Where are all the trans men? An Answer.

[1955stephen]

Someone asked: I have also wondered where the trans men are in all this!

So decided to do a little of record ethnographic research and talked to a few of my 'trans men' mates about this, over my orange and soda, and their beer or two. I asked whether they would consider to contributing to an online debate., like the one on Mumsnet.
All said they really limit their online stuff to what is absolutely necessary for family and friend's purposes i.e. a bit of facebook and that's that. Though many said they used Whatsapp to talk with family quite a lot.
It seems some go onto computers when at work, but most don't even do that - they are very hands on people; a doctor, a ceo, a dentist, a teacher, a manager of a day centre, a physio, a occupational therapist, a firemen, a stable owner, a policeman.
They only go online when real life obliges them to do so - such as talking to their mum.
They said they go on to buy absolutely essential items; a sprogget needed to fix a toilet flush, bracket to fix the kid's bunk beds, or when told to change the milk order cos their partner was going to bed.
Two said they went online to get a new book on their kindle, or to find a film for their partner, their kids, their mother etc.
Most said they don't want the hassle of participating in online talking. As another put it: "by the time the evening has arrived, I have run out of words. I simply cannot carry on talking, and typing means saying the words in my head". (I understand that feeling) .
Another said "going on the computer is just too much when all I want to do is stop, eat, wash and go to sleep."
Another said "ask me to come round, and choose between 1. digging your garden, 2. print and pack 2000 newsletters, or 3. type words, I'll chose them in exactly that order: 1, 2 then 3".
And another said; "as a journalist I am online a lot - watching, but I limit my participation to when I have something worthwhile and different to say. That's not often".
It seems, therefore, from my small selection of consulted trans men, that most trans men limit computer use to work. And we just don't want to do it after that.
I understand because that is how I feel, and have no urge to change that.
There will be some who participate online (as I do to a limited extent), but if people don't want to, they don't have to - and they are probably mentally healthier for not doing so.
Has anyone counted up men's and women's use of talking chambers on the internet? I wonder what hormones have to do with it..

@Debbie that is an extremely well written article. Agree with every word.

@LangCleg putting two children of opposite sex in the same room would be a safeguarding hazard. I'm astonished that anyone is willing to sign off a policy that permits that to happen. They can't be thinking clearly it considering the possible consequences.

Exactly. And, while I can understand you appreciate a lot of the work Stephen has done over the years, I hope you can also see why so many of us think that a) it is disturbing that he acknowledges his personal advice and input into this Guide policy and b) it is doubly disturbing that his response to safeguarding concerns is to suggest issuing Guide leaders with stocks of contraception.

I am honestly beyond disturbed at all this.

Suggesting Mumsnetters should devote their efforts to “gardening” or go to the “park” is insulting and sexist. Would you suggest the same to your male colleagues and acquaintances, if they persisted in asking you “hard” questions?

Other than that this has been a fairly interesting debate and thank you for coming online. I would pose some questions but I’m too busy hardening some seedlings (not sure if the terminology is correct as I am clearly not fecking gardening).

I've read this post but don't really understand the dislike of f to m trans people. I understand why women are upset by m to f invading their spaces but the other way around I can't understand. I'm sure I will be told I am naive! Part of me feels that if a trans person genuinely needs to change sex then that should be celebrated as it must be emotional painful to be in the wrong sex and lead to many suicides.

It is wonderful to see you on here, Debbie. That article needs to be much more widely read and understood as it clearly delineates most of the issues here.

Nobody is seeking to prevent self expression or to stop anyone who is gender dysphoric from living as they choose.

All we are asking, on both sides it would seem, are for some fairly simple promises of faith and mutual respect.

1: That we not call anyone names or even contemplate violence. Because this is a difficult legal, physical, psychological and social debate. It is complicated.There are going to be disagreements. We should accept that amicably and seek understandings and compromises that work for all. Not polarity and only agree to what we say must be true.

