How can we work towards a constructive debate about all things transgender?

[TruthIsNotHate]

It's absolutely needed, but I just can't see how we can get to a position where it's possible.

The understanding that TWAW is a faith-based statement has been a bit of a watershed moment for me in understanding ‘the debate’. It centres around the state of womanhood being separate from a person’s biology; ie - it requires a belief in the existence of souls - by definition a spiritual belief. As an atheist I don’t feel the need to ‘debate’ the existence of God+/-ess(es) with those who believe he/she/they exist. We disagree. I wish them to be able to live their lives practicing their beliefs - and me mine - side by side peacefully.

When this comes to the current problem of of trans activists demanding access to women’s spaces for anyone ‘self-identifying’ however - I struggle to see a way forward. A Woman’s Place has it framed well, I think.

I feel that radical feminist movements respect transgender movements’ beliefs as far as they are able to whilst still protecting their own beliefs. Is it even possible for a trans activist to do so, given what their beliefs are? (Word ‘beliefs’ starting to look strange now!).

I feel that radical feminist theory is rooted in science, which does not rely on belief, but the scientific method (what we call ‘facts’) - so is the crux of the debate not TWAW, but should spiritual beliefs and science be given equal weight in political/social policy? Are science and religion equally considered belief systems?

I’m rambling now, but this is wider than transactivism vs feminism, it is the post-truth, ‘alternative facts’ dystopian landscape we (the ‘first world’) seem to have found ourselves in the past few years. Which serves the dominant classes - white, male, heterosexual, rich/‘elite’ - at the expense of pretty much everyone else. Perhaps that is why the transgender movement has flourished in this landscape, as autogynephiles basically tick all those boxes, and they’ve just hijacked it. Whilst we live in a political climate that allows a reality tv personality to become the democratically elected ‘leader of the free world’ with basically all his policies based on hate of anyone ‘other’ - I really don’t see how we can reconcile this.

I think the answer might be everyone can’t be happy.

This may be worth a read for people unfamiliar with how some of this stuff works.

pfox.org/Shame-Rage.pdf

I can't remember who it was that noted that postmodernism began its takeover of academia right around the time that a few women and people of color were starting to gain a foothold in the academy. That's not a coincidence, I don't think. The system is old and has weathered attempts to overthrow it before. It's good at adapting.

Feminists could make a lot of headway, I think, if we went on the offensive by Telling Everyone Real Facts

Think you might have just invented a t-shirt slogan there Donkey! I’d buy one. Perhaps to wear to places like WoW festival and other women’s events as a peaceful protest and spark for reasonable debate. Although perhaps I’d fear a (physically) violent reaction - but I guess that’s how changes are made, by direct action and people putting themselves at risk for what they are fighting for.

In the other thread we're talking about the TRA that attacked Maria at Speakers Corner. That will be the test case to see if the public is willing to accept the core TRA belief that they have a right to use physical violence against women who won't obey them.

Wow - so many thought-provoking points (and whole posts, Materialist 😮) that I plan to re-read and consider. Thank you everyone - I know we're exploring this debate before it (hopefully) becomes more mainstream, but I hope that some of these ideas get out there eventually.

I've been thinking about using the term trans-identifying men, rather than transwomen - I think the latter has sneaked into our (my) vocabulary without much consideration, and that we should resist that as much as possible.

Also, thank you to DonkeySkin, you vocalised what I was beginning to think re use of terms.

And to Datun too - the Women's Place UK five demands look really useful.

I might re-lurk soon, I just don't feel particularly safe even chatting about this on MN (which is of course a whole debate within itself).

I agree about the use of 'trans woman' (I find it confusing - for ages I thought a trans woman was a woman who had transitioned to a man). What about 'female identifying man'? Clear and accurate. Acknowledging that they identify as female (gender) but not sex (woman). I'm going to write to my mp today - any hints? I'd love to put something on Facebook too - but afraid - I only have a small number of people on there and they are all rl friends!

In my (albeit very limited) experience. Trans women do not all want to have a debate. Those I know have had a pretty tough time and want to keep their heads down. They would not want anyone to see what’s in their underwear and would avoid shared changing room situations like the plague.
The problem is the crazy folk like the man with the huge breast implants but working penis who wants to be in a woman’s prison. These people are not the majority.

I actually don’t mind recognising somebody’s “chosen gender” as long as services remain sex segregated not gender segregated.

Sittin, I think that female means sex, but woman means gender - can anyone else clarify this though? I completely agree that all of the terminology is confusing.

I fully understand why the focus on these threads is on transwomen. I am struck by (but not really surprised by) the TRAs singular focus on transwomen and not all trans people.

There are a growing number of gender non conforming people, for whom solutions lay in removing gender role and expression expectations. I am not aware of any TRAs campaigning for this!

