Women have the right to state that trans women are actually trans-identifying men

[Terfulike]

This is our right: to state simple biological truths.
We will not be told to lie.
We will not be silenced.
Biological lies must stop.
Biological lies have no place in UK legislation.

As someone who is outside all this, but has a reason for knowing a bity about it, it often seems to me that there is misunderstanding about this business of whether a transsexual woman " is a woman". It is a matter of courtesy, not denial of biology. The law makes it clear when the GRC is issued; this person is " for all practical purposes", now of the new gender.It does not mean that the chromosomes have changed. ( Incidently the XX and XY thing that is constantly trotted out is misleading. Certain ambiguous and intersex conditions are much more common than our society assumes..... so if you know a lot of women, you certainly know one or two who are genetically male. Though they are unlikely to know it. ) . I can't see why some of us constantly shout that "someone born a man IS a man, and you ain't fooling us" . It seems not only unkind to transsexual people, who have enough abuse to deal with anyway, but also it kind of misses the point. If someone has been aware that they are transsexual all their conscious life, has gone through social barriers, often losing family and friends, and messed up a career in some cases, has swallowed hormones, undergone lazer or electrolysis, had invasive surgery , and has mucked about with their natural speaking voice to try to look and sound reasonable; well, why can't we show them a little common decency?

It is true that some m to f trans people talk rubbish about " being 100% woman now ", and don't like to talk about prostate, or narrow hips, etc., but they are usually young, and gender dysphoria seems to send people loopy. Only cured by transition/ hormones/ surgery.

There isn't very many of them, anyway. There is no chance that they can "take over " even if they wanted to, and most I have met by now don't want to do any more than live their lives in peace. There is quite enough trouble in their lives without extra harassment from trans exclusionary radical feminists.

Ceinwen2 Yes, it does seem rude and unnecessary towards transsexuals. The world has moved on from "transsexuals" though. Now it is "transwomen" which in an umbrella term which includes men who have no surgery and take no hormones and don't even try to look anything other than a typical bloke. These new TW make up the vast majority of TW in the UK today. You are preaching to the choir on the transsexual side. Women have been being polite like you suggest for years for all the reasons you list.

We did show decency and courtesy. Unfortunately it was used to destroy our sex-based rights and to hurt women. You are complaining in the wrong place. Go and argue with transactivists to withdraw their self ID demands, their harassment, their invasion of women's spaces, refuges, rape crisis centres and mental health wards. I know it's easier and less frightening to tell women how to behave, but the only way to regain a compromise is to end the attack on us. Please go and tell transactivists that their threats of violence, murder and rape are being 'discourteous'. I'm sure that will resolve everything.

Ceinwen2

Yes, transexuals are few in number and they haven't sought to 'take over' anything. Most of the women I know accept them as they are. The beef is with trans rights activists (TRAs), who are a small minority of a much larger group, and who have achieved an astonishing level of political clout.

Take a look at Stonewall's definition of 'trans':
TRANS
An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, denderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

That covers hundreds of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom have no intention of undergoing hormone therapy or surgery. Many of whom are natal males attracted to women so identify as 'lesbian'. And some of whom are aggressive TRAs who insist that gender trumps biology and want TERFs to die in a fire and 'ciswomen' to 'enjoy their erasure'.

Thanks for the three replies above; polite and reasonable. And I agree with you. I used "transsexual " rather that " transgender" on purpose; transsexual seems to have a meaning that is more or less understandable. Transgender is too woolly. It means almost nothing.

The suggestion that I should go and say the things I said above to trans activists is fair enough, and I have, and you are right; they didn't like it. On the other hand, not all trans people DO agree with the most vocal trans activists. Most seem to be perfectly sensible, and considerate of others.My feeling is that if the proposed changes do go through at some stage, it will be a three day wonder.

Lets be realistic; if you were in charge of a " women's refuge", and some mouthy idiot came along and demanded admittance, on principle, and made a scene, would you automatically let that person in?I'm making it sound as if I think it would be easy; life is not easy or cut and dried.

