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

[HopScotchy]

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?

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.

Yes, I'm with you. We need to put our own needs first sometimes.

Some of the last few posts worry me.

Not their tone. I have no problem with that.

But because this thread was about why trans males (as in which I presume you mean me) are out of bounds for feminists.

I am basically being told to go away and let you decide because my input is too focused on being the subject of what you are discussing.

Fine - I am very happy to go away and leave you to it.

As I know when a discussion is not actually a discussion. But a debate on shooting elephants in which the elephants are not welcome to comment because only humans get to do that.

Read the OP again JC. You appear to have missed the point of it.

I imagine she thinks JC's rights are rights as a transsexual, distinct from women's rights.

But they're not though. Not in anyway that means she doesn't have women's rights. The law would class JC as female and therefore her rights are female rights. Or Women's rights. She is protected by law as a woman. As a transsexual yes - but that protection establishes her right to women's rights.

Agree about self ID, but that isn't what was being discussed at that point. As I suspect you really know.

thebewilderness, I did read the original post and it was a valid discussion to have. About acceptance into women's spaces and evidence for or against the threat of so doing.

Several points around which I raised because the way the laws have been modified without any changes passed by parliament and the way fear is causing society to open up spaces to those self declaring - as in the examples I cited - are relevant, aren't they?

And I even suggested a very specific way to do something positive - as in get someone in government to clarify the two existing laws - the GRA of 2004 and the Equality Act of 2010 - which conflict with one another in some ways and are a reason why many places are opening up spaces to more and more 'males' out of presumption that they now have to do.

When that is not actually the case from how I read these acts.

Yet that is me trying to intrude into your thread by talking about myself.

Oddly, I see it differently as a practical suggestion to actually do something that might help the problem that you have indicated and that I had concurred does exist.

do you not include JC's rights as part of the set of women's rights?

No, they're not women's rights, they are the rights of trans identified males to be treated as women for some purposes.

The law would class JC as female and therefore her rights are female rights. Or Women's rights. She is protected by law as a woman. As a transsexual yes - but that protection establishes her right to women's rights.

Not if the EA exemptions were better applied. Our interests are not the same in all cases.

No, they're not women's rights, they are the rights of trans identified males to be treated as women for some purposes.

'trans identified males' is your term, not a legally appointed one. For the vast majority of everyday 'purposes' if you treat a transwoman differently to any other female it would meet the definition of discrimination/ harassment.

You mean the very EA act that I suggested needed clarifying in conjunction with the GRA earlier?

Must have had a brain freeze not putting myself first and opening up that possibility.

Too often when anyone trans says something that you would just respond to by agreeing or disagreeing if the poster had not outed themselves on here as being trans there is a tendency of some to immediately perceive it in the worst possible light.

Sometimes that might be correct. Other times it really isn't.

Until we actually can talk to one another without assuming there is some kind of ulterior motive behind everything this will keep going round in circles.

'trans identified males' is your term, not a legally appointed one.

And "transwoman" is your term, not a legally appointed one.

For the vast majority of everyday 'purposes' if you treat a transwoman differently to any other female it would meet the definition of discrimination/ harassment.

This is untrue. I suggest you educate yourself on the legal meaning of discrimination and harassment and the people to whom those laws apply compared with your own definition of "transwoman".

12th rule of misogyny: Women's ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.

Far as we know the definition of a woman has not been codified into law. This is why so many people are confused.

Regarding the OP. This thread derail is the how and why answer to your question. Why are we not allowed to talk about the problems women face from trans males (transwomen) "not all transwomen"?

Too often when anyone trans says something that you would just respond to by agreeing or disagreeing if the poster had not outed themselves on here as being trans there is a tendency of some to immediately perceive it in the worst possible light.

If you're talking to me about the EA Jaycee I was making a general point.

Ereshkigal, I appreciate that. And so was I. Pointing out that I raised the problem of the EA and clarifying it as the nub of the question posed in the OP of this thread. About 'men' in women's spaces.

The thing it seems I have somehow helped derail this thread from talking about by actually suggesting a way to help define and delineate that very problem.

On topics such as the Swedish study above - which gets posted a lot on here I have noticed. But hardly ever that one of the authors subsequently discredited it and a later study contradicted it.

This is not true. You were provided with the correct information.Are you suggesting that no one would have corrected you if they didn't know you are trans, JC?

But a debate on shooting elephants in which the elephants are not welcome to comment because only humans get to do that.

Firstly it's not the same power balance. Women do not have societal power as can be clearly seen in this debate.

Secondly is that how you see women advocating for sex based protections? That we are depriving you of your rights? Well that's fair enough. I think it's better that this discussion is honest.

thebewilderness that was discussed earlier and I explained what happened and my mistake. And called for further studies.

Why revive it after it was discussed pages ago?

If I am derailing the thread why are you just looking for negative things to say and not discussing how to get the EA act clarified by parliament in conjunction with the GRA as I suggested and was directly helpful to the discussion that only I seem to want to have?

I raised the problem of the EA and clarifying it as the nub of the question posed in the OP of this thread

clarifying something as the nub of another person's point is the sort of statement that women have to overcome years of socialisation to state (if they ever do), especially when the OP has said she does not think you have even gotten the point of the OP.

Ereshkigal, for goodness sake.

You have made a leap from my elephant analogy.

I was being told to leave the thread as I was basically not wanted in here as it was a topic only for women and Feminists to talk over.

I pointed out that elephants might have something useful to add to a discussion over the rights or wrongs of what we as humans do to them.

And that means I am saying you are depriving me of my rights?

No, it means I felt I might have something to add to a discussion in which I do have experience and a different perspective.

Both of which usually help a debate.

Why revive it after it was discussed pages ago?

Too often when anyone trans says something that you would just respond to by agreeing or disagreeing if the poster had not outed themselves on here as being trans there is a tendency of some to immediately perceive it in the worst possible light.

I do not care why you lied about the study again.
I care that you lie and in the same thread claim that you are being disagreed with because you are trans and not because you lied.
On yet another thread that you have monopolized and derailed.
People here like you so they let a lot of your inappropriate behavior slide. It is a real slap in the face to them when you make a claim like this.

I pointed out that elephants might have something useful to add to a discussion over the rights or wrongs of what we as humans do to them.

Exactly, it's loaded. Think about the way you have framed it. You are putting yourself as the elephant and women here with power to do things you don't want. That's not actually the power balance between us.

Everything has to be seen as some kind of male takeover.

Sometimes in life I agree that it can feel that way. But really to psychoanalyse what are intended as helpful posts is a little sad.

But I will leave you to it.

Sorry, I didn't perceive that comment as helpful.

Well, that's fair enough, Ereshkigal, but it was not intended in the way you took it.

Anyhow, as I say, I know when it is time to leave you to it. Night all.

And "transwoman" is your term, not a legally appointed one.

It's not my term. It's Stonewalls www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms
and the NHS's www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/#treatment-for-adults

And it's used here to distinguish between women who transitioned from male to female, and those women who did not.

This is untrue. I suggest you educate yourself on the legal meaning of discrimination and harassment and the people to whom those laws apply

Thanks I have educated myself. We covered this yesterday. It applies to all the protected characteristics.

(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

in deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

On yet another thread that you have monopolized and derailed. People here like you so they let a lot of your inappropriate behavior slide.

Wow.
Picking on an easy target are we now?
I hope that's made you feel better.