Looking for a neutral summary on trans issues

[catkind]

I won't pretend I don't hold strong (GC) views myself, but I would find it really useful to have a neutral summary of the positions both sides (and subcamps) are taking. I want to be able to explain to friends who have no idea about trans politics what this is about and what the disagreements are, in terms that friends who are on the transactivist side of the debate won't disagree with. Anyone got any good links for me?

Transsexuals make up about 1% of people yes... if we take stonewall’s definition of trans and the proposed changes to qualification for legal change of sex then virtually all people can be considered trans and would therefore be capable of claiming trans rights.

But exactly rat , no one is saying not to record/note gender identity. The issue is that this should not be the only one.
So I had a ATHENA-SWAN survey to fill out. (this is about trying to work out why women are under-represented in the STEM subjects and now it has been rolled out to economics). It asked
"What gender do you identify with"
There was NO question on natal or biological sex

By what I understand of what's meant by non-binary I know very few people who wouldn't qualify, even though none of them would describe themselves that way.

60 to 70 million non binary people in the U.K.

Either way, why would you make laws that allow that possibility? ‘I trust it will work out’ is already proven not to be a credible position by what is happening currently, before any changes to the law.

Wouldn't that be considered 'othering' transpeople? Why would someone who believes "TWAW" tick the 'i am trans' box on the data gathering forms?

Are you "othering" disabled people when you put a box on your monitoring form saying "Do you have a disabililty?". Um... no.

Transsexuals make up about 1% of people yes... if we take stonewall’s definition of trans and the proposed changes to qualification for legal change of sex then virtually all people can be considered trans and would therefore be capable of claiming trans rights.

This old chestnut? "Trans" is not a protected characteristic, "gender reassignment" is. Doesn't matter who is under that umbrella is they have no claim to gender reassignment or the perception of it.

As for who can change their legal sex, all those people under that Stonewall umbrella, which of them are going to be changing their legal sex so they can live day in day out as that sex? It isn't going to be the agenders; nor the non-binaries; not even the kinky cross-dressers, but it ain't cross-dressing if you're simply a woman dressing as a woman.

The only people under Stonewall's umbrella who are going to be "claiming trans rights" to change their legal sex are the ones who want to live their lives as the opposite sex. You will know them as the transsexuals. They're the same people who have always wanted to be able to do that. Just because every man and his dog is under Stonewall's blanket doesn't change the fact that there is only one small group of people who will be changing their legal sex.

"What gender do you identify with"
There was NO question on natal or biological sex

Valid point, take it up with them I would suggest. I'm sure you will. Not sure what justification that is for a wholesale assassination of the transgender worldview or painting them as the manipulative villains of public policy (not saying you've done this personally but it's certainly a feature of the MN fem boards).

not even the kinky cross-dressers, because it ain't cross-dressing if you're simply a woman dressing as a woman.

You want to make a law that can be easily exploited and then trust individuals and organisations not to exploit the law even though individuals and organisations exploit even the not robust laws?

*most

I appreciate Rat's attempt at neutral. I am rarely enlivened by her posts, however, because although there is a claim to wanting everyone to be able to have as much liberty as possible, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's liberty, the only thing I have ever seen Rat do is shill for the TRA perspective. If she made any coherent attempt at ever acknowledging the myriad of concerns or examples of women who want to maintain boundaries, I've not noticed it, and I can certainly say it's not been done with nearly the enthusiasm with which she has either dismissed those concerns and boundaries or openly mocked them.

I personally don't have an issue with someone who has had reconstructive surgery or even who lives day to day in their mind as a woman using female toilets if they have no ill intent.
What I do have as a problem with is if legislation is made then it doesn't allow women who do have a problem with this to challenge it if they come across this situation, and there is no way of telling the difference between these people and others who are doing it as an occasional 'cross dressing' fetish or pretending to gain access.
Also I have a problem if it allows them to enter spaces with vulnerable women such as womens refuges.

