You were right

[DoughDoe]

So I was a bit confused about all the anti-trans posts in here. I didn't get it really. Transsexuals are victims, minorities, etc., why are you lot against them?

Now I have seen the story of Rachel Dolezal:

cdn.necolebitchie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Rachel-Dolezal-10.png

who decided she was black and became a local NAACP president. When it was discovered that she wasn't, basically everyone has said she has no right to do this.

And suddenly it all makes sense to me. If we do not accept that people can make a relatively minor change from one skin pigmentation to another, and that a white person cannot become black, then we sure as hell shouldn't accept that a man with different bone, muscle, sexual organs, brain, chromosomes, and god knows what else, can POSSIBLY be a woman. And he CERTAINLY should not be participating in women's sports and other female spaces.

It's absurd, and it just makes you wonder why it is that if transracialism is so roundly rejected (no, you are not a black person, you are a white person with a bit of bronzer and an Afro), why we don't say that a transsexual is not in fact a woman, but simply a man in a dress.

I don't think the Rachel Dolezal issue is a good thing for feminists at all. It has negative consequences for black and mixed race women.

.

avocado whereas I find the attitude towards women in the 21st century a whole lot more than 'incredibly depressing'

Egosum - I've read some of your posts on other threads, and find I agree with a lot of what you say on other issues in feminism. But at the same time I've read a lot of the trans threads and am genuinely worried about some of the issues raised. So I'm really interested in how you approach the following issues (because I'm feeling a bit like a lot of other women who identify as liberal feminists - that I always felt happy to be trans-inclusionary, but now I find I may have given away a load of women's rights without realising). So I hope this doesn't feel like me putting you on the spot because I'm being aggressive - it's more that you seem like a good person to ask about these things because you're likely to have thoughtful answers which may help me to understand the opposing point of view.

Some trans-activists object to using the term "female genital mutilation" because it's trans-exclusionary. Should we agree with them on this? Even if it means renaming as something like "vulval mutilation" thus obscuring the fact that it is done to people with biologically female genitals precisely because they are women living in patriarchal societies where women's sexuality is seen as in need of controlling and those societies think they have the right do do that controlling?

Ditto menstruation. Some trans-activists have complained very loudly that having an international day of women's menstrual issues is trans-exclusionary. Should we agree with them about this?

Some trans-activists object to abortion being described as a women's rights issue because it's trans-exclusionary. Should we agree with them, and take all references to "women" out of literature on abortion and campaigning for abortion rights?

There's an under-representation of women in STEM subjects. If we agree with trans-activists that statistisics should be collected on "women" without reference to which sex was identified at birth and whether the person in question was socialised as a boy, had all the advantages in terms of access to encouragement for STEM careers typically extended to boys and often denied to girls, we end up with statistics which exagerrate the number of women in STEM subjects and again obscure the pressures that exist for girls entering science at school level. Should we agree with trans-activists that their need to be counted as women without further qualification trumps the need to collect accurate data which indicates the degree to which girls going through school are subjected to social pressures which limit their career choices?

Women in sport - we live in a society where women are often put off sport. Women who make it in professional sports have (similarly to those who make it in STEM subjects) struggled agains immense social pressures and much more limited funding. Women who do sport at amateur level do so often inspired by women at the top of their sport. Should we agree with trans-activists that after a certain amount of time hormone treatment lowers levels of male hormones to levels where they should be allowed to compete as women, even thought they still have higher bone density, higher muscle mass and a height advantage? Even if this means that, say, women's pro basket ball teams end up containing a disproportionate number of transwomen, compared to the proportion of transwomen in the population at large?

And (the million dollar question), if you don't agree with the trans activist position, and want to argue that these are special cases and do merit restriction to women born as women, how do you draw up legislation to back up the idea that this should be the case? It certainly can't be done by accepting that being a woman is down to "feeling like a woman inside" and that self-description is enough.

I really hope this doesn't come across as putting you personally on the spot. It is simply that you seem to be so straightforwardly similar to me in a lot of other views, so I'm really interested to know how you answer these questions in a way that allows transwomen room to do their own thing, and live their lives without prejudice (which I'd agree is a good thing, and any civilised society should allow them to do so) without selling out women's rights?

I know that one trans-activist line is to argue that people like me are pushing some sort of line which says "you can be sort of equal but not in these areas..." and their riposte is that "well that doesn't work well with race does it? No one would argue that separate drinking fountains in 50s America was fine so long as there was one for blacks and one for whites..." But the biology of reproduction and childbirth, and the average differences in strength and size between men and women are basic "material facts" against which the social framework of gender segregation is built (gender in the feminist/social sciences understanding of gender as a set of socially sanctioned behaviours and roles imposed on the sexes, not in the trans-activist sense of "how I feel inside").

