To Ministers, the NHS, Girl Guides, Top Shop - 'What is a TransWoman?'

[bigwhitecat]

As we know, the reason so few people are outraged by the trans movement is because the issue appears so complex, and is fraught with sensitivities.

People don't understand what the fuss is about as it "affects so few people" or "transwomen suffer so much prejudice" that they deserve our sympathy and support.

People do not understand what 'transwomen' now means.

Trans activists argue that changes to the GRA won't make any difference because its "been this way for 10 years and it's all been fine . . "

What the public don't know is that 10 years ago 'transgender' largely referred to those suffering from Gender Dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria was described by the lead psychiatrist at Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic as a 'vanishingly rare' condition. In 2011 this same expert stated that the rates of Gender Dysphoria were 'stable and unchanging'

It is no longer so.

I think the only way we can get people to sit up and listen is to force them to think about what we now mean by transwomen.

By the way, I know this is old news and that many have already tried this! I'm in awe of those women who have dedicated so much time and energy to highlighting the terrible unfairness of this ideology. However, often this question isn't posed by GC feminists on TV/ radio interviews, and it's so crucial to our argument. As soon as the public understands who exactly is included under the trans umbrella . . . game over.

Transgender people are not a homogenous group.

Let's present Stonewalls definitions to the ministers, the NHS, Girl Guides, Swim England and ask - in the interests of gatekeeping - who are we now calling a 'transwoman'. If it's all those groups under the Stonewall umbrella, then we are including those who very often don't identify as a women (either at all or part of the time), and derive sexual pleasure from cross dressing.

Is this Ok with them? If not, why not?

So far, this is the only question that made my NHS service sit up and listen. They admitted that we need to be clearer who we mean when we refer to trans people. No answer is forthcoming yet of course. . .

I rarely post, but am a regular (i.e. obsessive) lurker so want to say thanks to all of you who have educated and inspired me over recent months. The events of the past few days have been disheartening, but there are a growing number of us out there now. We're listening. We're trying to do our little bit. Thank you

Tryingtolisten homefromthehills
Thankyou.
It is good to hear your experiences and viewpoints.
So often we are accused of being 'phobic' and that is most definitely not the case. As somebody pointed out earlier, I'm scared of men. With a dishonest agenda.

A brilliant OP and useful insight into the origins of GRA and figures for transsexuals and GRCs.

My MP ignored my email a couple of weeks ago. It was taken from a template Woman's Place letter. So now I'm amassing lots of info from here, links, websites, news stories and trying to somehow condense this complex subject into a manageable size.
I'll definitely be borrowing from this thread.

Tryingtolisten & homefromthehills

So wonderful to read your posts. Thank you.

So good to hear that you ‘get it’. For many of us (health professionals) who have been trans allies for decades, this is a nightmare.

Of course there will always be a range of opinion on the issue, but it’s so good to hear you talk so openly and empathically
about your own & women’s experiences 💐

Tryingtolisten I can empathise with so much of what you say. You will find that there are a growing number out there who are speaking out like you are because of the damage the increasingly extreme trans activist agenda is doing for both women and transsexuals.

We have differences and women may end up having to protect themselves by hurting us in the procesas. That is a real possibility here if self ID comes in but it is fair enough. Their reasons are genuine and they should protect themselves. We should just understand that and will have to fight our own corner.

If you are on social media check out Debbie Hayton, She has been fighting this for a while and she was the one whose bravery persuaded me to go public. It was a big step for me to take as I knew it would get hostility.

Be prepared to be called Truscum - the charming word trans activists have for anyone who talks sense as you do above (and so disagrees with much of their party line).

View it as a badge of honour. It means you are on the side of women and that is the right side to be.

Go seek Debbie out on social media (you will find me supporting her in most of her threads - I will say hi if I recognise you) and read her articles in many national papers. She has written plenty you will agree with.

Hi homefromthehills

Thanks for all the information.

I haven’t filled in my response to the GRA consultation yet as I want to have a good think before I do.

As others have said, I’m not convinced self-ID is the correct process.

Yes, removing some of the faceless bureaucracy, heartlessness and cost of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate should be a no brainer. But I still think there needs to be confirmation from an NHS or private gender clinic of diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and I’m probably in a minority but I think keeping the lived in experience at 2 years as well is critical.

You find out so much in that period and if you were mistaken or the diagnosis was incorrect it’s likely you would find out in that period.

I’ve got no issues with cross-dressers, non binary people, transvestites or drag artists and people living their best lives but they’re really gender non-conforming and I don’t know why they are under the same umbrella as people who suffer from Gender Dysphoria.

I hate to borrow a phrase, but maybe those with Gender Dysphoria are being ‘erased’ by the broadening of the umbrella?

I can’t remember without digging my Doctors’ letters out but I’m sure my diagnoses are listed as something like F64 transsexualism.