You would have a duty of care for the women where were there. Occasionally there might be a police presence, and some breach of the peace sort of compromise. These things would be rare indeed, I expect. In other countries the sky did not fall in.

I think strong women will cope, as they always have. What I have seen utterly undermines the idea that these people do what they are doing because they want to control/ take over. I think they are for the most part genuine enough, and doing the best they can.

Lets be realistic; if you were in charge of a " women's refuge", and some mouthy idiot came along and demanded admittance, on principle, and made a scene, would you automatically let that person in?

But don't you see that a TIM could cause distress even if they weren't a 'mouthy idiot'? A TIM could be the nicest person on earth, but it doesn't alter the fact that once they join a space it's no longer segregated by sex.

I think strong women will cope

Not every women is strong all of the time. And I am hoping for a better life than to 'cope'. I shouldn't have to cope with difficult situation for the benefit of TIM.

With all respect @Ceinwen2 , I think you are trying to be fair, but you seem to be missing some information.

DM went into a women's refuge and made disgusting comments about DM's lady peen (others will have screen shots of this). I'm sure this did not make the women in there feel safe.

Canada had two instances of men in refuges that have been reported so far. One (in Toronto) sexually abused two women. In the other (Kamloops) refuge, women felt unsafe, and they were asked to leave.

I'm just one person and that's three stories that I know.

This whole debate on FWR is about predatory men taking advantage of the trans agenda, this is not women upset with transsexuals. Please listen, we keep saying it over and over again.

I think strong women will cope, as they always have.

Why accept something that is just extra burden for women to 'cope' with? Haven't we got enough to cope with already?

Just say 'no' to martyrdom.

I have many beliefs. They are reality based beliefs that have their basis in science and fact.

I believe God is not real.

I believe it is wrong to circumcise baby boys on the basis of a God I do not believe exists.

I believe it is cruel and wrong to eat animals.

I believe that trans women are males.

Why is it acceptable to state the first three beliefs, but not the last?

Isn’t it the case too that if self identity becomes law then these mouthy men who turn up at refuges will be protected by the law?

Yes. They can say they’re female and they will be allowed in. It’s actually dangerous as it will give abusers access to their partners and children who have fled. It could also deter women from going to refuges if they think they will encounter men there.

Refuges are supposed to be safe places where women can heal, away from males.

Not any more. It’s taken men 40 years from when the refuge movement began, but they found a way in in the end.

Coming at this from the other side...

Stop woman phobia, stop it now. I am female and my sex exists.

Yes -I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Recently tweeted by Shon Faye, which I would have hoped meant Shon acknowledged our right to debate this whether Shon likes it or not.

I used to love watching Rainbow as a kid and "What is occurring" was one of Zippy's favourite phrases. I'm sorry but every time that person posts I hear them using Zippy's voice

I don’t really understand how we have found ourselves here. I’ve read history, watched videos, participated in conversations and I’m still at a loss.

We are literally being told that it is hate speech to refer to biological fact. That woman no longer has a hard meaning. That female biology cannot be discussed because it is ‘triggering’ or exclusionary. That magic and illusions trump reality.

It has to be ok to discuss real problems that women (which I am now forced to clarify means adult human with female biology) face.

so if you know a lot of women, you certainly know one or two who are genetically male. Though they are unlikely to know it

I know this isn't the point of this thread - but I don't believe this is true. Generally women with DSDs which are a result of being XY do know - they find out when they go to the doctor as a teenager to find out why they're not having periods.

@Ceinwen2 I am concerned at this notion that a law can be "flexible". The very aim of law is such that is is meant to clearly define legal rights. It won't matter what women on the door of a refuge say. And bear in mind - I would lay down my life to prevent any male body gaining access to a women's refuge.... but that would have to be a physical blockade because the legal one will be removed.

Also your discussion of "most". Let's look at that. Most trans identified males would pose no threat to females in refuges. Ok. Neither do most men. But women are still dying at a rate of 2 a week and it isn't women who are killing them.

The element of risk must be removed and this change in the law poses a risk to women's lives. Even the safety of one woman's life should not be offered as a sacrifice for the rights of male bodied people to self declare their gender.

