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?

I don't think TRA are fighting for the word women alone. I think they are fighting to stop women distinguishing themselves from TIM.

If we agree to the definition of women to be anyone who identifies as one, we still need sex segregation. So we use female. Instead of women toilets, we change them to female toilets, women only shortlists become female only shortlists. We are back to square one, with TIM identifying as female. So we pick a new name and the spiral continues.

Women and girls need and want sex segregation, TIM don't want that. That's the bottom line.

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

But historically, this has been the case, hasn't it? Or it has with the trans people I have known since forever. Their friends treat them as friends would - with their names, pronouns, general interactions and all the rest of it. They use women's facilities where they are known and trusted (eg local pub). They're chary of using women's facilities where they may cause alarm and probably only do so if they're in the company of women friends so that they don't cause alarm. They don't apply for women-only shortlists or to work in women-only services. But generally speaking, at work and with friends and family, they interact with a respected female persona.

This is an organic social acceptance of unusual but non-threatening individuals. It is nothing like the current aggressive transactivism, which is characterised by misogyny and homophobia and the supremacy of men's sexual rights.

I see from experience that this previous but structurally limited social acceptance is limiting for trans people, however, and agree that third spaces are desperately needed for everyone's best access and comfort. What I don't accept is the dilution of any sex-segregation that is in place for women's safety and dignity and privacy.

Other than pronouns what does treating someone as a woman mean? My cynical side says it means expecting them to make the tea, serve the biscuits, do the laundry, etc. A glance at TRA twitter suggests that it's largely about rearranging one's dating preferences so as to date people who're not the sex that you're attracted to if they say that they're the "gender" that you ought to be attracted to, and about access to sex segregated spaces. Neither of the last two expectations is acceptable to me.

Does it mean men opening doors for you, pulling out your chair at the table, etc? If so take it up with men, but be aware that most feminists are probably going to roll our eyes a bit not because of transphobia but because we don't actually live our lives in hope of maximizing "gentlemanly" behavior from men. Does it mean being pulled into groups of female friends? That's not a reasonable demand to make either, people get to choose who they socialize with. Shopping for clothes/shoes together? Dancing round coffee tables like in a bad romcom? I can't think if anything that qualifies that isn't based on some sort of sexist stereotype that isn't also directly tied in with the body in ways that mean many women aren't going to be comfortable "including" transwomen.

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.

Yes this is exactly it.

Why does interpersonal courtesy extend to women using preferred pronouns and sucking up having men in women only spaces, but not to women being able to say "I only want a woman to perform my smear test" without being called a bigot? Is this just more of the same expectation that women are nice and accommodating? How about TRAs taking on some of these expectations?

this thread descended into pure hate

Ha ha ha ha ha! I take it you have never browsed a bit of 4Chan? BNP discussion fora? Islamist propoganda? Donald Trump speeches

I really worry about the snowflakeness of people who think that women discussed stuff using frank and honest language is "pure hate". I also envy them, because they have clearly led a sheltered life and have not had the sort of experiences that have made many of on here a little more worldly wise, and occasionally cynical, about people's true intentions

Why does interpersonal courtesy extend to women using preferred pronouns and sucking up having men in women only spaces, but not to women being able to say "I only want a woman to perform my smear test" without being called a bigot? Is this just more of the same expectation that women are nice and accommodating? How about TRAs taking on some of these expectations?

The answer to that, of course, is that it shouldn't. It should cut both ways.

However, as I tell my DC, just because someone calls you a name (stupid poo-head/bigot) doesn't mean you should stoop to their level...
#TGLWGH?

Baroque: I don't think TRA are fighting for the word women alone. I think they are fighting to stop women distinguishing themselves from TIM

Not correct. They are fighting for a hierarchy 'within category woman', which is, the male-born TIMs above female-born women.

To that I say, a BIG FAT NO. And a hearty FUCK OFF.

Saddly, I think that's right LaSqrrl. I think that TRA want to talk about what makes them a women, but not allow women to talk about ourselves and our wants and needs.

No debate, you are hurting my feelings, stop reducing women to their genitals, TIM are the most marginalized, vulnerable group, suicide and murder rates, talk of bigotry, are all examples of this. Women can't talk about women, even on FWR without TIM making it about them. Their needs and wants must come first.

However, as I tell my DC, just because someone calls you a name (stupid poo-head/bigot) doesn't mean you should stoop to their level...
TGLWGH?

I really don't think that's the point.

FTR I personally do not think it is harmless to validate these men’s identities by calling them women/she etc, because;

1. It promotes the sterilising of non-conforming children. As pretending non-conforming men/women are the opposite sex and referring to them as such just entrenches the roles further.

1. It legitimises and forces women to participate in men’s fetishes that they are women (see tampon posts for an extreme examples of this). The whole point for some men is they get off on being seen as women, and so referring to these particular sort of TRA as women, she, etc, means participating in their fetish. I don’t belief a woman should be forced, shamed or blackmailed into participating in someone’s fetish and should be able to refuse to do so.

1. It allows heterosexual men to harass lesbians by claiming they are actually lesbian women. People that pretend these men are women by referring to them as such are adding to a climate where this kind of behaviour is considered socially acceptable.

