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.

slow The current legal situation is that a person cannot demand to be treated as female in all employment situations (e.g. as an HCP) unless they were either registered as female soon after birth, or have changed their legal sex to female via the provisions of the GRA 2004. Whereas there may be 32,000 transgender people in the UK who were born male (extrapolating GIRES figures), there are less than 4,000 people with GRCs (both born male and born female). Even under the GRA there are some exceptions (though there is a strong lobby to get rid of these exceptions).

In one way you are right: if a woman in labour specifically requested a female obstetrician and was attended by a transwoman obstetrician in fulfilment of that request, I don't think it would be very easy for her to challenge that in that situation.

However, I think this is very very much more likely for this to happen in the scenario that GRC is dispensed with, and change of legal sex is accomplished by self-declaration.

The conversation has moved on a bit, but I'm curious - why is race constantly brought up as some sort of gotcha equivalent to sex - e.g. 'if a woman asks for a female doctor, it's the same as a white person wanting a white doctor', yet comparing Rachel Dolezal and Bruce Jenner is horrendously bigoted and too offensive to be deserving of an answer?

I've been on these trans threads since 2012. Do you know, I have never ever seen a trans-advocate acknowledge that there are any real concerns for women. There are 2 responses to any doubts that women express over accepting TW as anything other than women, the same as them;

1. You are being mean/transphobic/ignorant
2. ridicule and accusations of hysteria etc

When the concerns are based on personal lived experiences and consequences that are playing out in real life. Until trans-allies acknowledge these very real consequences and dangers, then the conversation is going nowhere.

I personally, do not feel any need to portrait myself as a liberal individual. So its pretty repetitive and tedious, to be repeatedly questioned over equality blah de blah. That's all be covered and put to bed. Quit trying to shame feminists and address the points they are making

ShortcutButton
My question was would you be willing to have strangers judge how much of a woman you are from an image of you posted on the Internet?

Just a yes or no

There's no such thing as "how much of a woman" someone is, though. Am I less of a woman because I don't want to have kids? Being a woman has nothing to do with how you live, it's to do with the body you're born in.

Slow - re "A business I used to work for had important clients who were Hasidic Jews. They made a request to be served by only male staff on a particular day"

The difference that is amazingly still passing over your head is that one is just a simple everyday interaction (selling them a product) and the other is penetrating a woman's vagina as she lies spread-eagled and mostly naked.

Yes, I would agree with you that it is unreasonable to try to pick and choose who serves your lunch in a restaurant, cuts your hair at a hairdresser's, or sells you a dishwasher in a store. Because these acts, although carried out by a stranger, don't have the potential to feel like rape.

This is not something you would understand without a vagina, I suppose. And that is why, in these subjects, No Vagina = No Opinion.

"definition of "sex"... ends up being a circular definition"

Dictionaries are wonderful inventions. Here's what one says:

Sex = Either of the two main categories into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions

Not circular. Perfectly clear. Nothing to do with "feelings". Everything to do with biology. HTH.

Sluglettuce

So female patients could simply look at pictures of all HCPs in a catelogue and decide who looks less than 100% woman.

Visual corroboration from a photo would be enough of a guarantee?

I feel like you are trying to trick me slow

I'm not sure what the point of your question is. How does whether I would or would not invite the www to judge my femininity, have any bearing on the fact that men with penises are men, regardless of the horrific surgery they have had?

But no, why would I post a picture of myself on the internet and invite comments over my appearance? I have no interest in anyone's opinions on my appearance. It would be a totally bizarre thing to do And also pretty vacuous, vain nd self-absorbed

Again, you seem to miss, by a country mile, the numerous very valid and relevant concerns

I agree that womens' valid concerns should not be called transphobia. A person born with a wee-wee who decides to get silicone boobs and a medical fake female sex between their legs is still a person that was born with a wee-wee.

I suppose for the orthodox Jew the risk is that he may be made impure by contact with a menstruating woman, thereby rendering him unable to make appropriate sacrifices at a temple that was destroyed almost 2,000 years ago, should it be miraculously rebuilt. It's quite a serious concern for the true believer, but I suppose we tend to think that the restriction should therefore be on him (he should seclude himself, or exclude himself from certain social settings if it's important for him to avoid being made impure) and not on any non-believing women with whom he happens to work/trade/etc....

The questions that arise out of women's preference for female HCPs are quite different. That one's innate 'sense' of gender dictates one's sex is as much a belief system as the idea that menstruation makes women impure. And yet in this case, the validation of that belief system is imposed on non-believers who may find it increasingly difficult to opt out.

So all we need to now is request (require?) all HCPs (who currently claim they are women) to pose for a picture. Patients could then decide which of these they believe.

I am a woman because I have a vagina, breasts, a uterus, stretch marks, bleed every month, had 3 pregnancies and 2 children. I don't care what people think of my appearance. It has no bearing on whether I am a woman

That autogynophile has a penis and testicles bulging in his pants, breast implants and a mangled face

Can you not see how far off the mark you are in thinking we need to 'prove' we are women alongside people like that??

"I accept anyone with the gender reasssignment certificate as legally a woman."

Sure, me too.

We need to remember, though, that there is a difference between legally and is. A girl who is just weeks shy of her 16th birthday is legally a child. That means society prefers to consider her a child in matters concerning sexual consent, self-determination, and criminal responsibility. Not that she actually is a child.

And I mentioned the mangled face, because that is part of the 'feminising surgery' he had done to make him feel/look (?? I'm not sure which;both? It beggars belief) like a woman

ShortcutButton
I am focusing mainly on the risk of TW gynaecologists / nurses conducting intimate exams of women.

This could be happening right now.

SlowFJH, why are you so desperate to trick women into saying they accept having males conducting intimate examinations on them?

No. We need HCPs to act professionally, taking into account the wishes of their patients. Specifically, HCPs should work with their colleagues to ensure that patients are able to have requests for an HCP of their own sex for intimate examinations and discussions honoured. HCPs should respect the definition of sex used by the patient and not seek to impose upon the patient their own definition, given that it is the patient's needs that are being addressed in the treatment/consultation.

None of this requires more than HCPs acting with professionalism. No photographs or judgments about gender conformity are required, since patients request HCPs of a particular sex, and not of a particular gender expression.

slow I have no idea whether you are for or against TW in roles that include intimate care and examination of women - your posts are quite confusing.

Again, we don't need women to pick other women out of a catalogue, we just need a rule that if requested, only born women are allowed to carry out that function. Simple. Anything else would then be assault.

Not trying to trick anyone just trying to ensure that the rage also includes some careful consideration of the potential implications.

Several PPs have said in the end you simply have to trust the professional integrity of the HCP to respect the patient's wishes..

If we can't legally or ethically "test" or "judge" female HCPs to show that they might not be highly unethical TW's....It would seem to me that trust is the only practical solution to this particular risk.

Or am missing something?

"am missing something?"

Sadly, a lot.

'Rage'?

Not trying to trick anyone just trying to ensure that the rage also includes some careful consideration of the potential implications

And how does the question you asked, do thatslow?

You might have to talk me through it. I'm not following your train of thought