Is it actually possible to be a feminist and completely embrace trans rights?

[BertrandRussell]

Because I am beginning to think that i will never be able to say anything about trans issues without being accused of being transphobic.

It seems to me that in some cases trans rights are just incompatible with women's rights. Obviously then, someone has to step aside- and if I want the ones stepping aside to be transwomen then I am being, I suppose, transphobic.

So has the time come for feminists to say to trans women "I support you to live the life you want to. I will stand up to and with you against people who abuse you and are violent to you. I will call you what you want to be called. I will defend your employment rights, your right to housing and any other "social" service. I will defend your right to appropriate medical treatment. In fact, I will defend you and support you in anything up to the point where your rights conflict with and take precedence over the rights of women. From that point, my allegiance is with women.

If this causes you to call me transphobic so be it. I will continue to support you up to that point regardless."

"I think we should simply accept that trans women ARE women"

Why?

Y-chromosome makes people male, and the definition of a woman is adult human female. Transwomen may be feminine, can look & act like women and might even pass for more than a second, but they are not female and hence cannot be called women in the English language.

So, why "should" we accept something that is just not true?

I have no idea how trans rights could possibly be incompatible with women's rights - can you clarify?

Because to give a group specific rights and services you need to define that group.

Because if the only thing that defines that group is self determination, it is very difficult to argue that the group needs specific rights or services.

Just dropping in to say that I'm with hairy, prawn, venus, winch etc.

I think if we ever translate this into a proper political movement, that will be the time to be more conciliatory. Here is a place to discuss, to vent, to thrash out ideas. Many fence-sitters have been converted to a gender-critical stance by the discussions on MN. These conversations are often prickly - this is MN, fgs - but I'd like to think that everybody is able to least a certain level of sparring in a debate. I certainly don't see at any point in this thread any level of bullying, vindictiveness or unnecessary aggression. Yes, there might be things that some people find uncomfortable - that's the nature of having your ideas challenged. If these discussions don't raise, debate and deal with difficult questions and concepts, then what's the point?

I understand what Blistory is trying to say, but I think sometimes if you take issue with something a poster has said it is better to address that person and their comment directly rather than issuing a blanket request for the whole tone of the debate to change. I think in a climate where people are already upset enough about the way we're being silenced, such demands are probably counterproductive.

"Transwomen may be feminine, can look & act like women and might even pass for more than a second, but they are not female and hence cannot be called women in the English language."

Working on the assumption this is correct (not sure it is) I still struggle with the reality. Entirely anecdotally and based on young people I have worked with, trans teens (both ways) are massively vulnerable. They are fragile young humans desperate to find a place they belong. I could not, could not enforce rules that would make them more miserable and confused.

I am struggling to equate the vulnerable young people I know with the strident activists much talked about on MN. So I might accept something I know is not true because it would feel unnecessarily cruel to act otherwise.

Long term I think it would be more helpful to have a society where 'masculine' and 'feminine' character traits aren't linked to body parts.

But they aren't just 'talked about on MN' - they're not made up figments of imagination. Their tone is pernicious and the narrative is very easy to find online. Maybe that's why some of your young charges are distressed. They're being told they're trans when they're not and vilified if they challenge the idea. Young people are so vulnerable anyway, and the omnipresence of the trans narrative means they latch on to it. Maybe 30 years ago they would have been punks. Or even wore the clothes and make up and not worried about it (Spandau, Adam ant, Annie Lennox, Robert Smith, every glamrocker ever?)

Excuse me: that was to bitofcow. sloooow typing

I think it would be more helpful to have a society in which character traits weren't thought of as 'masculine' or 'feminine' at all. (Which may be in line with what you meant, merry?)

bitofacow, I understand what you're saying, and I definitely believe in being as compassionate as possible towards confused and vulnerable individuals.

I think the thing that must be remembered is this though - is it actually helpful to engage in a delusion with these young people? In the long-term, does it make them more or less fragile? Because we live in a world where biology is real, and so there will always be something to remind them that they are not, in their marrow, the sex that they so desperately want to be. In fact a lot of the videos and blogs I see of detransitioners, they speak of how tense and anxious they became, even in super-trans friendly communities, because they became so preoccupied with passing, and so hyper aware of the fact that they were trans, that it became all they could think about. I don't think this is society's fault - in fact, often the detransitioners will state this unambiguously. I think it is because deep down we are all aware that you can't change sex.

If you talk to TW like Miranda or Helen, and if you watch JenBob's videos, you'll see that accepting the reality of their maleness, whilst difficult, has been liberating for them. I wish we could take some sort of middle way approach like this with young people - say listen, you aren't ever going to be fully female/male. You can have surgery and take hormones to ease your dysphoria, but there is no shame in being as you are. You do not need to try to redefine reality in order to be accepted as a valuable human being worthy of respect and dignity. It's okay to be different.