2: That changing gender or sex is not a small matter. It is a big step for the person taking it and it will effect the lives of others around them. You distil this into just a personal choice or ticking a box and you miss out the consequences on family, friends, work colleagues and others you will share spaces with in future. The goal should just be to live together harmoniously and if that means you bend a little, accept exclusions, abide with some who insist on using biology as the one true definer and not your choice of perception, then you do. All you really want is mutual respect for individual opinions. You explain what you think, but accept their right to disagree. Agreement should be by consent or trust and not by edict enforced against the will of anyone right thinking and reasonable.

3: We do not know what causes someone to be gender dysphoric. Or even if there is just one cause. Biology might be involved. Psychology or sociology might trigger elements of it. It might be partly down to what is culturally acceptable in any society at any time. What we should do is agree that all possibilities should be investigated. Shutting down debate or research because you personally disagree with it is never right.

In the meantime we sensibly discuss why there are rules and gatekeeping around legally altering who you are. And whether these need loosening or tightening should all be on the table.

The debate has to be wide ranging and not just involve one small section of society. All concerned deserve a say. Being trans is obviously part of that. But it should not be the sole arbiter of what we as a society choose to do.

@needyourlovingtouch

It's law that and how it affects people negatively that people don't like, it seems to be read often as not liking trans people. There are dislikeable people of all shapes and sizes.

My interest is the practical application of the law for women and girls. Self interest there as a woman who was a girl. Is the law working for women and girls in a balanced way based on our sex not gender?

As once a parent of three 11-15 daughters, I have given serious thought to what I think are my rights, and my daughters rights, if a trans identified child would be attending a residential event. I think,personally, my issues I would address would be:
2. their understanding of sexual acts
4. how confident I was that they would tell my partner or I if they engaged in sexual activity with another person
6. how comfortable my daughter felt
d. Whether the leaders would carry barrier or emergency contraception (accepting that as young teens a lot of us would have found it difficult to control our own sexual urges), or whether I should provide my daughter with barrier contraception.*
I would also consider whether she was old enough to be told what emergency contraception does, and how it is not neutral, but will cause often excess bleeding and what feels like really bad period pains

The above has really shocked me. That is in reference to 11-15 year old girls? You can rationalise with young teens all you want. That doesn't stop them a) possibly being assaulted or b)being able to restrain themselves when hormones are flying around.

You would seriously provide your 13 or 14 year old daughter with contraception, while waving them off to GG camp? Do you realise the whole guideline is about not informing parents there is a trans girl present, so you wouldn't even have a chance to discuss with your daughters about what they knew about sex/whether they wanted to pop some condoms in with their tooth things? Do you believe most parents have such indepth discussions with their young teens about sex? I'd have shrivelled up and died if my dad had attempted such a thing.

3. sexual activity between two children aged 13 or over, whilst illegal, will not be considered a matter to engage reporting to parents, unless
-- their is a lack of consent, or
-- suspected to be a lack of consent, or
-- a significant age difference, between the children e.g. 13 and 16.
3a. Otherwise all parents and girls are reminded that
3a. . a GG residential event is not a private event, and sexual activity of any sort is not considered appropriate, and
3b. if they need contraception, either barrier or emergency, whilst at the residential XX leader will be able to provide it in complete confidence

I really think most parents who had a 13 year old would want to know if their children had been having sex. I'm not a parent so that's just my gut reaction plus I appreciate some parents woud react badly at being told so it might be a safeguarding thing. But really honestly, where are the parents of 13 year old girls who would wave their girls off to what is supposed to be a single sex event and be casual their child might have sex there. 13 is so young. Also kids get sexually assaulted on a daily basis. We really don't have a culture where kids can bring that up easily if something hasn't been consensual. Non-consensual acts are kept secret. They often don't get shared for decades because abusers are adept at ensuring their victims stay silent.

I really don't want to be rude but your response seems so naive. I don't understand that when this is such a huge part of your life both professionally and personally.

The only post of Stephen's I've been able to read in its entirety in one sitting is the one at 13:56.

