Questions from a liberal feminist to the rad fems

[daimbars]

Questions from a liberal feminist to radical feminists.

Inspired by this thread:
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3244342-Has-anyone-else-just-discovered-that-they-are-a-RadFem

I have a few questions for the rad fems. I do get the concerns with self ID and the discussions around that.

The questions I have are for those who have posted comments such as:

You can’t argue with biological fact / trans women are men / being trans is a mental illness

My questions are:

Are you saying the current Gender Recognition Act should be repealed?

If so, are you suggesting withdrawing hormones from those who have already transitioned?

Do you think a fully transitioned trans woman with a GRC to ‘prove’ she is a woman (eg Nadia from Big Brother) should use the men’s loos and be in a male prison / care home / hostel?

Do you think TRAs who say things on Twitter like ‘suck my ladydick’ and 'enjoy your erasure' are representative of transgender people as a whole?

Do you feel transgender people threaten your safety and well-being as a woman? If so what personal experiences (not what you have read on Mumsnet / Twitter / Reddit) have made you reach this conclusion?

Do you think current exceptions in the Equality Act (eg it is legal to exclude trans women from competitive spots and certain job roles such as rape crisis counselling) are sufficient to protect women? https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

If your male child repeatedly told you they were female from the age of three, wore dresses, played with girls etc and were very distressed at the thought of male puberty, how would you help them?

My answers are no, no, no, no, no, yes. The last question I would struggle with the most but I would try to support my child to live the life they need to live as best I could. I guess this makes me a lib fem.

My dentist's main gripe with me is drinking green tea, which stains the teeth. Otherwise excellent for your health though so I'm not going to stop drinking it any time soon.

I'm very much in favor of chocolate, Rufus! Dentists may disagree though.

(I don't really like the dark kind, too bitter/wrong mouthfeel.)

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, in that case, SMG:

Your time would be better protesting Stonewall's definition of transgender and what all your lovely TRA friends think than arguing with MN feminist women.

And stop saying people have been drinking, it's very obnoxious and rude.

I'm just a feminist. Not radical. But I do believe that if someone has a cock and balls they are a male. Which apparently is now a radical viewpoint.

Anyway..

Are you saying the current Gender Recognition Act should be repealed? No

If so, are you suggesting withdrawing hormones from those who have already transitioned? No. Don't be silly.

Do you think a fully transitioned trans woman with a GRC to ‘prove’ she is a woman (eg Nadia from Big Brother) should use the men’s loos and be in a male prison / care home / hostel? No.

Do you think TRAs who say things on Twitter like ‘suck my ladydick’ and 'enjoy your erasure' are representative of transgender people as a whole? No. But they are driving the current desire to shut down discussion.

Do you feel transgender people threaten your safety and well-being as a woman? If so what personal experiences (not what you have read on Mumsnet / Twitter / Reddit) have made you reach this conclusion? I don't think there is a single entity of "transgender". I dint feel threatened by people with gender dysphoria who just want to live their lives authentically, but don't want to invade other people's too. My personal experiences aren't for sharing on an Internet forum, but I do have relevant experience. I don't, however. Think personal experience is the only reason to be informed or concerned, or listened to.

Do you think current exceptions in the Equality Act (eg it is legal to exclude trans women from competitive spots and certain job roles such as rape crisis counselling) are sufficient to protect women? <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination" target="_blank">https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination To protect women from what? I think these exceptions should be retained.

If your male child repeatedly told you they were female from the age of three, wore dresses, played with girls etc and were very distressed at the thought of male puberty, how would you help them? By trying to help him to value the person he is, and by allowing him to play with what he wants/who he wants/dress in the clothes he wants. My 6yo daughter likes to wear trousers and her two best friends at school are boys. She's still a girl, though.

Oh, ok then, Eresh you do that.

The lunatic TRAs are not my friends. And it's people on here going trans women are men, that I think is equally as bad. It is hate speech.

Stonewall's definition may be wider than I agree with but it isn't hateful. And we don't know that self id will go through, or what checks are proposed. The EA still will provide provision to keep actual men out of female space. People would be able to get on with having a reasonable discussion about it if the two extremes weren't constantly blotting out the middle ground.

Why are people so sensitive over drinking? If someone said have you been drinking, partly in jest, I really wouldn't care less. (And yes I have been on the wrong end of someone's drinking in the past, if that is what's behind it).

And it's people on here going trans women are men, that I think is equally as bad. It is hate speech.

Why? Don't you see this is purely an article of faith?

What is it "equally as bad" to exactly?

Why are people so sensitive over drinking?

Because it's fucking gaslighting. You're trying to make out that people don't make sense because they've been drinking. You're very immature.

Why? Don't you see this is purely an article of faith?

Don't you see that if someone has medically etc transitioned and gone through a process that is legally sound and legitimised by trained and experienced NHS mental health professionals then it is rude and hateful to misgender them?

What is it "equally as bad" to exactly?