I suppose for me the way I feel about trans issues is closer to the way I feel about toleration of religious belief. If someone tells me they "feel like a woman" and want to live as one, I think "fair enough." Just as if someone tells me "I believe in God, and the right to buy buildings in which to pray" - I'd think fair enough. But when their belief systems start to impinge on my life - if someone says "and furthermore, because I think women shouldn't be allowed to drive because god says so, I want the laws of the land changed so you can't drive", or someone says "because I feel like a woman inside I want the rules of this sporting body changed so I can compete as a woman even thought I'm 6 foot 6", then I'm going to say, "no, happy to tolerate what you do in your own private space, but you're now impinging on my rights".

Great post lurcio

And would echo your thoughts about ego who has very thought provoking posts as well

Egosum, I'm not sure I understand your point.

People do things all the time that cause them severe problems in society and cause them to lose privilege.

Some of those things are unethical, either due to the impact on others or the impact on the person. Some of them are not unethical.

Some of those things are easy to understand and some are not.

Are you saying that if we understand why people do things, that makes what they are doing ethical?

I think lurcio has done a grand job In providing a synopsis there of the 3 threads; and highlighting the major concerns that women have expressed for women

avocado if you are only going to briefly read over the threads because you find it too depressing, then you are not really listening to the concerns that women have/any POV at odds with your own. Therefore, its pretty impossible to have a conversation about it

Our io, I really like your last paragraph.

Grr, that should be to Lurcio.

The question of why some people choose to transition isn't talked about nearly enough IMO.

Generally the explanation is that 'they feel like the other gender' or 'they were born in the wrong body'. Neither of those explanations means anything to me at all and I think they are incredibly weak reasons for significant law changes and medical interventions.

Lots of progenderists get very angry when gender critical feminists examine why people transition - look at how Sheila Jeffreys has been vilified for her book 'Gender Hurts' (Same for Raymond, Bailey, etc).

Of course different individuals have different reasons for their desire to transition but there are common themes which recur.

1. Autogynephilia, as mentioned by FloraFox.

Autogynephilia is defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as female. Autogynephilia explains the desire for sex reassignment of some male to female (MtF) transsexuals. It can be conceptualized as both a paraphilia and a sexual orientation. www.annelawrence.com/autogynephilia,_a_paraphilic_model_of_GID.pdf

Lots of gender critical feminists see autogynephilia as a sexual fetish and the ultimate objectification of women - the crossdresser who gets turned on by wearing feminine clothing takes his fetish to the point where he actually wants to wear a woman's body.

1. Internalized homophobia. This is of great concern to gender critical feminists because it is an erasure of butch lesbians.

1. Dissociation. Brought on by trauma, usually from childhood and usually of a sexual nature. See this article for a good explanation.

1. Identity disorder - a form of mental health issue. Lots of progenderists get very angry when this is suggested (many people find this anger ableist).

I think it is important that we talk about why people want to transition. And I think it is vital that we examine why there are power structures such as the medical and legal establishments who are willing to help them on such a path and to validate the idea that it is possible to change one's sex. It is also important to differentiate between sex and gender - the above mentioned book by Sheila Jeffreys does this and she also looks at it in a previous book 'Beauty and Misogny' which is available as a PDF.

Important and interesting as the above may be they do not change the fact that it is impossible to change one's sex. It is of course possible to imitate the other sex via stereotypes, trappings of femininity and masculinity, synthetic hormones and cosmetic surgery - none of which feminists have traditionally been supportive of as we think they are harmful (again see Jeffreys for her analysis of harmful cultural practices).

Gender critical feminists are sympathetic to reasons 2, 3 and 4 but tend to think that it is deeply inhumane to offer a 'sex change' (i.e. something that is untrue and impossible) as a solution to these painful issues. We tend to be creeped out by reason 1 and think that such people are the very last people who should be allowed to influence the law regarding the status of girls and women and that the last place they should be is in sex segregated safe space for girls and women.

