Can we have a general Trans thread?

[Brugmansia]

Sorry for another trans thread and I feel this is a bit of an imposition given I don't post really.

Anyway reading FWR over the past few months has re-radicalised me. I've been reading lots here and wider.

Anyway just now been watching TV and there's been some stuff that's given me the rage but didn't seem to fit in existing threads or it's own thread.

Anyway thing that gave me the rage.
On BBC3 program on transgemder teen's the doctor just said "creating a vagina". Are doctors redefining vagina as pocket rather than a passage? Makes me want to screem.

Also Sarah Ditum being no platformed.

One would expect that a healthcare professional would take it to be a point of professional principle to act according to the patient's wishes in this regard (because the alternative is knowing that, if candid, you would not gain consent for the care/procedure and going ahead anyway).

In a teaching hospital it is normal that patients will have students involved in their care. It is reasonable that the hospital informs patients of this - the likelihood, the benefits of this etc... Some patients do not want students involved in their care. Some of their reasons are less rational than the reasons women might have to prefer female HCPs. Regardless of whether they accept the patients' reasons - is not acceptable for students to fail to disclose their student status so as to gain access to learning opportunities that they would not receive otherwise. No one, however, goes about 'certifying' their qualifications in normal interactions with patients. It is done on trust, because it is understood that HCPs should not be dishonest with patients about something that the patient regards as important. This is simple professionalism.

I don't see why the sex of HCPs should not be treated in the same way. If a patient has requested a female HCP and you know yourself not to be female, it would be unprofessional to ignore the clear intent of the patient's wishes for your own purposes.

But apparently some trans people insist that they have always been the sex they identify with, so where does that leave us? If some trans women believe they have always been female, then why should they feel that they need to disclose the sex they were born as?

They don't need to disclose the sex they were born as, they simply need to respect the patient's wishes where the patient's definition of sex differs from the HCP's definition. This may inadvertently 'out' the HCP (if the patient is put in the position of wondering why that HCP were refraining from performing a particular test). It needn't though, if it were handled in a way to cause least distress on all sides.

How would all this be known though? Would all patients have to fill in a form?
It still doesn't solve the problem of people who believe themselves to be the opposite sex to the one they were born as

How about you pop onto Twitter and "suggest" this to the trans lobbyists, slow? See what the response is. I'm sure it will be entirely considerate.

There just are certain situations in which ambiguous biology can be a problem, whether someone is trans or not. In many situations it doesn't matter, but in a small number (like when you're about to be examined by a medical person) it does. This is just one of those unavoidable facts of life that isn't solved by everyone pretending (because it would be a pretence) that we can't 'see' biological sex any more and don't 'read' people as male or female. Yes it is difficult for transwomen who are 'read' as male but who would never in a million years hurt anyone, but I think many transwomen are sensible about this fact and are sensitive to the appropriateness (or not) of interacting with (biological) women in particular spaces and situations.

Preferences can be expressed as they are now. If a patient rings a GP practice and requests to see a female doctor, the receptionist would be wise to book the patient an appointment that is likely to cause least difficulty on all sides. Similarly, if a woman wishes for a female HCP in particular treatment contexts, she can express the preference as she does now (usually verbal request) and the request should be responded to in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of discomfort on all sides - given that patients are already often in a vulnerable position.

They can believe themselves to be the opposite sex to the one they were born as all they like. But they are not. And nothing they do to themselves, including surgery, hormones, behavioural changes, changes to their dress or appearance, will do anything to change that. As someone on one of the trans threads in Chat so succinctly put it, I can believe myself to be a cat all I like, I can purr and miaow, I can walk on all fours, I can even have a tail surgically implanted to my bum and whiskers implanted in my cheeks. But I can never be a cat.

Whilst I think that when we talk of transwomen gaining access to women's protected spaces, it is natural for the discussion to centre on the possibility of such a person having fully functioning male genitalia, to a large extent I think this is a red herring. What then of the transwoman who has had all the genital surgery and takes the hormones? Do we agree that this person is now a woman and as such can be admitted to women's protected spaces? Or do we say that this person is not a woman, and is still male, but by virtue of the fact that they no longer have fully functioning male genitalia, they are now permitted access to women's safe spaces? Or do we say that this person, despite the fact that they no longer have fully functioning male genitalia, despite the fact that they are taking whatever hormone medication has been prescribed, and despite the fact that they have had breast implants, they remain male and remain men and as such are still not permitted to gain access to women's protected spaces?

I support the last position. So I suppose that makes me a TERF of the 'worst' kind. But I think that to conclude any different is the thin end of the wedge and the start of a slippery slope. I agree that such transwomen should not be expected to share men's facilities - it would be inappropriate and would put them at risk. So unisex facilities and individual cubicles are the way forward. The way forward is not for women to have to give up what we have fought for and secured and to 'make room'.

