Trans Park Run Deletion

[TheUterati]

Poorly played, MN, very poorly played.

The perspective that when male athletes identify as female athletes and on the basis of that are eligible to compete against women, they are cheating is an absolutely valid one that is deserving of discussion.

Points in its favour are:

1. The context of cheating in sports as a whole - those self-harming activities that athletes willingly participate in to give themselves a competitive edge.
2. The evidence that mediocre male athletes who identify as female manage to then carve out glittering careers where those would not be available to them had they continued to compete as males.

It is an absolutely valid perspective.

Accusations of cheating against specific individuals may well be against talk guidelines, in the absence of supporting evidence, but those individual posts can be deleted and a friendly warning from MNHQ posted on the thread.

Males identifying as females and competing in female sports is a key issue in GRA, whether it occurs at the 'social, fun' end of things or at at Olympic level. To silence this debate is an appallingly heavy-handed.

You're offering acceptance as long as I pretend to be someone I'm not

And you're only offering friendship if we lie about how we perceive you, which just isn't going to work.

Do try to keep the goady to a minimum, Rat, MNHQ frowns on it you know...

@NatLuc
most women in this thread are using the word woman as a strict biological identifier.

Yes, because that is what the word means. There is no other definition.

And you're only offering friendship if we lie about how we perceive you

I don't expect you to lie. I fully acknowledge that some people don't accept my identity, and whilst that's not the greatest feeling in the world, most people I know do accept me for me.

LangCleg nails it at 14:26

What's the goal, then, given that neither party is likely to change the mind of the other?

But Ada, your identity is "trans woman". There's nothing wrong with that! In fact it is the identity you specifically chose for yourself, it has not been forced on you by anyone.

Claim it, own it, be it - you are it!

You're right of course, that is the heart of it. And as much as I would love universal acceptance of my identity, that's not what you're talking about. You're offering acceptance as long as I pretend to be someone I'm not. And I can't do that. I tried to do it for so long, I really did. And I simply can't anymore.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I accept you as you. A discrete person, an individual. I don't need to give you a label of man or woman, because in this sense you indeed "just are". You're an Ada. I'm a Yambabe. Our biology is irrelevant to a degree. It's essential in determining some medical issues, of course, and it needs to be considered to give both of us safety and protections against discrimination based on it.

But you (well your TRA colleagues) are trying to say that Adas are the same as Yambabes. They're not.

I can't speak for anyone else here, this is just my personal opinion. But in simple terms if you could concentrate on being an Ada rather than that Adas and Yambabes are the same you might just find that a whole army of Yambabes has your back

What's the goal, then, given that neither party is likely to change the mind of the other?

Quite!

Having been bitten by believing a trans woman who came on here with a large violin and huge dose of woe is me, I am highly sceptical these days when trans women come here telling us sad tales and how to do feminism.

Particularly confusing is that if any change in perception re trans women was to happen it would pretty much have to happen offline, in a space where you can actually see and interact directly with the person. How we perceive people is visceral, it's sight and sound and smell and touch. Words can then change our perception of whether the person is kind, intelligent, etc, but I don't think they can over override what the senses are telling us. So for those of us who've met many trans women offline and have in every case perceived them as male how are words on a screen going to change that in any way?

I don't need to give you a label of man or woman, because in this sense you indeed "just are". You're an Ada. I'm a Yambabe. Our biology is irrelevant to a degree

I can't tell you how much I'd love to live in that world! But I don't. If I don't actively tell the world who I am, then people will keep telling me I'm someone I'm not. And as nice as it would be to worry less about this label, having the wrong one repeatedly stuck on me is a really unpleasant experience that I'm keen to avoid.

Here's what confuses me. For argument's sake, let's say that we take the TRA position that 'woman' is a gender and that transwomen are women.

What on earth is the reasoning for splitting runners by gender? You might as well split them by eye colour or favourite movie. Gender doesn't refer to biology, so any person with any characteristics can be any gender. What makes it a sensible way of categorising? The better argument is surely for no categories at all, from a TRA perspective?

Same question goes for changing rooms etc, Material. Why would I want a changing room for people who identify with femininity, or female gender roles? For what purpose?

The better argument is surely for no categories at all, from a TRA perspective?

That is not an acceptable solution as it's not validating.

What on earth is the reasoning for splitting runners by gender?

I can't think of any reason.

I have conceded many times I am not biologically female but that colloquially I am a woman, a trans woman. Does that make sense?

It might, if you defined it properly.

Because, at the moment, we are seeing people acknowledge that they are transwomen, but then acquiring, or trying to acquire everything to do with natal women, as though the differences are negligible. So it would be more than useful if you actually defined what you see as the meaning of the 'colloquial word woman'.

