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?

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 truth is women are saying 'no' to males in their spaces, they want to persevere sex segregation. Thats what's pushing TIM into a hard line position.

There can't be a compromise, sex segregation exists or it doesn't.

TIM want to be called women so they can access these spaces. Women are pointing out that they aren't women so should not used these spaces.

It doesnt mean that anyone should 'misgender' a TIM walking down the street minding their own business, that would be abuse. But we can't discuss women and girls rights and not name the problem.

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?

People who are mentally ill also "fail to recognise reality". Someone who identifies as Napoleon is indeed going to be very hurt when the world disagrees. Do we have to not care about those hurt feelings, just because the person is objectively wrong? Is the person who believes they are Napoleon not worthy of our sympathy for this difficult situation they find themselves in, where no one agrees with them and laughs at them and tells them they're not who they say they are? That must be pretty fucking awful for the person who genuinely believes they are Napoleon. I am sympathetic to their feelings. I still don't agree myself that they are Napoleon, but perhaps they can have a fulfilling life living as Napoleon in many aspects, without us supporting them into waging battles at sea in pursuit of an empire when it would harm others?

Like I say - the debate gets pushed into me vs you. Because feelings run high, understandably. I don't think you're wrong to be angry that the TRAs aren't grasping why women are getting screwed.

The truth is I don't know how we have the conversation.

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.

Ok yes, badly worded. What I meant is that denying people's identity is not the aim, it's more of a by-product of having to define sex in order to defend sex-based protections.

There is no way that both women who don't consent to the invasion of their privacy and violation of their boundaries, and males who want to invade women's privacy and violate their boundaries, can both be accommodated. Someone has to lose. And many people expect it should be women. That is arguably due to misogyny, internalised misogyny and structural sexism.

Why should I care about the feelings of people who don't care if they hurt me?

we can't discuss women and girls rights and not name the problem

True. But we can say 'trans people are those who wish to transition from their birth sex' without saying 'you are a feminine man/masculine woman and you are WRONG if you believe anything otherwise.'

I agree we need clear discourse. I am horrified that the TRA movement is preventing this - no debate, accusations of transphobia over simple clear language that acknowledges biological reality.

I still think we can be respectful within this - IF the 'other side' would meet half way and climb down off their 'literal violence' hobby horse.

Why should I care about the feelings of people who don't care if they hurt me?
You don't have to, Eresh. That's your choice.
But it's usually not the individual people who don't care about you. It's the movement/ideology which makes it seem black and white. On both sides. So individual people on both sides then feel attacked and angry and hurt.

Exactly jellyfrizz. I'm sorry if it's considered unhelpfully abrasive but I really don't care about their identities either way. I am very much a live and let live person. But their freedom to swing their arms end where my nose begins. I care about the ramifications. And I roll my eyes a bit when asked to care about their personal identities because I just see it as self absorption to a worrying degree.

'trans people are those who wish to transition from their birth sex

And we can say that without calling male people women.

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.

Same here. I care about the ideology behind transactivism, which I believe is bad for women's rights and the safeguarding of children. I also care about the wider social constructionist ideology that underpins it, which I believe is bad for all powerless groups in society.

I also care about the vicious strand of male pattern abuse transactivism has released - yes, NATALT and all that - but I am seeing behaviour replicating risk factors for VAWG and DV identically and am told I it's phobic to notice it if the word trans comes into play. I don't care what identity a dangerous person has if they exhibit all the red flags a risk management tool identifies. I'm not going to pretend the red flags aren't there.

On a wider level, if the period fetishists don't convince you that it is not good for women to normalise obvious male people - regardless of identification - in their private spaces, I don't know what will. Anyone who thinks that means you hate all male people - but particularly trans-identified male people - simply cares nothing for women.

If transactivists want to define the feminist desire to protect women as hateful and transphobic, that's up to them. I really don't care.

I think the answer to you, Bloodmagic, is that the characterisation of gender critical views as a personal hatred for transpeople is just a disingenuous way of deflecting from the fact that the gender critical position is political, not personal. Criticisms of the ideology and its political agenda are deliberately painted as personal hate in order to discredit not just the women, but also their politics. Make it about "bigotry" and hopefully nobody will listen to the substantive points.

I find the whiny narcissism of transactivists a huge turn off. I am not going to validate it in any way. And yes sometimes it is necessary to call a spade a spade when you see obvious male socialised behaviour and entitlement.