This is a good article on autogynephilia.

www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/06/11/what-kind-of-woman-is-caitlyn-jenner-part-one-of-a-qa-on-autogynephilia-with-michael-bailey/?utm_content=buffer6d4b3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A good response to the Dolezal situation, about black girlhood:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/became-a-black-woman-spokane-rachel-dolezal-black-girl

From the above:

'Had she really understood the history of black women in America, Dolezal would have recognized that she is perpetuating a fetish for black women’s bodies that devalues actual black women while celebrating our parts when attached to the right (white) form. But she was not alone in this act of playing black and benefiting from it. Since black womanhood is apparently all in the look, our society would rather have white, former Disney pop stars twerk, talentless celebrities with enlarged backsides and their equally talentless siblings with swollen lips than celebrate the black woman’s form with the person who carries it. Black women learn that we are not desirable, that we are invisible, and yet we are imitated by the world’s Dolezals and in our popular culture. Little black girls like me could never have passed for white – and would’ve been ridiculed if we tried – but anyone with the right accessories can now seemingly claim to be black women when it suits them.

Spokane was, for once, perhaps just ahead of the curve: we might be moments away from declaring that simply wearing Black Woman is enough to be a black woman ... or even preferable to it.'

Off on a tangent, but what is the issue with the word cisgender?

It is making the assumption that other people in general have an internal gender identity, that you can make that assumption about them, and then classify them based on an attribute you assume they have that stems from your own belief system.

It's also not anyone else's business what someone else's internal gender identity is.

I particularly dislike the word 'cis'. It is used as an insult. It even sounds nasty, like hiss or sus-picious.
I think it is pejorative and I do not accept that people should call me that.

I don't see any need for such a word. You are a transsexual, i am not a transsexual what is wrong with that?

I think that if we could somehow create a gender neutral (but not gender blind) society, then many of the issues around trans-gender would just evaporate. The same would apply to race (or age or any other powerarchy in society).

Of course, just how we would achieve that is a mystery, but discussions such as this, and even media pieces which can cause more problems than solutions, do help to make people engage with the issues.

One example: bathrooms/toilets. Why not have large, shared toilet spaces (along with baby change facilities, mirrors etc) with smaller sections on each side for single sex? that would allow people who wish to be gender neutral to do so (or just to minimize the queues for women's toilets because places don't put in enough), but offers privacy for any women or men who may want it.

There are ways to change how a society thinks and operates, and starting with some of the external, physical elements of society (e.g. toilets), can influence, and be influenced by, the society living there.

Another example: sport. Why not have categories based on size/weight etc. So, instead of men's rugby and women's rugby, you have the under 200 lbs and over 200 lbs teams. We already divide sport by age as well as sex, why not change the categories to size & age? I haven't read enough to know how true it is, but the book The Frailty Myth talks about how girls can be just as strong and fast as boys, and even beyond puberty there are examples of women who can challenge men at speed, endurance and strength. Given that even before the age of 5, girls are taught to be 'lesser' in sport, then would their bodies develop more equally if they had the same opportunities at physical prowess? Or could there be a way to categorize by muscle/bone density? After all, boxing is done on weight, so it's not s ridiculous idea. Interestingly, when Paula Radcliffe almost equalled the men's time for a marathon, she was disqualified for using male pace setters (just like the men do). Apparently women can only using female pace setters, or they're not playing fair. We know that women out perform men at longer distances, yet those races aren't seen at the Olympics, or other big sporting events. So, if sport were more gender neutral, then it wouldn't matter whether a person identified as male or female, or had certain genital features, as the competition would not be about men competing against men etc.

Why on earth would we do that? Existing divisions in sport.,toilets work fine.
Smaller men compete against each other. Smaller women compete against each other. A 50kg man is going to be much stronger than a 50kg woman for most things.

Why do we need all these changes? In order that a few men with implants can beat up women in boxing? It is nonsense.

Sex and gender are not interchangeable words. It is not possible to have a coherent discussion about this, if people use them interchangeably

Facitities such as changing rooms and toilets have always been segregated based on sex. This makes sense eg, provision of sanitary bins, urinals, avoidance of rape etc

You cannot segregate based on gender. Gender is an internal 'feeling' of being feminine or masculine. Some people have this and some people don't. And for some people it changes periodically

What people want to do to accommodate trans people, is to stop segregating based on sex and start segregating based on gender performance. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I am a women. I have no gender and reject gender. I don't wear frocks or makeup. I have short hair and I am an engineer. But I do need to have sanitary disposal units. And I would like to avoid being raped again

Also if you expand the meaning of the word woman to include those that feel like women, can you not see it renders the word meaningless. You cant be something, when its definition is to feel like that something

Kissangel, there's a grain of truth in what you say about sporting performance, mixed in with a lot that is simply biologically wrong. It is true that women as a whole are culturally conditioned, at least in our society, not to take part in sport, and not to take part in activities that might lead to them developing muscles (I've coached women's sports teams where some of the women have fretted that if they do weight training, they'll develop "ugly" muscles). So most women could be stronger than they actually are. But that doesn't mean they'd be able to compete with men on an equal basis.

