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..

Excuse me: I see exactly what you mean. Exactly.

Well said Langcleg

Datun It's more the way transactivists follow male pattern behaviour and exhibit male privilege...

This is spot on plus the fact that transmen are female. "Trans" translates to "wants to be a". A transman can wear bindings and have surgery but nothing will alter their chromosomes. On the basis that a woman is an adult human female, a transman is a female/woman who want to be a male/man.

Where are all the transmen? To misquote Datun, it's more the way transmen follow female pattern behaviour. They are quietly going about their lives. Its not all about them.

Indeed it is, Lang.

What I've learned from this thread is that according to Stephen the answer to the question "where are the trans men?" is "busy attempting to perform regressive stereotypes of masculinity, including the stereotype that men don't much care about women's concerns".

Thank for you that information, Stephen, I'm sure it will be useful to many people when considering your role in creating the situation that we're facing now and whether it would be wise for you to allowed to continue influencing policy. Particularly in regards to children and their safety and wellbeing.

MissC that is so right. If an alien came down to earth and studied tims, tifs, men, women, transexuals ftm, transexuals mtf, purely on behaviour, not on grounds of appearance, they would find, in my view, that possession of a penis was a key discriminator.

Hear, hear, LangCleg.

BarrackerBarma Once you've taken the position that a little lie is acceptable and a few small exceptions to the rule won't hurt, you're stuck travelling a path that needs bigger and bigger lies to sustain the first lie, and more and more exceptions until the rule has been broken.

Absolutely. And our rights and protections as a discrete group, ourselves long disadvantaged, get broken.

It really is not harmless to “agree” with someone that they are a member of the sex they’re not, out of politeness or kindness. It has huge and harmful consequences for women. And this is what has always been expected of us: that we put others’ (traditionally men’s) needs and feelings ahead of our own, at our own expense, to our own detriment.

It is unequivocally anti-feminist to ask women to do this.

And WTF is this all about? My thinking is that I never was a woman, at best I became a grubby, grumpy, and suicidal teenager. My partner of 40 years is a woman and I know I never came close to her exalted status.
This is also unequivocally anti-feminist. It’s just another facet of misogyny, to claim there is something “exalted” about womanhood; it is othering and ultimately dehumanising to say that you need to be anything other than a person born female who has reached adulthood to “qualify” as a woman. And it ties into the misogynist attitude of many TRA TIMs that they are “better at being women” than actual women.

Of course women can be extraordinary, but we should also be able to be absolutely ordinary; able to be distinctly earthbound, grubby, grumpy beings every bit as much as men, if that is who we are. Isn’t that one of the aims of feminism, to make it possible for women to express the full gamut of personality types, abilities and aspirations or lack thereof - as women? And still be regarded as having the same intrinsic worth as the other lot of human beings, ie men?

This comment belies a deeply sexist way of thinking, of seeing the two sexes as immutably different in terms not of biology but of personality, of some unidentifiable inner “essence”.

Which is exactly the cult of gender identity that leads men to say they are women, on an essential level; “women” with male biology, physiology, entitlement and aggression. Who then demand entry into all women only spaces and services, thus rendering them unfit for the purpose they were created for.

Transgenderism harms women and children. There is no way round this. We could have all the respectful discussions in the world, and I myself certainly value kindness and respect, and would never try to be offensive just for the sake of it. But you can’t square this circle.

I understand you’ve had and still have your struggles, Stephen, and I’m glad for you that you found a way to live without being suicidal: that level of pain is not something I’d wish on anybody. But at the end of the day you support a movement whose effects could well lead other people, principally girls and women, to feel suicidal. The girl, who may already be being abused, who has to put up with a boy in her changing rooms subjecting her to exhibitionism and voyeurism. The woman desperate to flee an abusive relationship having to deal with a man at the refuge, or bring evicted from a shelter because she won’t share a room with a man. This is the end result of transgenderism and self ID, with no measurable, objective parameters for what constitutes a woman or a man.

When you hide the truth of biological and social reality behind the mask of “correct pronouns” and the mantra “transmen are men”, as well as normalising lies as an acceptable (even desirable) aspect of human discourse and thought, you are quite simply making life harder for women and girls than it already is. Despite that being the opposite of what you apparently want to do.
It’s a puzzle.

Don't want to interrupt Stephen's thread as this is about trans men and I am a trans women, but I wanted to answer the questions asked from my perspective too, since they were fair and direct ones.

These are just my personal opinion, of course:

Should women's DV refuges remain single sex? Yes or no?

Absolutely. That is what the GRA allows for, and in other situations of medical procedures such as smear tests. Facilities are allowed to make individual exceptions at their discretion, but it is not a right. Nor should it be an expectation by a trans person even with a GRC.

That is how it should remain.

Should Girl Guides have unsupervised mixed sex overnight accommodation for teens? Yes or no?

I think any trans child should be accommodated in teacher facilities or single accommodation for their comfort and peace of mind of others. When I was on a school trip in the 60s it's what happened to me. As frankly no boy wanted to be anywhere near me and set fire to beds and tried to blame me having done it to ensure it happened. It hurt at the time, but I felt safer away from them and happier than I would have done being where it made others angry.