Do you even realise how terrified women running refuges are to speak out? Because their funding is at risk if hey do. And yet those women are weeping rivers inside at every advance of this agenda. They know that women will not seek the safety of a refuge if there are males inside. They cannot identify out of their position as terrified of male violence no matter how that male identifies themselves.

Those women have learned very hard what a man is and can be. They have learned nearly to the point of dying.

They have a right to be away from Male bodies after what they have endured. Compassion must allow them that.

I also have the right to state that trans is a delusion and is not real. Just as I have the right to state that religion is a system of delusional beliefs and that God does not exist.

Those who advocate that the former should be unsayable need to examine the conditions under which the latter is unsayable. Is that what you want?

I think strong women will cope, as they always have.

Why would you expect traumatised women to deal with their feelings, to pander to male feelings?

Lets be realistic; if you were in charge of a " women's refuge", and some mouthy idiot came along and demanded admittance, on principle, and made a scene, would you automatically let that person in?I'm making it sound as if I think it would be easy; life is not easy or cut and dried.

@Ceinwen2

It might be you who doesn't quite understand.

This is about changing the law.

And this is about a men's rights movement who are determined to access everything to do with women, by deliberately leveraging that change of law.

Apart from the examples given above, a man identifying as a woman and demanding to counsel raped women, tied up a rape refuge in Canada for TWELVE years with litigation. Costing them tens of thousands of dollars and crippling them in the process.

That was 12 years of going through numerous courts, with numerous people being categorically unable to tell him to fuck off because the law gave him the right - that is your 'Let's be realistic'.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking the women here do not know what they are talking about.

What I have seen utterly undermines the idea that these people do what they are doing because they want to control/ take over.

I can assure you my anecdata cancels out yours.

Apart from the examples given above, a man identifying as a woman and demanding to counsel raped women, tied up a rape refuge in Canada for TWELVE years with litigation. Costing them tens of thousands of dollars and crippling them in the process.

Why do you think this person did that, Ceinwen? This was the only refuge in the city that didn't let MTF trans work in the refuge itself. Do you think someone so prepared to violate women's boundaries has their best interests at heart? Honestly? The trans lobby in that city were incensed that the case was lost, and they've not let up on the place. They've now managed to get it pretty much defunded AFAIK. Because they don't like losing.

Ceinwen2

As Datun said - this is about legislation and policy change. I assert the right to speak in accurate terms about the consequences of proposed changes.

Generally speaking, it is not my responsibility to validate someone else's identity, especially when their political agenda will do me harm.

No human being born with a prostate is a woman - human beings cannot change sex.

@ceinwein - have you read what is being proposed by the government and what has already been introduced by the girl guides and the YHA. Re the YHA From now on people (ie anyone) can decide which gender they are and which dorm they want to sleep in at a YHA. I’m not sure I would want my 16 year old staying at a YHA now. Now replace YHA with refuge. Now explain why you think this is ok.

Mypronouns The thing is the first 3 in your list of beliefs are just your subjective beliefs. The belief 'transwomen are men' isn't a belief, its unrefutable objective, scientific fact and therefore is actually the most legitimate of the 4 you listed.

And yet for some reason, it's the most controversial 'belief'.

I don't tend to use TIM, I use transwomen. I do feel it's 'nicer' (urgh). However I use it with the caveat that I absolutely believe that transwomen are men.

The thing is women did used to be 'nice' about this. Shared loos with transwomen, allowed transwomen to live their lives amongst women, called transwomen 'she'. Because most transwomen were/are nice people who don't wish to encroach on anyone. And all that happened was that boundaries were pushed and pushed until women said 'no, STOP!'. Women have had to start putting boundaries in place, have had to start making biology clear and irrefutable, in order to ensure that their own rights are protected. Sometimes they haven't been 'nice' about it, but sometimes self preservation isn't 'nice'.

However I use it with the caveat that I absolutely believe that transwomen are men.

But other people don't know what "transwoman" actually means. There is confusion about whether you're talking about a male or female person. It's cementing the idea that these people are women, which they absolutely are not. I understand why you're doing it, but I think it's part of the problem.