Cross posted with Lang

I also care about the vicious strand of male pattern abuse transactivism has released - yes, NATALT and all that - but I am seeing behaviour replicating risk factors for VAWG and DV identically and am told I it's phobic to notice it if the word trans comes into play. I don't care what identity a dangerous person has if they exhibit all the red flags a risk management tool identifies. I'm not going to pretend the red flags aren't there.

This.

What I meant is that denying people's identity is not the aim, it's more of a by-product of having to define sex in order to defend sex-based protections.

Oh, I totally understand, jelly. But the by-product has become the topic of conversation. So somehow we need to change that conversation.

Lang yes, I agree, it should be political, not personal. But both sides find this hard to stick to, understandably.

So somehow we need to change that conversation.

What do you think would do that?

You seem to be arguing for interpersonal courtesy, NoSquirrels, and I am confused as to why you think feminists are unlikely to supply this? Do you think feminists go about shouting you're a man! every time they encounter a trans person? Of course they don't. But if you are for interpersonal courtesy but also against removing sex-based spaces, protections, services and rights, then you're as much a hateful, witchy TERF as the rest of us. Because it's not about interpersonal courtesy. Making it about interpersonal courtesy when it isn't, is the transactivist tactic to delegitimise the political advocating of sex-based spaces, protections, services and rights.

But both sides find this hard to stick to, understandably.

You seem to think there is some justification for how transactivists behave towards gender critical women?

you're as much a hateful, witchy TERF as the rest of us

Believe me, I know! And I am OK with that (well, you know, I wish it were not so because I personally don't believe I am a hateful witchy TERF so I am slightly offended, but I'll cope).

I am not against anything that you are saying. And I don't know how to change the conversation - I said that.

The questions in this thread were:

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?

2. If so, how?

And I answered that above - that in an interpersonal sense, to use your phrasing, Lang, this could well be hurtful.

3. 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?

I don't know. The appetite for ADDITIONAL rights needs to be there. But a lot of trans people just want to pass. They don't want to draw any more attention to themselves than they have to. They don't want a part of this. And the activists are pushing their own damaging agenda of no debate, TWAW etc.

I don't have any answers, and of course I don't think all GC feminists are going about shouting "You're a man!" at individual trans women. But some do, in the same way some TRAs shout at women they're TERFs. And then both sides are held up as representative of a wider group, who probably aren't of the same opinion.

Squirrels

Your view on transwomen can be viewed as women and included to a degree without having it set in law so women can retain certain female only spaces seems reasonable and workable - till you realise transfolk/activists will never agree, they want to barriers, no seperation at all. That’s the end game. I guess gender critical women are just realising that the creation of the GRA, being kind and using pronouns, pretending the poor TW is really a woman like them - is what led to the current crazy demands/ideology. You realise if you don’t strip it back to basics (like ivy creeping everywhere) it just keeps spinging back, spreading stronger than ever till it engulfs.

But basically I am in agreement that the quicker it can be seen as a political issue NOT an identity issue, the better.

I will admit to struggling with the concept of 'social women'. I don't understand how TIM would be happy to be seen as women sometimes (and I'm not sure what those sometimes are), and be totally happy to be excluded from women's spaces.

TERF is a misogynistic slur. I don't go about shouting that trans identified males are men because most of the time it would be unnecessarily rude. But they are men. It's not the same. And we need to be able to say that.

I personally don't believe I am a hateful witchy TERF so I am slightly offended, but I'll cope

LOL! I feel you.

*Why do you think I should concern myself with the hurt feelings of people who fail to recognise reality?&

Precisely. What does another person's battle against reality have to do with me? Why should it impose upon me an obligation to pretend that I don't recognize reality either? If you, individual, would like to make providing validation to trans people a priority then you are of course free to do that, but the idea that everyone should be expected to do so is unreasonable in that it imposes an unfair burden on others.

I have an ex who when I broke up with him refused to accept it. He got a bit stalker-ish about the whole thing and made my life quite uncomfortable for a while. In his mind, we were still together. One might say he self-identified as being my boyfriend. Unfortunately I did not agree, and luckily for me there was no law forcing me to go along with his personal view of reality when it didn't match mine.

Why when I'm looking at someone who it's obvious to me is a man should I be expected to pretend that I believe otherwise? Why does their version of reality trump mine?

I will admit to struggling with the concept of 'social women'.

Other than pronouns, which I’m not hugely fussed about anyway, I see no reason for men and women to be treated differently in social situations.