When I was at my strongest, back at about the age of 30 when I rowed a great deal, I could do about 5 pull ups relatively easily. That puts me way ahead of most women - most of the women I know couldn't do one. And that difference is entirely due to training, not to innate ability. But at the same time (and I've played a lot of mixed sports in my time) most men of normal BMI, even complete couch potatoes who've never been near a gym in their lives, could do several pull ups without training. That's just the effects of testosterone for you.

So I'm all in favour of trying to get women to think about being physically stronger (it's good for you, builds bone density, improves health, and gives you access to sports you might find fun). And (quite a hobby horse of mine) for most sex differences there are two overlapping distributions of abilities for the sexes, not two distinct spikes separated by a huge chasm (in statistician speak, the D value between the two distributions is small). But it's a denial of basic biology to think that the difference in physical performance, either at the average level or at the extremes - the Paula Radcliffe level - can be erased.

And I reject cis. My gender doesn't match my sex. I have no gender

I am a woman, due to my biology and experiences because of my biology. No prefix required. Or welcome

My motivations for wanting gender neutrality, or perhaps less insistence on gender, aren't to accommodate trans gender people, but to make it easier for people to be seen as equal individuals, not labelled as male and female in almost every thing that they do. There's no reason why mixed bathrooms couldn't have sanitary facilities, condom machines, baby changing etc.

Sport is harder, as there are differences, but categories, based more on some kind of trial rather than purely sex, could open opportunities for women to be seen as equals. There are many sports with A and B teams, and most marathons have time trials applied to runners for their starting positions, so why not extend that, so that (like many public marathons) there is ONE race, open to all, but with like abilities competing together? Again, my reasons for thinking about this are more about wanting less division between the various sexes/genders, but it also applies to many situations that trans people find themselves in. (Which Olympic team can they compete in, which bathroom can they use etc)

It just seems that so often people confuse equal and same, when really different and equal is the truth, but I would like to see ALL differences being accepted as equals, rather than insisting on the somewhat false oppositional binary that is often presented.

Longlist I can't speak for anyone else but I don't like being called cis because I believe it to assume that I have a certain gender identity and that it aligns with my physical/genetic gender. Transpeople often describe being trans as having a different innate gender to the one they were assigned at birth.

For me, I present physically/biologically as female and have experienced certain conditions because of the way society treats people who present as I do in certain ways.

I don't have a concept of innate gender identity or a male or female brain. There may be differences in the brains of men and women but so far the science is not strong enough to support this. The differences found are small and not necessarily particularly important. Also, brain differences can be because of repeated behaviour. Such as black cab drivers have enlarged areas of the brain that deal with directions. People with these brains don't become cab drivers. Cab drivers exercise that part of the brain and increase its power.

I don't see myself as feeling like a woman and having a body that matches this. I imagine that there could be a man with a very similar inner life to me, and that our differences would be our physical experiences and the way we have lived through societal expectations.

When people talk about cis privilege it's often to say that a cis person has the advantage of their gender identity being aligned with their physical body. I don't have a gender identity so I can't associate myself with this. I can understand why a trans person may want to use the term, and if you believe that you have an inner gender identity that aligns with your physical body then I would say feel free to call yourself cis, but I don't have that concept and I don't recognise it so I don't want to be labeled as such.

I hope that makes sense - and sorry it was so long!

i would like to tell you about my peak-trans moment.

It was when I learnt that trans-activists had lobbied and had RadFem2012 cancelled. At the time I didnt even really know what Radical Feminists meant. On the agenda for that meeting was FGM.

FGM is an issue which is very close to my heart. My SiLs, MiL, some of my neices and a number of my friends have been cut

And here we have a bunch of men who electively mutilate their genitals (under anaesthetic of course) closing down a forum where FGM was to be discussed; women would have been sharing their experiences. And if these men could not be invited, they would rather the discussion didnt happen at all.

FGM is NEVER going to affect MTT people, yet they insist that the language is changed to FAABGM or LGM, so they don't feel excluded

Other issues that affect the women in my family/wider community; child marriage, lack of access to any healthcare, lack of access to education, ALOT of death in labour. These issues are common to millions of women around the world. I relate my families experiences, to try to humanise the issues. Alot of people tend to minimise these problems as being 'distant' and 'irrelevant'

These issues kill women. And MTT people whine on about being excluded and try to change language so that it is impossible to mobilise action to help actual women. They are excluded. These issues will never affect MTT people. And changing language and forcing their way into conversations and spaces is not going to improve the trans peoples lives in any way at all. so until they can show a little compassion, they will get no more from me, im afraid