Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why are 'trans' males out of bounds for feminists?

230 replies

HopScotchy · 17/04/2018 21:41

Feminists are very clear that we discuss feminist issues in terms of sex 'classes' not individuals. We are clear that when we discuss 'men' and the problems women experience we mean "not all men". Why are we not allowed to talk about the problems women face from trans males (transwomen) "not all transwomen"? Why is it 'transphobic' 'hate' to point out that transwomen are part of this male class and do indeed despite their 'identity' conform to 'male' patterns which harm women to the same degree as other males? Why should we treat these males differently when it comes to women's spaces? What is the reason? Where is the evidence?

OP posts:
Jayceedove · 18/04/2018 12:55

Pratchet I am not an expert on the Swedish study, just saw something someone had posted in an earlier thread on here about it last time it was discussed.

If they were incorrect I will happily say so.

I will do some research when I have a chance.

FloraFox · 18/04/2018 13:13

One of the authors Celia Dhejne Helmy was interviewed by a TRA. Following that she did an AMA on Reddit:

www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6q3e8v/science_ama_series_im_cecilia_dhejne_a_fellow_of/

In her own words, not filtered by the TRA interviewer, she says:

For combined transgender females and males and for the whole period 1973-2003 we saw an increased risk of being dead ( in suicide and cardio vascular diseases) and of being hospitalized for any psychiatric morbidity and for suicide attempts. We saw a positive time trend regarding mortality, suicide attempts and any crime and violent crime. For the last period (1989-2003) the transgender group did not have any elevated risk of being dead or being hospitalized for suicide attempts or committing any crime or violent crime. They had the same risk as the controls. However the elevated risk for being hospitalized for psychiatric morbidity still remained. The elevated risk in the transgender group could be caused of many things which we were unable to control for.

Increased trend in crime and violent crime before 1989 and afterwards the same risk as the controls. The control groups were the birth sex group.

Later in the AMA the TRA asks her what “male pattern of criminality” means. In her response she says:

The number of transwomen who had comited crime durin gthis period was 32, and the number who had comitted violent crime were 14. Most likely some of the 32 transwomen who had comitted a any crime had also comitted a violent crime sop you can not add the numbers. Having a male pattern means that they did not differ regarding any crime or violent crime if compared with cis men.

The TRA did not ask a follow up question, I suspect realising it was time to stop digging.

As far as I can tell, the senior authors of the paper have not made any further comment on the results or their interpretation.

At the very least, the study shows that further study is warranted. We're often told that "genuine trans" TIMs are no threat to women. If there was a definition of "genuine trans" it is likely to be the participants in this study who have had treatment for dysphoria and undergone legal transition with genital surgery. We are expected to assume "genuine trans" are no threat to women but data can be collected on the criminality rates and patterns of TIMs and I think women are entitled to have that evidence assessed publicly.

Jayceedove · 18/04/2018 13:22

I do not have any problem with anybody doing any studies. The more we know about these things the better for those who have the misfortune to face them in the future.

The study that was redone that I was thinking was another Swedish one I think about post transition regret.

I had only read these once when they were first posted by someone and disputed. So I am happy to be proven wrong.

I just cannot imagine why any transsexual women in the UK up to 2004 when we had no legal rights would even think about getting into trouble with the law let alone through violence. They would have been treated as men which I am sure they would have realised up front. That ought to have been a deterrent I would have imagined.

But maybe that is just me.

Boulshired · 18/04/2018 13:51

Whilst now off topic, this does show the divide when body dysphoria is concerned and those who suffer should not be brushed under the trans umbrella. My DD has anorexia, it doesn’t choose a certain personality type, it doesn’t indicate a person morals. It is basically a state of mind that is so strong that in the case of anorexia the person would rather risk heart attack than eat. So transsexuals with body dysphoria again will be made of all different personalities types but the dysphoria is the unique characteristic that now in fear of being ignored or minimised, transsexual voices are now a minority of small voices within a minority of louder voices.

Havoc · 18/04/2018 14:05

I read the op as 'why did we allow TIM to be the exception when we have no proof that their behaviour is any different'

Why did we allow a subset of men to change their sex before it was established that they don't pose a risk? It doesn't matter that some discredit the Swedish report, because believing that the report is flawed doesn't prove TIM are no risk to women and girls.

Talk of TIM experiences and feelings doesn't demonstrate that they are no risk.

Or did I misread the op?

FloraFox · 18/04/2018 14:07

I read it in the same way as you Havoc and agree with your views on talking about TIM experiences and feelings. Let's have the data.

Jayceedove · 18/04/2018 14:57

Flora, I have just spent a fascinating hour or two reading that whole reddit thread from which you quote above.

