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.

I think that transgenderism should not be accorded any legal status. If it is a mental illness, then it should be treated as such - no one gets official government ID and altered birth certificates for any other mental illness.
If it is a belief system, then the same should apply. No one legislates to force me to believe in god - why should the law insist that we believe the fiction that it is possible to change sex?
Wear whatever you like, present as you please, but it is YOUR issue.
I don't think we need a debate. I think we need the state to stop pandering to delusions.

"I identify as a teapot" is a statement made usually rhetorically or as part of a debate to score a point

I think it is a sign of someone getting wound up.

It is really, really, really, really annoying if someone keeps claiming utter nonsense in a self-righteous way, with gallingly judgmental tone - you feel your patience start to drain away...

An awful lot of people are wound up at the moment.

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?

I think exploring this would be a good start. Surely transactivists would agree with the first part at least?

Guardian - absolutely! I mean, for me it's actually a fairly meaningful point - why can't I identify as a much more attractive woman than I am?

But I feel like it's getting to be Godwin's law kind of thing - or that TRAs see it as such - and so it's not actually strategic, where it can be helped.

Another thing - the other 'weapon' we are up against is the continual spouting about how we are literally killing trans people and how much more at risk of murder and assault they are. What are the figures on women being murdered again? Maybe, like my right-on trans ally colleague who frequently and a propos of nothing posts about trans deaths, #translivesmatter - we could do similar about women's deaths, regularly and relentlessly.

The thing is, though, you read this:
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-01/debates/D4F283FB-2C02-4C8C-8C7E-BEAB889D1425/TransgenderEquality

and it looks like a careful, factual and constructive debate, the sort of thing any right-thinking person would get behind, murmuring, 'Hear, hear! Shame!'

Then you scroll down as far as the tear-jerking tale of Tara-lived-whole-adult-life-as-woman-Hudson, remember that this is a violent, head-butting, male sex worker with a '7-inch surprise', and kind of wake up.

Seek I think 'Counting Dead Women' has been amazing for getting that message out there - but because so many TRA/MRAs are tech savvy, all of the 'relevance' algorithms for sorting stories on google and elsewhere on the internet are skewed.

My thinking is that we do decide exactly what we want and start a very clear petition or statement - saying we want to end the legal fiction of being able to change sex and why.

I think it is too easy to get distracted and waste time arguing round and round in circles. Lets cut to the chase!

It is really, really, really, really annoying if someone keeps claiming utter nonsense in a self-righteous way, with gallingly judgmental tone - you feel your patience start to drain away...

You certainly do! I have no patience for this bullshit at the best of times, but yes I know exactly the kind of exchange you mean.

The issues with a 'constructive debate' is that it requires two sides engaging within an agreed social contract, and both willing to compromise.

You can see this any day of the week on the relationships board. A very difficult relative is causing an OP issues. Well intentioned posters say well just communicate - why don't you sit them down and explain? And someone gets out the Isendai blog link and shares their own experience and the body of research that negotiation only works between two reasonable people. If one side is not reasonable, is coming from a toxic or abusive or personality disordered point of view, you can spend your life discussing and debating with them without ever making progress, because the problem is not that they need you to explain your point of view better until they understand it .

It's exactly this. When you see politicians or public figures reproachfully saying to women - always to women - 'both sides must work on the way forward', what they actually mean is 'women will have to be the grown ups and give way so this can move forward'.

I passed through the stage of working hard on my language in every post here. I worked hard to always phrase things respectfully and fairly, to never misgender (which involved checking, double checking and tying myself in language knots trying to be nice) , to not say outright things that could be construed as rude and hurtful such as harsh facts like a biological male is and will always be a biogical male, and no women have penises. What I have come to realise is that by being nice and by fogging my boundaries in respect of other people's, I've supported and enabled this behaviour. By taking the time to tie my language in knots I've given the message that I will be a good girl and hand over my time, energy and head space to jumping through all the hoops being held up - why? Because I'm trying to please. It's classic abusive male stuff and classic female socialising in action. And in the process I am validating and furthering the progress of an agenda that is damaging to women, to girls, to many trans people.

I choose not to do that any more. Not because I'm unkind or uncaring but because I see the bigger picture.

I agree that being legally allowed to change sex has to go, for the reasons GuardianLions gives.

Going back to Midwitch's point about saying 'yes people reasonably disagree so let's move on from there...' I think it might be useful to highlight the difference between people's individual beliefs about what a TIM is and what the law can sensibly recognise about a TIM whilst protecting everyone.

Bit of a strange comparison but I was thinking about the euthanasia debate. Many people want euthanasia to be legal. Others do not. In individual cases anyone can see that euthanasia would be a kindness and it's shocking to let someone continue suffering. But the law has to take into account the effect on everyone in the land. A euthanasia law still hasn't been brought in not just because of the sanctity of life argument but because of concerns about the dangers to vulnerable people and how the law would be policed in practice to keep vulnerable people safe.

