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?

The fact that the trans umbrella now includes people who are not transsexuals, and those people are now the majority, is not the fault of gender-critical women, or of women in general, or of feminists. The current upswell of resistance to TIMs in women's spaces has been caused by the inclusion of people who're not old-school transsexual and the lobbying they've been doing both online and in a very real talking to politicians kind of way. Again, this is not the fault of the women here. If transsexuals don't want to be grouped with the other people currently referred to as transgender then it's up to them to make that distinction and figure out a way to make it stick. Women here have been saying that there are clear differences and we can tell who's in which group based on the things they say. When we say this TRAs call us bigots.

By saying this we are not (at least some of us aren't) saying that we're happy to have old school transsexuals have unfettered access to every single woman's space (which is where some of the transsexuals who post here seem to get upset with us). If a person reads as male then their presence in certain spaces will be alarming to many women even if they mean no harm at all. Women's feelings about that matter.

A compromise between women and transsexuals? Might be possible, though I'm seeing signs from some of the transsexuals who comment here that ultimately they may just not be willing to accept the fact that women will always know they're male and will always want to maintain some boundaries, particularly in the case of those who still clearly read as male. A compromise between women and the assorted group of non-transsexual people who currently fall under the trans umbrella, of the variety that thumped a woman at Speakers Corner for wanting to speak? No, that's not possible, or even desirable.

What is your definition of transphobia?

Prejudiced and generalised assumptions about trans people as a group, e.g. statements that they are all perverts, dudes in dresses, sex offenders etc. An unwillingness to recognise that gender dysphoria exists. Blanket statements that trans people should not have rights. Speculation and delight that the youtube shooter might be trans.

Took the word right out of my brain, Red.

Prejudiced and generalised assumptions about trans people as a group, e.g. statements that they are all perverts, dudes in dresses, sex offenders etc.

Concerns that MEN will take advantage of women and girls is not a statement that all trans people are perverts, dudes in dresses or sex offenders so that's fine

An unwillingness to recognise that gender dysphoria exists.

Is there a doubt that this exists?

Blanket statements that trans people should not have rights.

I don't think I've ever seen this - only the question which is what rights do Trans people not currently have that they feel they need?

Speculation and delight that the youtube shooter might be trans.

Concern that a shooter might not be genuinely a women but like alot of trans offenders might be being reported as such, is not speculation and delight.

Prejudiced and generalised assumptions about trans people as a group, e.g. statements that they are all perverts, dudes in dresses, sex offenders etc.

This is your extrapolation from a minority of people as I said and others have said. Which is the same thing you are criticising others for. I'm not sure why you can't recognise this.

Prejudiced and generalised assumptions about trans people as a group, e.g. statements that they are all perverts, dudes in dresses, sex offenders etc
Never seen anyone on MN say that

An unwillingness to recognise that gender dysphoria exists

Never seen anyone on MN say that

Blanket statements that trans people should not have rights

Never seen anyone anywhere say trans people shouldn't have rights

Speculation and delight that the youtube shooter might be trans

I saw people expressing shock that the shooter was female, and yes, wondering if actually they were male. Especially after photos were published. In view of previous reports of male crime being reported as being committed by females this is unsurprising.

I can deal with the Lily Madigans tbh. I find it harder to deal with attempts to tell me ive not tried hard enough. It comes to a point, where you just say, actually 'is it really me?'.

I know the answer in my heart, and the decision to say it, hasn't come without price.

There has to be some compromise and working on rebuilding trust, before I will accept anything more now.

The worse thing is I know its not just for the benefit of me, or other women. You can't just force something without a gradual process without a backlash.

People management basics. Go on any management course about implementing change. Its there.

I am so fed up of this. Just listen rather than shouting transphobes for once in your bloody lives.

Erishki this is getting irritating now. I have NEVER said that being gender critical is transphobia. Not once. Italian asked me what I defined as transphobia and I told her. Do you disagree that suggesting all trans people are perverts is transphobia? I am gender critical myself FFS. Read some of my previous posts if you are bored. I am talking about actual transphobic posts. I don’t think they represent everyone on MN at all as I have said umpteen times. I get disappointed when I see them because ultimately they weaken our position.

It’s being attacked by people like you for making a fairly uncontroversial statement that also makes me question whether MN is a helpful space for this kind of stuff.

TeamOrders I don’t think you have read every single post on here. I assure you that some have been transphobic and have also been deleted. Not everyone is civilised and respectful even if you choose to believe that they are.

If someone has said 'all trans people are perverts'' then call out that person and report their post.

It’s being attacked by people like you for making a fairly uncontroversial statement that also makes me question whether MN is a helpful space for this kind of stuff.
Perhaps it would help if you define attacked now so we know just what it is that prompts you to question whether MN is a helpful space for women to be able to discuss laws that will affect them?

If someone has said 'all trans people are perverts'' then call out that person and report their post.

Of course. I have done that when I have seen transphobia and it has usually resulted in deletions. But every time people post those sorts of things, it undermines what we are trying to achieve. It provides evidence that MN is an intolerant space.

People, can i ask, what do you gender critical mums tell your dc about gender, biological sex etc? I am riming mine telling them that gender is a construct and women historically oppressed. that you can be who you want to be but never change your sex due to biological facts and hard science.

I wonder if i need to ask them not to discuss my / our gender critical scientifically backed views in the playground and school. would you?

Comments that are transphobic are deleted,
So no doubt they are reported.
It's unusual to see public condemnation of such comments from posters on here - but I am sure most people on here do condemn such comments.

@crisbuttyfan

But we have all seen how transphobes use the 'swedish study' to claim trans women have the same criminality as males, when the actual study proves the opposite. The author of the study is clear on this.

