Letter in The Guardian from Transexuals saying self ID not the answer

[invisibleoldwoman]

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/04/standing-up-for-transsexual-rights?CMP=share_btn_fb

Great Letter! Well done!

Oh fgs.

It's getting to the point with some posters where even trans women who admit they are male and not women, and who publicly oppose self id, still get torn apart for their offensive 'women face' and them using their male privilege to speak out on a issue you agree with, but men are saying it!!!

It's starting to look like some real naval gazing pettiness rather than the genuine concerns we really have.

And all the 'you know what you said' and criptic references to DMs are tedious for everyone else who doesn't know what you're talking about. Either state it clearly for all or take your personal squabble off the board.

Debbie I'm sorry you're having a difficult time as a result of the letter, you really are striving for an honest position in this and represent trans women so well. you and your family have a lot to be proud about.

JC I hope you and your family avoid the hate and focus this could bring. This issue is obviously causing many TW who were quietly living to have to confront some difficult things. I can imagine that's been a process of working out where you are in all this.

Different issues than we as women face, but obviously very tough.

Excuse me: your human rights do not include forcing the world to believe men can change sex. Yours is exactly the attitude that has led women to say ENOUGH already.

I don't think they're in the wrong. Not being grateful is not the same as thinking they're wrong to speak up.

In fairness to Jaycee, she was tagged in a post and so probably had an email to say she'd been mentioned.

Curiosity would get the better of me in that situation too.

I was around at the time of the Sweary incident, read all the posts here and those linked to on Angels and didn't get it either. Perhaps that's me being autistic.

I don't think this bickering is helpful. I go back to what I said ages ago - entrenching on one side or another just makes it a battle that no-one can win.

BabyItsAWildWorld Say what you will, we do still have a modicum of free speech. I am not going to sit back and be gaslighted by TIM's, so you can "FGS" all you like. As I said, I have not mentioned Debbie as she did no wrong, she has stood up for her own rights, and not tried to abuse or use posters here.

My days of sitting back watching this are over. If people don't like it, they don't have to read it - simple.

Yeah I understand where you are coming from. I knew as soon as I pressed post that I should have just not bothered as it does come across not quite in the way I intended and kind of looks like I am attempting to tell other people off, which I swear I wasn't trying to do (and even if thats what I was trying to do, then that just makes me an asshole really)

I don't know enough about this Sweary/Jaycee thing to comment. Have seen it mentioned but cannot really piece together whats happened, though I did have a look at that Angels forum after reading another thread on it. Its..different. I have kept looking at stuff on there as I do feel like I should be looking at 'both sides' even though I don't think there even needs to BE sides in the first place. I mean, everything was fine before rabid TRAs started their bollocks. We had an honour system going, and everything seemed to be fine anyway. Its only been since some have been so desperate to include crossdressers and such under the 'umbrella' and expect them to be 'treat like' transsexual people that there has been an issue. I wish those at the forefront of the 'merge' (for want of better word) would just fuck back off, though I think that the trust is kind of gone now, if that makes sense.

Me being who and what I am does not impact on what you are.

I use the ladies loos. I am in a Woman's Group in my political party. I tick the box marked F.

Ceinwen/Kay - if you are going to post on here, you are going to have to accept that using women's facilities, joining women's groups and ticking the box marked F is impacting on women.

Moreover, you are going to have to accept that, while some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not. And that those who are not are perfectly entitled to express that view without you, yet again, making manipulative appeals to female socialisation like this:

But then, please..... after all this time..... please allow for me and other raddled old transsexual women not being, quite, a man?

OnTheList Don't worry about it - honestly. I was bitten by Jayceedove and that got to me more than anything. I stood up for her and she shit one me. Still, not the end of the world...

Anyway, the sun is shining and I'm grouchy as I can't get out as I've twisted my ankle so stuck indoors.

I'm one of the posters being quite antsy on this thread, so I'll clarify a bit.

I think this letter is a welcome intervention. I think it was bloody brave to include the fetishists bit and I hope none of the signatures get too much vicious comeback from it. I hope to see more productive initiatives and will be equally supportive of them.

I absolutely support transsexuals organising together as a distinct group away from the identifarian crew and I am pretty sure that there will be quite a few areas of agreement with feminists - particularly that both groups are against amending the GRA to a self-ID threshold, which is one of the biggest battles ahead.

I don't think that this effort should be subsumed into the feminist agenda. It should be separate from it and both groups can co-operate in areas of confluence.

I've read it.
It comes across as tedious and petty.

Obviously I can't stop you. Wouldn't want to be able to.

But it is making me think some posters are losing the plot on this, and I say that as some one whose been on the trans issue debate on here for 2 years, (name changing), I've written to my mp and been to a WPUK meeting.

I take this threat to women seriously.

But the squabbling, and sticking up for your mate cos she said I said it, type thing, really does look pathetic.

But the squabbling, and sticking up for your mate cos she said I said it, type thing, really does look pathetic.

From one woman to another - thank you.

Give me a break.
I'm not supposed to criticise you as we're both women???

Have another fgs.

Have another fgs.