Perhaps the same sort of argument can be pushed for trans. Yes there are some genuinely gender dysphoric people and we are very sympathetic to them but no way can a law be amended to let any Tom, Dick (har har) or self-ID as a woman because of the dodgy outliers who would abuse the amendment and the inability to police the situation. Cases aplenty in the press already. The number of harmless transgender people is irrelevant (in this argument).

Sorry to use a sensitive subject as a comparison.

Sorry not change sex, change gender! Agree with pp above who says to start using the terms correctly.

I agree with that, and I am not optimistic about having a constructive debate with TRAs. What I do hope - and I think many of us have seen this our partners and our children - is that we might be able to make people like our well-meaning trans-ally friends and colleagues realise where we're coming from and shift the mood a bit.

Small aims, I know.

The thing is, though, I wonder about things like female-only train carriages. Because a lot of these things I read here seem to me to point to problems that aren't often mentioned.

If train travel has become dangerous to women to the point that we have to segregate them off in a separate enclosure, shouldn't we be looking at a. Mens' behaviour, and b. Public safety on mass transit?

Sorry not change sex, change gender!

I think I am right in saying that currently in the EA:

Sex is a protected characteristic

also that

'transsexuals' are protected

Then the current legal fiction exists claiming that it is possible to change sex ie- you can get F instead of M on your birth cert and passport.

Changing 'sex' needs to be exposed as a fiction and reversed, otherwise legal 'sex-changers' will be entitled to all rights and protections of the opposite sex - which is unethical.

'Gender identity' also needs to be changed to 'gender non-conformity' as a protected characteristic - because

a) gender 'identity' is a bollocks meaningless term - that suggests people get to choose what they are, against all fact and evidence and

b) this is part of the hashing together -conflating 'gender' and 'sex'.

Saying 'conformity/non-conformity' suggests gender is rules/systems that can be conformed to or not - there is an actual observable basis in reality for that.

But 'identity' - what do they mean by that? People are discriminated against because of what they are not because of what they 'identify as'. If you openly and vociferously 'identify as' something you are clearly not, then you may face ridicule for being a bit of a twat, but that is different from being targeted for something that you actually are, for example, being gender non-conforming.

Hear, hear to protecting gender non-conformity. It is the ruthless policing of gender stereotypes which leads to transwomen being beaten up and ridiculed; not transphobia.

Very eell said, GuardianLions.

TIMs may face ridicule for their ludicrous claims to be women, but that is not the same as ridiculing them for being gender non-conforming men.

Safeguarding safeguarding safeguarding.

Stress importance and need for it to PROTECT and help the trans community itself.

I think we should really thrash out these ideas, word them really carefully and succinctly, create a petition and hopefully have a TIM lead it - so that people could get behind it and sign.

It would really get past all the 'what is a woman' nonsense...

I'm thinking - it would be even better if you could get a TIF, a TIM a transvestite/drag queen and a 'butch' woman to lead the petition - how amazing would that be?

GuardianLions

Your posts at 11.53 and 15.04 beautifully and eloquently sum up exactly how I see the current situation and how it should change - brava!

It's always seemed ridiculous to me that you can legally change sex and amend all official documents accordingly when it's not actually possible to change sex.

This was an interesting thread from a little while ago which seems to cover many of the points brought up on this one:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3034143-It-was-the-Gender-Recognition-Act-that-messed-everything-up?pg=1

I wonder if, as a PP said, we need to separate the issue of innate gender and biological sex - park the first and concentrate on the second. I don't believe I've got an innate gender - but maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is something in brain development that will be shown to explain why some trans people feel they have the wrong body.

But even if that were true - we have sex segregation for a reason, and it isn't to do with our shared interest in knitting and cupcakes. I'm honestly not sure how far I think segregation should go. I don't think an 8yo girl should have a penis in her face in a changing room - but if that man is a threat, I don't really want him in a changing room with my 8yo son either. He's no less vulnerable just because he also has a penis. I think an honest conversation about where sex segregation is important would be really helpful.

Interesting cornflakegirl - but I actually want sex segregation from men who aren't a threat too.

Of course I don't want predators anywhere near children or any other vulnerable people - but that is a different argument from simply wanting to have space segregated from men - even perfectly lovely, benign ones.

thanks jelly I have just dipped into that thread - looks great so far - I'll have a read later..

Simple. Women are adult human females and not a feeling. Everything else is up for grabs.

Trans women can have sex work and porn, paid the same as women... but they remain legally male, they make no demands on women's spaces, sports or anything else. They make no demands that we change our language to include them. They understand that I, and most people with eyes and ears, do not see them as women.

Additionally, schools stay the fuck out of advocating breast binding and lesbian erasing policies.

Guardian - where do you want to be segregated from men - and why? I'm quite happy to sit next to a man at work, or on the train. We have ladies' toilets because 200 years ago the public toilets weren't suitable for women to use. Is it important to keep them now? Genuine question - I know some women feel very uncomfortable having a man in the same toilet block as them, and I'm not suggesting they're wrong to feel that. But I think it would be useful to discuss which spaces we're happy to share, and which we're not.