I know teenagers don't want to be different, but some just are. Being a teenager is a nightmare for nearly everyone, except for a small handful of cool and popular kids, mainly because it's all about coming to terms with the real world after having been shielded from it in the blissful cocoon of early childhood. And I don't think we do any favours to teens at all by reconstructing another cocoon for them to live in. Honesty is always the best policy.

Also someone said on here on here once - the transactivists need children and the young to validate their "it's innate'' narrative. It's these people who are exacerbating the distress of younger people.

All very interesting and helpful - really - it will inform my discussions with these young people.

BUT it will be me exacerbating distress if I have to tell them what toilet to use.

Yes agree errol, hence quotation marks.

Cow - you know better than us what it's like to deal with these young people. I'm sure your judgement is sound. I think preferred pronouns and toilets are reasonable concessions to make to struggling, isolated young people.

It seems to me that encouraging young people to believe that transition will help them is a very unwise path. For girls there's the fact that taking testosterone is physically damaging after only a short time, and permanent changes are likely . For boys hormones are less damaging, but there's the truth that while they may pass in adolescence, as they age they will look less and less convincing. I was watching a video in which a fairly convincing looking middle aged MTT got up and walked away. From the back he was unmistakably male, as are both the MTTs I know. The secondary sex characteristics aren't easy, or even possible, to conceal.

Young people think many unrealistic things. The idea that a sex change is possible is one of them. To allow them to self-harm and endorse delusions is neither kind nor responsible.

Wear what you like, I'm all in favour of that, but encouraging the young to take any steps to physically transition is extremely questionable. I'm not doubting they're vulnerable, Bitofacow, but I'm extremely doubtful that endorsing dangerous, body-hating behaviour is a good way to support them.

As for what Buffy said, OK, what should we do? Do we form a group, work out a position?

Yes Buffy - often change is effected not by arguments won, but by tides turning. So the fundamentalist TRA never won a single argument on the strength of the case - but despite this the tide turned in the direction. It's about mood, feeling, social pressure- and being right doesn't necessarily matter. This is a good point. I see this now.

I would still hold to my view that there ARE red lines that we must return to though, to refresh our hold on reality when we go into the rabbit hole of trans debate. For example, bit's experience with suffering teens engenders sympathy but it doesn't change my view that stranding children is wrong - with no caveat or qualification.

Transing not stranding. Hells bells

I do know what you mean Buffy. It just gets frustrating that some people (ie JAPAB) disappear off down a semantic rabbit hole of the evolution of language and the change of words blah blah blaaaaaaah when in this case the change in the word "woman" isn't an evolutionary shift in meaning over time, its politically driven by a subset of people who have a vested interest in the change. Like the Tories coopting "living wage" to shut down the growing conversation about the actual amountof money needed to live on, formerly known as the living wage.
I think people who say "woman=adult human female" are trying to take the semantic discussion off the table. It can be derailing.
Personally as a biologist I find it totally baffling too. Women is just a descriptive term for a class of people all sharing something that excludes others. Like mammal = feeds young with milk. We can expand the descriptor but that doesn't mean the class doesn't exist. Hence why we are now seeing the appearance of "menstruators", "pregnant people" etc. We will always need a term for human females. And I think whatever term we use, trans women will claim it and trans men will reject it (as they have with female and woman. I'm starting to see an argument that trans women with SRS are cis women creep in too).

Buffy, I'm happy to take it on the "fucking" chin. I just don't really agree, and I'm not obliged to. And I think this endless debate about the tone of our threads is starting to really derail what is otherwise an interesting discussion. I think it's more constructive - when somebody says something one feels is objectionable - to just say, okay, I'm not happy with what you just said, here's why - and why do you feel that way, what are the reasons for it? That way we can explore issues without just silencing each other.

And I'm sorry that you've faced people being derisive or rude when you try to raise important points about language and semantics - but I can't see any of that on this thread.

I really don't want to argue with anybody, and I've always liked your posts Buffy, but nor do I want to have to censor how I talk about this. It's the only place I can talk about this.

Sorry so much for multiple posts - Bit may I ask you a question?

When you are trying to help your struggling young people, are you allowed to suggest they might not be trans? Or would that result in you being described as 'transphobic'

Most people say woman = adult human female as a precursor to 'so what's your definition' though. And because there never ever is an alternative definition, that's the end of the conversation about semantics as far as I'm concerned.

It mean if there is some marker which offers necessary and sufficient condition for a new definition, then bring to the debate. But there isn't. That's the alpha and omega of it.