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 thing is, the issues are not going to be resolved by debate. The key issues will be resolved by the law, and clarity around rights.
If/when this is confirmed, there will be winners and losers, and the losers will continue to lobby etc and the winners will be able to simply say ‘its the law’.
Until the law is made clearer, I expect the number of extremists will grow as people become more frustrated and more fearful or losing what they think they should rightfully have.

The law, yes. But who makes the law? Politicians. And what affects them is debate and lobbying and sharing opinions and what is attracting attention in the media and online and how many people seem to notice and care about decisions they will make. At the moment the only really visible voices are TRAs. This had to change.

Had=has

The thing is, the issues are not going to be resolved by debate. The key issues will be resolved by the law, and clarity around rights.

Yep. Which is why it is so outrageous that the Labour Party announced that they want to get ahead of the law vis a vis AWS.

Political parties propose laws then steer them through Parliament so they get put into statute. Then the rule of law applies to everyone. Including political parties.

That the Labour Party see nothing wrong in announcing that the rule of law does not apply to them is, for me, something that disqualifies them from office. And I say that as a bloody member of the party! (Not for much longer if they seriously continue to show contempt for the rule of law.)

Completely agree and up for challenging on points of law.

But the bigger game is preventing the law being changed. At the moment there is low awareness of the actual issues outside trans and radfem universes and those currently impacted.

Where there is awareness the debate has been twisted to obfuscate the actual issues. This has led to a culture of fear as PP have said and people feeling they can't argue for women.

Both of these things have to change if we want the GRC to retain any meaning and protection for bio women at all. Because MPs will decide and they respond to popular opinion. And to those who make their voices heard - which fear is currently preventing for many who see the problems.

So, I'm learning lots from this thread, but still more qs- appols if they are stupid! Is there a reason why no one says 'transvestite' any more? And secondly any suggestions for gentle Facebook stuff - my pals are pretty much nice vaguely lefties liberal types who I suspect would probably instinctively support GRA - but probably wouldn't if given all the facts!

On the point of law I would be up for challenging this on any point, agree or not. If Labour feel they can break the law vs democratically change it, we are no longer living in a democracy.

Sittin. Great question. I don't know the answer but I was one of te well meaning lefties before I saw the threads here so maybe just direct them to the discussions here?

I think some of the problem is who owns the internet.

It's looking, anecdotally, as though a lot of late-transitioning men are in very tech-savvy positions.

justa (assuming that is your preferred abbreviation!) that would be good - but I would never admit to using mn in rl!! No idea why, but I just couldn't 😳!!

Yes I understand Sittin.

I've been thinking about this a lot. I am a fully paid up Spartacus, I am deeply concerned about what's happening. I used to object mainly because I felt that transsexuals (as was then the term) were making a mockery of womanhood by seeing it as being basically summed up by high heels and make-up: now, there's still that, and there's.... everything else.

Structurally, I don't know what we do. Here are some things I've been musing on in terms of carrying out conversations at a micro level, and working within an environment in which I think one of the biggest problems is that we say something, we get called Transphobic Terf, and we get abused and silenced. But there are a lot of people out there who aren't the Madigans and the Fayes and the Lees, who are good people who should be open to rethinking, and these are my thoughts:

1. no more 'Oh well then I identify as a teapot

Although to me identity politics basically is this, it's not helpful. It's so over-familiar now, to the trans community, that it's easy to write off as an indication we just don't get it, we're wilfully stupid, we are refusing to engage.

1. not, unless irresistible or necessary, talking about cocks, balls, and blokes in dresses

same as the other. It risks the opposite of what we want - it opens the way for them to wilfully misinterpret and think we are 'obsessed' with genitalia, when actually all we think about it is that it's a sign of which sex you are.

Same goes for 'misgendering' - which sticks in the craw, but I am trying not to do it, because again, it's a red light to them and means they can discount you as 'wilfully hurtful' etc.

1. Continuing to reject the news sources and ideologies that we always did, even though they are also trans-sceptical

We have an issue because we're gender-critical - not because we're 'morally outraged', essentialists, reactionaries, or traditionalists. We need to keep the distinction between what we are saying and what they are saying as clear as it is on every other issue. There's a temptation to think 'well, yeah, it's the Daily Fail, but at least someone's saying it' - they're not saying what we're saying, and again it makes us easy to dismiss for the wrong reasons.

1. Saying sex, not gender. Every time

I have started this in conversation, in writing, and in teaching. A drip-drip of reminders that they aren't the same thing, and have very different meanings and significance.

Just me, obvs. But glad to have this thread to muse on.

For me it is simple:

If someone has had a full sex change then she is full intents and purposes a woman/man and should be given full legal representation and recognition as woman/man.

If someone is 'dressing up' as woman/man and still has the genitals of the opposite sex then clearly they are still the gender of their birth be that a man or woman.

If you are so committed to changing gender then a sex change is not difficult decision.

No one should be offered this option before the age of eighteen, no child should be offered medication. A child should always dress as she/he pleases, and their wishes respected but no gender change until they are mature enough to understand the irreversible consequences.

Anyone can identify with any sex at any given time, that is entirely for them to decide, care should be take to respect individuals that are changing genders. There should be legal clarity as to what constitutes a full change of gender, and this needs to be nailed down.

Sorry - bit late to the thread.