I heartily recommend anyone interested to do so as it has a lot of interesting material. But it is a long read with lots of clicking to reveal supplemental questions and answers.

I hope that I have now understand the argument about these crime figures better than I did.

Perhaps I am still missing something, but I did not get the impression that the doctor was being coerced into saying anything or that the trans woman asking was notably militant. It was generally quite a civilised and fascinating discussion all round.

The doctor was specifically asked to say whether she had been put under pressure to issue a clarification and freely said not and that the point of her reply was to clarify the figures to prevent abuse - as had been done, she felt, in some circumstances over issues like the suicide rates.

It was stated that the overall study was NOT carried out to discover if trans people committed crimes at the same rate before and after transition. Nor was it seemingly filtered for any specific kind of treatment - as in those who had surgery or hormones. So we do not know the actual status of those who did commit crimes.

It was based on the register of those who legally changed gender in Sweden over a 50 year period, Sweden having a version of our GRA far longer than the UK has had.

If I understood correctly this meant they studied only 324 people and 133 of those were trans men (as in genetically female).

There were only 14 cases of trans women committing male pattern violence offences in those 50 years and only 4 of those post dated 1989.

I would take from this, as the doctor seemed to be doing, that these figures are not based on high enough numbers or probative of very much other than a marked downward trend. As numbers of such crimes fell with every period of time used in the study after legal change of gender was allowed.

So you could even argue that it was evidence for the success of granting legal gender change as treatment reduced the levels of male pattern violence.

The doctor was not saying that and neither would I.

But I think for the same reason as it is easy to jump on that 'pattern', that it is equally unwise to make any opposite assumption either.

More studies like this should be done. Perhaps even more studies into violence as I can totally understand why women would be concerned over that issue.

We need more data and a wider cultural spread before concluding anything.

So I would approve of that being set up, but would not presume too much from this one study so far. Either good or bad.

Havoc · 18/04/2018 15:13

The question remains, why wasn't it established that TIM posed no threat to women and girls before the GRA, and why isn't there any studies in place to insure that TIM are no threat in light of the proposed changes to the GRA?

Is it because the studies would be impossible to complete, or that the rights women and girls are seen as irrelevant to the GRA?

FloraFox · 18/04/2018 15:27

Jacee if you squint through your fingers and look at it in a particular light, I can see how you would come to your conclusions, particularly given your interest in this issue.

It seems your points are:

  • the researcher was not coerced to give an interview: no-one said she was.
  • the study was not carried out to discover if trans people committed crimes at the same rates before and after transition: you should read the study itself as the objective is stated as To estimate mortality, morbidity, and criminal rate after surgical sex reassignment of transsexual persons.
  • the study covered a small number of people: it was the entire transsexual population of Sweden over a 50 year period. I really don't see how it could have been any more extensive in that population group. A study in the UK should look at all the people with a GRC since 2004 and everyone who can be determined to have self-ID'd (i.e. those TIMs who have been included in statistical records as a woman).
  • the researcher did not think those figures were probative: read the study. The authors found in their results:

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.

You will likely continue to minimise the impact of this study. As far as I'm concerned, the main take away from it is that it is essential that the data is interrogated in the UK before any changes are made to the GRA.

LangCleg · 18/04/2018 15:44

I respectfully suggest (again) that the feminist priority is women and girls. It does not fall on feminists to be responsible for delineating between "good trans" and "bad trans", especially when both extant and proposed legislation does no such thing.

Should one group of trans people wish to campaign independently for such delineation, I wish them well. I keep saying that they should do that. There will be some common ground for allyship with feminists but there will also be areas of contention.

Lengthy appeals to female socialisation by way of personal anecdotes on feminist forums are just another way of saying put me first. Feminists put women and girls first. That's the point of feminism.

Pratchet · 18/04/2018 15:49

Flora I've just realised I posted the exact same study as you give posts later. Hmm my bad

Jayceedove · 18/04/2018 15:51

Flora, I just spent two hours when I should be working to see where I was misunderstanding anything by reading the link in full that was posted.

Why would I do that to 'minimise the impact'?

I don't have any axe to grind. I have never so much as had a parking ticket in all my life. So none of this effects me personally.

Nor have any of the few transsexuals I have had first hand contact with since the 1970s when we met at clinics in Charing Cross have been in trouble with the law since, as far as I know, though one of them was once previous to transition.

This proves absolutely nothing either.

But it is more relevant to me than a study from Sweden where for all I know the people who legally changed gender 50 years ago there were mostly sex industry workers raising money for surgery who might well have been in violent situations by force of circumstance more than others.

That is guesswork, too. But like I say making conclusions that you want to make from one study in one country is not wise if you base conclusions for another time and place upon it.

