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?

A couple of weeks ago I categorically did not know they were included in the category. I do now.

It changes everything, doesn't it?

For me, it moves from something manageable for women (even if I don't really think women should be managing it because men should manage themselves) to open season on risk factors. And suddenly, a lot of aggression and male pattern dominance behaviour online makes complete sense.

If we could only recognise the several distinct populations here (female trans are distinct also), we could find paths forward. But I think a particular population here doesn't want that because the paths forward would be better for women, female trans people and TS trans people, but not them.

4thwavenow is not an anti-trans propaganda site at all. I am finding it interesting that you dismiss 4thwavenow and fairplay4women as propaganda, whilst giving links from transadvocate though

That's completely different to the non-med, non-op transwomen women are concerned about.

Indeed. An non-op non-med transwomen is just a long way of saying man, or even crossdresser tbh. Obviously men retain a male pattern of criminality. Its just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

crispbutty why do you keep referring to things being ‘protrans’ and ‘antitrans’ it’s so infuriating.
There are actual trans people here, how can thy be ‘antitrans’. I am not ‘antitrans’ just because I don’t agree with self id or that all trans people are in someway intersex or that women need same sex protections.
You have said that we are not posting in good faith and yet it doesn’t feel like you are listening to us at all.

I am sensing an element of projection in the accusations of not engaging in good faith.

crisp, people are agreeing with much of what you are saying in that it is likely that there is a biological or genetic element that causes dysphoria and dysmorphia. It's incredibly frustrating that you won't acknowledge that.

The point of disagreement comes when you insist that this predisposition overrides all other biological criteria of genotypal, phenotypal, primary and secondary sex characteristics and means that the person is actually the opposite sex.

How can it, and more pertitently - why should it?

And if you are genuinely in good faith, then constantly referring to "anti trans", "propaganda" and "transphobes" is not helping you out here.

Also, it's not your first time at this rodeo is it? I smell copy and paste in that last epic post

I admit there are people who agree with elements of what I have posted, I am not referencing those, I accept that. And maybe didn't reference that sooner. I am not saying everyone is dismissing all elements of this discussion.

At the same time forgive me for getting a little frustrated at people who have never experienced gender identity incongruence or gender dysphoria reducing the experience of millions of people into mere thought exercises as a way to dismiss them.

When trans people en-masse state these beliefs are wrong, then it is clear people are treating the opinions of those people who are experts in their own experience far more than any cis scientist or commentator, as deceitful and nefarious. That is incandescent in some of the reasoning on here.

People who are not trans posit themselves as having a better understanding than trans people.

This fact is almost entirely ignored, and is clearly bad-faith.

4thwavenow/ fairplay for women are explicitly anti-trans propaganda sites.
Again, that will not be accepted by anyone who is a supporter of these sites, and relies on the premise that trans people, cannot be trusted and can not possibly call out transphobia where they see it.

If any other minority, pointed to a site that was clearly set up to dismiss and stigmatise them, the site will always be defended by those invested in believing it to be true.

I dont expect anyone on here so far, to call out anti-trans propaganda sites for what they are, and insist that trans people are the only minority in existence that doesn't have trolls targetting them, and in fact they are run by 'reasonable' people... clearly transphobia exists in the world, and some people are invested in that, and usually have a paypal button for donations.

I think my input to this discussion has now run it's course.

I wish everyone well. Good-bye for now.

People who are not trans posit themselves as having a better understanding than trans people.

A bit like men telling woman what they are then.

At the same time forgive me for getting a little frustrated at people who have never experienced gender identity incongruence or gender dysphoria reducing the experience of millions of people into mere thought exercises as a way to dismiss them

I am a little frustrated at you not being able to say if you personally have experienced such issues.

Bold fail, sorry
*
People who are not trans posit themselves as having a better understanding than trans people*

A bit like men telling woman what we are then.

Gah! And again. I give up

But I think a particular population here doesn't want that because the paths forward would be better for women, female trans people and TS trans people, but not them.

Quite. And it can get hard to see that through the barrage of information that gender dysphoria is real! (we know) People with gender dysphoria are often suicidal! (that’s terrible and should be addressed).