Ta. Oh by the way, if you want to post again, please do, you can have the last word, I don't want it. I still won't be quiet about this though Oh one other thing, Sweary is not my mate, she is a woman I admire. I know nothing more about her than I've seen on the television, press and on here.

What LangCleg said.

Erm, why are you giving me permission post again? Weird.

I admire sweary too. But this issue isn't about who we like best or who was mean to who last week. When it gets to that we've lost the argument.

I am now going out with the dog but you may post again (if that's how we do it now )

Ceinwen/Kay - if you are going to post on here, you are going to have to accept that using women's facilities, joining women's groups and ticking the box marked F is impacting on women.

No they do not have to accept that just because you say so.

Moreover, you are going to have to accept that, while some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not.

No they are not going to have to accept that at all. Because the law states that for the vast, vast majority of purposes and situations a trans woman is female. Or woman. That is the legal position. I thought we covered this already Lang?

appeals to female socialisation

No appeals to female socialisation are actually necessary. Appeal only to the law:

UK Parliament Women and Equalities Committee 2015:
279.Further, under the Equality Act 2010, all organisations (including employers and public bodies, such as the NHS) must respect a trans person’s acquired / affirmed gender and any associated change of name. Failure to change pronouns, names and gender markers (including honorifics and pronouns) on records in respect of a trans person would (with a few exceptions)281 constitute unlawful direct discrimination under the Act.

and

Gender Recognition Act 2004:
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

SupermatchGame

When Justine Roberts was interviewed by Julia H-B about why Mumsnet was allowing discussion about this here, she commented in response to India Willoughby:

"I think the problem with this is that the trans lobby have confused an issue about people quite rightfully sticking up for the idea of hard won women's rights around....(interrupted but early JR said women's refuge and rape counselling as examples)

The upshot of the change to the legislation that's been asked for around self-identity, is that you are putting women, including transgender women quite frankly in vulnerable positions potentially.
We need to be able to discuss if we are changing legislation, and for very good reasons because I am totally in favour of recognition, equality and fair treatment of all individuals and letting them live how they live.
But we need to be able to discuss these competing rights and it needs to not just be shut down....and I'm afraid and to be honest India you've got to see the other point of view, you can't just plough on with the [position] 'our issue is the only important one''

& a number of members of Mumsnet responded to her & MNHQ's position:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3222471-AIBU-to-be-extremely-proud-of-Justine-Roberts-Mumsnet-right-now

PermissionToSpeakSir
w.r.t. schizophrenia it is another disease where sex makes a difference, onset is typically earlier in males (late teen) than females (30s)

Truely horrible disease.

Sorry I'll post that again without the patronising tone. See I am learning so much from you!

Ceinwen/Kay - if you are going to post on here, you are going to have to accept that using women's facilities, joining women's groups and ticking the box marked F is impacting on women.

No they do not have to accept that just because you say so.

Moreover, you are going to have to accept that, while some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not.

No they are not going to have to accept that at all. Because the law states that for the vast, vast majority of purposes and situations a trans woman is female. Or woman. That is the legal position.

appeals to female socialisation

No appeals to female socialisation are necessary. The law/ parliament states:

UK Parliament Women and Equalities Committee 2015:
279.Further, under the Equality Act 2010, all organisations (including employers and public bodies, such as the NHS) must respect a trans person’s acquired / affirmed gender and any associated change of name. Failure to change pronouns, names and gender markers (including honorifics and pronouns) on records in respect of a trans person would (with a few exceptions)281 constitute unlawful direct discrimination under the Act.

and

Gender Recognition Act 2004:
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

What the law currently says or is interpreted as saying is completely different to whether anyone believes a man can literally become a woman.

This is a good guide to the legal positions and implications of changes to women, including reference to sex based exemptions:
fairplayforwomen.com/legal-basics/

She's great JHB. IW is great too (when she's not shouting in other women's faces).

The upshot of the change to the legislation that's been asked for around self-identity, is that you are putting women, including transgender women quite frankly in vulnerable positions potentially.

Yes agree. Self ID without safeguards could allow men into women's spaces and that will put women, including trans women at risk.

LangCleg is spot on when she talks about appeals to female socialisation. I have now lost count of the hours I have spent reading long, rambling posts on here from transwomen who come to tell us all about their painful histories and to point out that they are not in favour of self-ID, that they share our concerns. But also that they personally are not a threat so can we just stop being mean?

This is one of the reasons we need separate campaigns as feminists and as TS - so we can set our own agendas without being compromised and without tone policing each other.

Then we can see where we have the same aims and support each other's campaigns where it is useful to do so.

Ceinwen/Kay - if you are going to post on here, you are going to have to accept that using women's facilities, joining women's groups and ticking the box marked F is impacting on women

No they do not have to accept that just because you say so

But this does impact on women, that's just a fact. They don't have to care about it, but men using women's facilities, joining their groups etc. absolutely impacts women. The fact that they don't get this is a loud and clear indication of male socialisation.

Moreover, you are going to have to accept that, while some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not

No they are not going to have to accept that at all. Because the law states that for the vast, vast majority of purposes and situations a trans woman is female. Or woman

She said some women aren't happy to accept this. You can't mandate women being happy about the situation. I'll decide what I'm happy and comfortable with, thanks all the same. And exactly where did you remove the patronising tone?