Trans unpeak moment

[Sunflowersforever]

Have really been tuned into the whole self-Id issue and subsequent discussions through mumsnet, and appalled at the encroachment into women spaces and the silencing of women's voices. Was so glad to have read Hadley Freeman's article and how she summed up concerns in such an articulate way that reflected my views.

Ok. Here is the unpeak trans bit.

On HFs twitter feed, someone posted about selfid saying. "It means swearing a statutory declaration that you are living as a woman (and there are legal consequences if you lie), changing your name and documents, telling friends, colleagues, family".

Is that correct? If it is, I didn't know that and it changes the whole 'any man can enter a woman's space unchallenged' argument a bit as surely documented proof can be produced if challenged?

Someone else also said Ireland had adopted this law with no consequences? Really?

Anyone aware if any of this is true?

I would say that if you are genuinely interested in the study and being open minded

Open minded..

There are so many factors in that study that aren't even talked about - the fact that it didn't control for poverty being one. Being trans especially back then caused a whole lot of other issues - as can be seen from that study. Drug addiction, unemployment, societal rejection. All factors that affect someone. But those factors weren't controlled for.

Things are better for the trans community now - but I suspect that in the UK , there is still a high level of rejection, unemployment and other issues that are prevalent in the trans community.

Transphobes are pushing this as though trans women are considered male, and don't have access to female facilities by law

I don't think labelling people 'transphobes' really helps anyone in this debate, does it?

Vickxy You misunderstand the equality act.

Nope I didn't.

There are currently exemptions built into the EA that do say that its lawful to discriminate based on actual sex, even if the transwoman has a GRC. But do carry on explaining law to me and assuming that my poor pink brain just cannot understand things in the same way as a blue brain could.

Vickxy the point you are making relies on their being no inherent difference between trans women, and cis men.
Which is totally understandable, I get why people continue to make that mistake, but if people just actually stood back, and said, 'what if they actually are women'? In the ways that are most important in who we are and our identities, everything makes a lot more sense.
Gender identity, and gender dysphoria is becoming increasingly better understood.

There was a really good blog by Helen Saxby a couple of days ago:

The result of the Trans Inquiry and the Trans Report is that in public life the issue of trans self-ID has essentially all but been decided, without the need for the upcoming government consultation, and without any debate. Many institutions are already putting self-ID into place, and women and girls are already feeling the effects.

We know a GRC is a fairly obsolete document these days (aside from prisons and AWS which, strangely enough, we do care about). Nevertheless, if anybody can self-ID to legally change sex AND it's transphobic harrassment to ever ask for documentation then of course you have self-ID for all women's spaces in practice.

And the trans orgs are writing lots of 'guidance' which gives the impression this legal situation is already in place.

There are so many factors in that study that aren't even talked about - the fact that it didn't control for poverty being one. Being trans especially back then caused a whole lot of other issues - as can be seen from that study. Drug addiction, unemployment, societal rejection. All factors that affect someone. But those factors weren't controlled for.

Honestly, its about time a new study was done. More research is definitely needed.

Logic says to me though, that men are statistically a risk however they identify. However I would wager that lowering testosterone levels somewhat may remove some of the danger (mainly as I believe that itys a mix of socialisation and testosterone that are the main reasons men are dangerous to women). But when its all just 'self identified transwomen'..no reason at all why they would be any different to any other man.

I get why people continue to make that mistake, but if people just actually stood back, and said, 'what if they actually are women

That's not going to go down well.

yetanothertranswoman. I am labelling no-one here a transphobe.
I am saying their are transphobic elements in the public at large, and they certainly exist.

Why does every thread where women want to talk about our experience get derailed like this?

It's absolutely infuriating, isn't it?

The assumptions, the assertions, the insulting vocabulary, the endless determination to dominate a discussion.

MRA ideology on endless repeat. On a women's forum, no less.

I get why people continue to make that mistake

I am not making a mistake, sorry. Regardless of how many times you try to paint me as a silly little woman who just does not understand.

Pencils, the equality act already states access to services that matches gender identity, does not require a GRC, so it is, and has been since 2010 effectively self-id to access female spaces, with no uptick of problems

Also please given me your definition of woman. This could help things somewhat.

IMO transwomen are transwomen. Not 'cis' men, though interestingly, this is the first time I have seen someone use cis against men rather than just women. They are male though, and a woman is an adult human female. Unless you actually have a different definition..thats not circular and does not rely on stereotypes of course.

@crispbuttyfan

So what's the point of a GRC at the moment then?

I can see some of my information and opinions are meeting quite a bit of resistance, so I'll take a step back, and those people who have been replying, thanks for exchanges, no offence was intended and best wishes.