But you don’t have gender dysphoria do you? You quite like the body you have. So, what’s the issue again?

crispbutty "People who are not trans posit themselves as having a better understanding than trans people"

conservativeuterus "A bit like men telling woman what they are then"

So can I add....

" A bit like transwomen telling women what they are?

and might we all agree that in order to understand different experiences it is essential to respect and listen....

“When trans people en-masse state these beliefs are wrong, then it is clear people are treating the opinions of those people who are experts in their own experience far more than any cis scientist or commentator, as deceitful and nefarious”

I think I am doing this actually. I don’t trust the gender rights activists because they are using research based on trans-sexual people to further their own agenda. It is deceitful and nefarious. And truly transphobic actually.

You have also fallen for the line that being on Mumsnet means that people here are "just" mums (whatever that is). We have a full complement of doctors, biologists, psychologists, lawyers, and academics of all stripes. There are trans people here, and people with trans friends, family members and children, and many, many women who were gender non conforming as children and as adults ourselves.

One other thing you've not accounted for is that on a board full of feminists, you are lecturing at people who have decades of experience and knowledge of what happens when science tries to tell us what gender is and does.

We've been thinking about gendered brains for years. We are on it. It's incredibly patronising to assume otherwise. There is lived experience and knowledge here in spades, and your dismissal of it as propaganda is frustrating.

4thwavenow/ fairplay for women are explicitly anti-trans propaganda sites.
Again, that will not be accepted by anyone who is a supporter of these sites, and relies on the premise that trans people, cannot be trusted and can not possibly call out transphobia where they see it.

I don't know the history of 4thwavenow very well, but fairplay4women is not anti trans, it is pro-women. There is a huge difference.

Where did the term 'transvestite' go to? Is it ever used now?

My lived experience is as a woman, a ‘cis’ woman.
A woman who has fought against gender at every turn for her entire life, I reject the idea of an innate gender identity with every single cell of my being. I am a female and I have a personality THAT IS IT.
I have had a really hard time as a gender non conforming woman, I’ve been told I’m too loud, too sexual, too bossy, too aggressive, will never be funny, to shut up, to let the men speak, be pretty, be understanding, be caring, be anything but myself.
No.

When you say gender is innate it’s as offensive to me as misgendering a trans person.
I know gender is not innate because I don’t have one. How do you like them lived experiences?

This is not a ‘thought exercise’
You don’t need to have gender dysphoria to have skin in this game.

Disagree. A couple of weeks ago I categorically did not know they were included in the category. I do now.

Sorry I was more referring to people with a specific agenda like that poster appears to me to be than people who genuinely weren't aware. It was a figure of speech but I appreciate i should have been clearer.

@crispbuttyfan

You asked for peer-reviewed studies. You got peer-reviewed studies. Two of which have nothing to do with either of the highly respected and experienced academics you object to because you feel personally insulted by the theory they research and publish in. Your inner feelings of the worth of research however does not invalidate their findings. At least not in this universe.

As for that condescending blog post and the levels of familiarity with research. Who do you think mumsnetters are - mummy's with baby brain? Barely functioning above an instinctive, caretaking level? Is it meant to let us all know that we can't possibly dare to evaluate studies for ourselves?

We have researchers here, scientists, academics, lawyers, teachers, engineers, policewomen, doctors and nurses, all kinds of highly skilled tradespeople and workers, and, yes, stay-at-home mums of all persuasions. Who can all think for themselves, you know.

Part of my work consists of writing analyses of papers and literature reviews for my clients. I actually get paid for reading and understanding research studies. In all kinds of fields, including medicine. My earning potential literally depends on being able to work my way into a new subject in the shortest amount of time possible. I don't have to do the research, I just have to understand it.

When I got my degree in journalism, I did so the old-fashined way. Apart from learning the craft, we also spent our whole first year learning how to find evidence, how to assess and analyse research, how to compare contrasting, conflicting studies, how to support our statements. Later, we had courses on statistics, on logical fallacies and so on.

It was a time when journalists published articles about scientific studies only after reading the studies in detail and talking to the researchers. Do you know what happens today? Today, the PR department of the research organisation puts out a press release, sexed up to attract maximum interest. The papers and magazines, many of whom have long since stopped employing science journalists, print this verbatim.

