What causes women to become trans activists?

[TheChampagneGalop]

I mean the type of activists that appeared to disrupt the recent meeting about gender in London.

From what I've read about this incident in Speaker's corner there were more women than men protesting and harassing women trying to go to that meeting.
I watched the video and the male violence was of course disturbing and alarming (and criminal!), but the mindless mantra chants from the women about terfs also disturbed me.

Thank you I'll get reading!
I'm sure not all MTT are women haters (I've read this on here).
What about women to men? This seems a lot rarer in the mainstream media. Doesn't seem to be any issues there or are there?

WomenNoCis I have heard Cis privilege discussed as as much of a "problem" as white privilidge. And gender critical people compared to people who supported racial segrigation. And female friends of mine are accepting this comparison, so for example a feminist supporting GN toilets AS WELL AS biofe male only toilets as a "solution" is seen to skin to say a cinema lifting a ban on black patrons but saying they have to sit in a separate area!

This is why the comparison with white privilege and racial oppression is working so well for them! If you get people thinking it's the same thing then there is no room for considering some but limited access! Nothing other than full access is acceptable, which is true for POC, so if you're told it's a comparable experience (it's not!) it instantly shuts out any critical thinking about gender criticism

@WomanNoCis these are two good articles providing clear background on trans issues, both published on Trouble and Strife.

This one is a kind of "women's/gender studies 101" -

www.troubleandstrife.org/new-articles/talking-about-gender/

And this one is about hate speech and violence -

www.troubleandstrife.org/new-articles/you-are-killing-me/

WomanNoCis

It's about rights that are provided for issues that are specific to women, largely to do with their safety. Prisons, refuges, locker rooms, etc, the reason for sex segregation. It protects women, not men.

Men don't give a monkeys if a woman wants to enter their prison, locker room, bathroom. They're no threat whatsoever. Let a transman campaign to compete in a male sports team. Because they're no threat. They can't compete.

Show me a man who is worried if a woman is in his prison! Show me a man who is worried if he is competing in sport against a woman.

The power dynamic between men and women requires women to have a specific set of protections. It doesn't work the other way round.

This is also nice:
www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/a-rapist-in-a-womens-prison-society-has-lost-the-plot/20310#.WbwtuxRh3-k

In my view, two points reveal the danger/absurdity: (1) rapists can now become women-and it's a hate crime to refer to them as men; (2) experimentation on children far too young to give informed consent to irreversible medical proceduresthat can leave them sterile and sexually dysfunctional.

The fact it doesn't work the other way around speaks volumes doesn't it datum? Thank you all for opening my mind.

WomanNoCis

Stick with it. Once you see it you can't unsee it.

Transwomen are famous for being the first woman on the front line, for being woman of the year, for directing the first ever trilogy by women, the first woman CEO in the Fortune 500.

Trans men are famous for headlines like 'man gives birth'.

Tells you everything.

Crome good article. Draws out too that the cries of how awful 'deadnaming' a rapist is has not only shows zero care, concern or respect for the women he raped, it erases them entirely. He is absolved of all responsibility, and disrespecting a trans person is far, far worse than raping women.

See also above: the copy of an online conversation where someone sweetly, with love and pity, explains to the female rape victim of a trans woman that she wasn't raped, trans women can't commit rape, because they have greater political disadvantage than biological women. She is only a victim of enforced sex with that person, and she mustn't say she was raped.

How any sane, rational person could not find this bizarre, sick and abhorrent is beyond me.

I've just mentioned to my 14 year old DD about the possible law changes. She was horrified. "So, couldn't a rapist say one day he's a woman and walk into a woman's loo or wherever and..."

Well indeed WomenNoCis.

I was with one of my friends who sees this for what it is tonight. It's so liberating to speak about this openly. I can only do it with her and on here; on the plus side she says her grandmother and mother, who know lots of feminists in India, are entirely on board with this.

Yesterday 23:05 WomanNoCis

I've just mentioned to my 14 year old DD about the possible law changes. She was horrified. "So, couldn't a rapist say one day he's a woman and walk into a woman's loo or wherever and..."

It really is that simple.

