Trans-sexual vs Trans-gender

[smellfunny]

I have a few thoughts regarding the whole gender self-identity topic and thought I'd give them a share to see what others thought!

1. Up until recently I thought the terms trans-sexual and trans-gender were interchangeable. However, recent debates on gender self-identification have made me think that the term trans-sexual NEEDS to make a comeback in order to differentiate between individuals who have actually transitioned/are in the process of transitioning to what they perceive to be 'the other sex' (i.e. trans-sexuals) and those who simply do not feel they conform to societal expectations of gender (i.e. trans-genders). Article on the distinction between the two can be found here: www.medicaldaily.com/what-difference-between-transsexual-and-transgender-facebooks-new-version-its-complicated-271389

2. Trans-genderism, to me, seems antithetical to what feminism has been seeking to achieve. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that feminists were striving hard to abolish gender stereotypes. I thought the whole point of feminism was to erode this concept that women should be feminine (insert 'feminine' traits here) and men and to be masculine (insert 'masculine' traits here). To me, it seems that this discussion on trans-genderism only serves to perpetuate the idea that there is normative male and female behaviour, and that those who do not conform are 'other'. What we should really be striving towards is allowing individuals to express and present themselves however they wish without pigeon-holing their behaviour into male and female categories.

As one mumsnetter stated (I'm paraphrasing and have lost the thread), societal expectations of gender change each generation - wearing heels, stockings, a full face of make-up and a wig whilst associated with 'feminine' behaviour now, was perfectly normalised male behaviour in 18th century France. There is nothing intrinsically female about wearing make-up or wearing 'pretty' clothes. Surely 'trans-gender' individuals should be fighting this concept rather than conforming to it? If you're a man and you like wearing lipstick and dresses, that should be ok - there should be no social pressure for you to identify as a woman.

3. I thought that in order to be trans-gender one had to experience gender dysphoria and some degree of body dysmorphia. I have only just realised that neither of these are requisite conditions for identifying as trans-gender. Apparently one simply needs to self-identify as being trans-gender in order to be transgender: everydayfeminism.com/2015/08/not-all-trans-folks-dysphoria/

At which point I wonder - if there is no dysphoria or dysmorphia, why is it so important for all trans-gender individuals to gain access to all sex-segregated spaces? I believe that there should be gender neutral options created across the board to account for individuals who do not wish to be sex-segregated, but if an individual is not at risk of deep psychological suffering as a result of not being able to access male/female areas then what is the justification for causing others distress through using them? I'm talking specifically about spaces such as bathrooms, changing areas, and women's shelters here. If there is not enough of an impetus for you to present as a woman, for example, why is it so important to access women's spaces?

Apologies for the long post - I had more thoughts but this is already an essay... I'm hoping that some trans individuals could also participate in some (friendly) discussion and maybe offer their own insights on the above points

At which point I wonder - if there is no dysphoria or dysmorphia, why is it so important for all trans-gender individuals to gain access to all sex-segregated spaces?

Because it's a blatant power grab and a way for MRAs to put women back in their place. A number of these non dysphoric people enjoy the attention, validation and intimidation.

It's always been the case that (some) men cannot bear women having even a small slice of the pie for themselves.

Back when the very first public toilet for women was opened, so women could participate in public life more freely and safely, angry men burned it to the ground. That sounds ridiculous now in 2018 but in reality what is currently happening comes from exactly the same place. How dare women want anything of their own.

I saw another poster on here describe it using the analogy of battle, men have moved the fight into enemy territory. The ultimate trojan horse.

One of the reasons the trans movement has had so much success is because a lot of men support it because it suits their agendas. The AWS issue highlights this. So many non trans men would love AWS to be ended, they know they can't say that publicly because they risk being accused of misogyny so this is a perfect back door way to achieve it whilst still looking super woke and progressive.

At which point I wonder - if there is no dysphoria or dysmorphia, why is it so important for all trans-gender individuals to gain access to all sex-segregated spaces?

Because transactivism is a violent, misogynistic, men's sexual rights movement.

It might well have started as a movement for social acceptance for a tiny number of transsexuals with body dysmorphia but it stopped being that a long, long time ago. Public perception hasn't caught up yet, that's all.

This is exactly the point I'm at smell.

When I've asked these questions I get the answer that gender identity has nothing to do with gender stereotypes or biology but with an internal sense of identity.

So then I've asked but identifying with what?

• with being a woman
• but if 'woman' is nothing to do with biology or gender stereotypes then what is it people are identifying with?
• their internal sense of being, you can't understand unless you are trans, shut up TERF

I'm not asking questions to be goady or catch anyone out in a logical argument. I genuinely want to understand. But it makes no sense.

A lot of people think transgender and transsexual are the same thing, and that is the problem. Everyone I've talked to in real life has thought this and therefore they don't understand what all the fuss is about. There needs to be more detailed widespread discussion on this.

societal expectations of gender change each generation - wearing heels, stockings, a full face of make-up and a wig whilst associated with 'feminine' behaviour now, was perfectly normalised male behaviour in 18th century France. There is nothing intrinsically female about wearing make-up or wearing 'pretty' clothes.

