Why DO people 'believe' transwomen are women?

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Actually why?

Because the act of 'believing' without evidence or logic is cult like ideology to me.

The repetition of 'transwomen ARE women' on twitter, facebook etc is like a mantra of a cult. Like repeating the rosary or something, and the more that it repeated, the more people double down in their thinking.

I really feel bewildered half the time now.

It feels like a cult

Like a cult or religion, I guess people are free to believe what they want.

But we are not forced to believe other people's religious beliefs; why are we being forced to believe that 'transwomen are women' and 'transmen are men', when there is no objective, material truth in that statement

It's the new Reformation, but logical thinkers, not Catholics, are being hounded out and targetted.

It's mind blowing

(Points up at images Haddock posted)

So, person just trying to get on with their life? I get that you want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes that's a mistake.

Also, Labour have committed to pushing the change through if this government doesn't. They'd have to get elected first, obviously, but the whole self ID issue isn't going away just because Greening is out.

“But that doesn't mean I don't believe every single transwoman is just a wannabe perv who wants to get into a girls changing room.”

Neither does anyone else.

Hear ye, hear ye, I now declare in ye olde town cryer style that I'm as certain as I can be without being able to read minds that Miranda Yardley is not a pervert who just wants to get into women's changing rooms.

Which does absolutely nothing to address the issue of how we're going to go about dealing with the people who are perverts.

guardianfree
"BUT I get exhausted by the sheer delusional range of all the demands by transactivists. While I appreciate that social media enables this and gives air space to many fools, take a look at this mumsnet thread for an example of the consequences for young lesbians of TAs demands."

Yes I agree, as I said, I'm a big Janice Turner fan and I've followed her journalism on this.

But answering delusional rage (I assume 'range' was a typo) with equal rage (whether delusional) or not doesn't convince the general public you've got a good argument. The Labour party is currently a lost cause in my view, which is a big shame because we need an effective opposition like never before. We need to use simple logic, and common sense not get dragged into the post modern madness.

For example Ruth Hunt said that questioning whether someone is trans is as transphobic, becuase all trans people just know they're trans, just as all gay people know they're gay.

Except she's talking rubbish, because some people come out as gay in mid life. Some people who've been gay all their life suddenly have a straight relationship. And most importantly, you don't need medical interventions to be gay.

If you try to answer the trans activists in their own terms, you will lose the argument. Don't even try - just move the focus elsewhere.

The question posed here is 'why do people say transwomen are women'. My answer would be 'that's irrelevant, what are the practical issues here ? I don't care if transwomen are women, men or giraffes. I care what the practical effects of that statement are. '

See - you just shifted the focus back to the key issues. Instead of entering a post modernist black hole.

"It's a goalpost move. Women need segregation because of the way they are treated. Therefore the way they are treated determines what they are. No.

Hell, if one wants to go down that road, give me a world where women are treated completely equally to men, whilst having their biology acknowledged and accommodated."

Yes, I fear that as a matter of long term strategy if we lose this one and go down the Canada route, the only option left to us will be "equalism". We'll have to fight for public toilets with individual floor-to-ceiling doors opening onto public spaces, for instance on the grounds of public (non sex/gender specific) safety. Any sort of class analysis and affirmative action will go out the window, so we'll have to throw ourselves whole-heartedly behind free speech (maybe even to the extent of trying to get it formally enshrined in UK law in a way it never has been in the past) so we can at least shine a light on the dark corners of individual abuse.

At times I've wondered if the solution is to replace the stick figure and stick figure in a skirt symbols on the doors of toilets etc with a cute little stylized cock and balls and a cute little stylized vulva. What we have here are the room for people with penises and the room for people with vulvas. Doesn't matter what gender you identify with or what you're wearing, if you have a penis you go in door A and if you have a vulva you go in door B.

Also, Labour have committed to pushing the change through if this government doesn't. They'd have to get elected first, obviously"

Well given they didn't manage last time after the worst election campaign I've ever seen by May and co, I very much doubt they will.

But as I keep saying, we need common sense arguments. Not a post modernist debate. If you want to oppose irrational people, you need to appear rational to expose their irrationality.