Therefore the set up we have at the moment, where there is no laws regarding it but some transwomen will use open women's areas such as toilets seems OK, but removing the right for women to challenge this if they are uncomfortable isn't OK.

not even the kinky cross-dressers, but it ain't cross-dressing if you're simply a woman dressing as a woman.

But they aren't women. That's the whole issue. Thanks for showing how the motivation gets lost in meaningless woke rhetoric.

You want to make a law that can be easily exploited and then trust individuals and organisations not to exploit the law even though individuals and organisations exploit even the not robust laws?

Are you actually aware how many of our systems in society function entirely on that premise?? Nothing is foolproof; it would curtail our liberty too much for it to be so.

Did you know that electronic tagging cannot be used on people who have ever worked in electronic tagging (I'm talking the ankle tags for criminals)? Did you know that's because they're actually really easy to manipulate, and anyone whose ever worked with them would know that? But to everyone who doesn't know, they're still a very useful tool?

I don't think it is me who is the naive one. I think many people here are labouring under the delusion that the safety we enjoy in society is as a result of foolproof safety nets, whereas the reality is we have far less definitive protection that you would feel comfortable to believe, and a large swathe of societal function is built on mutual trust and, to some degree, societal ignorance.

But they aren't women. That's the whole issue. Thanks for showing how the motivation gets lost in meaningless woke rhetoric.

I think you misunderstood; I'm saying they won't want to change their legal sex to "F" because then they wouldn't be cross dressers any more.

You can’t ‘live in a chosen gender’ you just are a gender aren’t you? You feel it inside no matter how you look act or dress... This is why it is unverifiable and the proposed changes are that asking for verification is burdensome and transphobic...

I would do away completely with any suggestion of ‘living in the chosen gender’ TBH, I think it is horrendous... but it would require having sex AND gender identity laws, since the ‘living in’ is only necessary as a way of proving you are committed enough to qualify for a legal change of sex

Are you actually aware how many of our systems in society function entirely on that premise?? Nothing is foolproof; it would curtail our liberty too much for it to be so.

Yes, so you know, let's not make it worse.

I've not noticed it, and I can certainly say it's not been done with nearly the enthusiasm with which she has either dismissed those concerns and boundaries or openly mocked them.

I can say with a large degree of confidence that I have never openly mocked anyone's concerns on here. Not. My. Style.

And again, we are not necessarily talking specifically about trans people here... we are talking about how laws made to accommodate trans people might be open to exploitation by anybody, trans or not...

I think you misunderstood; I'm saying they won't want to change their legal sex to "F" because then they wouldn't be cross dressers any more.

I think you're naive and have a cutely old fashioned notion of the boundaries of "cross dressing". Which is being used as a shorthand here for a type of male behaviour.

You want to make a law that can be easily exploited and then trust individuals and organisations not to exploit the law even though individuals and organisations exploit even the not robust laws?

Let's not forget that laws influence behavioural norms. Once it is okay for some males to use women's resources, then the next step is "why are they allowed to and I'm not" entitlement amongst a larger group of males until the hard fought for cultural taboo of breaching women and girls boundaries and consent will disappear.

There will be lots of fearful, oppressed women with no words to describe what is is to live in a world with no place to go that is free of male domination. It will just be normal.

That's going to be the result of allowing some males to legally access women's resources.

Ereshkigal I've been rather intimately acquainted with a cross-dresser, if you must know. Personally I think you have a more hyperbolic notion of the usual boundaries.

NB; ‘Why would people who are not trans exploit trans rights?’ Type responses are a. Incredibly naive and b. Betraying transphobic feelings by founding a statement on the idea that being trans is inherently a bad, shameful or negative thing.

I can say with a large degree of confidence that I have never openly mocked anyone's concerns on here. Not. My. Style.

That's nonsense. Anyone cares to advance search they will prove you wrong. I CBA right now, but I think tea will have been spat on keyboards at that.

Not all of them though, eh Rat?