Questions for TRAs or Transpeople on here

[Bloodmagic]

Genuine question and I hope some of you will answer.

From my perspective, Gender Critical people (you would call us TERFs) want to accept you exactly as you are. Your sex (which you cannot change) and you personality, your fashion, mannerisms etc etc are all perfectly fine to us. We accept you as you are. We accept Transwomen as feminine men because that is exactly what you are. We accept Transmen as masculine women because that is what you are. We don't think there's anything shameful or degrading about that. Quite the opposite, we think it's pretty great. I think that men who identify as transwomen as a group should have: safety, freedom, political representation, political speech, suitable facilities (bathrooms, changerooms), inclusion in sports (co-ed, on teams of your own sex, or trans teams), free expression, happiness, the right to be around people like you and share experiences with them, organize with them, etc.

I don't think that has to come at the expense of the same rights for women.

Why is that such a terrible thing, in your eyes?

They only thing we won't do is lie for you, or prioritize your needs over our own.

How does it hurt you that we accept you exactly as we see you?

On the other hand, a lot of the people who claim to be trans supportive will not accept you as you are. Lily Madigan would not have been appointed to labor as a feminine man. They would not have accepted him as he is. They hate feminine men so much they demand that you hate yourselves and deny your reality before they will even let you be used as pawns in the Game of Patriarchy. Your self loathing is the only part of you that they value. It's the only part that I don't.

How many of your trans allies and supporters would still stand by you if you came out as a man who aspires to be as feminine as possible and understands that makes him no less a man and no less worthy than anyone else? They might not, but we would.

I'm having trouble understanding how you can look at us and see hate? We are the ones saying that everything you are is fine and perfect. We can't make you something you're not, no one can. But we also think you don't need to be anything other than exactly as you really are. What's so bad about that?

@daimbars

Effectively the OP is saying 'we can't make you the child's mother, no one can, so you shouldn't be on the birth certificate or have any legal rights over the child. But why do you need to have that? We don't think you need to be a legal parent because biologically you're not. What's so bad about that?

Actually what I'm saying to lesbian mothers (and I am saying it right now to any lesbian mothers on this thread) is more like:

You know you aren't your child's biological parent. Its important to record accurately some things and this is one of them. I see you as you are, a non biological but fully committed parent. You should be entitled to legal protection as a non-biological parent the same as any other non-biological parent, and if you need special protections as a lesbian non-bio mother then I will help you fight for those as long as they don't undermine the existing rights of other people. I won't lie and pretend that a child can have two female biological parents for your comfort. I WILL fight for your acknowledgement and protection as a non-biological parent who is no less deserving of recognition than a bio-mother.

Are there any lesbians here who find that offensive and hateful? Genuinely asking

@Natluc

Sorry, I’m going through the comment thread and replying as I see stuff so please excuse me if I multipost/multitag you.

Trans people suffer dysphoria from being in the sexed body that is incongruant with their identity.

See, here’s the issue, that presupposes that it’s possible for a body to be incongruent with an identity.

I fully understand where this perspective comes from but I don’t believe that it’s true.

I was always a clever kid and I’m really into science and ‘boys’ stuff. Society tells me that women who do those things should have a specific body type – like Pauley Perrette or Michelle Rodriguez. Instead my body type is more like Rebel Wilson – who only plays the dumb funny characters. Did you ever see a woman like
Rebel Wilson playing an scientist or engineer when you were growing up? Or a 'getting shit done' type character like Linda Hamilton in terminator, or Sigourney Weaver in alien, or Charlize Theron in fury road? I felt that my body and personality didn’t “match” and since I don’t want to change my personality I must try to change my body or I would only over bepercieved as a funny sidekick rather than a smart and capable woman. Cue a decade or so of dysphoria and body loathing before I finally realized that people come as one whole package. It’s not possible for brains to not match bodies, they aren’t assembled separately. It’s only other people’s stupid limited ideas that made me think that way and made me unhappy. I didn’t need people to tell me that I was really ‘a thin girl in a fat girls body’ (which is literally a thing people say!) or to lie and tell me that I literally am and have always been a thin girl, I needed to know that I would be seen and respected as the person I AM regardless of my body.

So I KIND of get where 'you're a man' might be a little disheartening to hear in the same way someone telling me 'you're fat, stop trying to pretend you aren't' would've been upsetting. BUT someone telling me "You aren't a skinny, girl, you don't need to be. You are exactly as you are meant to be and have nothing to lie about, hide or apologize for. Don't diminish yourself to try and match other people's stupid limited expectations." How could ANYONE think that was hateful?

NatLuc, you aren't a woman. You're a man and that's just fine.You don't need to be a woman or 'be seen' as a woman. You don't need to be anything other than exactly what you are. Don't be afraid that people won't see the you inside your body. I see you, and I like what I see. I think you're smart, thoughtful, courageously vulnerable and empathetic. There's no mismatch, you are exactly as you are meant to be. You were made whole and there is no part of you that you need to remove, hide or apologize for. Especially not to fit with other peoples stupid limited expectations. Or even your own.