When I was teacher training we had (non trans) trips where we did the same with pupils who had needs. It usually worked best all round.

Was the Swim England trans guidance sexist when it said breasts should be covered but penises should swing free? Yes or no?

Of course it was. Either neither are deemed offensive or both are. You cannot differentiate without it being sexist.

Caucho - just to answer your suggestion that trans women outnumber trans men 20 to 1.

In the activist movement, maybe. Not sure never having met any activists.

But in numbers, it is worth bearing in mind that two of the very first four cases of trans surgery cases dealt with 80 years or so ago were trans men. So a much more even split than you might imagine.

In the 70s when I had surgery and this was the only real type of assistance then on offer the split was around 90% + trans women. And then relatively little physical options were available to trans men compared with now.

So I suspect in the next few decades on the relatively rare occasions trans people had a public profile they were mostly trans women for that reason. Though the vast majority of trans people of both genders (whichever way you look at it!) kept their heads down, were relieved to have resolved their gender dysphoria and, having no real legal rights, lived quietly without much fuss. So the isolated cases in public were those who were to some degree seeking that. Or thrust into it by nature of the media.

However, even before the last few years when more young girls have been presenting to Gender Identity Clinics saying they were boys than the other way around (and this rise was noticed and is I am sure being investigated as it was not expected I imagine) then there always was a trans men/ transwomen split much closer than the 10/90 % of the 70s.

In 2005, first full year of the GRA when many older trans people swelled numbers to claim a GRC, the split between trans men/women was not 10/90 but (in actual numbers) 269 / 912 - which as you can see is around 28/ 72%

So over a quarter were trans men.

In 2015, ten years later, it was (in actual numbers) 109 / 223 - so almost exactly 50/50%.

As you can see GRC numbers are small all told each year - in the past five years the annual totals awarded are just 236, 318, 244, 332 and 318.

That is for the whole UK in a whole year.

Really pleased to find this. I hope we can continue without anger getting in the way- no matter how righteous. I want to hear all the voices!

Sorry my maths above is a bit off. 109/223 is obviously not 50/50.

I meant to say nearer 50/50 and IS 50/50 (and possibly now above in the other direction) with girls at clinics presenting as trans boys.

But the trans men numbers had risen to about a third from just over a quarter applying for a GRC in the period 2005 to 2015.

As you can see GRC numbers are small all told each year - in the past five years the annual totals awarded are just 236, 318, 244, 332 and 318.

Yeah, everything seems to be going well, to me. 'Real' transsexuals (for want of a better word) have an option, however it has been drafted to protect women too. Seems to be spot on? I don't understand why there is such a push to change it, I mean, once anyone can get a GRC, the GRC becomes meaningless anyway surely? And as businesses adopt a self ID model, women are at risk, and so are transsexual people who have been using the spaces of the opposite sex for years and years. Suddenly, the very men they are trying to escape, can follow them right in. I genuinely do not see why people cannot see that this is just a disaster waiting to happen especially if the exception s are removed. But the GRA and such has nothing to do with businesses changing their stance, I do understand that. But I feel businesses are doing this because of the intense pressure from rabid transactivists. We know how bad they are when they disagree with something, their behavior towards Millwall shows that, to get a club like that to back down, the pressure must have been immense, and everyone who has been on the receiving end has said they have never seen anything like it. The reason for this? Transactivists are a bunch of narcissistic males who are used to getting their own way and will not stop until they do.

In short, the GRC process is just fine as it is. It protects everyone. Changing it, puts both women and transwomen at risk.

Vickxy - yes, I agree with that and the it has been noticeable over the past few weeks how more and more transsexuals are now coming out, reclaiming that word which the trans community have asked to be axed, disowning the term transgender and posting stuff on Youtube like someone linked to earlier shows that this message is getting across.

We seem to be doing this independently as the truth is dawning.

The problem remains that there are 5000 or so transsexuals in the UK and 100 times as many who want to appropriate the transgender term but without any strings attached.

Hopefully, though, the media might sense this message - as in there is a growing 'trans rebellion' against the changes.

That same media are nor innocent in what is happening by providing the platform for the anger - as the more anger you sell the more anger people create to sell back to you.

The problem remains that there are 5000 or so transsexuals in the UK and 100 times as many who want to appropriate the transgender term but without any strings attached

You've got us as well

LangCleg can I just say that your reasoning and argument on this thread has been magnificent.

Jayceedove, I'm sorry your school mates were so awful to you, I can imagine life was very tough indeed then.

This is also unequivocally anti-feminist. It’s just another facet of misogyny, to claim there is something “exalted” about womanhood; it is othering and ultimately dehumanising to say that you need to be anything other than a person born female who has reached adulthood to “qualify” as a woman. And it ties into the misogynist attitude of many TRA TIMs that they are “better at being women” than actual women. Of course women can be extraordinary, but we should also be able to be absolutely ordinary; able to be distinctly earthbound, grubby, grumpy beings every bit as much as men, if that is who we are. Isn’t that one of the aims of feminism, to make it possible for women to express the full gamut of personality types, abilities and aspirations or lack thereof - as women? And still be regarded as having the same intrinsic worth as the other lot of human beings, ie men?