I can see some of my information and opinions are meeting quite a bit of resistance, so I'll take a step back, and those people who have been replying, thanks for exchanges, no offence was intended and best wishes

Speaking as someone who is transsexual, I wish you would stay.

And debate.

The biggest problem with the Swedish study is it's really quite old and outdated.

I find it strange that no trans orgs are calling for further research in this area. If I truly believed that 'trans women are women' or even just that they have similar offending rates to women, I'd want that research to be done.

We have moved on on the thread but I mentioned prisons in England. It is prisons in England and Wales. and , no, i Don't think these prisoners are all transsexuals, and the figure does not include females/ trans men- it is trans identifying males.

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

If I truly believed that 'trans women are women' or even just that they have similar offending rates to women

It would be hard to control for - as offending rates vary within groups of men and within groups of women - due to lots of factors.

I can see some of my information and opinions are meeting quite a bit of resistance, so I'll take a step back, and those people who have been replying, thanks for exchanges, no offence was intended and best wishes.

Perhaps if you stopped using deliberately provocative terms that you know are rejected by the vast majority on here, stopped characterising people with different views on gender as somehow bigoted and conflating them with racists, and misrepresenting how LGBT orgs define transgender, your gender identity affirmative views might get a more conciliatory hearing.

Just a thought. Best wishes back.

I find it strange that no trans orgs are calling for further research in this area.

I find it odd that no trans orgs are supporting the likes of James Caspians work. I mean, I know the major organizations like to pretend that detransitioners are as rare as hens teeth, but surely you would want as much research as possible to go into the whole thing, to ensure that the correct treatments are happening and the right support is given..

Translation of "I can see some of my information and opinions are meeting quite a bit of resistance" = "I don't understand why you aren't just accepting what I am saying without debate, even when I tell you you are wrong. Bloody women."

Translation of "So I'll take a step back" = "otherwise it'll become even more transparent that I intend to ignore all of the measured evidence you're taking time to show me, links to demonstrate your arguments, and that I'm sidestepping anything that truly counters what I'm stating"

And as to your 'but if people just actually stood back, and said, 'what if they actually are women'? In the ways that are most important in who we are and our identities, everything makes a lot more sense"

Awesome. Jaw-droppingly awesome. But thanks for sharing that statement - it does help things make even more sense. Step back women, a man has arrived yet again to tell us he is actually a woman.

@crispbuttyfan I wish you were right and we had nothing to worry about. It women ignoring the threat of self id is Ile turkeys voting for Christmas. You are either not worried about women and girls or very, very behind the times in terms of what trans identity really means now.

Plus if you have time maybe you can explain gender to me, because as far as I can see it's a social construct to control women and has no basis in medical or biological fact at all. Hence why transsexual were called transsexuals.

It would be hard to control for - as offending rates vary within groups of men and within groups of women - due to lots of factors.

It wouldn't be at all hard to control for! Male and female. Simple. It has nothing to do with other causes of crime. Poverty is also an increased risk factor crime among women, for example.

#NAMALT and #NATALT of course, but the male vs female pattern would be clearly visible and easily sorted by trans or non-trans identification for both sexes.

I have a personal suspicion and that is that if we had a control group of all males and compared TS and AGP/TV males separately against them, we would find that AGP/TV men actually have an increased risk of sexual crime compared to all males while TS do not.

I think crime (particularly sex crime) is yet another area where TS trans people have a very strong vested interested in separating themselves out from the AGP/TV trans people. Another reason they need to start organising amongst themselves.

@crispbuttyfan I’ve read your link, up to the end of the bit where the study is discussed (ignoring the frequent derogatory references to specific people as TERFs).

I conclude that:

1. The author says that their data do not prove male pattern violence because there was no breakdown of the types of crime committed in each group. That is, they don't prove transwomen are as likely to rape as men (nor do they prove the opposite)
2. The rate of offences – i.e., number of offences per person - is not significantly different between men and transwomen (from the paper not your website, but this is not disputed by the author)
3. The author says that if you break the data down into two groups 1973-1988 or 1989-2003, the rate is not the same for men and transwomen, but that data is not presented in the paper, so I can’t see the details or judge for myself and it hasn’t been peer reviewed.
4. The author doesn’t say anything about the comparison between women and trans women broken down by the two groups (1973-1988 or 1989-2003). That would also be useful information.

So, I’m still not convinced I’m afraid. Have there been any studies you know of that show transwomen don’t commit crime at the same rate as men?

but if people just actually stood back, and said, 'what if they actually are women'? In the ways that are most important in who we are and our identities, everything makes a lot more sense

Who I am is a human. Having a body of the type that produces ova has many unavoidable consequences but has nothing to do with my identity.

Your statement makes no sense to me at all and I really wish you would explain what you are talking about because I feel this is the key misunderstanding.