1. It promotes the converting of gays and lesbians (usually the young) into pseudo heterosexuals. Going along with pretending men can be women or vice versa by referring to them as the opposite sex encourages this and makes it socially acceptable.

1. It allows men that commit crimes to be referred to as women. There have been numerous instances of male rapists, child abusers and those who view illegal porn being referred to in the media as women and ‘she’. This is because it has become socially acceptable, even mandated to refer to these men as if they are women.

1. It has partly led to current situation we are in today with loosing our sex based rights and spaces.

I do not think it is hateful, extreme, or being like TRA’s for a woman to refuse to refer to men as if they are women, on the above grounds. I can understand how those that prioritise men’s feelings/beliefs/identities may feel that way, after all internalised misogyny is still very much present in our society, and so is homophobia. However, it needs to be understood that it is not for reasons of hate that many women refuse to call men women and ‘she’. Of course hardly any woman (if any) would actually refer to a TIM as a man to their face, if they did she would be likely to receive a violent reaction at worse, or sexualised verbal abuse at best. In contrast, I have never seen any GC woman react violently or use sexualised verbal abuse, when TRA’s say GC non-conforming women are latent transmen, or when they refer to women as TERF’s. Those that compare GC women who refuse to call men women to TRA’s, may wish to think about why women actually refuse to do what men demand, rather than assuming they are just being mean, unreasonable, like TRA’s etc. That is all.

Kittens - re the ‘being treated as if they were women in a restaurant’ by staff and males thing. This is another example that the TiM used on our trans awareness training. He was complaining that waiting staff would take orders from the ladies first, then the men, and that generally he himself was placed in between this groups. He caked it transphobia and exclusion, as he felt that he should be served within the ladies group, have his napkin opened and placed on his lap, have his drinks poured first, and his chair pulled out for him etc. I asked if the issue was with societal gender norms that treated women differently from men, and whether it would be better to seek parity in service for all customers. He also whined about waiting staff using the term ‘guys’ for a mixed sex group if he was there. It wasn’t the right response. I was supposed to coo about how awful it was that the waiting staff didn’t recognize his right to be first to the drink, first to order, and fawn over him. He was unimpressed at my suggestion that customer service shouldn’t be based on the sex of the customer.

(To be clear - I’m not someone that is anti-chivalric codes and strips if a dude holds the door open for me. I find it interesting in an historical and behavioural context, and find some of it faintly bizarre and amusing. It doesn’t bother me one way or another. This isn’t because I ‘win’ in these situations - I don’t actually believe that treating women differently is a ‘win’ in this type of scenario - I just find it interesting).
Mostly I think the customer service thing pissed him off because it was a constant reminder that however nice people are to your face, you don’t ‘pass’, and subconsciously, waiting staff struggle to overcome that in the course of their work.

Those that compare GC women who refuse to call men women to TRA’s, may wish to think about why women actually refuse to do what men demand, rather than assuming they are just being mean, unreasonable, like TRA’s etc

Yes, they should.

And both side of this argument are pushing the other away into hardline positions.

This bothsiderism applied to the dominance/submission paradigm is effing absurd.
Men are demanding that women submit and women are saying no.
This is male dominance behavior and you are suggesting that women not being nice enough to the men demanding that we submit is the problem you want to focus on?

Agree with thebewilderness. I feel we've taken a step backwards a bit on this thread, I can't really work out where it's going.

Men are demanding that women submit and women are saying no.

This is the issue. It's not what we are saying no to, it's the fact we are saying no at all.

If everyone agrees that TWAW, but aren't female therefore are not allowed in sex segregated spaces, the arguement remains. It just becomes one of the definition of female.

Men in government have taken the position that women have too many rights and the trans advocates have taken the position that women's rights are anti trans.

No is the only appropriate response to such assertions.

No matter how reasonably phrased one of those 'Questions for transwomen...' type threads might seem at the outset you only need to wait a while, read on and realise that it's a pointless exercise engaging in the... the last post from Artemis7 being a prime example of why not to.

Christine Hart

What do you think women should do?

Men are demanding that women submit and women are saying no.
This is male dominance behavior and you are suggesting that women not being nice enough to the men demanding that we submit is the problem you want to focus on?

YY.

OK, let's listen to their problems and give advice, make nice suggestions. Wondered what this thread was about.

I think what is blindingly obvious now is that feminists support rights for trans people but not over the rights of women and want to balance the two.

And quite a good proportion of trans people don’t support women’s rights at all. Don’t care about the safety of women and girls. At all. The hate here only comes from one side. And it is disgusting misogyny.

No is the only appropriate response to such assertions.

I love that you can always trust Bewilderness to return us to sanity using very few words!

I love that you can always trust Bewilderness to return us to sanity using very few words!

You are very kind.
I rely on you and others to explain in such a way that we can all better understand the zero sum world view that women are confronted with.

Just proves that even some women who know very well that what's happening isn't right still default to the idea that we can fix everything by being nice as hard as we can, and that it must be our fault somehow that things have ended up this way because after all we're women.

(Female socialization is a hell of a drug, and I highly encourage women to stop and think whenever they find themselves throwing women as a group under the bus as to where the impulse to do so may be coming from.)