Well, yes, but it's so much more fun (for men, and women who want to pretend to be men) to shove women up on that pedestal (careful you don't fall! we have lots of plans for when you do) and when we complain offer to decorate the bars of our cages more prettily. Isn't that nice? Don't we appreciate the offer?

People like this apparently can't keep their misogyny hidden even if they try. And they're not trying all that hard.

Vickxy - yes, I agree with that and the it has been noticeable over the past few weeks how more and more transsexuals are now coming out, reclaiming that word which the trans community have asked to be axed, disowning the term transgender and posting stuff on Youtube like someone linked to earlier shows that this message is getting across.

Yes I have noticed this actually. I don't blame transsexual people for trying to distance themselves from the ridiculous 'trans umbrella'. I mean, what do transsexual people have in common with transvestities, and how on earth can a transvestite male be classed as a woman in any way? He is just a man who likes to wear womens clothing. There is no reason at all why a person like that should have access to female areas.

I have also noticed transactivists getting extremely wound up by transsexual people using the term transsexual again, going proper off it saying that its outdated and such and transgender is the correct term. Basically telling people that they have to accept another term for themselves regardless of their own feelings on it (kind of like how women have cis forced on them regardless of 'gender identity')

Because..transactivists know that as soon as transsexual people are not included in the umbrella, the whole thing falls down as noone is going to support the rest of them. People hear transgender and think transsexual..when thats not true at all. But when 'transgender' means simply, gender non conforming in some way, the whole selfID thing is seen for the nonsense it is, IMO.

Vickxy that is an interesting observation. You might well be onto something there.

The term transsexual was defined as a medical one and was what appeared in all my early medical files when I was sent from doctor to doctor, hospital to hospital and into psychiatric units.

By the time I got to the point of surgery - always the end of the process and after several years of other therapy first back then - something had shifted. As you were asked to sign a waiver before they consented to do the surgery that you understood that it was not changing sex but reassigning gender.

I was told by the psychiatrist about to pass me onto the surgeon that this was a legal requirement because the law would not recognise any change of sex and he was sure never would as he had just gone to court to give evidence to help annul a transsexual's marriage to a man as illegal on those grounds.

So gender was introduced into the nomenclature not for any reason other than to give a separation from sex.

This is probably why transsexuals have always been realistic about this concept of changing sex. We had to get that before we passed that point. If we didn't then you were not taken further.

I would guess based on how many people today seem not to get this biological reality within the transgender community that it is not part of the treatment path nowadays.

After I was signed off by Charring Cross in the early 80s (they only did two or three years follow up after my final surgery) I was basically left alone and never really asked about the subject again, even by GPs, though, of course, I told them all every time I moved to a new area. I did not even see my notes until 2004 when my GP wanted to check them with me during the application for a GRC and I discovered that they wrongly claimed I had had breast enhancement. I had been offered it on the NHS in 1980 but had turned it down.

All the records still used the term transsexual. I never even heard the term transgender until all the stories started appearing on Digital Spy where I had posted regularly on media matters and the subject had suddenly become something everyone was talking about. But calling it transgender.

That's when I first started searching the net to find out what was going on, joined the only non fanatical forum I could find (Angels) and started catching up on what had been going on over the past decades whilst I was getting on with living.

Whenever I used the word transsexual I was reminded not to, just as I was told to use terms like Cis and Terf. I looked into what these meant as I had no idea and quickly decided they were needless or provocative so I was not going to follow that pattern. But transgender or trans for short seemed a harmless enough word and I thought, as transsexual emphasised the misconception of 'sex change' perhaps it was a sensible modification.

The reclamation independently seeming to happen now appears to be happening partly out of distancing to some degree, but also I think because it emphasises that in our case - whilst the biological reality is understood - it always was about changing as far as possible the sex characteristics of the body. And not about expressing a girly gender identity, or indeed any kind of lifestyle preference or interest in clothes or hobbies.

For some gender expression very much seems to be what it is about. I think for transsexuals it is about the body. Probably why there is very little interest in physical transition by those transgender and it is really more about expressing personality in a way they find more comfortable.

So without presuming different causes or origins as we are still guessing on those with any of us - I think there are two very different focal points of what we seem to be doing about it.

Reclaiming transsexual just seems to have occurred to a few people at the same time as a way to point that out.

I don't think it runs any deeper than that at the moment.

Don't want to interrupt Stephen's thread as this is about trans men and I am a trans women, but...

Fair enough.

Happy to leave you to it as I am not looking to get up anyone's back.

I think Stephen got the message just as clearly as I have, don't worry.

"TERF war is fabricated drama out of zilch" Wow. Just wow.

And this thread is disingenuous codswallop.

Where us the money coming from to drive this? Are lesbian and gay and no people paying to be members of Stonewall to support this this gender agenda?

Bi people not no people, bloody auto correct!

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

I just read on another thread that Barclay's provides funds to Mermaids. I would imagine other corporations write off charitable donations to similar homophobic organizations posing as charities.