Trans vs other protected characteristics

[Rudest75]

As somebody who has always been an advocate of both women's rights and LGBT rights I'm struggling to get my head around the recent trans debate. It seems to be an issue where you can't really support both sides, yet it's so less clear to me than is the case between most opposing ideologies like conservative vs liberal, nationalist vs multiculturalist, etc.

A common question around the bathroom debate seems to be "what rights exactly are trans people being denied?" When I try and apply this question to other protected characteristics I'm even more confused!

If we take the statement "trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men" how does this differ from the following examples?

"Muslims shouldn't be allowed in Christian spaces because of a small minority of terrorists/suicide bombers."

"Immigrants shouldn't be allowed in native spaces due to a small minority of rapists."

"Black people shouldn't be allowed in white spaces due to a small minority of gang members/Bloods/Crips."

I can't get my head around it!

Trans Vs Everyone Else.

The point about other protected characteristics is that they protect basic human rights so dont compete.

Trans rights are not basic human rights, as they remove other peoples rights. And you acknowledge that in the title.

With apologies for chiming in late, I think the OP's initial statement is one where the problem starts:

"trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men"

My statement would read more like this:

"trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because they are not women"

Some male-bodied people are dangerous. Some are not. Sex segregation exists for a reason. I don't want any male-bodied people in women's spaces, because they are not women.

Exactly right, ArcheryAnnie. Another way of phrasing the OP's question would be to say, "Men aren't allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of men are dangerous." Is it fair to ban all men from women's spaces because a minority of men are violent and predatory? And we as a society have accepted that yes, it is fair.

Maybe I'm just too empathetic as an individual, but I think I'd be content to make what is likely in reality to be a small concession if it spared an entire group from abject misery. I mean, how often are we likely to encounter trans people in the real world and what proportion of them are really predators as opposed to young, confused teenagers.

See, I do empathise with those individuals. To me, it would be a small concession: I am far less bothered personally about men (however they identify) being in a women's bathroom than many people are. It would not be a difficult sacrifice for me to make.

But I have never been raped or suffered serious sexual assault. I don't care who listens to me pee. I have no cultural hang ups about taking my clothes off behind a flimsy, gappy curtain in a unisex changing room.

I have enough empathy to realise that this is not the same for many women, and I don't want to impose abject misery on them.

For me, women's prisons is a much bigger issue than changing rooms and bathrooms anyway, as that is where you will find some of he most vulnerable people in our society. If you are interested in protecting he vulnerable, I think you should look closely at what effectively ending sex segregation of prisons would mean for those women.

Personally, I feel that there are occasions when it may be appropriate to house a transwoman in a female prison, but it is not a decision to be taken lightly; in such a situation you would have to decide which option is least wrong, not which one is "right". And it should only be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account the nature of the offence amongst other things. Anything that grants a general right to anyone who identifies as female to access women only spaces is deeply problematic, imo.

I mean, how often are we likely to encounter trans people in the real world and what proportion of them are really predators as opposed to young, confused teenagers.

Already we have seen political parties, student union women's societies, lesbian groups, women's centres taken over by trans-identified men, and made inaccessible to many women. Women are left with the crumbs, forced to find alternative ways to associate, without resources, while the resources which they had previously fought for are now used by males. Even some women's book clubs have had to go underground to keep them women only!

This is the case NOW, even before changes in the GRC have gone ahead.

So the answers to your question is "quite often".

The principle objection to allowing certain atypical men into women's spaces seems to be the actions of a small minority, which is why I mentioned the refugee example and the others.

Its is not a minority of 'transgender' people who are a problem.

Transsexual people are a minority of those under the trans umbrella.

Transsexual people are miles apart from the rest of the people who come under the label 'trans'

I honestly think transsexual needs to be removed from under the 'umbrella'. I know a lot of people would not really have an issue with a post op transsexual woman using the ladies. I am one of such people. Though I also understand that some women would have an issue with it as even post op transwomen are still male (and retain male pattern violence). And I don't feel right shouting over the women that do have an issue with it.

