Strong words from feminists unhappy with trans exclusionary ideology..

[crispbuttyfan]

freedomnews.org.uk/its-spelt-sisterhood-not-cis-terhood-statement/

a little taster of the content, not my words....

"We are disgusted by the TERF techniques of bullying trans people and their friends and comrades. TERFs stand against a vulnerable minority by refusing their right to exist, using their dead names, doxxing them, smearing them online and in the press and waging a fear campaign, all whilst accusing trans women of being a possible legal and physical threat to cis women. These techniques are not consistent with their announced aim of getting legislation refused by parliament and belie the TERFs real agenda of intolerance.

We are sick and tired of TERF alarmism. There is no evidence that trans women are in any way a threat to cis women. To the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that TERFs feed the prejudice against trans women. The countries which introduced their own versions of GRA are not experiencing the problems the TERFs associate with allowing trans people to determine their own gender."

crispbuttyfan
From the survey link you posted last night, this is the question they asked:

Please think about a transgender woman - that is a man who has gone through all or part of a process to become a woman. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a transgender woman to use female public toilets?

Apart from the fact that the question is absurd (a man cannot 'become a woman', however much he might want to), by saying that the man has 'gone through all or part of a process to become a woman' it implies that he has undergone some surgery or hormonal treatment to do this.

If they had rephrased the question like this, do you think they would have got the same response?

Please think about a transgender woman - that is a man who identifies as a woman, but may look no different to any other man. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a transgender woman to use female public toilets?

crispbutty There are some articles here which discuss the use of 'cis'.

rebeccarc.com/2014/08/04/am-i-cisgender/
glosswatch.com/2014/04/24/9-reasons-why-cis-isnt-working/
liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/
www.huffingtonpost.com/j-nelson-aviance/i-am-not-cisgendered_b_5598113.html

lots of words have been in a dictionary . It does not mean that they are not offensive

trans means gender identity not matching sex.

Therefore not trans (cis) means gender identity matching sex. Therefore cis does imply a gender identity. Tough.

I am not cis. If I had to choose a gender that my personality and cognitive ability more closely matched I would be male. I am not trans. Because that would imply I have chosen. Instead I have chosen to recognise sex as something that belongs to the physical world so fact, and gender as a made up concept like fairies that I do not have to accept.

.I am what many other women are. Women. I do not see any problem with my brain, personality and capabilities meeting other peoples idea of male.

Big yes to everything in your masterpost, grandplans

Give it up crisp. Just how long will it take you to get a clue to the overall gameplay here? About never by the looks of it.

I have to guess you are TIM, rather than a handmaiden, although I don't know most of the commenters here.

If you insist on insulting women with that 'cis' thing (which we read as witch/bitch btw), then you will never make any headway into getting your fellow TIMs into women's spaces. Because to try to amalgamate into an existing group, you just don't go in insulting them with guns blazing. Every time you type 'cis', just one more nail in the coffin.

Laminate this, and post it on your wall: CIS is an offensive term to call females

You have to have the same rules of discourse for everyone Crisp. If you're allowed to object to people using the wrong pronouns for transwomen, I'm allowed to object to you calling me cis. Or we could have a free-for-all and both use words the other found offensive. But you can't pick and choose to your own advantage.

And there's no need to patronise me about "cis". I have read Catullus and Virgil in the original Latin. I have a PhD in an area where the stereochemistry of molecules was relevant to their physical behaviour. Still doesn't mean I am prepared to accept "cis" as an appropriate word to apply to women.

Nor do I accept your claim that "gender identity" is something different from "collection of gender stereotypes" because I have read the words of actual transwomen and transmen, and have never seen an account of transitioning which didn't, at some point, refer to sex-based social stereotypes.

Trans people often say that they are the people who get to decide the labels used for them and what is or isn't offensive to them. Why aren't women afforded the same courtesy and allowed to set our own boundaries.

Many women don't like the label cis, many find it offensive so why keep using it?

From the Michael Briggs article linked previously:
'Free speech at Oxford: Do women have the right to meet to discuss legislation?'

