole trans thing has been from knowing a community of trans and genderqueer people who are generally quite fluid and variable in their identifications and generally opposed to being bossy to others about how they should see themselves. I'm genuinely shocked to hear that elsewhere in the world things are this different.

I can also see how the reaction might be a little like the reaction of some villagers in a farming community, when someone from the city buys a house there cos they've always felt they should live in the country, and promptly starts complaining about cockerels crowing or cowshit on the road.

It all makes me ever more despairing of identity politics as something that can bring harmony in the long term.

Huge Your post was going so well until this: "I can also see how the reaction might be a little like the reaction of some villagers in a farming community, when someone from the city buys a house there cos they've always felt they should live in the country, and promptly starts complaining about cockerels crowing or cowshit on the road. "

Huge fail and no doubt about it. Awful.