If transgender is becoming a huge umbrella maybe we should reclaim ‘transsexual’ - even though I hate the term - so those who are transitioning for a reason beyond their own control and HAVE TO transition are distinguished.

Anyway, all the above is just my opinion and not a statement of fact.

Let's ditch the term "Gender Dysphoria".

The NHS and other healthcare professionals call it Body Dysphoria Disorder or BDD.

Any opportunity to throw out Trans cult terms with a prefix "gender" this or "gender" that, then we should take it.

Trying to listen this is at least the right question to ask what do people need. surely anyone who as decided to live there whole life as the gender they present need legal protections under that gender. I think. there is a question to be asked about where the lines are in who needs this not just everyone because everyone does not need it

theOtherPamAyres I'm sorry but Body Dysmorphic Disorder is a different condition. I know because I (allegedly) have it. The NHS does make diagnoses of and offer treatment for Gender Dysphoria as far as I can tell: there is a page dedicated to it on the NHS Choices website.

Not exactly answering the topic of the thread, but it's been said in two posts here now and it isn't correct.

trying tolisten homefromthehills
I'm really happy you're here, I hope you feel able to join in and share more. We really are not transphobic.

I think the OP has really put her finger on the real problem with this whole issue - the blurring and eradication of linguistic boundaries and the use of the term 'transgender' to incorporate anything the TRAs want it to (the latest being the word 'intersex').

I've cut through all this vagueness in my own mind by going back to the old labels. So:

transexual (someone who 'changes' sex) - someone whose belief that they are the opposite sex is so deep-seated that they have surgery to attain the appearance of that sex. I don't have a problem with these people being in our spaces; they may not be women, but they deserve our support and empathy.

transvestite (someone who, for whatever reason, takes on what they believe are the appearance or mannerisms of the opposite sex - these are people who are essentially playing with sex-based roles, whether it be for sexual reasons, political reasons, fashion or just because it makes them feel more comfortable. These people, however sincere, shouldn't be allowed in our spaces; not should they be recognised as trans-women or trans-men.

It works for me and helps me to sort through the muddle and linguistic bullshittery quite well...

homefromthehills so refreshing to see a transgender person saying clearly that biological sex cannot be changed rather than peddling the 'transwomen are women' mantra. You seem to really understand the issues women have and the need to protect our safe spaces. I hope reasoned voices like yours and justtryingtolistens can be heard amongst all the ugly noise of the TRAs.

I too wish we could go back to the old 'transsexual' and 'transvestite' labels again, makes it much clearer and takes the idea of gender out of it entirely. This really is about sex not gender.

The further you transition the more overlap there is but formative experiences are unquestionably different.

There is no overlap. We aren't the same sex. This is the starting point for any discussion.

Your require a way to discribe those without gender dysphoria that want to enter female only spaces for their own nefarious reasons.

Cuttlefish do somthing simular.

(don't ban me mn I'm only joking)

Hi Naturalbornwoman

I appreciate you have your lines in the sand and I'm not going to try and argue you away from that.
Language around this area, especially when I was typing on my phone last night, and a bit tipsy is difficult.

When I stated 'the further you transition the more overlap there is but formative experiences are unquestionably different' I wasn't implying the more you transition the more you become a woman.

As I said in I think in my second post, my opinion is that trans woman are not woman.

But I'm not a man either. I don't know why I am trans, nor do Doctors or Pyschologists if they're honest. I know that I am though.
Maybe it is something that happens when a mother is pregnant and the right dose of masculising hormones isn't released at the right time?

Maybe it is because I'm the fourth child, following two male siblings and being trans is a variant of the 'fraternal birth order effect' www.newscientist.com/article/2156010-we-may-know-why-younger-brothers-are-more-likely-to-be-gay/

But I am a trans woman or transsexual if you want to call it that (that's what my diagnosis states).

When I said there was more overlap, maybe it came across a bit simplistically.

I wasn't implying my gender and biology are magically going to change. I accept that isn't going to happen.

I think I was trying to say the more you transition the more empathy and understanding of women generally you have.

Part of this is medical.

When you start taking hormones it is incredible the effect they have on your thought patterns (I don't know if they have the same effect if your not trans).

When your testosterone drops down to female levels that is a massive change.

Lots of people won't like talking about this but testostorone definitely drives some primal thoughts and can trigger an anger that I just haven't experienced since I've been on hormones.

It also stops male genitalia functioning and if a trans person hasn't had surgery but is on the proper dose of hormones you no longer really have any erotic thoughts about the thing down below.

You just can't wait to be rid of it.

Once you lose all those horrible testorone driven thought patterns you start to feel a lot more comfortable about your body, even before any of the main changes of hormone therapy start.

As you transition more and continue the real life experience you gain more empathy for how natal woman live.