Like I said I have no problem with further studies being done and understand why these arguments are of concern to women.

kesstrel · 18/04/2018 15:56

are just another way of saying put me first..

I haven't got that from the contributions of transsexuals on these boards at all. Many people appear to be interested in their experiences and views, given that they have had many questions put to them. Their describing their experiences and views doesn't seem to me to translate into 'put me first' at all.

And in general, I think they have discussed these issues with admirable calmness and detachment, (with a few exceptions). If we want to win more converts to the case against self-ID, we would do well to emulate their calmness and politeness.

Jayceedove · 18/04/2018 16:10

LangCleg, I am not asking for special delineation. Would not expect it either.

I have been arguing why I do not support the change to the GRA which DOES right now differentiate to some degree at least, as you put it.

Otherwise nobody out there would be asking for it to be altered in great numbers as they are. They would all just be signing up.

It does so in ways that I think are significant not just for transsexuals but to women who share - perhaps not identical but in some ways quite similar - concerns.

Mumsnet is in the spotlight and I would have thought it helped anyone reading for the first time after the attention of the past few days to see that this is not all out 'war' between Feminists and Transgender activists but that some transsexuals are on the same broad side as you are in this debate.

Such unexpected unison rather punctures the balloon of the claims that Mumsnet is all rampant anti trans propaganda.

I think it helpful that others coming here see a civilised debate, even if we do not agree on everything, but at least can disagree when we do in a friendly way looking for solutions.

Havoc · 18/04/2018 16:50

Anyway, back to the original question...

Why should we treat these males differently when it comes to women's spaces? What is the reason? Where is the evidence?

I don't think anyone wanted to collect evidence because it would be hard to gather and would cost time and money. It has always been framed as a very small number of people, therefore any negative behaviour would be minimal. That is, the small number of TIM reduces the risk to women and girls, not their likely behaviour. I don't think the process of the GRC ensures a 'safe' TIM?

But that's the problem, the numbers of TIM aren't that small and a GRC seems unnecessary.

Now we have over ten years of data, we can see who has GRC and who hasn't but still are classed as women in the courts, prisons and hospitals. Why can't this information be used to inform the whole GRA including the changes that seem to be needed by some?

I don't understand why the onus isn't on TiM to prove that they are not a danger to women and girls. There is lots of data available now.

FloraFox · 18/04/2018 17:06

Jaycee you were the one who said the report had been discredited and I had to spend time finding the information to put this straight, then it turned out you were just repeating something you read somewhere else and hadn't actually read anything about it yourself.

Your anecdata proves nothing. A long term follow up study of the entire set of trans identified people in one country is evidence that goes to the OP's question about why we should (or should not) treat TIMs differently from other males.

It would affect you directly if a study was done in the UK and it showed the same results as the Swedish study because that would suggest that TIMs with a GRC should also not be allowed in women's spaces and that the whole regime of the GRC needs to be reviewed.

Jayceedove · 18/04/2018 17:37

Kesstrel, thank you, and I agree that this is a war for common sense that will be won by showing restraint and let others over react.

People not polarised towards one view or the other - who are in the majority - will respond to that far better than trying to judge who has the biggest rant.

More importantly, politicians will decide how to vote based on how millions of ordinary women (and some men) might vote for or against them based on what they say and do.

Not on how many Feminists or trans activists are arguing on line.

Havoc, is there any evidence in real life over the past 50 years or up to the past three years or so when this push by trans activists has got underway that there were issues in women's spaces?

I do not recall reading press stories every day about 'men' undressing in swimming baths on days set aside for women. Or public fights, because transsexuals have never been very litigious.

Yes, things have changed recently and this now is a mess.

But they have not changed because of the GRA and the few thousand it covers. They have changed because hundreds of thousands of others want access to that but presently cannot.

So two things really have to happen.

Firstly, we do not let the changes to the GRA utterly redefine the world around us. Because the only ones who want that badly are the ones wanting it because they cannot do so under current rules.

Secondly, we have to get someone to legally clarify the exemptions and allowances of the GRA versus the Equality Act. We need clear advice to then be issued to everywhere - from stores and swimming pools, the Guides to schools and courts of law and train stations.

Right now places were just assuming that the GRA covers all those who self identify when it does not. It assumes GRCs are common when they are not. There seems a lot of no saying going on to prevent sensible requests for affirmation of status. Such as you cannot ask to see a GRC. Or you must presume gender of choice at all times so just accept self declaration.

The way that the London train system over reacted last year shows this. When a trans woman was accidentally misgendered by a station staff member, rather than just advise staff not to presume gender if at all unsure and use a neutral term to be safe - which would be proportionate and upset nobody. They instead changed all the announcement recordings to remove reference to 'Ladies and Gentlemen' in case it offended trans people who were neither or might think it was calling them the wrong thing.