I've read the answers the author gave to transgender websites about the study. I've also read the study in detail. It doesn't actually prove what you claim, as the authors merely say the increased crime rate wasn't significant in the later cohort - that does not mean they were at lower risk.

But that doesn't actually matter for the current discussion. What matters is that every single transwoman in this study was post-op, receiving cross-sex hormones and testosterone suppressants. And I've never considered post-op transsexuals as a group to be dangerous to women - on the contrary, I supported the GRA because people with such severe dysphoria that they have gender reassignment surgery really should be protected in law.

Self-id however is not for post-op transsexuals though, is it?

It's for everyone now claiming to be trans which according to GIRES means 80 to 95% of transwomen in the UK are non-op non-med transwomen, ie fully functioning males not even suppressing testosterone. That they would retain male-pattern criminality is obvious - there is no actual physiological change that would support any other claim.

But to find out if non-op, non-med transwomen may pose the same risk as any other male, we can look at a study from Ontario 2012. This large study of over 400 ppl is much more inclusive of the now widened understanding of transgender (no longer limited to transsexuals) and shows that non-op, non-med transwomen retain male pattern sexuality (and that the majority of those transwomen sexually active have penetrative sex, with women).

For the record, I agree with you that the earlier higher rate of criminal convictions in the Cohort Study in Sweden is probably an indication of survival crime, especially since there's a contemporary study done in San Francisco which did look at the types of crimes transgender people were convicted for. It shows a lifetime conviction rate of two thirds of the subjects but most of that is survival crime. That's because the US did have neither the improved social conditions nor medical provision of Sweden had for the later cohort.

Perhaps it would help if you define attacked now so we know just what it is that prompts you to question whether MN is a helpful space for women to be able to discuss laws that will affect them?

OK, repeatedly (and wilfully) misinterpreting my posts, telling me I don't get it, that I am guilty of what I am accusing others of. Not a particularly vicious pile-on perhaps, but I do feel a bit targeted.

I have been posting on here for a while. I feel I have made a useful contribution to many of the feminist debates. It's a shame that I have apparently now said something that is out of line.

I think most people just report them instead of filling up the thread with comments about how we don't condone them.

It’s being attacked by people like you for making a fairly uncontroversial statement that also makes me question whether MN is a helpful space for this kind of stuff.

"People like me"? I think I've made a fairly consistent statement that I think you are doing the same as what you accuse others of. I.e. you are extrapolating from some posts and judging all.

The only thread about the YT shooter that I looked at was full of comments condemning it.

It provides evidence that MN is an intolerant space

Not at all. It provides evidence that some intolerant posters post here but that intolerant views aren't allowed to stand. What's wrong with that?

I'm more concerned about snide or dismissive responses to trans posters that don't break talk guidelines but do make the atmosphere more hostile for them.

I'm not sure how it would be possible to create a space in which literally no comments that some might find objectionable were posted without a level of moderation that would make useful discussion difficult to achieve.

SusanBunch
Thanks for the reply. I was feeling like you are holding us all responsible for what others say, whether we were aware of what they said or not.
I think the recent "invasion" by TED2 has us all a bit prickly.

Pages behind but this still seems to be an issue from skimming through.

SusanBunch - I was merely saying I was uncomfortable with OBVIOUS transphobia (of which I have cited examples) and it made me question whether my view actually aligns with some people's on here. People often deny that there is any transphobia on here at all but they are being wilfully blind if so. Mumsnet is developing such a bad rep as a bigoted place which I think is a shame because there are many people I agree with.

One of the things you cited as 'OBVIOUS transphobia' was the reaction to the YouTube shooter. While those threads needed to go because they were speculative, from where I'm sitting they were not transphobia at all, rather they reflected a completely understandable mistrust of media reporting.

Here is a report about a woman convicted for extreme hate speech who had an arsenal of weapons in her home.

Here is a report about a woman who was convicted for pushing a police officer onto a tube track.

Here is a report about a woman who pleaded guilty to attempted murder after stabbing a man in the head and neck.

Here is a report about a woman who was convicted for possession of extreme animal porn.

Here is a report about a woman who was convicted of possession of 1200 child abuse images. The judge said it was appalling that there were no specific treatment programmes for women who commit these offences.

Nobody is saying or implying that all trans people are offenders

The Youtube threads happened because we can no longer trust mainstream media to accurately report the sex of offenders. Maybe you're fine with that, I'm not.

you are extrapolating from some posts and judging all

Why are you not understanding what I am saying? I am talking about transphobic posts, NOT gender critical posts. I am not judging all. I am really not. Why are you incapable of grasping that? I have clarified that several times yet am given the same response from you. i don't know what else I can possibly do. I am gender critical myself- why would I say that gender criticism is transphobia?

You know what guys? I am going to have to remove myself from this now. I am really not your enemy- I share so many concerns that people have raised on here and I am a strong feminist and a potentially good advocate. I feel really disappointed- I thought being a regular poster counted for something and I have spent many hours researching, reading and posting on here. But it's turned a bit nasty now and I feel genuinely upset. Maybe it's an overreaction because I don't know any of you in real life, but I think I had become invested in this so it's affecting me more than it should. Feel free to make jokes about flouncing if you want to- I am hiding the thread and won't read them unfortunately but maybe it will provide some humorous relief. Good luck with the cause- I mean that genuinely.

Agreed Kittens

Also as Venice's Labour Party interrogation made vividly clear this idea that people shouldn't be allowed to hold views that some others might be offended by is rather worrying

I think mnhq have a good balance. I'm just feeling a bit moody having witnessed yet have their experience of transphobic violence be minimised and whatabouted on the thread that then filled up before I could say so. Sorry yet