That's what I meant. And it was probably too complex to try and fit into one sentence.

Anyway the above are just my experiences. I can't speak for everyone. And I'm not part of a group. It's just me trying to live my life with my family unobtrusively.

I hope I can continue to offer my thoughts.

Best wishes

@Tryingtolisten 'I hate to borrow a phrase, but maybe those with Gender Dysphoria are being ‘erased’ by the broadening of the umbrella?'

I believe you are right. The aim seems to be to merge and blur all lines but then trans women will also say ' I am a woman' when wanting to speak on behalf of women!

We have differences and women may end up having to protect themselves by hurting us in the procesas. That is a real possibility here if self ID comes in but it is fair enough. Their reasons are genuine and they should protect themselves. We should just understand that and will have to fight our own corner.

This. I have no desire whatsoever to throw transsexuals under the bus. Indeed, I have a TS friend (of the truscum variety) of decades standing and have always supported them. But if I'm pushed into choosing between women and TSs, I'll choose women without a second thought. Every single time. Harsh, maybe, but I won't pretend otherwise. That's where I am and where I will always be.

I hope sanity, reason and science prevails and it doesn't come to that, homefromthehills.

I’ve got no issues with cross-dressers, non binary people, transvestites or drag artists and people living their best lives but they’re really gender non-conforming and I don’t know why they are under the same umbrella as people who suffer from Gender Dysphoria.

No issue here either. Go well, be happy, all that.

But I don't think they should be under the umbrella with gender dysphorics either, or, if they are male, be anything whatsoever to do with women.

tryingtolisten, I have been posting in threads on here for a few weeks and if you read back on some you will see that many of your concerns are also my concerns. And happily we are not alone in having them as transsexuals.

But because our numbers are small and so our voice only just starting to be heard against the echoes of the wider transgender community we do have to speak out. It can be daunting. But it is necessary.

I am also not against making the bureaucracy easier for the majority of trans people who are totally genuine and just want to get through the paperwork more speedily.

Most documents are changed by self ID anyway. But the one that cannot be is a birth certificate.

And really that is what this whole thing is about.

At present you have to have a medical diagnosis and there is a perfectly reasonable holding period to assure you are doing the right thing. And only a doctor can make the alteration if or when convinced there are good reasons to do so.

This is why only 3000 birth certificates have been changed in 14 years. Out of a supposed half a million transgender community,

This is the big issue - removing all the safeguards and assessment and the (for me) absolute red line that birth certificates should not be changed on the basis of feelings and self declaration but only ever by a doctor for genuine medical reasons.

Even then I am not personally sure these should apply to transsexuals. But I am OK to go along with what doctors decide as it was their testimony that brought this into the GRA in 2004 but only based on them making the final decision.

It should be their choice and not ours or any individuals to change such a fundamental sex based document. Letting it be self choice sets a massive precedent that is bound to be abused by someone.

Most transsexuals are very realistic and know biology does not change. On Twitter we regularly get battered for arguing against the transwomen are women mantra or asking to stop using the cis term because it is unnecessary and impolite to impose othering onto women.

A few weeks ago Debbie Hayton organised a statement to go into the Guardian. 17 of us signed that letter and there are more now who would have I think. But it was hated and attacked by a counter petition into four figures from trans activists. Mostly furious that we mentioned sexual fetishes in connection with transgender in that statement.

The reality is - though - that this HAS to be faced.

Please read the trans widows thread in here and you will see why.

We are not saying many or most of the wider trans community have a sexual fetish sometimes called AGP but we know they do exist.

It is totally wrong to expect women who have had the experiences of those in that long thread to have to accept such oeople - in some cases abusive ex partners - legally as women in their presence.

It will terrify many of them.

Right now they are protected by the gatekeeping at least to some degree, because that is there to assess reasons for transition and that if no surgery is carried out there are valid reasons for that not occurring. So around 60 - 70% of those 4990 who have a GRC now have had surgery.

If made self ID that percentage would plummet and there would be no barrier to anyone with a fetish getting legal access to women's spaces and many of then will choose to keep their penis's.

As I say, just read the trans widows thread. That is enough to show why we have to stand with women over an issue like this.

And if the transgender activists attack us for doing so there is really only one question to ask them in reply.

Are you saying that your right to just turn up and declare you are a woman and not to give any reassurance back of your sincerity or necessity of changing legal status matters more than the safety of those women who have been in AGP relationships?

There is no reasonable answer that does not accept gatekeeping and offering some degree of reassurance back to women.

Genuine trans people would do that. Put others first. Not risk letting even one or two dangerous fetishists into possession of legal documentation just so they can have transition a little easier.

This is quite a good read about gender dysphoria:

4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

homefromthehills wrote - "whilst the transsexual phenomenon (whatever causes it) has remained stable the wider transgender explosion going on now seems more volatile.
Would you not expect MPs to be asking why? What has changed?"