I agree that what is needed is (I) a legal definition of the terms woman, man, girl and boy (ii) a formal declaration of the reasoning for exemptions that allow for sex segregated spaces/service (iii) continued drive to challenge gender stereotypes.

I think the absence of legal definitions play a big part in fuelling the problems.

Yes MsBeau, I think definitions are so important here. Legally and in the debate more generally. We already have a bit going on what is a woman?
What do people mean by and understand by 'trans' and 'trans woman'? My OH was gobsmacked to discover that even with a GRC transwomen often still have dicks. Let alone the self-defining floodgates. I think most people - including me a few weeks ago - have no idea either.
What specifically do trans activists mean when they accuse others of bullying, abuse, violence? Where are the clips of feminists beating up transpeople vs the other way round?
Etc

'Woman' and 'Female', 'Man' and 'Male'describe biology, not gender.
'Feminine and 'masculine'' are social constructs dependent on culture.

We can't challenge it. This is male driven. In any situation the victim cannot challenge the bully, it takes a person the bully considers to be an authority to do that. The bully cannot see their victim as a real person.

Women are told their hairis oppressive to men, and they have to cover it. They cannot uncover their hair in front of a biological male, no matter how he identifies.
How are those women supposed to access a smear test if they cannot ask for a female nurse?

We can challenge it Upstart. Men don't always win over all women. I have my hairs out all over the shop today.

We need to challenge it. It needs to get out in the wider daylight and the arguments properly debated.

Sitting a woman's place has some great stuff on contacting your MP. Will see if I can find a link

I just think women need to hold up a great big STOP sign.

Trans people are already protected in law from discrimination in employment, housing and the like. And are protected from face-to-face abuse in terms of hate crimes.

Trans people already have access to free NHS therapy, medication and surgery where needed.

Trans people already have a legislated route to change their legal gender - which also changes their legal sex. The gatekeeping is already minimal.

THEY. DON'T. NEED. ANY. MORE. RIGHTS.

We women don't need a constructive debate to work out how to kindly explain this to a movement that has been overtaken by violent misogynists. We just need a fuckload of STOP signs. Enough so the politicians shit themselves and stop taking away our rights in order to pander to a load of patriarchal arseholes.

Well, that's how I see it, anyway!

I have no intention of working together with any TRA. Our goals are objectively different and for me, there is no middle ground. In fact, I see them as the enemy. For me, it is a just war question to some degree - would I enter into an alliance with someone who was either inherently evil or obviously has me in their sights in some way. It's Chamberlain appeasing Hitler all over again.

I am more than happy to work with 'old style' transwomen (and any old-style transmen out there) because I think that our interests segue and there is room for dialogue about common ground, respective needs and goals and possible strategies.

I am also more than happy to work with the parents of transing young people, assuming they are not pushing the Mermaid bollocks line.

Finally, I think it is important to not assume that we are a homogenous group. Within us, BME, disabled, lesbian women may have needs that are different or similar but reflective of a different level of need.

There can be a constructive debate, but only by the people in the middle. The ones with views towards either side are always going to want things 100% their way because they know they're 100% right.

And Trans Identifying Male (TIM) makes no sense at all. To say that they identify as trans? They don't! Whether right or wrong they identify as women. Using TIM is like saying "you don't believe what you believe. Let me tell you what you believe!"

Yes I agree the constructive debate has to happen in the middle. I am definitely not suggesting try to convince TRAs. That truly would be a pointless waste of time and energy.

In my (albeit very limited) experience. Trans women do not all want to have a debate. Those I know have had a pretty tough time and want to keep their heads down. They would not want anyone to see what’s in their underwear and would avoid shared changing room situations like the plague.
The problem is the crazy folk like the man with the huge breast implants but working penis who wants to be in a woman’s prison. These people are not the majority.

This is my experience also. The trans people I know are horrified by the actions of transactivists and say they do not speak for them in any way. They are also massively against self-ID but apparently when they try to raise this they also get death threats and the likes and just get branded 'truscum'

How do you debate a religious belief? That's what "trans women are women" is. Facts that contradict the person's belief are then a test of their faith which they will attempt to rise to.

I don't think you need to do this. Accept and embrace whatever gender identities people have - it's not something you can change and it doesn't really matter, just make it very clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Gender is not sex.

Fight to keep areas where biology makes a difference (health, prisons, sports) separate based on sex.

This is exactly what we need to shine a light on, so a proper debate can be had by MPs, actual stakeholders, the mainstream media: The trans people I know are horrified by the actions of transactivists and say they do not speak for them in any way. They are also massively against self-ID but apparently when they try to raise this they also get death threats and the likes and just get branded 'truscum'