On the one hand this is just plain stupid and amusing but it is actually very symptomatic of a far greater problem that more and more places are following. If in doubt assume the trans community will claim a crime and so act first, change anything out of fear and avoid bad press.

This, in my view, is ridiculous and needs to stop as it helps nobody.

No sensible, genuine trans person is going to over react at a mistake. No sensible, genuine trans person is going to expect the world to alter everything to suit them.

And if they do then they need disabusing of that idea of privilege because the world does not work like that.

So we should be pressing politicians and lawyers to issue a clear statement of how the GRA and the Equality Act interact and exactly what rights under UK law currently exist.

The GRA should not be subsumed under the Equality Act's more fuzzy wording. It is leading to the false belief that self ID has happened.

I think that there are some broader rights that can be granted within the remit of the Equality Act without any change of law.

But I also believe that there are rights and spaces and exclusions that have to apply outside of the GRA, as that should always be a more onerous standard set for inclusion. It should be something a trans person has to work to achieve and to prove suitability for wider acceptance by society.

So clarify what those rights are and the difference between having a GRA and just what is covered by the Equality Act. As right now I don't think anybody knows. So everyone is just assuming the worst.

Also make a register of who has a GRA accessible to all under reasonable grounds. Ditto with regards altered birth certificates as already happens to cover situations of need to know.

This way disputes can be settled. Want to be on an All Woman's Short List? Fine, apply. But you have to be on the GRA list to do so. That fact does not have to be declared but it is easily checked by the person running the AWSL.

Common sense is needed to chart a path out of this mess and right now not a lot of it is happening out there.

But it needs to start with a clear understanding of what the GRA and the EA say about sex and gender and what they each allow and disallow. That can be done quite simply by a working party.

Surely that has to happen before any sensible debate about allowing self ID and wholesale changes to the GRA are even on the table?

Jayceedove · 18/04/2018 17:42

Flora, it would not effect me personally as you say. Because what you forget is that for 31 years - 1973 to 2004 - I lived quite happily and without any problem without any GRA or legal protection.

I don't expect that to be repealed because democratic countries tend not to take rights away.

But even if they did I am in no worse a position than I was for the majority of my life.

This is one advantage of being around so long. I don't have to spread scare stories about what if or worry about the worse case scenario.

I have lived much of my life in the worst case scenario and it did not stop me being 100 times happier than I was before.

thebewilderness · 18/04/2018 17:50

We keep trying here on the Feminist and Women's Rights section of MN to talk about women's rights.
JC, you persist in changing the subject to you and your rights.
You have repeated this pattern over and over on thread after thread.
If you refuse to engage with the subject of the thread it would be helpful if you found threads that you were willing to engage with the subject instead of changing the subject from women's rights to you and your rights.

FloraFox · 18/04/2018 17:52

democratic countries tend not to take rights away.

Hmm really? Have you completely missed the point of these discussions? Women's rights are being taken away already with self-ID becoming de facto accepted and all the major parties are poised to wave through the elimination of women's rights across the board by legislation self-ID. Still never mind, eh? So long as you are all right.

thebewilderness · 18/04/2018 18:02

FloraFox, I think that comes under the heading of those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Havoc · 18/04/2018 18:06

Havoc, is there any evidence in real life over the past 50 years or up to the past three years or so when this push by trans activists has got underway that there were issues in women's spaces?

There have been threads on Mumsnet and other feminist spaces about the conflict between TIM and women for years. If you think it's just happened over the last couple of years, you haven't been paying attention.

Havoc · 18/04/2018 18:12

I second everything thebewilderness and flora are saying.

SupermatchGame · 18/04/2018 18:18

We keep trying here on the Feminist and Women's Rights section of MN to talk about women's rights.
JC, you persist in changing the subject to you and your rights.

So thebewilderness do you not include JC's rights as part of the set of women's rights? What exactly are you saying here and how does that fit with JC's valiantly utopian dream of how this discussion:

rather punctures the balloon of the claims that Mumsnet is all rampant anti trans propaganda. ?

LangCleg · 18/04/2018 18:35

So thebewilderness do you not include JC's rights as part of the set of women's rights? What exactly are you saying here

I imagine she thinks JC's rights are rights as a transsexual, distinct from women's rights. Which is a position JC also seems to hold. Both these posters object to self-ID on the basis that it will reduce their own rights as protected categories.

The extent to which transsexual rights and women's rights coincide is often discussed on here - some posters (myself included) feel that female socialisation means there is too big a danger women will tend to defer when joint working. Others feel that it's the best way forward.

HTH!