Can you be a feminist and be completely accepting of transgender individuals?

[MagicSweets]

It seems to be a thing that the majority of feminists on here are against transgender people. I'm just curious if you can be a feminist and completely accept transgender individuals.

Why are you still getting caught up in the idea that I think short hair is for men and dresses are for girls?

I've seen lots of women with short hair. Not so many men in dresses, but definitely pink.

But whether you like it or not, some women do still get called "lesbian" with short hair and other terms. Men/boys get hate/picked on for liking stereotypical girls stuff.

You're really misunderstanding, and I'm not sure if it on purpose.

Sorry if I haven't answered your question, there's a lot of replies.

"I have never seen a genuine transsexual male wearing a dress or female with short hair." This is the confusing part. I think you mean a transman wearing a dress or a transwoman with short hair?

Also, what does "genuine" mean and how are you judging that?

I never really liked pink, sparkles, dollies or flouncy frocks when I was a (real) little girl. I liked meccano and climbing trees.

Must be a boy then...

By genuine:
Is seeking psychological help/hormone treatment or whatever.
Not genuine:
"I'm using my right to pick my gender - I'm female, come get my lady dick"

@Fekko that isn't what I'm saying. I was also one of those.

Oh I know, just saying ‘Ive always felt like a female’ is an odd statement from a man when their only concession to being a female is a few pink sparkles.

How should we segregate sex segregated areas, if not by sex?

And how do we tell genuine transfolk from the not genuine ones?

You said I have never seen a genuine transsexual male wearing a dress or female with short hair.

Thats why i was confused

Im not doing it deliberately...honestly

I just couldn't figure out why you hadnt seen one...but apparently you have

Mens
Ladies
Feel like-a-Wumman
Call me Ted

Studies show a lot of them rewrite their own history in their minds to justify middle aged transition in response to a sexual fetish that began in late adolescence and gradually become an obsession during adult life.

Well also, some of them probably did like to dress in frilly girly ways since they were children. But so do LOTS of boys. Plain old confirmation bias. Kids like to dress up. Pink is a nice bright colour, lots of boys love it. They soon get told to put it out of mind as it's not for them but I suspect most go through a point of thining makeup and dresses are great fun.

The difference is that most men forget about it and the trans women choose to see something in it that just wasn't there.

A discussion elsewhere on the internet about women who went through a "tom boy" phase or were always "tom boys" or generally not seen as gender confirming. A couple of the lesbians had previously seen it is potentially indicative of their sexuality but actually lots of us went through the same thing. But once we turned out straight no one went back and said "oh, now I get it" so it kind of gets lost.

Sorry if I haven't answered your question, there's a lot of replies.

Well when you get a chance let me about trransracial, transabled and 6 year old StephonKnee. I'm very curious.

Well, as with everything, sometimes you have to agree to differ, don't you? We've been friends with a transwoman for ages, since before the debate got nasty. I didn't give all that much thought to whether she was "really" a woman, because it didn't matter.
Now, I haven't had this conversation with her, but if she was asked she'd probably say "Yes, I am a woman." If she asked me "Do you think I'm a woman?" I'd have to say "Well, it depends what you mean by "woman", but, not in all respects, no." But that conversation doesn't need to happen. I wouldn't initiate it, for fear of upsetting her, any more than I'd waltz into my friend Father Ian's house and start haranguing him about the inconsistencies in Christianity.
My husband asked her what she thought of Germaine Greer the other night and she said obviously she didn't agree with what Greer said, but she'd defend to the death her right to say it.

By genuine:
Is seeking psychological help/hormone treatment or whatever.
Not genuine:
"I'm using my right to pick my gender - I'm female, come get my lady dick"
And are you happy that that second group should be taking women's places in refuges, scholarships, sports teams etc. If not then you are a TERF.

I think many PPs have pointed out that not subscribing to someone's ideology is not the same as being against those people.
I am an atheist.
I absolutely do not believe the same things as my Muslim, Christian and other religious friends. But nobody minds. Nobody expects me to pretend to believe in god. And nobody feels that I am trying to deny their existence because we belief different things.
I do not believe in innate gender. I do not believe in gender identity. Somehow this is considered bad of me by some of the people who do.

"I think you'd be lying that if you woke up tomorrow a man, you wouldn't continue wearing the same clothes you do now, styling your hair the same, etc. I know I wouldn't"

Then

"If I was male - I'd have my hair cut short.
Yes I could do those things without being slimmer or male, but I wouldn't want to."

Which is it?

Exactly, Moofolk. Accepting someone doesn't have to mean agreeing with them.
There are many varieties of feminism. Some feminists agree with many aspects of the transgender narrative. One person might, for example, say that perhaps a male-bodied person could be born, or become, psychologically female. That would raise further questions for me with regard to what "psychologically female" might mean, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an anti-feminist position.
I don't think you can be a feminist and agree that people with male bodies, including penises, should be allowed into women's refuges, and I don't think you can be a feminist and agree that a girl who fancies girls and likes football must "really" be a boy.

how do we tell genuine transfolk from the not genuine ones?

