Trans media watch are lobbying mnhq

[BeyondTheHarpy]

I know this has already been mentioned in the PL thread, but I thought it might be an idea to bring it to the attention of mners in a thread of its own.

After the PL debacle, there followed a thread in AIBU about toilet. On which this post appeared...
"I'm with you OP and I'm horrified by the transphobia on Mumsnet. I have done some work with Transmedia Watch who are trying to persuade MNHQ to treat transphobia as they would treat any other hate crime. I don't know what MNHQ have against the trans community or why they don't challenge the widespread belief that trans women are rapists in frocks who want to see fannies."

So, yeah, just letting you know that they are (allegedly) on the case with mnhq.

inthenick, just wanted to say thanks for answering the question. We disagree, but i'd so much rather that than the usual interaction that comes from people who object to these threads, who usually post once to say "you're all hateful bigots" and flounce off.

those who think that name calling is all that these threads deserve don't seem to quite realise that they're colluding with people who want to silence them. I am not transphobic at all, but i am staunchly opposed to anti feminist or anti woman trans activism.

great posts, Olenna (and sorry about the dig about grammar )

See I wouldn't have so much of an issue if they were snipped and tucked my main issue is the ones who scream they are a woman but wish to keep a fully functioning penis sorry but women don't have a penis

I think it's all this vehement insistance that transwomen are biologically male and should be labelled as such. Who the fuck cares what label someone chooses to give themselves? If they're happier and mentally healthier labelling themselves as female, let them get on with it. It all seems a bit - I don't know - kind of malicous

If trans people chose a brand new label for themselves, I wouldn't have a problem. But they've chosen the words 'girl' 'woman' and more recently the word 'female'. These words have been applied to me since I was born. At times I have resented them, but I've accepted them because they state a fact- I am biologically female. But now the meaning has changed because of TAs. Now it means 'feel like or identify as a woman'. It's a rather meaningless, circular definition and it does NOT apply to me. It's not an accurate description of me. In a few years time, if not now, I will be unable to call myself a 'woman'.

Now I guess it's possible to argue that this doesn't matter, I don't need that label. But if 'women' becomes a group based on who has a particular image or feeling about themselves, and many former 'women' no longer fit, how do we measure the pay gap? How do we collect statistics about crimes? How do we even collect medical statistics and measure the effects of illnesses which affect males and females differently?

I used to think that it wouldn't be so bad to give up the label 'women' to a new meaning, because we'd still have 'female' which is distinctly scientific and biological in nature. Only we don't any more- see the newspaper articles about the first female frontline soldier.

Biological females no longer have a term to describe ourselves that is universally accepted. I find that frightening. So, yes, I care.

I think there is plenty of room in our womanhood for women who were formerly men. I do not think we need to call out the physical characteristics they were born with, it is not relevant to me. I guess I feel, as a woman who is happy and proud to be one, I have no issue with other people identifying as the same. Even if it means access to women only areas. I've heard all the arguments and still feel the same. I do not think trans women are men. So I see no erosion of women's rights by the existence of transwomen in the world.

Just count yourselves lucky you have never had to deal with the complications a trans person has. We should be supporting them not pointing out the criminals and extremists as reasons to not give them basic rights.

Just count yourselves lucky you have never had to deal with the complications a trans person has

And trans women should count themselves lucky they haven't had to deal with the complications that come with being born female in this world.

Oh and I'm Spartacus

Another Spartacus checking in.

MNHQ - stand with us

Yet another Spartacus. Thank you for standing strong, sisters. Female born women are entitled to speak their own truths and define themselves and their experiences. And have their own spaces and boundaries.

Inthenick, I think just a few years ago most of us would simply have agreed with you that there was no problem. Transwomen were males who had dysphoria bad enough that they felt the need to have surgery and present as women, and once they met the criteria they got GRCs. I have a couple of trans friends in my circle & that's all fine, they're just Cathy and Jan.

But nowadays what does being trans even mean? I'm a lesbian, short hair, no makeup, trousers, work in IT, decent flatpacker, not interested in having kids - does that mean I'm under the transgender umbrella for being gender nonconforming? Do you honestly think that anyone should just be able to say "I'm trans" and have free access to women's safe spaces? Because then they're not safe for anyone.

I know most transpeople just want to get on with their lives quietly and that the current ruckus is doing them no favours, but maybe more of them need to be shouting out "Not in my name" on the extremists and recognising that people like that are a large part of the reason women are worried? Empathy should work both ways, after all.

Gleefully labelling transwomen as men here, there and everywhere. The other issues, sure, I can see why people might want to debate them but the whole re-labelling of transwomen as men or penis owners is just a bit beyond the pale to me.

But this is their language. Look on the TRA pages and you will see that women are supposed to call ourselves vagina owners or uterus bearers. We are supposed to refer to 'pregnant persons'. Sometimes we are called menstruators. We can't call ourselves women, we have to use 'cis woman' or plain 'cis'. I find these terms offensive, as do many women. This isn't even to mention 'TERF', which is just utterly offensive.