Frankly, I am not fussed if there is essentially, a eunuch in drag bouncing around the "ladies' room" with me. I do mind very much if there is a autogynaphyllic MTF with me though. It is possible to tell them apart because one physically has male genitals, the other does not. Trying to sort people out based on their own interior emotions and feelings is a rabbit hole I don't want to jump down.

I may be completely wrong. Perhaps the answer is to up the ante even more in terms of anger, aggression and conflict. Who knows? I personally believe there is hardly ever a remedy in condemnation.

But we are angry. Angry that being a woman, a biological reality and all that brings, is being erased to be replaced with gender play. That female experience is being coerced. That we must put up and shut up or be labelled bigoted and hateful. But maybe that's what you mean? That as feminists, as women, we must not be seen to be aggressive or vocal, because that is not how women should be. We should make room and step aside without question, because we're expected to.

We have played nice; a lot of us here were previously liberal feminists who accepted trans women were women without question. But given the rise of trans awareness and the push for female spaces to be eradicated, amongst other things, a lot of us have become re-radicalised. Despite all of this, in general I have seen a lot more thoughtful discussions coming from the side of feminists compared to the rape and death threats levied by some on the other side. Never once have I seen a feminist threaten a trans person with rape or death. If you have, then please feel free to share any examples and I'm sure they will be roundly condemned.

So are you going to go on Twitter and Tumblr and ask the 'TERF' killers to play nice, like you've asked us to do?

Remedy in condemnation? Condemnation of what, exactly? Condemnation of the notion that violent criminals, including rapists, may in the future be able to claim they are women and be placed in a women's prison? Damn right I condemn that.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more.

100% ChiefClerk.

I agree TheWatchers. They are not. But if people are allowed to self define then how would asking for a female hcp work if there are men who say they are actually women and have always been? Presumably you could ask for a woman and get a man with a lady penis

We have played nice; a lot of us here were previously liberal feminists who accepted trans women were women without question. But given the rise of trans awareness and the push for female spaces to be eradicated, amongst other things, a lot of us have become re-radicalised. True in my case.

Watchers I wouldn't mind sharing my space with someone who had full surgery and hormones and so on. However, I think in the case of DV shelters, rape crisis and intimate relationships (whether personal or professional) there is still an issue. And I still think that person isn't biologically a woman, no.

Does anyone know what religions are saying because that would be very interesting. Would a woman cover her face for example, in the presence of a transwoman?

Well in Iran gay men are encouraged to have sex reassignment to "become women" and then they are treated as women in eyes of Islam. Similarly Albania's sworn virgins are apparently treated as men by both Islam and the Orthodox Church.

I've come to the conclusion, based on this and another thread that Slow is just a GF.

I know, I am super fast on the uptake.

What's a GF?

We don't have to play nice here. This is Mumsnet
As far as the surgery/hormones issue goes, I accept anyone with the gender reasssignment certificate as legally a woman. As far as I know there are around 4000 people in that position in this country (some of them are transmen of course). Obviously they will already be using womens toilets, changing rooms, etc without incident.
I just have a big issue with self identification being accepted as legal status, that is clearly open to abuse.
As far as rape crisis and womens shelters go, that has to be considered on an individual basis but overall I would say not, and certainly never when the transwoman is blatantly a male pushing their luck (see Stephoknee and others of that ilk). Also , changing gender status should not mean that their previous records are eliminated.

GF = goady fucker

A person who posts simply to wind people up who generally only succeeds in making themselves look like a complete knobhead

Ah right! In that case I think your assessment is probably correct

As far as rape crisis and womens shelters go, that has to be considered on an individual basis but overall I would say not, and certainly never when the transwoman is blatantly a male pushing their luck (see Stephoknee and others of that ilk).

Thing is, they would no longer have the right to consider these cases on an individual basis. They would be guilty of discrimination, even if the trans woman in question was Stefonknee, a convicted abuser of women or someone blatantly taking the piss. Because they can self define as women and no one would be allowed to question it. There would be no basis for keeping them out.

That's what concerns me.

Sorry if I made that sound like I didn't think you agreed. I was just reiterating your point.

I've come to the conclusion, based on this and another thread that Slow is just a GF.
I know, I am super fast on the uptake.

Haha yes, I think so. Although TBF, Slow has been generally polite and has at least been presenting a counter argument, unlike a lot GF's who insult and make outrageous statements to wind people up. This thread on the whole is unreasonably reasonable

I don't mind a GF like that. Helps me work out my thoughts.

Here's someone aiming to be the 'perfect' woman