When you read the studies, as I am wont to do, the articles, but especially the headlines, often bear little resemblance to the actual results and/or are completely misunderstood. Which is why I always go to the source.

And my experience in this debate so far has been that once you read the actual studies, they don't support the claims made by trans activists. That includes claims of an innate gender identity. So yeah, I dare to disagree with you.

I would never dismiss the lived experience of a trans person as invalid or unimportant. But I don't think lived experience is a guide to the biological processes that underlie it

In order to perceive distance, your visual system performs amazing feats of trigonometry. You don't need a conscious knowledge or understanding of trigonometry in order to do this. If your beliefs about trigonometry were incorrect, this would not affect your eyesight. Similarly, how we consciously theorise about our bodies is a different set of processes from what our bodies are actually doing.

Lived experience is important but it is only evidence of lived experience.

Today, the PR department of the research organisation puts out a press release, sexed up to attract maximum interest.

Yup. And if the PR department think the results of research might bring negative attention to the research organisation. There won't be any press release. Certainly not a sexed up one. It's not healthy.

I digress. MUST do some work!

At the same time forgive me for getting a little frustrated at people who have never experienced gender identity incongruence or gender dysphoria reducing the experience of millions of people into mere thought exercises as a way to dismiss them.

Gender identity as a thought exercise? That's a new one. Please elaborate.

Please also explain what bearing this has on the self-id issue because self-id is not just for those with GD. According to GIRES only 5% of the UK's trans community has sought any medical help so far, including therapy. With 100 in 10,000 being trans, that means only 5 in 10,000 have gender dysphoria serious enough to seek help and less than 1 in 10,000 have a GRC so far. But self-id is for the other 95 as well though. So that matters to us if the rights of 95 non-GD people are expected to override the rights of others. Based on what exactly?

When trans people en-masse state these beliefs are wrong, then it is clear people are treating the opinions of those people who are experts in their own experience far more than any cis scientist or commentator, as deceitful and nefarious. That is incandescent in some of the reasoning on here.

Experts in their own experience, yes, absolutely. It is a logical fallacy however to believe that just because no one else can be an expert in you, other people cannot be experts in what particular issues or problems you may have. Why else would those with actual gender dysphoria seek expert help? And as we know from many different voices, including the GIDS clinics here in the UK, these experts also have differing opinions on treatment options and outcomes.

And if you object to this so strongly, as women are experts in their own experience, why do trans activists tell us we're doing womanhood and feminism wrong?

People who are not trans posit themselves as having a better understanding than trans people.

Nope. Not better understanding than trans people of their own individual experiences. Better understanding of what it means to be a woman because of our own individual experiences as women which are collectively based on and shaped by our shared biology.

But let me repeat:

We do not deny gender dysphoria exists, is serious and has long-term consequences for those who have it. We do not agree that gender dysphoria literally means you are the other sex. And we object to the 80 to 95% who self-identify, who do not have clinically diagnosed gender dysphoria, having rights overriding ours.

At the same time forgive me for getting a little frustrated at people who have never experienced gender identity incongruence or gender dysphoria reducing the experience of millions of people into mere thought exercises as a way to dismiss them

Mate, we're women. The vast majority of us experience dysphoria, usually during adolescence. We know what it feels like. We just don't think that it means our bodies are "wrong" or that "gender identity" exists. We think it means that patriarchal societies impose restrictions that many of us find unbearable during periods of our lives. It makes women ill sometimes, too.

We've read your studies. We agree that they show that some cases of dysphoria may well be innate. We just don't agree that this applies to all trans people (self ID'd an' all) or that this also means that the sexed body belonging to dysphoric people is somehow wrong.

@LangCleg absolutely this. Better said than me, too.

I was a GNC kid and when puberty kicked in the last thing I wanted was to grow up to be a woman. I raged at what society expected from me then just because I was born female.

I still struggled with it in my thirties when I was considered to be just a stupid housewife. It pissed me off when the job interviewer asked me about kids in my forties. All they wanted to know was who'd look after them when they were sick/at weekends/during holidays.