There are double standards here - TRAs can call women what they damn well like - but they squeal like schoolyard bullies not only if we fight back, but if we use language near and dear to us that even five years ago was not at all offensive (such as 'women').

As a small piece of evidence, I offer this piece from an academic blogger on the Ms Magazine site:

msmagazine.com/blog/2013/02/11/of-menstruators-and-manhole-covers/

I find this utterly, utterly offensive. Yet, it is language that is taking over and becoming increasingly dominant.

Before I came on MN I honestly thought that trans women were a tiny percentage of the population, individuals that had been through a long drawn out process of hormones and surgery to best correct their bodies so they echoed their brains. My view was to a certain extent though that it was not the bodies that were wrong but the brains but that is a side issue.

Since I arrived here a few posters kindly showed me some insight into what the trans-movement has become and it's very far from what my initial viewpoints were. I wouldn't go so far as to say I was a 'TERF' because I do believe there is a very small minority of people who really do need to become 'transsexuals' in order to survive. However recent movements that people with penises can be women seem ridiculous and appear to me to be encroaching on hard fought for and vital women's safe spaces.

I think a lot of women out there are like me and never really thought the issue all that much and so tow the pro-trans line without it really going through their brains.

*Just a poll - how many if you actually know any Trans women?

A very old and dear friend of mine is a trans woman and threads like this boil my piss no end!!*

I know a few. One is quite a close friend / colleague. I do not always agree with this person over trans issues, but we get along.

Unfortunately, my work is more likely to bring me in contact with the transactivist type and their acolytes. Experiences have included;

• being asked not to refer to 'women' in a meeting (people who identify as women was the correct phrase).
• being told that I was transphobic for my abolitionist perspective re prostitution (by someone who was born male).
• being told that I cannot use the word 'woman' by a person who was born male, presented in a hypermasculine way, but identified as 'trans' was latently aggressive, and who also told me that women fantasise about rape.

There are others ...

"I think there is plenty of room in our womanhood for women who were formerly men. I do not think we need to call out the physical characteristics they were born with, it is not relevant to me. I guess I feel, as a woman who is happy and proud to be one, I have no issue with other people identifying as the same. Even if it means access to women only areas. I've heard all the arguments and still feel the same. I do not think trans women are men. So I see no erosion of women's rights by the existence of transwomen in the world.

Just count yourselves lucky you have never had to deal with the complications a trans person has. We should be supporting them not pointing out the criminals and extremists as reasons to not give them basic rights."

Nice you're so happy to throw vulnerable women and girls under the bus.

I was in a complicated situation that meant violence towards me and my trans child (don't flame me) caused us to be in a refuge.

They were brilliant with my child, but they didn't have the training or knowledge to deal with us properly.

Aside from the issue of these trans activists demanding access to female spaces though they have no intention to have surgery or hormones, I think it would be doing the transgender person who needs a refuge a huge injustice to go to a facility where there is no specialist help. There does need to be separate facilities in some instances, and unisex facilities for others imo.

A friend of mine who works in financing for the NHS has a concern that as the rates for cervical cancer go down, because they include people who identify as women, the funding will be cut. I was sceptical that transwomen would actually be included in those statistics, until a transwoman on here told me she was looking forward to getting a letter calling her for a smear test.

IF (and it's a big if, because I'm still sceptical, and hoping it's not true) that's the case, the stats for ALL women's biological health issues will be skewed.

So anyone who thinks this is not harmful to women. It is.

OlennasWimple

As I think most people on here see a big distinction between genuine transwomen, and a trans-activists I think using the term 'radicalised' instead of trans-activist is more accurate and has less of a 'noble fight' flavour.

ElsaAintAsColdAsMe

Couldn't agree more Elsa. The problems that transpeople face are simply different from those who aren't trans.

I should imagine separate, specialised services would be a godsend.

Some great posts here.

But... I was mostly off MN over the summer and missed the whole Spartacus thing. Can someone explain in a few lines, please?

I was sceptical that transwomen would actually be included in those statistics, until a transwoman on here told me she was looking forward to getting a letter calling her for a smear test.

From what I know smear tests are only available to ftm who have not had a hysterectomy as part of their transistor, ie still have a vagina. This in itself is fucking up statistics because of the testosterone they are taking.

If the NHS is offering smear tests to mtf they need to be shamed as mtf don't have cervixes.

Amalfimamma

Oh please no re. smears for transmen. Surely not? It can't be this insane, really

transwomen, sorry.

Transmen, yes as they do have cervixes

I have a friend who has just written the community nursing guidance for trans.

Basically anything, literally ANYTHING, regarding their health pre transition is no longer on medical records and cannot be discussed. So if that person was a herion addict or cancer or had a near fatal heart attack it would not be on any medical record.

How utterly mental is that?

had cancer

FRETGNIKCUF

Why not? Why should it not be recorded? That makes no sense at all