My belief is that the EA and GRCs need to be reassessed.

I think it is morally wrong to allow someone to 'legally change sex'.

Because
a) It is a lie
b) It impinges on the rights of both sexes to be able to access single-sex spaces for privacy
c) It impinges on women's right to be able to meet and organise politically as a single-sex group.
d) It skews statistics, monitoring and positive action where sex is relevant

However, gender dysphoric people may need a medical certificate to confirm that they have a persistent mental illness, which

a) entitles them to 'present' as the opposite sex, for example where uniforms are sexed in the workplace.
b) differentiates them from sexual fetishists,

However this certification should not entitle the use of sex-segregated facilities and services designated for the opposite sex.

In order to properly protect transpeople there needs to be a specific protection of gender non-conformity, (which will allow transpeople to continue using the sex-segregated facilities of their own sex) such as
a) protect gender non-conformity as a characteristic* from discrimination and harassment.
b) classify incitement and/or or actual abuse** or violence towards a person because they are gender non-conforming as hate crime or hate speech.

• with exceptions such as cross-dressing and mimicry of the opposite sex which is degrading, offensive or hostile

**speaking about biology and other neutral topics is not hate speech. Only if it is done in a targeted way set out to hurt and humiliate a gender non-conforming individual.

I care about women’s rights, I care about transgender rights, it takes nothing from me - someone who has the luck of feeling right in their own skin - to call someone she if they want me to or accept someone for themselves whatever clothes they’re wearing. I don’t feel threatened by men in mixed sex bathrooms so why should I feel threatened by a transgender woman in bathroom? I don’t understand the anti-trans sentiment I see on here, I think it’s unnecessary and ignorant.

You don't care about women's rights. You are happy for women who want to preserve female spaces free of males to be thrown under the bus because you want to virtue signal your "progressiveness". Do you have any idea how misogynistic and abusive most transactivists are? That women are being told they shouldn't talk about female issues as it makes males feel bad? I don't want them anywhere near me. You're the ignorant one.

So, I'm learning lots from this thread, but still more qs- appols if they are stupid! Is there a reason why no one says 'transvestite' any more?

I think it's so they can break the association with cross dressing as a sexual fetish. Those men are active in the new transgender movement but they can practice their fetish without stigma.

My belief is that the EA and GRCs need to be reassessed.

I think it is morally wrong to allow someone to 'legally change sex'.

YY. I agree. It's bonkers and unworkable in the long run.

I agree GuardianLions that the polite fiction of the 'sex-change' needs to go. It's politically dangerous, biologically inaccurate and philosophically unreasonable.

I don't know about any certificates at all. Wouldn't it be simpler to outlaw all discriminatory gender practices (such as telling people whether they can wear a skirt to school or not) whilst retaining sex-based protections?

There should be legal clarity as to what constitutes a full change of gender, and this needs to be nailed down.

At the very least that should be done. Not moving towards even more vagueness and lack of gatekeeping.

Wouldn't it be simpler to outlaw all discriminatory gender practices (such as telling people whether they can wear a skirt to school or not) whilst retaining sex-based protections?

At first glance yes, but I haven't thought deeply enough about the implications so I don't want to be knee-jerk.

I can imagine that boys/men might start cross-dressing in a hostile way that humiliates girls/women or other things like that - I need to ponder longer.

And I thought that genuinely dysphoric people might benefit from being differentiated from gender non-conformists, while the world caught up to any changes...

But I definitely don't think the cert should be part of the EA - instead something separate entirely like a certification of disability that could be presented to an employer saying, I am not just taking the piss, I have a mental illness....

I agree Seek. My concern is that the ‘conversations’ are becoming sloganised and the ‘no debate’, ‘TW are W’ versus ‘I’m a teapot’ ‘women don’t have dicks’.
Whilst for the most part, the same people are going around in circles, at times, new people arrive. I think we are more likely to invite people to listen and think critically if we focus on the key points.
I have been following this board/ these threads for a long time. I used to find the majority of posts very impressive, well reasoned and convincing. However, I find the tone of lots of posts pretty off putting and share the sentiments that others have posted about ‘stepping away’. For me, this isn’t because of frustration with the situation (although I do get pretty irate), it is because I feel uncomfortable about ‘the feel’ I get from the board

Ha,ha. Just after posting I see that post by GuardianLions about mulling issues to do with ‘banning’ stereotyping.
That’s a perfect example of what I used to find compelling about these threads. Really thoughtful, reflective problem grappling stuff.
I’d love to see more threads like that!

Thanks MsBeau

I am also needing to ponder a bit more about a certificate of gender dysphoria being a bit like being registered disabled - because that language could punt the hot potato over to disabled people and into their fight for accessibility.

Like women, disabled people have enough to be getting on with, without having AGPs, kinky and 'queer' people, SJWs and MRAs saying that validating their feelz is an accessibility issue that the world must bend to!

We have to tread so carefully!

msbeaujangles

What you 'feel' from the board may not sit comfortably - but that is the point of the board. The sharing of views and not just the one you want o hear. Many of these posts share a view (probably shared by many) that is interesting and viable, it is not a reason to 'step away' in a snowflake fashion

I recognise that "I identify as a teapot" is a statement made usually rhetorically or as part of a debate to score a point but it sits uncomfortably with me too.