He briefly allowed the twinkly eyed academic mask to slip and told us a little bit about his real life experiences. And by god what he went through sounds horrific.

I wonder if what we're seeing here is that Stephen regards us as 'them'. The ones with the 'cis privilege'.

So even women. by virtue of being 'cis' don't deserve protection in comparison to trans people.

It would not surprise me if Stephen is still incredibly angry. It would frankly be a rational response to what he describes.

Doesn't make for good or impartial law though.

Debbie, JC & yet thank you for your posts

suggest gardening or the park might be a useful alternative to this place

It becomes increasingly clear, doesn't it, that Stephen has zero respect for MNers. (Or women as a class, perhaps.)

It becomes increasingly clear, doesn't it, that Stephen has zero respect for MNers. (Or women as a class, perhaps.)

Probably keen to portray and emphasise their adopted male privilege.

I can't begin to tell you how enraged I am by SW's comments on this thread. I've bought some new books today to try and keep me off the laptop.

And you wonder why I fought back?

I don't wonder that at all Stephen it sounds bloody awful

I think you've misunderstood what SpartacusAutisticus was asking you.

She said - but instead of subverting sex-role expectations (what we call gender) and arguing for anyone of any sex to adopt any 'gender identity' they choose (or is innate if that's what you believe), you seem to think that gender is the fixed point and sex is mutable, and that just feels a bit topsy-turvy to me.

You said - I accept that in those terms, I might be said to have failed, because I did change my gender role presentation, and took medical assistance to enable that.
But we can’t all live up to all of our high ideals, all of the time.

I don't imagine for a minute that Spartacus is saying you have failed because you needed to present as male. We're all just muddling through, navigating the gender clusterfuck as best we can.

She's questioning your conclusion that gender is the fixed point and sex is mutable and I agree that seems topsy-turvy. In your words, you changed your 'gender role presentation'. You didn't change your sex.

Previously on this thread you have said you don't believe gender exists.

In another post you appear to include 'social construct' (what most of us here understand as gender) in your definition of sex.

Can you understand why we are confused?

This matters because sex is a protected characteristic in the EA and we are reliant on that to secure our rights.

Have a good holiday and I hope you return to this thread. If you have the time, please read and consider Rebecca Reilly-Cooper's basic questions about sex and gender for progressives.

One of my children is transgender, and having seen their distress I absolutely sympathise with and am grateful for the work of Stephen and his colleagues to get the GRA put in place.
My child (now adult) is still awaiting the hospital appointment to have treatment and to change their body, It has been years. I can completely understand why someone in such a position would push to have the GRA rules changed to make self-ID a position, as essentially my child's life is on hold until they can make a more convincing transition and go off to university with certificates in their chosen name to start a new life away from their current, some unkind, peers.
As a parent though, I am relieved that there has been a degree of pause, that they have had time to be absolutely sure before they move forward on this enormous change in their lives. It isn't something you can come back from easily. As a Mother, albeit a gender-non conforming one, in a STEM career, I didn't really become comfortable in my own body until I became a mother. The choices that my child is making mean that they will never have that opportunity to find that 'natural' way of growing into their own skin.
As a woman, reading Stephen's horrific story, I am minded that transpeople may experience terrible violence, and also that many women may suffer in the same way. I think that women, as a population, and transpeople, as a population, experience fear and victimisation.
My concern, shared by many other women, is that while I sympathise and support the transgender (sexual) population for whom the GRA was put in place, I find it very difficult to sympathise with or support the notion that womanhood can be switched on and off at will, or that those who seek to do so should have the protected rights of women accorded to them. Women were granted some special rights because it was acknowledged that they were disadvantaged. Women fought for women only roles and safe spaces because they were under represented and there are women's issues and problems which need a degree of privacy and safety.
I have no concern about sharing a hospital room with a fully transitioned transwoman. I don't want to be forced to share one with a man who has no genuine dysphoria but has decided to become a 'lesbian woman' by growing their hair long, and posts on internet forums about their cissy fetish. I think that the transgender population who need and deserve the protections of the GRA are not the same people who are fighting for self ID and the removal of gatekeeping/help and support for those with genuine dysphoria, largely. If this was genuinely about making transition less lengthy and distressing, surely the campaign would be to shift funding and emphasis onto swift treatment times and increased support to help the process, rather than cutting out the process.