But yeah, transsexual needs to come out from under the umbrella. Many transsexual people agree with this and say they have nothing in common with fetishists and drag queens and the likes.

I guess what I am saying with the bit about post op trans people...there does not need to be any laws that force people to accept male people in female areas. We have managed for a long time to sort this ourselves. There has always been an honour system in place where women turned a blind eye to male people in female spaces. TRAs fucked that up by being so aggressive and ridiculous (lady penises, really?) but even with it messed up, I am confident that we can sort it all out among ourselves tbh.

And before anyone thinks they have an 'aha' moment with me saying post-op people, no I am not thinking forced genital checks or anything. Just common fucking sense. We do not need to do genital checks at all. We have to trust that the trans person is 'genuine', like we have done for what? 60 years or something..however long women have had female only spaces.

But maybe, TRAs have totally messed it all up for transsexual people and many women are now uncomfortable with anyone male in their areas. If this is the case, then its unfortunate but there is no answer besides campaigning for a third space for trans people. What absolutely is not an option, if forcing through laws that will make the women in the female areas be breaking the law by reporting a male person in there. Thats not right at all..its totally ridiculous.

There is a boy at my 12 year old daughters school. He is trans. He identifies as female. He dresses as female BUT he has a penis. Should he be allowed into my daughters changing rooms? He is a pre pubescent boy. She is a pubescent female. Regardless of their sexuality he has a penis! This is a real argument affecting my life right now.

There is a boy in my 13 year old DSDs school that is exactly the same. it sounds from your post like the school has not caved yet and allowed him use of the female changing rooms? I wish DSDs school had not caved. She has instead been changing for PE in the staff room with 10 other girls who do not wish to change infront of boys. She is being called names and being bullied left right and centre for her 'transphobia'. Luckily there are a fairly large group of girls uncomfortable with the situation so they all are sticking together, its better this way than if it was everyone against one person. Its all just so fucked up.

I mean, how often are we likely to encounter trans people in the real world and what proportion of them are really predators as opposed to young, confused teenagers.

I've had my continuation in my job threatened because of an allegation of 'transphobia' (undefined) by unnamed complainants. I've been doxxed, in other words, simply for retweeting gender-critical content on Twitter.

So yes, there is a real threat to some feminist political views and freedom of speech.

Self-identification has already arrived and is doing its dirty work, IME.

And I'm "empathetic,"** have taught 'queer theory', sit on diversity committees, have been involved in trail-blazing in my profession. But teenagers tried to destroy a 30 year career.

So yes, Trans*activists can fuck off to the far side of fuck.

And now I'll have to NC again. I can no longer speak of these things in my own name.

** I love the implication that gender-critical feminists are not also "empathetic" from the OP. People who say that can just fuck off. I'm so angry about this, but I have to smile & nod & engage in constructive dialogue in real life.

trans vs other protected characteristics

I mean, really, the whole set up of this thread is nonsense.

We are perfectly well equipped to deal with conflicting rights. There are whole areas of law dealing with it. People have made careers in this area. There is so much jurisprudence and case law that we'd be here for a century trying to read it all.

That is how equality legislation is entrenched and progressed to the benefit of all. Through the courts adjudicating competing rights. We've been doing it for decades.

The entire problem with transactivism is that it is not prepared to accept trans rights being progressed in the same way as all the other rights for minorities and protected groups. It wants to colonise the rights of an already existing group (women) so that there will never even be a conflict of rights for the courts to adjudicate.

That's why it's bloody dangerous!

For the life of me, I cannot understand how so many people are so blind to the bleeding obvious.

Vicxy well done to your DSD for standing up for herself, and how absolutely horrible for her that she's been put in this position.

Vicxy well done to your DSD for standing up for herself, and how absolutely horrible for her that she's been put in this position.

I know. I am seriously considering homeschooling my daughter. Shes only 5 right now but if this self identity shit goes much further, then I do fear for her at school changing infront of god knows how many boys and sharing loos and such with boys also. I am thinking that this madness will reach its peak maybe in 5-10 years time, which will be right when it will affect her most. Luckily I figure after it reaches its peak and many people (and their children) are personally affected by it, the balance will tip hugely in favour of feminists.

