A New Feminist

[Chartreuseveil]

Hi all. As I age feminism interests me more and more, I am quite late to it and am picking my way through the ideas and theories. On the trans issues...I work with a woman who was born a man, has had reassignment surgery and is married to a man. In the professional environment there has never been any question of her not being treated as a woman, using female toilets etc. I didn’t know her pre-transition and I don’t think of her as a trans woman, just as a woman albeit biologically she is not. She defines herself as a woman, the word trans doesn’t feature and people meeting her now would never know she’d been born a man unless someone else told them. I anticipate that no sensible person has any issue with the decisions she’s made and living the life that makes her happy. However I’m unsure how any views she may express in relation to issues affecting woman would be perceived. Would feminists consider her views invalid by virtue of her chromosomal make up? She’s a high achieving business owner and I know she’s experienced sexism from men in professional negotiations. Can she call that sexism? Is there a distinction in how we perceive her experience and views compared with Monroe Bergdorf? I realise my views are for me to define but I want to be informed when I do that so I ask these questions with open minded curiosity. Thank you!

On the trans issues...I work with a woman who was born a man, has had reassignment surgery and is married to a man.

This is the main point for me, anyone that has completed reassignment surgery should be able to be that gender.

However a person that self identifies as a gender that is opposite the one that they were born with should not have the same rights as a person that has gone through reassignment surgery.

The outward change of the body is the crucial point.

0ccams I think that’s exactly where I sit on this issue.

The thing about whether a TIM experiences sexism, in real life, is rather moot.

There's not a TRA on the planet, who doesn't immediately, purposefully, tell you they're one. And in the exact same breath tell you that TIMs experience sexism.

So the sort of TIM who will tell you they experience sexism, is the sort of TIM who goes out their way to let you know they are a man, and therefore can't experience sexism.

Then you have those who tell you that they definitely pass.

I have yet to see one. Even Paris Lees, Caitlyn Jenner, India Willoughby, have got male written all over them. They have spent thousands of pounds on trying to pass.

Women are programmed from an incredibly early age to identify male pattern behaviour and male pattern mannerisms.

Rape and sexual assault survivors, even more so. Their radar is on a knife edge. Because their very lives would have depended upon it.

Even TIMs who transition very young, tend to be above the average height of women. Walk differently, have certain features like a more pronounced browbone.

This new wave of children who are transitioning might change that. But even a few minutes watching Jazz Jennings makes you pause.

What you see in a photo, that has been photo shopped, isn't really what you get in real life.

Coupled with that, women are socialised not to say anything.

There are loads of TIMs who will tell you that they pass, because everyone thinks they're a woman, but a quick glance at the photo will tell you that no, people are just being kind.

And AGP individuals who look like a navvy in a skirt, have an internal image that is wholly at odds with what you actually see. They see sexy minx, you see alpha male cross dresser.

So you are left with a few, very few, men who genuinely pass and who won't tell you.

You've then got to rely on them to act in a way that is counter-productive to their own benefit. So if they are of childbearing age, and it looks as though they are getting passed over for promotion, you have to rely on the fact that they will maintain they are a woman, despite it affecting their promotion chances.

Likewise sexual harrassment. Link below to demonstrate.

Nonetheless, you will see 'sexism' used relentlessly as a form of 'credential' to underpin the demand that they are actually women.

It's such a minuscule possibility, that it shouldn't form any part of the argument.

It also rides rough shod over the concept of oppression. Oppressors cannot identify into the oppressed group. Because, at any point, they can change their mind, if beneficial. Which is why they're not oppressed.

Think Rachel Dolezal.

Blair White passes. I used to think she was pretending to be trans to be contrary.

There are a few more but hardly any. I've seen a few on telly that I'd need to be told they're not women.

From a philosophical and ethical viewpoint I take transwomen are men, but in practice I probably wouldn't be the person to insist Blaire White uses the gents.

I disagree that post op transwomen are different.

I understand why it's a point, though.

It shows commitment to the cause, as it were and the lack of a penis would indicate a reduced risk to women. There is also the fact that a lot of HSTS will have had bottom surgery, as opposed to AGP individuals.

But firstly, some AGP individuals do have bottom surgery. It's considered the ultimate in becoming a woman. There are blogs from men all about it.

Secondly, having surgery because you've got gender dysphoria, doesn't suddenly stop you belonging to the cohort who intimidate women. The two aren't linked.

The Swedish study (the only long-term study) that they did, only included men who had had sexual reassignment surgery and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The male pattern violence was exactly the same as those of natal men.

One of the most prevalent comorbid conditions in people who transition/have gender dysphoria is narcissism.

Which automatically is a risk to women. It ignores boundaries.

If you could divide TIMs into those with narcissism and those without, that would be a far more useful categorisation than whether they have had surgery or not.

Indian Willoughby has had surgery, as has Paris Lees (I think). Both of them bullying men who couldn't give a fig about women's boundaries.

If you look like Blair White nobody is going to ask you to use the gents. The debate about policy is irrelevant to anyone who passes because who's going to question their presence? The only scenario it might happen in would be if people around them had already known them pre-transition.