Have you read, oh I don't know, the entire rest of the Feminist Chat section? We're not the ones making the pomo arguments.

And, if I may add, much as I like Miranda, much as I respect him, and appreciate his fighting on the side of women? I still wouldn't undress in front of him, or accept him as my cervical smear nurse (were he qualified). Because we are not the same sex. And being an all round lovely person does not override that. My criteria for who I share sex segregated spaces with isn't 'lovely person'. It's biological sex.

And writing that was most uncomfortable, which goes to show the intense pressure, external and internal, that I feel to jettison my boundaries in service of being 'kind' to someone else.

I agree. And I think Miranda would probably accept that, but then some other tosser would come along and take umbrage on Miranda's behalf.

Sex segregated spaces are segregated by sex, not clothing or hairstyle or "gender" or how much we like someone.

And not even just for safety! My dad is a lovely person who would never, ever hurt me. I still don't want to get changed with him when we're going to the swimming pool.

Excellent points up thread.

It’s akin to abracadabra (“I create as I speak”) and is a form of magical thinking. It is also a thought terminating mantra, which means that although it is technically a nonsense phrase, if you can get people to repeat it then you can stop people from really engaging with the facts (or lack of facts) inherent in the ideology.

It’s brainwashing via magical thinking. So progressive.

'Trans women are women' is hugely transphobic to my mind. It absolutely denies the trans in the person and attempts to eradicate this hugely important aspect of the type of woman- or man-hood that the trans individual has experienced. And these experiences clearly are massively important, as evidenced by the ways that they are referenced by prominent transgender people.

If we allowed for differing versions of womanhood, then when Paris Lees talked about enjoying being catcalled , she wouldn't have alienated so many women. My blood boils when I think of these attitudes being ascribed to women, (me!!) but when I think about how I might feel if I was a trans woman, I can have empathy for her. Same sort of thing with political representation - transgender people need proper political representation but their issues are not analogous to women born women, so political representation as women will mean that issues such as access to specialised medical services become part of what is advocated for. We need women's representation and trans women's representation. I think this would allow a more rounded critique of toxic masculinity and patriachy, whereas for me insisting trans women are women is conforming to patriarchal standards because it denies women born women an identity in themselves, and insists that patriarchal womanhood is something we all have identified into with our fluffy punk brains.

"Yes, I fear that as a matter of long term strategy if we lose this one and go down the Canada route, the only option left to us will be "equalism". We'll have to fight for public toilets with individual floor-to-ceiling doors opening onto public spaces, for instance on the grounds of public (non sex/gender specific) safety"

Can I point out something a bit obvious here?

I remember a case when a woman was murdered in a public toilet, as well as the cases I've already mentioned of boys being raped in public toilets. I've heard of women being raped in train toilets. Just making a facility single sex doesn't make it safe. If you're alone in a toilet and a rapist/murderer comes in, simply saying 'you're a man, you shouldn't be in here' won't stop them. What makes you safe is the presence of other people.

I've occasionally been in public toilets and felt a bit unsafe because they were isolated/dark/it was late at night. Particularly on stations. Unless a toilet has an attendant to police it, or CCTV or something, you're in danger anyway. So I think the scenario you describe would be a good idea in my view.

Sorry, but toilet cubicles are private anyway. I've been in toilets with male attendants cleaning and not bothered. I've been in mens toilets when the women's toilets were broken in a (gay) bar - I needed a wee, and for me that takes precedence. I've been in numerous (gay) bars where drag queens come into the women's loos and not been bothered in the slightest.

I don't really get the why toilets are such a big issue I'm afraid. Urinals need to be a in separate area for those bothered by that. But otherwise, single sex toilets don't really make women safer in any practical way I can think of.

Men statistically and overwhelmingly carry out sexual offences.
You can keep female toilets for females and accept the minuscule risk of a female offender.
If you open those doors to trans, you now increase the risk simply because you're inviting the massively increased percentage of trans with a varying degree of 'maleness'. And part of that maleness is the increased tendency to sexually offend.

Everybody (I hope) accepts that the overwhelming majority of trans are not going to be sexual offenders, but their minority element is still a minority that women need protection from.