So just to get the thread back on track if anyone’s still here, the topic at hand is:

1. If GC people are accepting and advocating for transpeople as they ARE (as feminine men/masculine women, with or without dysphoria) rather than as they would wish to be (for example, advocating for fair representation of transwomen as a category in politics, rather than transwoman being counted as women), does that hurt transgender people in any way? Either individually or as a group?

1. If so, how?

1. If it doesn’t hurt, how can transpeople change the conversation so that they are fighting for ADDITIONAL rights, recognition or provisions for transpeople as a group rather than usurping the rights, recognition and provisions of women, and how can GC women and men best support them in that?

A heroic attempt to get the thread back on topic Blood, but just for the record this thread descended into pure hate about page 8 when they started calling Rat a pedophile.

Bloodmagic

You know you aren't your child's biological parent. Its important to record accurately some things and this is one of them. I see you as you are, a non biological but fully committed parent.

That's lovely and all but at the moment me and my wife both appear as 'parent' on my daughter's birth certificate. Are you really saying one of us should be removed and our anonymous sperm donor should be recorded as the parent instead in the name of accuracy?

If so then yes, I find that offensive and I think it's setting a very dangerous and backwards precedent for us as a country.

NatLuc, you aren't a woman. You're a man and that's just fine.You don't need to be a woman or 'be seen' as a woman. You don't need to be anything other than exactly what you are

See I think this is not OK, to tell a trans woman that “you are a man, and that’s just fine”. No. They’ve told you - I am a trans woman. I am not a ‘feminine man’. If you say I am a ‘feminine man’ I don’t recognise that as me ... NatLuc said in this thread they lived as a feminine man - wearing jewellery, being themselves and displaying ‘feminine’ traits and were accepted but they didn’t feel that was right, they needed to transition despite the acceptance of them as a feminine man. So they are a trans woman.

So whilst I agree that trans people could fight for their own recognition/groups/causes, and should, it’s never going to be the case that they’ll agree with you that they’re feminine men/masculine women.

1. If GC people are accepting and advocating for transpeople as they ARE (as feminine men/masculine women, with or without dysphoria) rather than as they would wish to be (for example, advocating for fair representation of transwomen as a category in politics, rather than transwoman being counted as women), does that hurt transgender people in any way? Either individually or as a group?

It hurts them because you’re saying you know their identity better than they do. You are assigning them a label you believe fits, even when they are saying No, that is not me.

I don’t think there’s any contradiction is listening and respecting people’s personal identity - I can respect that trans women are not ‘men’ whilst still believing they shouldn’t be able to access all the sex-based spaces and places for women.

Nosquirrels

I am never going to call a male person a woman. "Trans woman" is an obfuscatory term which reinforces the lie and erases women as a class of people who are disadvantaged on the grounds of sex. It's a large part of the reason why we are in this situation.

It's fine to recognise that trans identified males are not women.

It hurts them because you’re saying you know their identity better than they do. You are assigning them a label you believe fits, even when they are saying No, that is not me.

I don't care about their identity. That's entirely subjective. I'm not interested in their worldview. I just care that I don't want males colonising womanhood, because it undermines the position of women and erodes our sex based rights.

That's lovely and all but at the moment me and my wife both appear as 'parent' on my daughter's birth certificate. Are you really saying one of us should be removed and our anonymous sperm donor should be recorded as the parent instead in the name of accuracy?

Of course she didn't say that. Stop twisting her words. We see you.

Daimbars, you don't have to be a biological parent to be on a birth certificate or to actually be a parent.

As I said earlier in the thread and what bloodmagic says is that you cannot both be the biological parent of your child.

No one on the planet believes that two women could produce a baby, because biology, and yet some seem to think that humans can somehow change sex by completely ignoring that very same biology.

You being your childs parent affects no one else. It has no impact on women's rights.

They’ve told you - I am a trans woman. I am not a ‘feminine man’. If you say I am a ‘feminine man’ I don’t recognise that as me ... NatLuc said in this thread they lived as a feminine man - wearing jewellery, being themselves and displaying ‘feminine’ traits and were accepted but they didn’t feel that was right, they needed to transition despite the acceptance of them as a feminine man. So they are a trans woman.

That is interesting. If someone who is anorexic said they are a fat person not a thin one, it is generally bad form to facilitate this thought and they are given medical intervention to help them come to terms with the body they have.

But there is no lobby of anorexic activists shutting down the discussion and insisting that people with anorexia are indeed thin people, and should be able to starve themselves if they wish, and bullying/doxxing/threatening people who support anorexia charities who support medical intervention.

I am a 50 year old woman. I have never felt 'right' in my body. i have also never met a woman who does feel 'right' in their body. It is a common thing to not feel right in one's body. But one's body is one's body. if someone calls me 'fat' [and they have done even when I was a size 8] - that hurts me but nobody falls over themselves to tell the person they are 'assigning me a label that doesn't fit'.