But I worry that the changes to the law will not be easily undone also. Could take a hundred years to get things back to where they were before this insanity started

So many questions and so little time to answer them!

I probably am guilty of using stereotypes to get my point across but my Big Joe example wasn't a statement on physical size etc, more a juxtaposition between the 'manly' type of male and the type who are so committed to living as a woman that they are prepared to sever their genitalia and commit to living 'as a woman' in the way they dress and go about their daily life.

I guess where I differ from a lot of feminists is that I'm not particularly hung up on gender and tend to look at individuals over classes - an approach which I appreciate is not very useful for the purposes of broad stroke assessments/decisions around these issues. I need to have a good read through the posts in this thread but one thing that jumped out is the statement that transsexuals are a different demographic from many of those being discussed - I think I'm probably thinking of transsexuals.

Ultimately, I don't see why a genuine transsexual is any more likely to ogle women than a lesbian (who I'm also happy to share a changing room with) and when I think of a 'man' a post-op transsexual in women's clothing is not the image that first comes to mind. Taking the example of gay men, many seem to prefer female company when younger and don't fit into the typical male sphere - I think transsexuals are likely also outside of this sphere. I think self-ID is a threat for obvious reasons but tbh I really don't care if a transsexual sees me nude. I doubt most of them really care either.

My examples about race/immigrants were meant to be examples of situations where we could find reasons to other certain groups based on potential threats but where society has instead chosen not to. Call me a bigot but I still think many immigrants from Middle Eastern societies where patriarchy/rape culture is much more prevalent pose more of a threat to women than the typical English male. We still accept these groups into our places and I think this poses interesting questions/comparisons. Gay men are men but I'd be surprised if they raped women with the same frequency as heterosexual men, and I think the case with transsexuals is probably a similar one.

I know that my view is unpopular in this section but it really does seem only to be feminists who are getting themselves worked up about this issue and it is interesting that they are the same group who are so often associated with a general dislike of men. If the other 90% of woman echo their sentiment then I'll shut up and concede to their consensus, but I'm not yet convinced that the majority outside of identity politics feel the same way.

they are the same group who are so often associated with a general dislike of men. If the other 90% of woman echo their sentiment then I'll shut up and concede to their consensus, but I'm not yet convinced that the majority outside of identity politics feel the same way.

1 in 5 women stalked
1 in 4 sexually assaulted or raped
1 in 4 suffering domestic abuse
2 UK women a week murdered by abusers
10 a week committing suicide as result of abuse FGM, Early & Forced Marriage

No woman knows whether the next man they will come into contact with will be polite or kill them or anything in between. It is not a dislike of men because it is fun to dislike men, it is a dislike of the class 'men' because of their behaviour towards the class of 'women'.

If you are not yet convinced why feminists dislike men I don't really care. I care about the women who are the victims of men, not about the feelings of men. If men are upset about women generally disliking them, then have a word with other men and stop them raping, killing, abusing, stalking, threatening, and mutilating them. Simples.

I guess where I differ from a lot of feminists is that I'm not particularly hung up on gender

We love gender here. That's why we keep banging on about being Gender Critical.

Ultimately, I don't see why a genuine transsexual is any more likely to ogle women than a lesbian (who I'm also happy to share a changing room with) and when I think of a 'man' a post-op transsexual in women's clothing is not the image that first comes to mind.

Why are you still going on about this? It’s been said over and over and over again that most women aren’t worried about genuine transsexuals, the point is how do we tell them apart from the chancers?
What we have now is that in order to legally transition you have to ‘live as a woman’ (whatever that means) for two years and you have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. This has worked for years and women have had an honour system that allows genuine transsexuals into our space if we feel comfortable. However that law is being eroded away so now any man can claim to be a woman.
its not about genuine transsexuals THIS LAW HURTS GENUINE TRANSEXUALS

As for the reason why it’s just feminists getting their knickers in a twist I would bet that’s because most people haven’t thought about it or don’t know what’s happening.