Isn't another TRA argument that transgender people have been around since the beginning of human society? Somehow, I can't quite believe a man in Victorian times would want to live as a woman. Secretly dress as one, sure.

Do any of these TIMs do the wife work? The carers jobs? The drudgery?

Their assertions that they want to be women ring so very hollow.

transactivism is a violent, misogynistic, men's sexual rights movement.

This is becoming more and more obvious each day, practically. I think the more emboldened these TIMs become, the more the mask will slip. I just don't know.if it will happen before it's too late to stop them destroying our rights.

I haven't watched the Handmaid's Tale, but I did see a trailer and the flashbacks to how society crumbled and changed in reducing women to breeding stock was too close for comfort for me. This is what TIMs and MRAs want.

Yes I agree with all of this. I think most people (i.e. The general public) assume we are talking about transexuals. Until a few months ago I assumed this, and also assumed that all transexuals would have some kind of operation to remove their bits. I would also have easily assumed that anyone objecting was bigoted in the same way as I feel many people were about same sex marriage.

But you are spot on.

As I understand it, the 2004 GRA set a pretty high bar for recognition of gender change: be post-op or provide specific medical evidence that you have gender dysphoria. There were also some pretty strong and specific reasons for allowing someone to change sex in the eyes of the law, including the fact that same sex marriage was at the time not allowed, so a legal change meant marriage to an individual of the now legally opposite gender would be possible.

Concerns were raised at the time that this was a problematic fudge. The importance of right to marriage and small numbers of people affected were raised as arguments for fudging it anyway; both these things have changed now. The agreement has worked until now based on things like trust, small numbers, the high bar, etc

The big question that everyone should be asking around demands for Self-ID is exactly what you have raised.

If any man can say he's a woman, and walk straight into the protections and supports that have been built up over years and years for biological woman, how do we know what their intentions are? What makes them a woman, exactly?

Your post is very clear and I believe accurate.

There is no earthly reason why a man who has a sexual fetish, or prefers to express himself in a way traditionally associated with women, should have access to women's anything. Rights, sport, spaces.

Because:

The current change suggests an evolution of thought on the matter of gender that may influence not only how many people see themselves, but also how they are perceived by others.

Is wrong.

Transmen still get raped, still give birth. They are still coerced into sex by transwomen if they don't want to be transphobic. They are still not gaining any power. They're not clamouring to go into male spaces like prisons, and they are certainly not beating men at sport

Meanwhile, transwomen are soaring ahead in their power grab. Taking over feminism, forbidding women from talking about their biology, beating them in sport and bullying them into sex.

Transitioning does zero for women. And gives men even more power.

It's men's rights activism on speed.

Meanwhile men with gender dysphoria are nowhere (transsexuals). There are suffering from all sides. Transactivists hate them (Truscum) and they are getting tarred with the same brush by women opposed to the ideology.

I'm only thankful that more women are seeing it. A lot more.

Datun is also right about this:

Meanwhile men with gender dysphoria are nowhere (transsexuals). There are suffering from all sides. Transactivists hate them (Truscum) and they are getting tarred with the same brush by women opposed to the ideology.

I think it is important not to forget this and not to fall into the trap of doing this.

Also what Ostrich said.

It's rather odd that the transexuals who understand that they are male are treated as badly as female 'terfs' yet transgender TRAs who claim to be literally the same as women in every way are celebrated in a way usually reserved for men.

It's rather odd that the transexuals who understand that they are male are treated as badly as female 'terfs' yet transgender TRAs who claim to be literally the same as women in every way are celebrated in a way usually reserved for men.

I don't think it's odd at all. It's because everyone knows, deep down, that they ARE men.
Same old, same old ...

This is a very telling point:

Everyone outside of the TRA movement is being expected to interact either visually or sexually with genitalia they do not want to interact with.

I'm still struggling to understand why Rachel Dolezal can be absolutely vilified and attacked by exactly the same people who believe that a non-dysphoric male should have access to women's sex-segregated spaces.

I understand that Rachel Dolezal is seen essentially as doing 'black-face' and stereotyping what she understands as being black-American culture, however how is a non-dysphoric man slapping on some lipstick and calling himself a woman substantially different? Why is one pilloried and punished whilst the other is accepted?

Was it because of Rachel's relative position of power? Even if so, I think she was so delusional that she ought to have been pitied rather than ostracised.

The problem with this whole gender self-ID is that there is no way of establishing where the lines are crossed. Without external psychiatric confirmation that an individual genuinely believes they should be the opposite sex and that they pose no threat to that sex then this is a completely no-win situation.

"I'm still struggling to understand why Rachel Dolezal can be absolutely vilified and attacked by exactly the same people who believe that a non-dysphoric male should have access to women's sex-segregated spaces."

It's because RD is a women. And everyone likes to shine a spotlight on women up to no good. Some men pretend to be different ethnicities, (the Ali G character didn't spring up from nowhere) but they are allowed to get away with it.

Nothing more to add but wanted to say that I agree completely with all your points OP especially number 2, which was the thought process that made me peak trans to begin with. I can't believe we are being derided as bigots for thinking this way. I think when you explain it all properly like this, more people understand what we're trying to get at and 'peak trans ' themselves.