I'm afraid being born a male isn't the only burden transwomen have to bear. They will just have to bear the statistical evidence that suggests at absolute best, there would be no increase in offenders entering toilets and at worst an increase.

For me personally, toilets are not a big issue. But at the moment, if a dodgy bloke walks into a public toilet you can yell really loudly "get out of here right now you fucking perve" in the hope that someone within earshot might come to your rescue. If self-ID comes in, you'll have that awful couple of seconds of self-doubt during which he can cross the room and grab you.

And in any case, there are other issues. Upskirting is an increasing issue - how hard is it for a bloke to shove a camera phone live-streaming on periscope under the side of a cubicle? What about women who want to wash a mooncup in the sink? What about Muslim women who want to adjust their headscarf? What about the poor bloody women in the President's Club debacle recently who just wanted an all-female space they could escape to for a few (timed) moments?

Pointing to existing abuses doesn't mean that it's all right to open the system up to even more abuses on an even greater scale.

Nope, haven't made my mind up on that, just throwing ideas around. Gotta run now though.

Haha I bet you have. We see you. Have a little think about why you think women's feelings don't count but men's do, while you're doing your laundry, eh?

Yeah, definitely, if toilets are already unsafe then why not make them even more so?

(Can we have a banging head on keyboard emoticon? It would come in handy.)

"If we allowed for differing versions of womanhood, then when Paris Lees talked about enjoying being catcalled , she wouldn't have alienated so many women. My blood boils when I think of these attitudes being ascribed to women, (me!!) but when I think about how I might feel if I was a trans woman, I can have empathy for her."

It would annoy me if anyone, trans woman or not, said they enjoy being catcalled. And it's not only trans woman who would say that unfortuanately. Whenever this debate crops up, you nearly always get one of the usual suspects saying 'well I can't see what all the fuss is about, I think it's a compliment'.

Paris Lees is just wrong, and I don't think being trans either excuses or explains that. She said "No one should accept harassment; harassment, by its very nature, is unacceptable. But is catcalling always harassment?"

Well unless the catcaller has asked the catcallee's permission beforehand and received, yes it is. The point is it's shouting at someone on the street you don't know.

And not even just for safety! My dad is a lovely person who would never, ever hurt me. I still don't want to get changed with him when we're going to the swimming pool.

YY. I shouldn't be, but am constantly shocked by how many people think my personal boundaries and feelings and comfort as a woman don't fucking matter. While bending over backwards to centre male feelings.

A young girl might not be at physical risk from a young boy identifying as female, but they may end up being passive stimulation for those seeking a thrill.
Perhaps toilets aren't the best location to discuss... showers are a more obvious one.
Granting someone with a penis access to those with vulvas just feels like leaving the sheep pen open to a gender confused wolf.

And, if I may add, much as I like Miranda, much as I respect him, and appreciate his fighting on the side of women? I still wouldn't undress in front of him, or accept him as my cervical smear nurse (were he qualified). Because we are not the same sex. And being an all round lovely person does not override that. My criteria for who I share sex segregated spaces with isn't 'lovely person'. It's biological sex.

YY. Luckily Miranda isn't a self centred misogynist who would expect us to put his validation over our comfort and feelings. Unlike in the recent TIM cervical smear nurse incident.

"I don't really get the why toilets are such a big issue I'm afraid."

So why are a subset if men so keen to stay out of the men's and use the women's toilets? Why don't mit lead by example and show us how truly safe it is to have 'mixed gendered' loos, by staying out of the women's and using the men's.

Toilets is just microcosm of the bigger issue. And it does have different circumstances attached to it.

One of the main ones is the initial demand for access.

Access to women's spaces should never be framed, or granted as a result of a demand.

The very act of insistence undermines the credibility of the person insisting.

Because men who are aware of the discomfort that it will cause women, won't ask. Therefore you are left with men who don't care. Red flag, immediately.

But even without that, we are seeing example after example of men who are actually making a point of making women feel uncomfortable.

Dominating the narrative, insisting on terms, reasserting the power dynamic and disguising it as virtue.