We stick with the current law.

Under current law people can present and dress however they want with legal protection against discrimination on grounds of it - equal legal rights unaffected by gender expression.

In most situations trans people are free to do and act as the sex they identify as and present as.

However in SOME specific situations access to situations of intimacy, nudity or vulnerability can be legally restricted to those of a specific biological sex AND people with a gender recognition certificate who have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, treatment for it, and have followed due process to legally change their sex.

No to self ID.

Obvious sidebar that this leaves things to discuss:

To reinforce that sex based exemptions are legal and necessary and prevent the lemmings over the cliff approach many groups and councils are doing in anticipation of a law change based on a questionable white paper.

To review the Gender Recognition Certificate process, to remove elements which are genuinely unfair (there are some) and make it a supportive process for genuinely transsexual people without removing the gate keeping or making it so easy that pisstakers will be able to swan through.

To look at the need for third spaces so that trans people who do not have or want to pursue GRCs are not forced to go into changing rooms, bathrooms etc where they feel unsafe.

To look generally at planning expectations for bathrooms, changing rooms, etc, at providing floor to ceiling cubicles with washbasins rather than open stalls.

But the current legal status quo does it.

I’m not remotely against transpeople.

I’m against autogynaephilliacs posing as transpeople and using self-ID to gain access to female spaces. This won’t help women or transpeople, neither will have their genuine needs met.

I'm a Mum to three girls. I'm learning about feminism. Identity Politics has taught me much on a rapid scale. I cannot thank FWR and its posters enough. You have opened a door for me that can never be closed.

I'm pro-Trans but very much believe that the aggressive TRA that are dominating public opinion do not represent Transsexuals who walk amongst us. There is a clear difference between these two groups.

I've often heard it asked (I think I've asked it myself) why don't the transgender/transsexual demographic speak up against the aggressive TRA's (Miranda Yardley, I love you!) - there's a slow increase of their voices on MN and FWR (waves to Curry and Tru) but they have relative safety here and online. But I understand why they're not vocal - In RL, they face actual violence, abuse and torment from the very people who propose to represent them. The dysphoria they fight on a daily basis is crippling enough without tackling the autogynephiles that are dominating the issue. It's crazy. Ultimately, they seek peace, understanding and acceptance and to fit into a society which is ever-changing.

The singular, most defining difference is, they don't want to take anything away from women. The TRA's that we see all over social media and You Tube want to erode our rights and constantly ignore, mock, belittle our concerns and very real fears. Self-ID is going to expose us to inequality, unfairness and very real danger but we are ignored and labelled as bigots. We all know why they shout us down - they're autogynephiles and are fuelled
by jealousy and hate of women and/or are men who are entitled and dominating.

That said, I reserve a particular level of disgust for the women that support these TRA's. The women videoed in Speakers Corner for instance who probably consider themselves as equals to their TIM mates when it's obvious to all, that they're lap-dogs and nothing else. Remember the young woman with a blonde ponytail who bravely spoke to the person recording the after-events of the attack on Maria? "I'm glad she was hit, she deserved it" and cockily goaded someone into telling the police? I wonder if she's ever picked up a book or read online about what feminism and equality is? I wonder whether she's ever formed her own opinions and asked questions and thought out her own stance? I fucking doubt it. You see handmaidens like this across YouTube and they fill me with utter disgust but pity too. Pity, because they cannot, will not see the dangers ahead. Stupid, stupid sheep.

Just to add - I've spend the last 3 years reading about this with ever increasing dread. I've also read much about TRA's to try and gain some balance and understanding. I've followed supporters and SJW's pushing for Self-ID, I've researched Canada's C-16 law and how it's changed the landscape of existence for Women and Women's issues, I'm reading about activism in the US, Australia. I have followed loads of men and women from different political stances, listened to the likes of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Helen Steele, Linda Belloes, Magdalen Burns, Miranda Yardley, Paris Lees, Contra, Blair White, American based folk, UK based folk - I can give you a massive list! My point is, I am NOT a sheep nor a lap-dog nor a fucking handmaiden because I have learnt about sometimes reading things three, four times until I understand the issue. And I am nervous.

We must do more to fight back. Once this crazy law is passed, it'll open a Pandora's Box and expose us to inequality and very real danger.

"Transgender" is a very broad umbrella nowadays. From children who are being abused by their parents and the medical establishment, to kids jumping on a bandwagon or going through a phase, to more troubled and seriously dysphoric teens and young adults, to those with other mental health problems, to narcissists, to the generally delusional, to rapist, pedophilic, fetishistic, homophobic and woman-hating men.

Why would I have a blanket "acceptance" of anyone just because of a label they give themselves rather than based on their situation, needs, character and behaviour ? Why is this demand of blanket "acceptance" being made at all ?