In the interests of honesty, I have to say upfront, I don't think you will be able to do it.

I do not agree with you that the issues faced are superficial. Are you saying a trans woman would only be raped or sexually assaulted if they pass? Not trying to argue this, it is a genuine question.

No, of course not. Men are also raped by other men. Male violence affects everybody. Although they can't get pregnant.

But sexism will not be demonstrated towards transwomen unless the men demonstrating it think those transwomen are women.

It's good that you do not echo the more bonkers narrative of a lot of transactivists. Frankly anyone who does is dismissed out of hand by me.

But there is something I want you to understand.

There are 117 million girl babies who are never born because they are not boys. The only reason for this is that females, globally, are seen as 'lesser than'.

In the last hundred years, women have had to fight for:

The idea that they are not too stupid to educate.

The idea that giving them the vote wouldn't automatically give their husband two votes, because they didn't understand the issues. Illogical.

Right to be able to purchase property, by themself, without the contract being countersigned by a male family member. Because they are crap with money, irrational.

The right to be able to enter a pub and buy an alcoholic drink, without being accompanied by a man. (This only changed in the 1980s). Because they don't have agency over their own choices. Irresponsible.

The right to refuse to have sex with their husband. (1992 is when this law changed. Prior to that rape within marriage was completely illegal). Men are entitled to sex on demand and it is women's job to provide it.

Women are identified because of their biology. The roles and characteristics that they are assigned, as above, are: irrational, illogical, irresponsible, no bodily autonomy, under an obligation to provide sex on demand, not worth paying the same money, because they are simply worth less.

And many, many more. Women here still cannot get an abortion without the permission of two professionals.

All those roles and characteristics are gender. Women fought to change the law, but the misogyny that allowed those laws, still remains.

Your inner sense of being a woman is based on gender. You can't possibly identify with a uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries. The aspects you might identify with will probably not be those women actually suffer from, because they won't apply. You will want to identify with those that you perceive as being positive. (Feminine, vibrant, caring, cute.)

But feminists are trying to dismantle gender so they are not labelled as anything, other than who they actually are. So no roles, characteristics, or appearances are assigned to them purely on the basis of their biology.

You saying that the definition of women is nothing to do with biology, but to do with the way someone thinks or feels is perpetuating the damage that gender does to women.

Women are oppressed because of their biology, and gender is the means by which it's done.

*legal not illegal

natluc Are you saying a trans woman would only be raped or sexually assaulted if they pass? Not trying to argue this, it is a genuine question.

You've asked this question several times. It's important to address this because one reason women are asked to believe that "transwomen are women" is because we are told that trans identified males are at more risk of sexual violence and rape from men than women are. We are asked to feel sorry for trans identified males and award them womanhood as a protection against males.

I know you won't like me saying this but you have raised it at least twice on this thread. I don't believe that trans identified males are at more or the same risk of sexual violence than women. Although sexual violence is about control, domination and misogyny, it is also about entitlement - entitlement of men to sex from women. There are cases of punishment rapes by men against gay and gender non-conforming men but this is not the same as the pervasive and constant sexual abuse of women. To be more blunt than you will like to hear, the vast majority of men, even violent criminals, don't want to have sex with trans identified males. It's not a question of men finding a woman so sexy they want to rape her but it is a question of men feeling so entitled to sex with a woman (plus domination, control and misogyny) and also having the confidence that they can overpower a woman.

Womanhood is not a reward for trying hard to achieve it and it is not a shield for protecting TIMs from men. It is simply the state of being an adult human female. Women are subject to various aspects of societal oppression which differs from place to place and time to time in patriarchal cultures, including our own, but which has a commonality in that it is focused primarily the body - women making available their sexual, reproductive, domestic and emotional labour to men. It is manifested in the control of the female body by men / society for sex and reproduction and the use of unpaid domestic and emotional labour for the benefit of men. All men benefit from this even if they don't actively participate in it.

I don't expect you will agree with this or even acknowledge it. From my experience of having many of these discussions with TIMs, posters can spend time and careful thought explaining what being a woman means to them on here and TIMs respond along the lines of "that doesn't look like anything to me" (for Westworld fans). Your thought processes are so invested in maintaining your belief that you are a woman that you can't examine or reflect on what women are telling you in any way that challenges that belief.

You'll probably turn this around and say that I am doing the same but I think that most people reading this know that's not true. Like most posters on here, I came to this topic thinking "does it really matter? / live and let live" and only after thinking about it critically concluded that yes, it really does matter. That puts me in a very uncomfortable position as I have always been on the "right side" of social issues (including getting in fights (self-defence) with homophobes outside gay bars before many of these TRAs were born) and this issue is damaging to personal relationships that mean a lot to me. You likely won't accept this but I think many women reading this are in the same position.