That's a tiny minority of a tiny minority, so a bit of a red herring.

And MRAs who've realized that as long as they call themselves trans they can do whatever they want to women and be cheered on for it
LM definitely falls into this category.

Patodp

I agree. If you don't know, you don't know.

It's also quite interesting that even if when a transwoman absolutely passes, but I know they are are a man, I would automatically view any objection on my part, in the light of that knowledge.

At the meeting on Tuesday, it was very interesting. Three TIMs spoke.

All of them opposed to self ID.

But it was marked and noted by many, that when they spoke, it was completely different to when women spoke.

Women would often start with "I'd just like to say...", with some ums and ers.

All three men were assertive, very dominant in the way they spoke, but also didn't have any of that 'I hope you understand, this is my personal opinion, it's a tricky situation...' etc.

It's difficult to explain, because I'm trying to analyse it. But it was remarked upon in the pub afterwards, by quite a few people.

Also, one of the feminists said something and there was a muted response, with the odd vocal disagreement.

Then one of the TIMs said exactly the same thing and was cheered.

Now it could be that because they were talking about their own cohort, people bought into what they were saying a lot easier.

But nonetheless, it was another demonstration of how we are all socialised differently and react differently to whether we are hearing a man speak or a woman speak.

I disagree about surgery. It's radical, life changing cosmetic surgery, with a high rate of complications. It leaves men having to dilate a surgically-created approximation of vagina for the rest of their lives. I don't want to see a situation where men, especially young men, feel under pressure to undergo surgery in order to go about their lives as a transwomen.

Transwomen are transwomen, a subset of men not women. Men needed to budge up and make room for them within manhood and male spaces. Respect and protect them as male transwomen. This is not the job of women, however much we like and admire the transwomen we know personally.

A huge number of women do not consent to having males in our spaces or claiming to be female. Those of us who are okay with it in certain situations don't get to tear down other women's boundaries without their consent.

I really struggle from an ethical standpoint with the idea of surgery being a delineator. I don't think it's ethical for someone's decision to have surgery to be linked to any financial, legal or societal advantage in any context, so I can't think it's okay for trans. Although I can see why it makes sense.

Those of us who are okay with it in certain situations don't get to tear down other women's boundaries without their consent.

This is absolutely key and I wish more women would acknowledge it. You're fine sharing changing rooms with TIMs in general, or with specific TIMs who you're friends with or related to? That's all well and good but you don't get to make that decision for other women, and trying to guilt trip them into it because oh my friend/relative is so nice is shitty.

I completely agree.

This is women trying to accommodate men, because - compassion.

But on any practical level, it's impossible. You don't get to vouch for a man, due to your personal experience of them.

I could vouch for my DH say. But I wouldn't expect you to get undressed in front of him.

And you can't make surgery a pre-requisite. It's not fair.

This is really all about the concept, rather than practical application.

Practically, a GRC might just be the way. At the moment only one percent of TIMs have one.

It's a minuscule number.

Strengthening the criteria, would make so much more sense than eliminating it.

It would weed out the fetishists and chancers. It would make opportunists far less likely to apply.

And, at the end of the day, it probably is about a question of numbers.

It wouldn't work in toilets, necessarily. Because you can't, at the moment, demand to see the certificate. As it's outing. (Although, I can't help thinking that if someone is asking to see your certificate, you're already outed.)

But women only swimming, overnight accommodation, locker rooms, etc. There would be no automatic entry. It shouldn't even be considered without a certificate. And then, even with one, the equality act should be upheld.

I hate the idea of peaceful individuals having rights taken away.

But I am also drawn by the points made about “who budges up”

This in particular:

“ are transwomen, a subset of men not women. Men needed to budge up and make room for them within manhood and male spaces. Respect and protect them as male transwomen. This is not the job of women, however much we like and admire the transwomen we know personally.”

My own trans woman friend is just much more comfortable with a business culture we think of as female (more support, less bragging, less assertion, more exploration). She has a fine track record of employing and promoting women and being loyal to them when they are vulnerable (mat leave, etc).

We nearly all agree that spaces should be segregated by sex, not gender. Why then do we afford the gay man the right to be there wearing his woman costume? Why aren't we offended by that costume and the belief that liking men means he's a woman? The only explanation that I can think of for this is that we do not consider that gay man is a real man. And if he's not a real man ,well, then he must be a type of woman ,so he's welcome and can come in. It's an uncomfortable thought but perhaps one we should address.

Terf, do you mean we’ve bought into homophobia, on some level?

Some awesome posts on here

Very thought inspiring...which sounds like an arsey way of saying its made me think

Good thread so far chartreus

Ive never bought into the gayman being an honorary girl...though i do know a number of my associates do

Those of us who are okay with it in certain situations don't get to tear down other women's boundaries without their consent.

I agree.

I do think toilets are a bit of a red herring. Nobody is going to get that upset about a passing TIM using facilities like everybody else does - wee, wash hands, leave.

BUT - anybody who thinks that AGP men are going to do that has never been at a "tranny night" in a pub or club back in the days when the two populations were separate. It's like that pop video Shon Faye appeared in - the thrill is standing in front of the mirror with your lipstick and generally being obvious about being there.

