Follow on thread III - Feeling sad and weary that feminists and trans-women are constantly pitted against one another.

[SophoclesTheFox]

I don't know if it has the legs to sustain a third thread, but kudos to perfectly for the impeccable timing of finally answering a question on the second to last post before the thread filled up. Genius.

here is the second thread

As I am now the OP, I wonder if this gives me the right of veto over the resolutions that we apparently made in the Great Accords of 2017?

If a transwoman looks like a woman, and has female parts (sex reassignment surgery), then she's a woman.

So, the overwhelming majority of trans women who have no surgery at all? What are they?

Sex and gender are completely different things, I agree. But misgendering someone, simply because you can't understand how they feel, is not going to solve the issues that we face as women.
It is not my or any woman or girls responsibility to know how men feel.

Puresummer why are you dragging this discussion back to toilets? I am so fucking bored of discussing toilets. There are many many non-toilet situations where the exceptions in the EA could be invoked but where instead women are kind enough to admit transwomen who they know and trust on an individual basis, or admit transwomen generally as long as they seem OK, on the understanding they can assert their right to female only space, should the piss be taken.

But as we are on the topic, yes we did used to have an honour system that worked very well in toilets for about 40 years, possibly longer. Now the transactivists have fucked that up by demanding as a right what was only ever offered as a favour. The result is that women are becoming increasingly mistrustful of any male person in female-only space no matter how feminine their attire or behaviour.

So yes, it has become tremendously legally risky for any woman to challenge the presence of any male person in any female-only space. As a direct result of this the trust has gone and this is no longer an honour system but an imposed law which harms women and girls.

Yay progress

We can't look at self-ID in isolation because of the way the GRA interacts with the EA. Here are two paragraphs from the same page of recommendations in the trans equality report:

7.Within the current Parliament, the Government must bring forward proposals to update the Gender Recognition Act, in line with the principles of gender self-declaration that have been developed in other jurisdictions. In place of the present medicalised, quasi-judicial application process, an administrative process must be developed, centred on the wishes of the individual applicant, rather than on intensive analysis by doctors and lawyers. (Paragraph 45)

22.We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132)

It is vital that we keep the exceptions in the EA that permit women and girls to have female-only space and it is vital that orgs can reliably use them without fear of litigation. The alternative is that the two recommendations above spell the end of sex-segregated spaces altogether.

This is perhaps somewhat off topic but I must admit that it creeps me out when people talk about women as though we are a costume that can be put on by men and no one would know the difference. All evidence to the contrary.

Biological sex is not important.

Oh, dear. Pregnancy, menstrauation, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, FGM, sex-specific abortions, different heart attack symptoms between males and females, etc, etc, etc. These all seem pretty important to me.

If a transwoman looks like a woman, and has female parts (sex reassignment surgery), then she's a woman.

GRS does not give male human beings "female parts," it surgically creates the appearance of a vagina, labia and clitoris. (Which is all well and good if that's what makes a person more comfortable in their body and relives dysphoria). But it doesn't turn a male human being into a female human being. It is medically impossible to do that.

So, the overwhelming majority of trans women who have no surgery at all? What are they?

Men with a certificate. I learnt that from whats his/her name...perfectly. So not a woman in any way, just a man with a piece of paper.

When women are incarcerated the government has a responsibility to ensure their safety, within reason. Incarcerating male sex offenders in women's institutions because they have a legal right to access to women based on their self ID is a prescription for disaster.

So Saucy, why was women's sport created? If biological sex is not, as you claim, important?

Will this be another thread stuck in the land of obtuse?

They all are.

This is what pisses me off the most about this whole debate I think - we are repeatedly expected to restate the absolute basics of why sex segregated spaces are needed in the first place. Every fucking thread we have to explain again that male violence is a thing and that women are oppressed because of our female biology.

From the other side, a woman who thinks she is a guy, goes on a gay dating platform and responses drop when she puts 'transman' in her profile.

Who knew gay guys liked dick eh? and calls it transphobia, not from abuse no - just from the number of contacts that cease to come through.

Ah I do hope transmen keep up with that shite. Been lesbians bearing the brunt of this insanity for far too long. Once its men on the recieving end of the skrieks of transphobia (for their sexuality..which is apparently a choice one should get over ) the message will be heard loud and clear.

Dear Lord it's like groundhog day
sienna did you read the previous 2 threads? Maybe you could have a look, get up to speed with what's been discussed. Otherwise we are all just going to be repeating ourselves.

PS suggesting lesbians are as likely to sexually assault women as men is extremely homophobic

Groundhog Day!! Exactly.