Totally Flora.
Ada, like I said earlier, being a woman is evidence-based not emotional. Having female reproductive organs is the definining property of woman, and dictates, to a significant degree, a woman's interactions with the world and the course of her life. There's nothing more to it. You've been fooled by Disney movies or something. This woman feeling is something different, something we women don't have. So you're calling yourself the wrong thing. Leave our nouns alone!

Having been bitten by believing a trans woman who came on here with a large violin and huge dose of woe is me, I am highly sceptical these days when trans women come here telling us sad tales and how to do feminism.

spontaneousgiventime, but it's a tactic that usually works. I'm sure we can agree that only the most naive believe anyone can change sex, so TIM fall back on their vulnerability. Not only that, but their status as the most vulnerable. That's why we have TIM murderers in female prisons - the TIM has the right to protection at the expense of women. They must be confused coming onto FWR to be told that their vulnerability is not our problem to solve.

Mumsnet is full of women not performing the role of women correctly.

@Stillmuddlingthrough and @Lancelottie - Lord no jeez, that was very poorly worded. No I do not have periods, and I found the 'nosebleed' scene in a certain recent (ish) trans film to be offensive. Apologies, when I said bodily processes I was referring to (in line with the thread) the way my body is hormonally now predisposed to storing and burning fat, building or cannibalising muscle and the speed at which it can repair and recover from intense workouts. Hope that clears that up. @Yambabe I hope this clears up for you what I meant too but just for completeness I stopped Biology at GCSE. And several times from page 14 I think, I have conceded I am biologically male but that I use the term woman in a social sense, and an inclusive one at that to include trans woman as a collective but I do also appreciate that there are limitations.

@spontaneousgiventime - The fact that you learned about trans people from Susan's is part of your problem. That place is a cesspool and I think that I was only there a few weeks before I woke up to how anti-woman it was. If that is what fuels your mental opinion of me then I assure you I am not like that. My partner and I broke up as a result of me transitioning but she cannot help her sexuality and more than I could help my need to transition. We are still on good terms today and the support she gave me was a blessing. It would pain me greatly if I learned that she thought she had done wrong by me in any way.

Apologies to people who I am skipping over, getting pretty overwhelmed now. If I miss you out and you would like me to reply then please inbox me?

@Datum - woman to me is a collective term that includes trans woman as women. That simple. So colloquially, if I was referring to 'women/ladies' in a room, I would also be addressing trans woman and natal women together. But I do distinguish that specifically, I am a trans woman. That is as succinct as I can be I am afraid.. You might disagree with me but I don't know how else to put it.

I just wanted to make sure that is not what you were saying. Personally, I think sexism IS used towards trans people except that it generally doesn't just come from men. It comes from women too as there are natal people from both sexes that think trans people are beneath them. Goes back to the analogy I gave in an earlier post regarding 'we don't want you' and 'well we don't want them either!'. Which is where/why I believe that women, who overwhelmingly are the predominant recipients of sexism could lend and hand in saying 'actually, you know what, it's not okay to treat someone like this'.

But I am in no way trying to minimise the importance of what feminists (and therefore women) have fought for over the last 100 years.

@FloraFox - I will agree with you, I think that natal women ARE at an increased level of risk of sexual violence but that it does still happen to trans people. But I would say that trans women are at an elevated risk of straight up getting killed or the seven shades of shit beaten out of us. Either way, it is about men exerting control and dominance over a group of people they wish to subjugate. Surely you can agree with that? Violence is violence and never okay no matter the reason or the methods used.

Baroquehavoc Oh it's definitely the fall back position and one I am very wise to these days. I see it with both the trans women who have posted here. Not so long ago I would have taken it all as written, now I take it with a very large dose of salt.

I KNOW what biological women go through, I know what young girls go through, so when someone with a penis tries to tell me about women then I give it short shrift.

spontaneousgiventime - The fact that you learned about trans people from Susan's is part of your problem.

Well, well, well. "I see your true colours shining through."

Lucy you just shot yourself in the foot right there!

You use the word woman in a social sense? WTF?

There is no social sense. Woman is adult human female. You have already said a few pages back that men are males, why do you think women aren't females?

What gives you the right to change the meaning of woman so you can fit into it?

THAT's what women are angry about.

Be a transwoman. Present how the hell you like. Men will probably still treat you like shit, but women will accept you as a transwoman. We just can't accept you as a woman. "Woman" is not a social sense, it's a biological reality.

@spontaneousgiventime So because I realised how superficial the community was I decided it was not for me I am a bad person? The forum made me feel icky if I spent too long there. I found other communities. Like many, Susan's WAS the first place I came across but I saw it as a necessary evil until I realised there were better alternatives.