Probably keen to portray and emphasise their adopted male privilege.

Yes, I thought that too. Toilet widgets and all. ("Quite a convincing male impersonation" was my exact thought.)

The GG anecdote was deliberately provocative.

Ilooked I really feel for you and your child. I feel so sad to think of any kid having something as huge as SRS but I wish you both well. I hope your child comes out a happier person for transitioning. It must be immensely difficult to have to watch on knowing you can't change their mind

One thing you haven't thought about is disabilty. For me as a disabled person it is my access to the outside world.

needyourloving it is in no way a generalised dislike of trans-identified females. I feel huge sympathy for the hundreds of girls currently so unhappy with their bodies and their presumed social roles that they have begun binding their breasts and taking harmful drugs.

Stephen has helped to bring about a situation which threatens the future of all our daughters and has come here to tell us to get over it because Stephen had a hard time at school. This, I dislike.

The GG anecdote was deliberately provocative

Well my slight criticism did get quite the response

Though in fairness to stephen i have reread and i think i know why

AssassinatedBeauty Mon 09-Apr-18 15:00:18
"suggest gardening or the park might be a useful alternative to this place."

It was not meant to be patronising, I looked out of the window and thought to myself how good the air feels ins pring - that's all. It cannot just be me who thinks that. Talk about find offence ....

morningrunner,
Did I read correctly that Shephen1955 is the individual who has (mis) advised GGUK as to their .....

I responded, as I am sure others did, to an open consultation which was accessible for all to engage with.
NO, I did NOT act as any sort of advisor to GGUK as to their obligations under the EA 2010.

I responded to a series of questions that were raised, and I wrote separately to GGUK at the time, to say how important a girl-only organization had been for me during my childhood, as someone who later transitioned.

I can't remember my specific responses to the survey questions. If I find them I'll let you know.

@prachet thank you. Still not entirely understanding- would you mind saying which legislation in particular or is it general law changes? As a mother of a DD and someone who works with young adults and children I am concerned.

hat's really inappropriate on here as people are worried about their young daughters in the guides...and i would have been very concerned about my young son in the same situation

When i referred to my young son i meant that if he was in guidecamp as a transgirl i would be concerned that he could get a girl pregnant

So i would be worried about my young daughter in the guides...and my young transgirl...if you see what i mean

Just thought i would clarify

Oh come on. I'm not taking offence. I was pointing out your patronising tone, whether deliberate or accidental. You were making a direct suggestion that we should stop posting here and garden/go the the park. Why you feel you can make directions as to what we ought to be doing is beyond me. To try and pass it off as gentle musings about the weather is daft.

wow what a fantastic thread.
People have made the points I would make but two other things strike me -

Stephen is a Professor in Equalities Law. It would be helpful if he responded as one would expect from someone who is a legal expert in transgender rights. I'm sure we could cope!
(That you are not doing this Stephen seems at best disingenuous).

Secondly: some of Stephen's posts seem to put him at odds with the twitter type trans activists.

Langcleg says
"putting two children of opposite sex in the same room would be a safeguarding hazard"

I wondered what Scouting have to say about 'mixed sex troop night's away. This seems to capture their policy:
Gender identity: Supporting young people
bit.ly/2GMpvDa

Interestingly the advice says:
"When addressing the whole Section/Unit, gender neutral terms will help to support an open and inclusive environment. For example, use "hello everybody" instead of "hello gentlemen" or talking to a group of female Scouts as "ladies"."

But the Times managed to convert that to:
"The Scout Association has been accused of “throwing common sense out the window” after pack leaders were told to stop referring to children as boys and girls to avoid offending transgender members."
at bit.ly/2GLEJEh

Just shows you can't believe what you read in the papers.