SaucySienna

The primary concern here appears to be that allowing transwomen in women's areas increases the likelihood of sexual violence etc.
Lesbians are sexually attracted to other women, and may thus have a motive to sexually assault other women in the area, yet they are still allowed into women's facilities.

No, that’s not the primary concern.

In this specific issue, the primary concern is with boundaries. Lesbians do not violate women’s boundaries. 98 percent of sexually violent crime is committed by men, not lesbians. Boundry violation however, does not have to involve sexual violence.

It’s not about sexual attraction. It’s about power.

( I realise this has already been addressed. But as it regularly gets trotted out, I thought I would answer it too)

Datun An honour system relies on both parties honouring the agreement. Trans women can use the ladies as long as they behave and women agree not to chuck them out purely because they are trans

Wrong. There is no agreement. There is the occasional favour asked for, and occasionally granted if all else is okay.

And women can absolutely chuck them out, not because they are trans, because they are men.

Groundhog Day!! Exactly.

I know we have had three threads in quick succession. But it is Groundhog Day every day over this issue.

The exact same arguments come up. They get refuted.

It’s quite interesting, sometimes. Either new posters have not read the thread. Or they think if they say you’re transphobic it will end the thread there and then.

A tactic that, presumably, worked for them before. Thank God for mumsnet allowing people to actually talk.

Genital checks again. Such active imaginations some have. Odd how its never feminists who bring up these genital checks. Another thing feminists do not say, but get blamed for saying, basically

They do sound rather like a premise for BDSM wank fodder don't they?

The idea that women will want to see their penis is perhaps one of the most disingenuous arguments it is possible to make.

On the scary lesbians point... my lovely nurse practitioner is lesbian. Before she did a smear/breast exam there was a lot of subtle stuff. She had pictures of her wife and children on her desk and spoke about them, hints dropping everywhere. And she booked my intimate exams, rather than doing them then and there. Had I been uncomfortable with her sexuality (I couldn't give a shiny) I could have easily asked for someone else or gone somewhere else with no issues on my part. I'm fairly sure that's why she does it. Even though it would have been my loss.

Respectful, thoughtful, understanding and filled with informed consent. That's my experience of a lesbian HCP.

If any trans HCP acts in this exact way, no shouting about transphobia, it would be fine. But the activists don't even want women making a choice about who they shag, never mind healthcare.

As long as a transwoman passes, what's the problem?

Are you actually that fucking stupid you think it's about how convincing their costume looks?

If biological sex is unimportant, DH would have given birth to our son.

He didn't.

Why was that again?

There are some inescapable realities that can not be escaped in life. You can try and deny them or spin them or find an alternative to get round the issue by other means but ultimately you cannot escape them.

If you are born male you can not bare children.

It doesn't matter if you are a pro-trans right activists or 'transphobic'. Your opinion or the way you identify or view others does not change this.

Science might try and develop ways for babies to be gestated artificially. It might get there. This will still only be available to a small number of people who can afford it, even if it happens. This still leaves the basic issue. Women have babies because of their biology.

If biological sex is unimportant, DH would have given birth to our son.

YY Red. I didn't particularly enjoy pregnancy and childbirth. DH is a kind man who pitches in. And yet when it came to producing our kids he didn't even suggest taking on a birth or two.

Must ask him why that was.

I do try to understand what people mean when they say "biological sex isn't important".

I think it falls down because of the logic error of getting an ought from an is. It's a feminist principle to say "Biological sex ought not to be important in terms of what people can do, where they can go, who they love, what jobs they can access, what rights they have" etc.

But we don't live in a world where the playing field is level and biological sex isn't important. Sadly, it still matters very much. Feminists know this, which is why that phrase always provokes a reaction. It would be great to move to a world where biology is only relevant to actual biological processes, but we don't get there by waving a magic wand and declaring sex irrelevant because all that does is replicate the current state of play, which is very much still a patriarchy.

Going back a bit, 10.07 yesterday, someone posted a link to a Grayson Perry short about crossdressers. The thing which really jumped out at me was the "midnight walk" which was the first time they dressed in public. I know women will walk around at night, but I doubt many regard that as a safe time.

That was on the previous thread.

Sophocles It's one of the things that drives me mad about equality feminism, they seem to think that the only way we can have equality is by pretending that there are no differences between men and women.

It presumes that as long as both sexes are treated exactly the same then we'll be on level ground. Which is bollocks. For example men don't need the exact same employment rights as women, as they will never need maternity leave or allowances made for breastfeeding. They also don't need the same level of protection against gendered violence, and this is where equality feminism's blinkers seem to be hugest.