(extract)
"Campaigns of harassment and intimidation have become staple tools of transgender activism in the last fifteen years. The campaign waged against a professor at Northwestern University (Michael Bailey) was documented in detail by Alice Dreger in the Archives of Sexual Behavior—her article extends for more than fifty pages—and then she was in turn subjected to harassment, described in her book Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science (2015). A recent example was the sustained campaign against an elderly lesbian couple who run a vegetarian restaurant in Connecticut, because one of them referred approvingly to woman-only spaces. Online threats of violence against ‘TERFs’
(Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists—essentially any woman who hesitates to treat a bepenised male as a woman) proliferate"

Absolutely no women ever = cis
Transwomen = trans. Or whatever you prefer.

Yep. Sums it up nicely.

I don't have a gender so I must be trans. I'm an agender woman. Don't call me cis, you're misgendering me.

Where "woman" is adult human female the one and only valid definition not a shifting constellation

No one I know excludes trans people from anything they wouldn't fairly exclude others from, including being represented within feminism.

Fighting for the rights and interests of biological women includes all trans people who are biologically female. It doesn't include males including trans people who are biologically male.

Please think about a transgender woman - that is a man who has gone through all or part of a process to become a woman. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a transgender woman to use female public toilets?

Or, as I've asked Crisp several times because Crisp has brought all this over several threads in the last couple of days...

... what if there were two questions:

Please think about a transgender woman - that is a man who has has had gender reassignment surgery. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a transgender woman to use female public toilets?

Please think about a transgender woman - that is a man who dresses as a woman and has socially transitioned but retains a male body including genitalia. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a transgender woman to use female public toilets?

What would responses look like then?

But of course, there is no such data set because everybody knows what the responses would look like but some people are pretending that they don't.

Fighting for the rights and interests of biological women includes all trans people who are biologically female

In some parts of the NUS (NUS Women/ LGBT+ / Trans) it has seemed that those who identify as trans men may be in need of some support.

Fuck me you can play TRA bingo with this piece.

Cis. Tick

TERF. Tick

Deny existence/right to exist. Tick

Trans are no risk. Tick

Deadname. Tick

Vulnerable minority. Tick

BINGO!

Just don't make it a drinking game, eh? The NHS is overstretched already.

I wonder if some of these threads are an attempt to cause compassion fatigue and consequently further divisions. No real activists are this unaware.

Yambabe
I'm still yet to see anyone, anywhere, so-called TERF or bigot, left or right wing, male or female or whatever, refuse or deny trans women's right to exist.
Look on almost any of the so-called "feminist" threads on MN, and you will find the same few names popping up to post anti-trans propaganda — the same old lies that trans people are all perverts (anything from men who get sexual kicks from wearing knickers to full-on rapists — with the mythical "condition" called autogynephilia (AGP) as a particular favourite); that simplifying the process for getting a GRC will be accompanied by a wholesale repeal of legislation relating to rape, indecent exposure, domestic violence, discrimination, and almost anything else you can think of.

You barely have to scratch the surface to see that the common theme is a wish to introduce new discriminatory legislation that would make it impossible for transwomen to buy clothes or use public loos — making it impossible for them to meet the conditions required before they can be referred for surgery, and in many cases impossible for them to hold down a job.

That is the intention — nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting women's rights", which are not under threat.

I don't get why all the issues that trans face (mostly from men) are being laid at womens' door. Have I not turned over enough rocks or something? Probably naive, and genuinely puzzled.
They aren't being laid at women's door.
They are being laid at the door of the anti-trans alliance — the (mostly male) alt-right, the (mixed gender) religious fundamentalists, and a small (almost exclusively female) sub-set of self ID'd "feminists".

Most women — and most feminists — want nothing to do with them. As their behaviour and attitudes get them chucked out of other organisations, they are taking over Mumsnet — which is why you see so much of them here.

That is the intention — nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting women's rights", which are not under threat.

Poppycock. Stop lying.

They are being laid at the door of the anti-trans alliance — the (mostly male) alt-right, the (mixed gender) religious fundamentalists, and a small (almost exclusively female) sub-set of self ID'd "feminists".

More poppycock.
Men have been silent on this for decades now, it has been a few radical feminists being the canaries in the mines for ages.

I realise you think you can call 'gender to anything you want it to be', but I bloodywell draw the line on you re-writing feminism to suit your nefarious purposes. Feminism is the liberation of FEMALES from MALE DOMINATION. What you claim as feminism, is the reverse. You want more male domination over females.