I am reminded of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless when I see that video of those kids agreeing a young man is an elderly Chinese lady. Specifically the greengrocer section:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

{5}I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

{6}Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

{7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

excerpted Greengrocer sections

I have been catching up on all of this reading all the threads and watching videos etc.
This 'woke' experience would certainly seem to explain why women would go to a rally and shout about terfs etc. I'd be interested to know if any of the women trans allies at the Hyde park rally have given any more thought to their views after seeing a woman being assaulted by a man. Probably not, but it might be a wake up call for some
I think the family values video does in a simple way reveal the non critical thinking of this group.
And I suspect many others just simply don't give it any more thought than transgender people are oppressed therefore I will support them because I'm not transphobic.

It really is scary to see what is happening in our society with the male rapist who decided he was a woman and being transferred to a woman's prison being a great example of all that is wrong with this simplistic approach. I don't even remember seeing much in the papers about this

Orwell would be turning in his grave to discover that newspeak is now a reality

That extract from Havel is brilliant, Zoloh, thanks for posting it. I shall go and mull over it.

Late to thread, but it was mentioned earlier about trans men and how they're getting on in male world.
My friend is a trans- historied man ( his term) and has found men to be, on the whole, quite supportive of his choice whilst not supportive/ derisive towards transwomen. The thinking seems to be well of course you'd want to be a man, who wouldn't. Transwomen however they seem to find harder to get their heads around- why would you want to discard your male privilege and become lesser? Somewhat predictable I suppose.
What strikes me about the TRA's is how they are demanding they are 'real' women and yet they are conforming to a specifically male narrative when it comes to their behaviour. The disconnect between their self identified gender and the way they perform gender is so obvious that I fail to understand why anyone, let alone women would support their violent rhetoric.

Actually, having read everything so far on this subject over the last week and having commented early in this thread, the conclusion I now come to regarding this, is that these women are homophobic.

This issue really interests me. I do think we have a generation of people who are trying very hard to ever be conscious of their privilege (which is great) but if you're keen to be seen to acknowledge that, it's hard to not extend it to everyone claiming to be oppressed. The Rachel Dolezal (sp?) story was so interesting as a result.

I think a few years ago I would have argued quite passionately that Trans people shouldn't be oppressed. I'd still argue that in some regards in that everyone has a right to be safe and I want gender stereotypes to disappear so people can dress as they want, say. But Mumsnet has opened my eyes (really, thank you) and like hell do I want to lose female safe spaces. This is really concerning me at present.

If you haven't seen it bodiposipanda's account is worth a nosy. She seems to be your classic young woman who is passionate about oppression and she has extended that to Trans oppression. She recently posted an illustrated image of various vulvas and was at great pains to talk about 'people' liking their vulvas and celevrating them.

Not women, people. There's a lot of talk of ciswomen, non-binary people, and 'people' rather than women too on her page (when the beauty myth largely negatively affects overweight women, let's be honest). She is heading towards nearly a million followers and has a lot of influence. She's just had a book out. I admire the ethos behind the body positivity movement (although do have several issues with it) but increasingly I just feel very cross about what I'm reading on her page. She can't have a clue about what women risk losing by pushing the line that transwomen are women. She's bending over so far backwards to be inclusive that it will harm women. Anyone trying to raise these issues on her page is shot down and made to feel transphobic

What I don't understand is how we got here so quickly. We've been working for years to get some organizations to let us be "Ms" but or seems to have taken 5 minutes to completely turn around thinking on gender. Cui bono?

Without sounding...self pitying (?) ..I think the answer to this is obvious. Female people fought for stuff such as the right to be called Ms. Its mainly males campaigning for this 'gender matters more than sex' bullshit. So naturally, males get where they wish to be faster.

@HornyTortoise I think it's also because to most people they can't tell the difference, it just seems like an extension rather than being in opposition.
My mil would just see being non binary as an extension of being called Ms. I've spoken about this on here before but my in laws have very very rigid ideas of gender and that it is a social construct will have never crossed their minds, they find me difficult because I don't follow their rules, for example if the men are offered a whiskey and I'm not I'll ask for one. Or I'll sometimes sit and chat with the women and sometimes chat with the men after dinner, I didn't change my name when I got married etc.
The way they deal with this is simple I am just a man now in their heads, at Christmas there's always a present at the table by your plate, the women get something like nail varnish and the men get a jumper or a craft beer, and I always get the 'man' present.
They haven't questioned why I'm a Ms in terms of does gender exist they've just put me in the 'man' box, much simpler, it doesn't hurt anyone and I shut up, simples.
Now they see people banging on about trans rights and they just think it's more of the same.
They aren't paying attention. And to be honest who can blame them.