I think that many MPs (and many organisations) have recently been indoctrinated by transactivists to believe that the entire transgender population of the UK (about 700,000 people) is in imminent danger of committing suicide or living an intolerable life unless they are allowed to self-identify as the opposite sex (without medical diagnosis).

I get the impression that MPs now believe that that there have always been hundreds of thousands of transgender people in the UK who have wanted to be officially recognised as the opposite sex, but these transgender people have been too invisible or too scared to come forward until internet social media came along in the last decade.

I think that many MPs have been guilt-tripped into believing that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has failed all 700,000 of these transgender people. I think many MPs are very comfortable in their assumption that the small number of transsexual people in the Charing Cross figures are only the tip of the transgender "iceberg", and all 700,000 transgender people must be helped to stay alive by allowing/expanding gender self-identification, not just the 10,000 to 20,000 transsexuals in the UK or the 5,000 transsexuals who currently have a gender recognition certificate. Therefore, many MPs do not see the transgender population as a surprisingly large group. Instead, many MPs take it as confirmation that they are "on the right side of history" for changing the UK into such a transgender-friendly society that very many more transgender people now feel confident enough to seek recognition as the opposite sex.

Vesuvia, that is indeed very likely going on.

But we could just to say to the MPs arguing this.

Have you read the Hansard transcript of the debate passing the GRA in 2004?

Once they do then who and what and how many this was about is soon obvious.

Then they need to ask - so why was this only created for 5000 people not hundreds of thousands?

Why were the vast majority ignored and not even mentioned in the debate?

Why was there no outcry from the vast majority not helped by the law?

Why were two prominent trans spokespeople who were given honours (OBE & MBE) so regarded for their services to the community if they actually let down 99% of the people they were fighting for?

All of this makes no sense at all if this ever was about half a million instead of 5000.

So it all comes back to - what has changed in 14 years and where have these other 99% come from?

The answer is, of course, they were always there, living their lives, but were not dysphoric or in any way had a medical condition and so did not have a need to be legally redefined.

But now they see other countries widening the scope far beyond what the GRA was created to cover, they understandably want in. And are successfully persuading others they have always been disenfranchised.

The irony for me is that, thanks to the Equality Act in 2010, they are actually all far better covered legally already without the GRA than I ever was for a third of a century before the GRA came into existence.

In those three decades I lived my life entirely without rights. But perfectly successfully because I got on with it and did not whine or demand - I was just happy to be free of the dysphoria and grateful to be able to live my life.

I should emphasise (as one of the two honoured for the GRA has posted on here before and I do not want to suggest I disrespect them).

They deserved that honour and did a great job getting the GRA passed as they did. So on the contrary I don't think they did let down 99% of the transgender population with getting that law passed. Because the act was created for exactly who it did serve.

But this is the implication of politicians now saying differently are in error. Unless something huge has changed in 14 years to mean 100 x as many people should now be covered by it.

JackyHolyoake - that article is really useful. Thanks for sharing.

It's made me thing again about Blanchard's theories.

The NHS say Blanchard's theories have been disproven, but as far as I can see the science isn't settled. And if it were disproven, even critics of Blanchard acknowledge the rate of 'cross gender arousal' is extremely high (70%) in trans women.

But that's fine. Let's not talk about this part because, well, it's a bit awkward and embarrassing. Trans women might get upset. Let's go ahead with forcing women to share spaces with these people without any gatekeeping. Yeah, too awkward . . .

@Tryingtolisten I just wanted to ask in general about your comment 'Lots of people won't like talking about this but testostorone definitely drives some primal thoughts and can trigger an anger that I just haven't experienced since I've been on hormones.'

Does this mean you think testosterone makes males more violent? If so I wonder if violence increases in females in T. And if so, I wonder why this is not spoken about more.

Also, I know you are only speaking g for yourself, you say that clearly, but I am not sure it is accurate to say (of being on hormones, you mean taking female hormones) ...

"It also stops male genitalia functioning and if a trans person hasn't had surgery but is on the proper dose of hormones you no longer really have any erotic thoughts about the thing down below."

I am not doubting your experience but I do not know if it is accurate for all trans women on cross sex hormones.

on T (testosterone).

I know this thread is specifically about trans women but can I ask any transgender women or transsexual women on here, do you have any idea where all the transsexual men are on social media?

So far I've read Steven Whittle and seem Buck Angel (but as a bit of a self confessed prude, have no desire to watch his sexualized videos).

So this debate always seems to be between women and transgender women/transsexual women.

I get that men don't want to discuss it mostly as it doesn't affect them.

A few brave natal men have put their head above the parapet. Guess what, what I read, the trans woman was very polite with them. Didn't call them any names!

Where are trans men in this?