No is a complete sentence.

Tell me more on the drinking game.
I think I got a head start already...

Just don't make it a drinking game, eh? The NHS is overstretched already.

. Severe risk of alcohol poisoning here

with the mythical "condition" called autogynephilia (AGP) as a particular favourite)

AGP is a recognised and well researched condition. The gatekeeping process for a GRC accepts it exists and excludes for it. Are you saying the GRC process is medically inaccurate?

AGP exists - It’s accepted as being an entirely separate phenomenon from gender dysphoria, and is classed as a paraphilia. TRAs seem very opposed to this concept.

A person in the process of transition (ie who has gender dysphoria, not AGP) is protected under the GRA and equality act. The law offers them the same protections as a woman.

Nowhere on here have I seen any call to repeal the protections people with gender dysphoria already rightly have.

The point is that right now a GRC requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and an exclusion of AGP. A person with gender dysphoria in the process of transitioning is protected as they should be. Individuals with AGP should not be allowed in female spaces at all. Right now the GRC process excludes them.

The TRA lobby want this gatekeeping removed, because it differentiates between gender dysphoria and AGP. If it’s removed, the genuine dysphoric people will be less able to access the treatment they need and the AGP people will be allowed into female spaces at will.

Increased crime if areas become unisex is a myth? Well no. We are concerned on an evidential basis. Target in the USA have seen a doubling of voyeuristic and sexual crimes since their changing rooms became unisex, and areas without single sex or female only facilities do see much higher incidences of rape and assault.

So. AGP exists, is recognised by gender clinics and no one with AGP is supposed to get a GRC. Genuine trans women (with GD) should be protected and have access to treatment. Unisex toilets and areas result in increased voyeuristic crime, sexual assault and rape. AGP men should not be allowed in female spaces.

That about sums it up.

Look on almost any of the so-called "feminist" threads on MN, and you will find the same few names popping up to post anti-trans propaganda — the same old lies that trans people are all perverts (anything from men who get sexual kicks from wearing knickers to full-on rapists — with the mythical "condition" called autogynephilia (AGP) as a particular favourite); that simplifying the process for getting a GRC will be accompanied by a wholesale repeal of legislation relating to rape, indecent exposure, domestic violence, discrimination, and almost anything else you can think of.

I have never seen anyone on here state that all Trans women are perverts, what you are saying is patently untrue. What I have seen is many people recognising Gender Dysphoria, and acknowledging that presenting as female or undergoing radical surgeries to do so may aid the sufferer.

Your post also seems to infer that there are no trans women who get 'kicks' from wearing women's underwear, are never a risk to women, are not violent etc. So let me disabuse you of that notion with some helpful cases:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39337805

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35726292

nypost.com/2017/10/20/transgender-woman-convicted-of-sexually-assaulting-girl/

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530101/Killer-tortured-killed-wife-gets-legal-aid-fight-wear-wig-prison.html

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1147539/fife-prisoner-trial-accused-asaulting-warders-dirty-protest-wasting-police-time/

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/transsexual-soldier-melissa-cae-jailed-3138872

www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/appeal-after-exposure-incident-between-canonbury-and-highbury-and-islington-1-5143977

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/crossdresser-cabbie-convicted-of-rape-958087

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/cross-dressing-theatre-boss-secretly-10001456

Need I go on?

Can I turn this around a little. Less focus on trans and more on me me me.

around 1 in 20 women have suffred rape. 1 in 5 have suffered some kind of sexual violence.

Note SEXUAL violence, not gender violence. As I have said elsewhere if I had to pick a gender I am closest to male.

As one of those women, one result of the trauma was that I suffered years of mental problems.

Male bodies are still a problem. In my case, panic attack.

If a male body was regularly coming into an open plan changing room, I would be being excluded from that area. I don't care that perhaps only 1 in 100 men are perverts ( although that has to be an upper limit given the proportion of women who have been attacked) I don't care if I am less of a target as an unknown woman. The physical response happens anyway.

If including a minority excludes another minority ( the 20% ) then it's a pretty crap solution

I recognise hard line misogyny when I see it.

And that is all I have to say.

Not so much mythical in the way Nessie is mythical as mythical in the way the 9:15 bus to Camden is mythical.

(It may be a bit late sometimes but it'll always turn up eventually.)