Hi everyone- de lurking here...

I want to say thanks for the really enlightening and supportive discussion on this thread and similar ones that I have read since stumbling across the speakers corner thread. I too have not really thought the subject through and am still wrestling with the concepts highlighted. To that end, can I ask where those who have had total reassignment surgery and hormones etc would stand (I.e. No penis) - would you still consider them male and as such ineligible to enter female spaces? If this is the case would someone tell me/point me in the right direction to understand more as this is where I am getting stuck.

Apologies if I'm going off piste, just trying to get my head around these (often worrying) concepts

Depends a bit on the nature of the female space and how they're going to behave when they get there, I think.

Using a public loo with private cubicles because you present as female is one thing, trying to get a job that gives you more intimate, physical or emotional contact with potentially vulnerable women, such as eg. counsellor in a rape crisis centre/smear test nurse/bra-fitter/mammogram radiographer on the basis that you're just as much a woman as any other female is much more problematic.

If self-identification goes ahead, there will be no way of distinguishing between these scenarios, or protecting the rights of women to have some space in which they are free from the male gaze (whether said male has a penis or not).

Crazyweimlady

Its brilliant that you're asking questions and trying to reconcile all your different thoughts.

There is sometimes a slight disagreement between pre-op and post op.

Unfortunately if someone has autogynephilia, the operation can be all part and parcel of the fetish. In fact some of the more grim fantasies I've read have come from transwomen wanting the op.

Some people will think because the penis is the problem, without one there is no problem.

Personally, I disagree. Although cutting off a penis shows commitment to their feelings, it does nothing to persuade me that they are considering the feelings of women, in any way. And it doesn't change the sense of entitlement and male socialisation.

Those are the thoughts. In terms of practicality, very few men have the operation. You are also not allowed to ask whether they have or not.

In real terms, it's just an abstract exercise. Because the reality is an actual distinction can't be made between pre-op and post op. In fact, most trans-people think it's unfair, because it feels like they're being forced to have the operation in order to appear authentic.

The whole point of this upcoming bill is to remove gatekeeping, not impose it.

Carrying out intimate care for sick, disabled or elderly women is another obvious area where the rights of trans people to have their identity respected is in direct conflict with the rights of vulnerable women and girls to choose the sex of their carer.

There was a thread recently (since deleted) about an agency sending a transwoman to carry out personal care for the MNer's learning-disabled dd, and the distress this was causing to the dd. Now the OP may or may not have been a troll, but this kind of scenario is inevitably going to occur if it becomes illegal to make a distinction between someone who is a biological woman and someone who has declared themselves to be a woman because they think they feel like one.

Nobody's saying people don't have a right to feel how they want, or to express themselves in their appearance any way they see fit. But does their right to be respected trump the right of my 90-yo grandmother or my disabled teenage daughter to prefer someone of the same sex to change their pads or their catheter?

I would say absolutely not, and I think most people would feel that way if they thought about it. The problem is that it is not being talked about - transactivism is being presented as a matter of being kind to gender-non-conforming individuals and not discriminating against them. Which is all very well other things being equal, but the potential impact on all sorts of areas of female privacy, autonomy and boundary-setting absolutely needs to be thought about and discussed openly.

Ok, thanks for the responses.

I suppose I'm thinking that most trans ladies want to be physical, actual women and surgery and hormones create a body that reflects how their mind, perception of themselves is - a woman. And that these trans women want to live quietly as women just like we do.

From the thread(s) I have now read, I'm starting to think I am being stupendously naive ( possibly the same thoughts that many biologically female activists are having??)

There's a trans lady (cannot remember the name, but brunette and Scottish) who used to be a British soldier who did a documentary in America about not being able to use female toilets despite being post op and considering him/ her self to be a woman now - he always strikes me as being absolutely earnest and genuine. I keep coming back to this person when thinking about these concepts- is he/she the minority? Do the majority of this demographic expect to identify as a woman whilst insisting on maintaining a male physical presentation and basically taking the piss? I'm wrestling away here ... thoughts, corrections and guidance most appreciated

To that end, can I ask where those who have had total reassignment surgery and hormones etc would stand (I.e. No penis)

The problem I have with that is that it's like saying woman is non-man. To me "woman" is not just lack of penis.