Crikey.

Where does one go when everyone is treating on eggshells to not upset men in case they actually define as women?

The underlying threat is always this - so expertly illustrated here:

Where does one go when everyone is treating on eggshells to not upset men in case they actually define as women?

The heart of the matter.

I don’t think there’s any contradiction is listening and respecting people’s personal identity - I can respect that trans women are not ‘men’ whilst still believing they shouldn’t be able to access all the sex-based spaces and places for women.

If TIM stopped using women and girls spaces, I don't think anyone would have any issue with TIM. The problem starts with them identifying as women, and using that identity as justification to use women and girls spaces.

No one wants to deny anyone's personal identity. They just want people to respect that sex-segregated areas are segregated by sex, not identity.

Eresh I am with you on not undermining sex-based rights. So I think the legalities need to be clear and non-negotiable on this, which they are not at the moment.

For myself, I could just never say that I didn't care about someone's worldview or opinion of their own identity. I couldn't dismiss it that easily.

The question posed was if GC people call trans people 'feminine men' or 'masculine women' does that hurt transgender people in any way? Either individually or as a group?

And I believe yes, it hurts the individual very much. As a group, though, it is more debatable because then you are back to definitions of entrance to a group, so you need to be able to not couch this in terms of woolly language.

TERFragette I absolutely believe gender dysphoria is a mental health issue similar to anorexia.

If someone who is anorexic said they are a fat person not a thin one, it is generally bad form to facilitate this thought and they are given medical intervention to help them come to terms with the body they have.
Because they can die from their belief. There's no 'safe' way to be an anorexic. You cannot safely starve yourself to death.

But there is no lobby of anorexic activists shutting down the discussion and insisting that people with anorexia are indeed thin people, and should be able to starve themselves if they wish
Actually if you trawl the web there are plenty of horrible places where anorexics and bulimics etc support each other to do just this. It is recognised to be a form of social contagion too, like similar websites for suicidal people.

The difference is they're not lobbying the government or having this taken seriously as something that should be blindly accepted by society.

It's the activism and dogma that is the issue. And both side of this argument are pushing the other away into hardline positions.

The difference is they're not lobbying the government or having this taken seriously as something that should be blindly accepted by society.

Because it is not a benefit for men. Everything about the TRAs benefits men. Which is why it is a MRA movement.

That's lovely and all but at the moment me and my wife both appear as 'parent' on my daughter's birth certificate. Are you really saying one of us should be removed and our anonymous sperm donor should be recorded as the parent instead in the name of accuracy?

Your child only exists because of “that anonymous sperm donor” - the donor is very much a part of them and i think they should be recorded in someway - one day your child might want to meet them, know about them, see a picture.

It's the activism and dogma that is the issue. And both side of this argument are pushing the other away into hardline positions.

Yes, I think that was inevitable. I think clarity is needed though. You don't seem that sure what you want from the discourse? And it's the TRAs who have refused to debate, not GC women.

No one wants to deny anyone's personal identity.
jellyfrizz that's not true. Have a look back at this thread. There are examples in just the last day.

I don't want to. You might not want to. But there certainly are people on the "right" side who would deny a trans person's personal identity by saying they cannot be who they say they are.

Which is OK. I understand why. Everyone has principles/line in the sand etc. But we can't deny that some people on the side of women's rights will be hurtful to trans people by denying their identities.

A man cannot become a woman - biology dictates humans cannot change sex, this is a fact. I personally believe it is important to treat individuals kindly and respectfully even if their beliefs do not match mine, so I will act accordingly. Laws should be based on facts, not beliefs, so I will support legal definitions being crystal clear.

You don't seem that sure what you want from the discourse?

In what way? I want Self ID to go away. I think it is utterly batshit that we could open up the definition of 'female' in law to be 'because I say so'.

Which is OK. I understand why. Everyone has principles/line in the sand etc. But we can't deny that some people on the side of women's rights will be hurtful to trans people by denying their identities.

Yes and if someone genuinely identifies as Napoleon it will be hurtful to them when the world fails to agree.

In what way? I want Self ID to go away. I think it is utterly batshit that we could open up the definition of 'female' in law to be 'because I say so'.

Why do you think I should concern myself with the hurt feelings of people who fail to recognise reality? How do you suggest we have the conversation if we must constantly be walking on eggshells around their feelings? When they give not one fuck about mine?

I think you'll find that it's very difficult to sit on the fence. Much of this is a zero sum game.

In what way? I want Self ID to go away. I think it is utterly batshit that we could open up the definition of 'female' in law to be 'because I say so'.

And yes. It is. But self ID is two things, something which again is obfuscated by TRAs. It's the legal concept of making male people female because they say so. But it's also the wider concept of services having no gatekeeping and self ID being allowed by the back door and no one allowed to challenge, and women's rights and feelings being disregarded. And to challenge that requires a clear discourse.

Sorry I should really have put all that in the one post