I know that my view is unpopular in this section but it really does seem only to be feminists who are getting themselves worked up about this issue and it is interesting that they are the same group who are so often associated with a general dislike of men.

Feminists don't 'dislike' men!
Most of us are married/have sons.

You are confusing the wonderfully effective 'man hating feminazii' rhetoric beloved by sexists, with straightforward analysis.

Analysis which gives rise to the activism that is allowing you to even express an opinion in public, incidentally.

Feminists campaign for laws to redress the inherent power dynamite between men and women. That's it.

Furthermore it's seriously not only feminists. The #metoo campaign ran to 12 MILLION posts in 24 hours.

Do all those women hate men? Or are they fed up to the back teeth with a system that means men feel entitled to grab them, rape them, harrass them? Highlighting that IS feminism. The unfairness, the injustice, the attitude that it's natural and normal to have advance your career by way of the casting couch.

As for being worried about certain transsexuals and not others. You are using sexual orientation as a benchmark.

Which has some merit. Homosexual transsexuals are not predatory in the traditional sense. They are also in the minority. They really aren't interested in throwing their weight around and making demands on women. They tend to have more affinity towards women than that.

Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. Sure, you can easily have a man with gender dysphoria who is a complete pig. But gender dysphoria in and of itself isn't a threat.

Autogynephilia is.

The very few men with gender dysphoria who would benefit from this, ironically don't really care.

The people it will benefit is every single predator or MRA in the country.

Paedophiles no longer have to hang around the swing park or the school gates. All the have to do is identify as female (with zero modification to either their appearance or their body), and loiter in the women's changing room during toddler swim.

'That woman is taking an awful long time to dry her hair' is about the only defence those mothers will have.

You can't stop 'women' moisturising themselves, glancing up every few minutes.

You will know, the leisure centre will know, and he will know.

But, this is the crucial part, the law will not recognise it as wrong.

You can't write into law the words 'I just don't think he's genuine' when 'genuine' has no legal definition under trans.

Please listen to what women are saying, OP.

Take a look at these threads from a year ago. With everyone saying oh come on, and that will never happen. And it is happening, has happened.

Men beating women at sport, rapists been put in female prisons , women only shortlists being populated by men, teen girl guides having to sleep with intact boys.

You might also want to take a look at this.

m.facebook.com/groups/1722756661380462#!/groups/1722756661380462

Women don't hate men. You really, really have that back to front.

Oh are you still here?

"my Big Joe example wasn't a statement on physical size etc"

hahahaha seriously? So when you said "Big Joe who plays rugby" you weren't trying to conjure up an image of a great big muscular man? Seriously? Many men who play rugby are not "manly" type of men in the way that you mean anyway. You've never heard of "gentle giants"? If you wanted to get across "man who could be any size but in their personality conforms to traditional notions of masculinity" then you've picked a piss-poor example.

"tend to look at individuals over classes" so things like equalities laws mean nothing to you. You can only see things on a "case by case" basis. Laws that deal with swathes of people are things you have trouble getting to grips with. So for example, where there are laws around treatment of children coming out of care, due to their increased vulnerability as a class, you would not be able to get to grips with that very well. I suggest this indicates you lack, imagination maybe? Empathy? Not sure, but it's unusual for humans not to be able to understand these concepts.

"Ultimately, I don't see why a genuine transsexual is any more likely to ogle women than a lesbian"

Oh so now you're conflating lesbians with TW? This always comes up. It's offensive. To lesbians. Stop it.

"Call me a bigot but I still think many immigrants from Middle Eastern societies where patriarchy/rape culture is much more prevalent pose more of a threat to women than the typical English male"
You're a bigot. HTH.

"Gay men are men but I'd be surprised if they raped women with the same frequency as heterosexual men, and I think the case with transsexuals is probably a similar one."
Now you're conflating trans-sexuals with gay men. What is it with you? First you say you can't get to grips with class analysis, next you are comfy saying that not only are TW like lesbians, but also like gay men. That gets a [eyebrow].

"I know that my view is unpopular in this section but it really does seem only to be feminists who are getting themselves worked up about this issue and it is interesting that they are the same group who are so often associated with a general dislike of men."
You know this how, exactly? Have you done some studies in the general population?

