#notalltranswomen

[BadasIwannaB]

An argument people often make when women voice their concerns about women only spaces:

‘Well hang on a second, I know quite a few trans women and they are just considerate nice people who just want to get on with their lives etc.’

Why can’t people see that this is spectacularly missing the point in just the same way as arguing ‘well NOT ALL MEN are [rapists/sexual harassers/misogynists/a danger to women]’?

I mean, I’m friends with a lot of men - they aren’t all bad. I’m even in an intimate relationship with one. But would that be a legit rebuttal to the arguments that women should have protected spaces without men? Clearly not! I’m not insulting my (or your) friends who are men, or implying men are all rapists etc. by agreeing that women should have protected spaces without men in them.

Similarly, then, why think that those who argue that these protected spaces should not be available to trans women must be assuming that all trans women are rapists/sexual harrassers etc., and must be saying something that’s terribly insulting to their (or your) friends who are trans women?

a bunch of screaming misogynistic homophobic narcissistic blokes who cannot stand women saying no to them

An excellent description of TRAs.

I think TSs believe gender is a binary in the same way sex is a binary, and you 'transition' from one to the other so that others hopefully believe they are the opposite sex.

The rest under the umbrella of indefinite genders don't so much 'transition' from one thing to another as 'come out' about their super spesh inner identity which they are then from that day forward entitled to berate others for not being constantly mindful of. No change in presentation is necessary but may involve dying the hair blue.

The second you allow them to determine the terms of debate - that is to say that gender identity exists and gender is presentation, when gender is actually a tool of social oppression - you've conceded.

I am not interested in debating how much farther women's rights should be pushed back, GardenGeek.

My perpetual risk assessment of my surroundings involves sizing up every person in the vicinity and categorising them as male or female. I can do this without seeing their genitals! Sometimes, I have to look twice because someone is trans or a bit ambiguous, but never more than twice because there are clues that cannot be disguised when looking at a moving person. The point is that I will spot a transwoman in a changing room without looking at their genitals and a male-bodied person in that space will alarm me because I have prior experience of sexual assault by male-bodied people in changing rooms.

That last post replying to @Snappity who chiding us for looking at genitals when we don't.

If you have, or once had, a dick, I see you as a threat to me. Your gender identity, being invisible to me, has no bearing on my risk assessment.

All i've seen is all the language I've used to explain it co-opted by TRAs. It's predictable. For example I remember saying 10 years ago 'gender is a social construct'... give it a few years and the slippery fuckers are now saying 'sex is a social construct'.

What ever language you use to try to differentiate, they will simply say the same thing back to you but swap sex and gender around.

I totally concur WhereDoWe. We have seen this happen time and time again.

I think the problem with Garden's proposals is not enough experience in the 'debate' that has been raging online for well over ten years.

Also, Garden really does not have a concept of 'thin edge of the wedge', which has been the longterm strategy by TRAs.

Garden the other 'annoying' thing that I have identified, is that you think you have outlined a logical stance that will convert the handmaidens/libfems.

Wrong. They bought into the rabbit hole of most oppressed group on the planet (and TRAs harvest the female socialisation of putting others' needs before one's own).

The 'thing' that peak transes the libfems? The TRAs. Nothing we have ever said has gotten through. It is the realisation of "the new boss (in a frock) is the same as the old boss (in trousers). Because the TRAs will not tolerate any questioning of the trans dogma.

Also, the term in these parts is 'handmaiden' not 'handmaid'.

The latter reference is to the Atwood novel, and the handmaids are conscripted against their wills. So the libfem supporters of the trans agenda are not 'handmaids'. In actual fact, they are on parallel with the wives in blue - voluntarily signed up for 'the cause'. Only now (in the second series) are some coming to the realisation of what they signed up for. Much like the libfems peak transing.

Checking in to state that I am 100% against legitimising the concept of 'gender' as used in certain ways by transideology.
Discussing gender as roles, stereotypes and relationships between men and women in various societies? Sure.
'Gender identity' as some legitimate, innate part of people people that isn't just a delusion and/or building up personality/interests/attempts at fitting in into something they can con themselves and others into thinking is far more... special ... hell fucking no.

Ignoring the more powerful and older contingent of AGPs and focusing just on the youth, this shit is what would have happened if emos had been narcissists instead of depressives and had gone seeking validation from everyone instead of cutting and navel-gazing. If only these young people also had decent music to distract them and were capable of self-reflection and critical thinking...

for what it's worth garden I actually think you are. going down the right lines, to answer your question

Funnily enough, it seems a lot of transsexual people are agreeing with this position to separate sex and gender - not because they believe gender is separate from sex - as they link them closely. But for some other reason yet to pin down.

Not all of us link them closely and old school trans woman tend to be far more binary in there views. this maybe due to the process they went through that insisted they stuff to stereotypes I remember going to the clinic stylist I only went once it was so funny.

non binary ideas are a hard thing to get and young people just seem to except it.

I think views like yours might get us out of this circular mess we are in now and work towards an outcome.

it is taking me forever to catch up so I am still pages back but @bespin I totally agree, '...a lot of people's thinking is now fixed on both sides'

I'm sorry of this had already been picked up on @longtimelurkingtrans but how do you work things out from 'I recognise the that gender is a social construct and should be something that is abolished. In the meantime though I see my gender as female/transfemale whatever the term is these days.'

I don't want gender stereotypes forced onto anyone. But those who feel they have 'a gender' and those who do not to be free to dress and present as they wish. How do we get there:

I am someone who wants to find a space for meeting both 'sides' but it is so polarized now.

I think gernder id like a religion or at least a philosophy (Buddhism is a philosophy often considered a religion). I have no gender but I do have a religion (Christian) I expect the law to protect me from persecution in my country but I don't expect everyone to share my beliefs.

Could gender be another faith/belief based system?

Personally, maybe I would like to keep the GRC and keep it make it based around some other identificable elements such as medically diagnosed dysphoria. Maybe 'beef' up a bit and have a very clear transition pathway (not necessarily surgery). Apologies to any vegetarians!

So I would say...

Sex and gender are different and distinct. You have the right to both a sex and a gender, or delete as appropriate.

Sex is either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. "adults of both sexes"

Gender is the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

Adapted from Oxford Dictionary with typically deleted.

Thanks Garden I don't have time to do this now, but I am just copying it into this post so I can find it later. My response will seem utterly farcical - but then again so does saying sex is a social construct and I people are actually spouting that shit!

Be back later

@GardenGeek I've read the arguments but agree with @LangCleg

'The second you allow them to determine the terms of debate - that is to say that gender identity exists and gender is presentation, when gender is actually a tool of social oppression - you've conceded.

I wish you'd found the answer, Garden, but you have not. Most of us, as I say, have been where you are. We learned.

These people do not want acknowledgement of their gender: they want to abolish sex. Don't be fooled. And don't ask us to be fooled'

I know you mean well.

Very few trans women pass as women, even famous trans women look like the sex they were born,. No one needs to look at genitals to understand what sex someone is.