I don't want to be forced to participate in someone else's self-directed sexuality, which is what AGP is.

So, for example, I appreciate why many women only want another woman to perform a smear test on them. I don't care about that personally - I'd be as happy for a bloke to do it as a woman. But I definitely don't want an AGP doing it because the only reason an AGP would be in that job would be to get validation.

We need single sex services - both for the women who only want other women in intimate situations or space AND for the women who don't consent to being a validation object in an AGP man's sexuality.

good thread, well done op

Thanks all. I was tentative about making the thread as I realise how uneducated I am in these issues, and at 47! But the point was to learn, understand and think so thank you all for your contributions

It's not being talked about Chartreuseveil. Women are being censored.

None of this info is secret. It's all there on the net. And not necessarily articles, opinions or blogs. The studies, surveys and scientific evaluation.

But women are being silenced at a truly alarming rate.

The TRA hashtag NoDebate is no coincidence.

Meetings are targetted, violently, women are doxxed, their employers called, police are being urged to arrest women for standing up, most mainstream media is woefully one sided.

Schools have been fed propaganda for years. TRAs have insinuated themselves in positions of power, not just politically, but everywhere, including feminist groups - by women, for women (as long as you centre men and shut up about biology).

Academia has been hit hard. The very place where dissent has historically been encouraged.

Women disagreeing are jeopardising their jobs.

There is a vid on another thread of Portland City uni, Oregon. An evolutionary biologist said there are biological differences between men and women, height, for instance. A whole section of the student body walked out saying it was brainwashing and fascist.

Here is a thread about women scared for their jobs.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3162788-Whats-it-like-being-gender-critical-in-your-workplace

It's quite incredible that in 2018 women are being so relentlessly subjugated.

Especially as most people don't even know it's going on.

Until it happens to them.

I don’t think of her as a trans woman, just as a woman albeit biologically she is not.

Just a question, OP.

You say you see this person as a woman, "albeit biologically she is not." But what is being a woman except a biological condition? Some women like lipstick and high heels, others prefer scrubbed faces and walking shoes. Some women like cooking and fashion, others prefer football and science. But they are all women, by virtue of the fact that they were born with a double XX chromosome and have female sex organs.

A person who 'identifies' as a woman simply isn't a woman, however much surgery they may have had, or however well they may 'pass'. That's not prejudice, that's simple biological reality.

icedpurple I agree with you, fully accept she does not meet the definition of woman. But I do “think” of her as a woman, as female, as feminine. So if she asked to be pointed to the toilets, I’d show her to the women’s toilets. I talk to her about bras, belly fat, her grandkids sleeping patterns, opening wine before 5pm. Not usual discussions I’d have with men, though it’s possible I could. It has never occurred to me to think of her as a man.

Chartreuseveii have always felt like that. Did people ever really believe that it was possible to change sex? I wonder if people felt that they could object ten years ago.

Hipster yes, I do think it's a type of homophobia.Or discrimination. We certainly seem to feel sorry for them. Whatever is behind it, it's obvious we don't perceive them real men.

There seems to be the idea that tims who have surgery are harmless and genuine.That's not true at all.

transcrimeuk.com

womanmeanssomething.com/violencedatabase/

This tim Clare came here recently to tell us that he's a harmless tim and has had full surgery. Yet when you look at his blog he acknowledges he's an Agp and has an interest in little girls clothes. He is legally allowed in women's spaces.

clareflourish.wordpress.com/trans-blog/

I don't believe trans is a real thing. I think it's a mental illness on some level.A mentally well person knows they can't change sex. Most Tim's who have surgery are just as misogynistic as Tim's who haven't had surgery and they are using the same stereotypes to define womanhood.

As for all the genuine harmless surgically altered Tim's, I don't suppose you know if they are harmless or not unless you ask them the questions or tell them No.

I agree it's not hard to sometimes talk to TIMs about 'women's stuff'.

They may well be interested, and it is, after all, affirming for them.

But, I have noticed, if you don't affirm them, the reaction is swift and negative. Male socialisation is difficult to abandon.

That may not be the case with your friend, OP, but a lot of the time we don't know it, because we don't go against our socialisation and do it.

It's not necessary and it's hurtful.

But that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

I don't know the answer.

I do know that rights conflict on a profound level. And it's impossible to please everybody.

I talk to her about bras, belly fat, her grandkids sleeping patterns, opening wine before 5pm. Not usual discussions I’d have with men, though it’s possible I could.

So if a woman - ie someone with an XX chromosome and a vagina - liked chatting with the lads about football and drinking beer, would they accept her as a man and direct her to the men's jacks?

I don't want to sound like I'm challenging you, OP, but surely there's something not quite right with equating stereotypical 'feminine' personality traits with the biological fact of being a woman?

No Iced, because that wouldn’t identify her as a man. My friend identifies as a woman. I appreciate self identity is an issue but I can’t and won’t be black and white in my approach to my friend. My friend is the only experience of a transsexual I’ve knowingly had. My treatment of her first and foremost is as a friend.