Your arguments have been rehashed on twitter 1000 times, nothing you are saying here is anything that has not been said a lot before, including your oh so clever "gotchas". Did you really think you were making any kind of new or original points here? Although TBF yours include more homophobia and racism than I'm used to seeing, so there is that.

You also seem to have some weird ideas about men who play rugby. If you're interested not in size but in toxic masculinity, then I'd have thought that high level football is a more obvious choice. If you want to make sweeping generalisations. But oh hold on, you said you don't like to do that so what is it with rugby players then?

Poor big Joe

Datun, my acronym of the week is DARVO - deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.

Transactivist exhibits misogynistic behaviour, is called on it by feminists, accuses feminists of being transphobic and man-haters to boot. Classic reversal of victim and offender.

HairyBallTheorem

Yes. And this is what I mean about feminist analysis.

It's all been done. It's irrefutable, and undeniable. The statistics back it up, the evidence backs it up.

DARVO is not a commonly known phrase. Despite it being a commonly known phenomenon.

And it's women and feminists who are familiar with it.

And can recognise it being implemented. In a heartbeat.

It's no coincidence that the first slur thought up by TRAs - terf, had the word feminist in it.

..my Big Joe example wasn't a statement on physical size etc, more a juxtaposition between the 'manly' type of male and the type who are so committed to living as a woman that they are prepared to sever their genitalia and commit to living 'as a woman' in the way they dress and go about their daily life

Ok, so I think you may be talking cross purposes with a lot of people here, and misunderstanding the actual position of many of us.

Obviously opinions vary, but in general the concerns I've seen expressed on these threads are not about the kind of TIF who "commits" to "living as a woman" and severs their genitals

Have you looked into how many Trans activists have any intention of doing this? To suggest what you suggest - that a post op Transwoman is any more female than a big Jo from the rugby club is deeply transphobic.

Because Big Jo's penis is a female penis. Plenty of women have a penis. Big Jo is widening what it means to be female - and has every right to compete on a women's rugby team, against other women. Pointing out that the difference between her stature, body mass, and muscles and that of the other female players may cause injury is Transphobic and literal violence, etc etc....
A lesbian who turns Big Jo down because they don't like female penis, is not just a bigot but also a weirdo with a fetish against penis (super progressive, huh?). See "Cotton ceiling".

That is the kind of narrative that many feminists on here are objecting to.

I am sure there are some genuinely nasty feminists who have some offensive opinions about those who are different, but I have seen very little evidence of them on mumsnet.

The majority of "Terfs" I have experience of are no more Transphobic than you appear to be.

I am still bamboozled at the OP saying that conjuring up "Big Joe from the rugby team" was not trying to hint at anything to do with physical size

Can I say "pull the other one it's got bells on" I think it makes me happy to say that

You silly billy OP

This is all so Regressive Left. I know some people don't like the phrase but it really is. There are a few definitions but basically it's the support or promotion of regressive (often anti-feminist) ideology but dressed up as 'tolerance'.

I haven't heard of DARVO before but I start to see it might be a classic Regressive Left tactic. Take the Cologne mass assaults: denied and covered up to begin with. Then it came out and those who pointed out it was MENA men doing taharrush gamea, and perhaps this cultural import was a fucking issue, were verbally attacked and told they were racists who just didn't like poor brown-skinned refugees. Seems DARVO to me.

Who gets to decide what is progressive?

Feminism is the only movement of it's type that (until now) contained none of the class who run things. That's arguably why it's all so slow and why our gains can and have been rolled back so easily (abortion in parts of USA for example).

The Labour movement was a male movement the same as all the other political parties. My DH is in a unionised industry, looking at the union people talk when they say protect the workers they are thinking of men. They are speaking to men. Yes BAME men. Yes gay men. They are not thinking of the women cleaning the toilets.

The most active TAs are TIMS. The men in the left know whose interests they care about most. Loads of lefty men are just as misogynist as right wing ones - but they're worse because they refuse to even slightly examine their attitudes.