It's hateful and oppressive and verbally abusive.

Because it's fucking gaslighting. You're trying to make out that people don't make sense because they've been drinking.

There have been some pretty strange conversations on here. It was kind of in jest. But I'll reflect on that.

You're very immature.

That's a distinct possibility.

Similar to when men blame pmt for some of the things women say/do.

The lunatic TRAs are not my friends. And it's people on here going trans women are men, that I think is equally as bad. It is hate speech.

IMHO that statement alone qualifies a person as a gender radical. Transwomen are men is the literal truth. Material reality. Anyone who says this is hate speech is a gender radical and adheres to a gender ideology that is faith-based, not rooted in reality.

Now you could say that it is hateful to go up to a transwoman in real life and just throw TW=M into their face, no matter what they're trying to say or do and I would agree with you. Outside of a discussion about biology or women's rights that would be disrespectful and in the case of a transitioned MtF transsexual could actually be very hurtful. But TW=M is not hate speech when I need to express my objection to self-id or discuss anything sex-based.

So do you mean it's hate speech in the latter usage or the former?

It was kind of in jest

I think the needs of vulnerable women in prisons and those who need to use women's refuges deserve greater consideration.

If people weren't allowed to be rude here you'd already have been banned yourself, Supermatch. In terms of being hateful that's clearly a matter of opinion, with even some trans women themselves disagreeing with you.

I'd say that it's pretty hateful to old school transsexuals to allow people like Huntley to self-identify into their group, which is what Stonewall is doing. So again, maybe engaging with them would be a more productive use of your time than slinging childish insults at women here.

Don't you see that if someone has medically etc transitioned and gone through a process that is legally sound and legitimised by trained and experienced NHS mental health professionals then it is rude and hateful to misgender them?

I accept it's considered rude, but not "hateful" because it's a lie and a courtesy and I don't accept males are women. What if Ian Huntley does, eh?

Btw, as you keep avoiding this issue, you know full well that's not what "transitioning" means any more.

Don't you see that if someone has medically etc transitioned and gone through a process that is legally sound and legitimised by trained and experienced NHS mental health professionals then it is rude and hateful to misgender them?

What about the rest of them then? The ones who don't feel the need to medically transition but say they're women because of some feeling that they have.

IMHO that statement alone qualifies a person as a gender radical. Transwomen are men is the literal truth. Material reality. Anyone who says this is hate speech is a gender radical and adheres to a gender ideology that is faith-based, not rooted in reality.

TWrW is the truth in the way that a transitioned woman has altered enough physical aspects of sex to sometimes need the same protections that natal females need, for similar reasons. Weaker strength, vaginal rape vulnerability. Dignity. Privacy.

Even in a discussion about biology/ anatomy and rights there is a respectful way to have that discussion that doesn't require TWrM. I don't think anyone is saying women are expected to use open changing rooms with someone with a penis, and that includes transitioned women. Or at least I haven't understood it as that.

Referring to this (I know, again):
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.

Doesn't this reflect the current legal situation, and the established norm? How do you interpret that? You must think a lot of people are 'gender radicals' including all of parliament?

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.
2nd rule of misogyny: Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men thus male violence against women is justified.

I do not share your beliefs and your attempts to badger and bully women here into submission and pretending to share your beliefs is despicable.

You must think a lot of people are 'gender radicals' including all of parliament?
Keep telling us what we think in order to tell us how wrong we are to think it. There may be one or two women who do not yet recognize what they are seeing.

Stonewall's definition may be wider than I agree with but it isn't hateful.

Yes it is. Extremely hateful.

Supermatch

You are wrong. Men who say they want to transition are considered transgender under the Act. They are afforded the same rights as old school transsexuals. So up until very recently Swim England was proposing that men with penises could use the women’s changing rooms at swimming pools

Btw, as you keep avoiding this issue, you know full well that's not what "transitioning" means any more.

Isn't it? Not avoiding the issue. It's what I mean by transitioning. As in distinct from a man who decides to put on a dress and gain access to female space. I wasn't aware that the broad umbrella described by Stonewall implies that they are saying there still shouldn't be sex based protections?

I don't think anyone is saying women are expected to use open changing rooms with someone with a penis, and that includes transitioned women.

There are actually plenty of people saying just that. There was one person who identifies as a trans woman who stated that doing so was "activism".

How can you not know the facts? You have been engaged in debate for days without knowing this basic fact. Read the Equality Act

Isn't it? Not avoiding the issue. It's what I mean by transitioning.

It doesn't matter what you mean by the word. It's no longer what it legally means. You're being disingenuous.

I wasn't aware that the broad umbrella described by Stonewall implies that they are saying there still shouldn't be sex based protections?

I'm pretty sure that Stonewall don't think there should be any genuinely sex based protections. And obviously their broad umbrella makes all sex protections meaningless.

And all the pronouns crap - where in the Equality Act does it say that?

Which section? You don’t know what you’re talking about