But when DH gets asked about kids, he gets a big fat star for having them and me

Crispy, as one of the two self confessed trans women on this thread, the other being yetanother, I do not see us 'knowing' what being trans is caused by. We only know what we experienced and accept it might not be everyone else's experience.

Hence the concerns here. How can they be sure what they will be facing if the goalposts keep shifting from a few specialist medical cases to huge numbers of people who just declare unchecked that they are trans?

Anyone can see that is a major change and a huge ask. That is not transophobia. That is respecting others and common sense.

But I think the problem is that what you call 'trans' and what yetanother and I do, might be different.

Do you accept that you have moved the goalposts?

That trans has become a very large umbrella covering an array of things that are not what yetanother and I were diagnosed with properly - in my case when I transitioned 45 years ago and in yetanother more recently.

We have both reclaimed use - independently - of the word transsexual that the trans community seem to want rid of. And we are not by any means alone.

We want to emphasise those who have a deep seated necessity to adapt the body physically (such as removing incongruous sex organs). As we seem to view things differently from those who do not have such need.

Which seem mainly focused through the idea of gender identity, self expression as a man or a woman in a social setting. Not the body.

I have been told by trans activists that because I was raised in the 50s and 60s and the world was different then, that my transsexualism was yesterday's trans people and the law was defined in 2004 to cover them, but there are many, many more (potentially half a million in the UK unwilling or unable to face the gatekeeping in getting a GRC versus the 5000 or so who have).

Okay - but very reasonable questions emerge.

They concern not just a lot of women out there, characterised by some as transphobia - but concern is not phobia unless fears are groundless and these fears clearly are not.

Those diagnosed as transsexual are perturbed too because we HAVE been perfectly fine with the gatekeeping and the exclusions as they protect the transitioner as much as they do society and foster the realistic interpretation of that law to let women express their view without them being called bigots.

We live in a society with freedom of thought and the moment you legislate against none violent dissent you become a dictator.

These are fair concerns - notably over sex exclusions. We accept them. We have modified our sex biologically, but know we have not changed it as that is not possible. So any support we get is acquiescence not a right.

You are talking gender, which appears to be less physical and about self expression and seems to want to argue for changes built around that instead.

Fine, but this cannot reasonably involve sex spaces when you are not in any way altering that characteristic. Even less than we are. Often not at all. There has to be reasonable grounds for some exclusion on that basis.

So the questions:

Do you think that the GRA was designed to cover small numbers and medically monitored people such as transsexuals? Because having read the accounts of the parliamentary discussions I do.

In fact I believe both those things were key factors in why it was passed easily in 2004.

The transsexuals on here seem to agree those safeguards were valid and protective of women AND of those who believe they are opposite sex/gender before taking a big step like this.

So why do you feel that the safeguards must be removed?

Is it fear of or none relevance of medical checks? Or the delays introduced to establish sincerity and successful transition before granting legal status? Is it the cost?

Or do you have other reasons why these safeguards do not matter in 2018 but did back in 2004 when the act was drafted?

What specifically has changed in those 14 years?

And why have you not simply considered proposing a new 'Gender Identity' bill for self declaration - simple and without any hard work involved because it does not impinge on the built in protections for women?

Then accept society will accept who you want to be and you can self identify and change back and forth and get some kind of intermediary certificate that makes it easier to alter documents or get a job.

The basic, non intrusive day to day life things.

But one that draws the line at legal acceptance as a woman (or man) in any situation where biology matters.

Those larger things require a lot of mutual trust and most women are prepared to give some leeway in exchange for evidence of reciprocal trust by you.

However, that trust requires reassurance that the people they welcome exclude all those with sexual fetishes or other mental illnesses that might put at risk or cause distress to women in such intimate surroundings?

This is not hard to understand, surely?

If you demand but do not wish to go through all the hoops to reassure and earn that trust - then why not accept basic rights but not access to situations where unchecked presence of so many new 'women' might be distressing?

Nobody gets disenfranchised. If you wish to transition just to live day to day then you can - free, easy, no hassle, no checks.

But no downside for women either because that will not be enough to earn access to spaces they rightly need to protect.

If you wish to gain such even a voluntary welcome then you can follow the rules and go through all the checks and balances of the GRA and offer that undiluted protection in return to women.

Would that not work for you?