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

*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. *

It's supposed to make you think about blanchards theories, only 4thwavenow give him a platform these days.

Cross-gender arousal will obviously be high if trans women are the opposite gender. Like when cis women tested 90%+ met the criteria for agp.

Blanchards theories are 30 years old from a time when people were looking for disordered explanation. WE have a much better understanding in the last 30 years. Blanchard's fans will tell you science isn't settled and it's accepted worldwide, but it has zero support amongst peers and medical establishments.

All modern science and studies refute a transient or disordered basis for gender dysphoria.

Wanting to amputate healthy, normal body parts because of an obsession/fixation about them is a form of madness. It should not be indulged whether it is a person who has an obsessive belief their hand doesn't belong to them or their breasts or their penis. It is madness to want to cut them off.

If this is not viewed as madness, illness or disorder by society or the medical profession then we have a disturbingly low bar for wellness and sanity.

I saw this gif today and I thought this seems like a textbook AGP motto twitter.com/i/status/1020684831137648640 especially the 'we are what we love' bit.

Garam - the research you’re referring to is a single study, I think (2009). So not particularly reliable.

I do think we need more research in this area, but that’s very difficult when researchers are being told by ethics committees that an area is ‘too controversial’.

I can say that in my experience, as a woman, women do not experience sexual desire from wearing a dress / high heels or putting on a bit of lippy. They just don’t. For most women it’s a bit of a pain in the arse frankly.

Within a sexual context women do sometimes derive pleasure from the look & feel of their own bodies (& other peoples enjoyment of it). Definitely. but this is very different.

I read how some trans women describe female genitalia (both pre and post op) and it is so very different to how most women view their genitals.

I’m not critical of cross gender arousal, or indeed any sort of arousal or fetish. All part of the richness of human nature and experience.

But Garam, with good conscience can you really say that it’s reasonable for trans women, in male bodies, deriving sexual pleasure from the act of wearing a dress, to be welcomed into female only spaces with vulnerable women?

Given what we know about male violence and the research we have, to date, about trans women retaining male pattern criminality, are you really saying that women are making a fuss about nothing. Nothing to see here?

I do think we need more research. I think (most) trans women should be treated with kindness & acceptance, but surely we need to be making decisions on the basis of what we know now. Working from an evidence base.

My NHS service didn’t have an answer regarding cross gender arousal. One staff member acknowledged that a trans woman’s erection caused upset on a ward (with rape victims/ victims of DV). The staff tried to ignore it & encouraged the women to get involved in another activity.

@italiangreyhound
No problem with the questions!

I'm only talking about my own subjective experience and I'm a sample size of one, which isn't very scientific, unfortunately.

I did find this recent study on the effect of testosterone on trans men.
The study is limited but anger did seem to increase with T.

www.forbes.com/sites/helenthomson/2017/12/21/testosterone-treatment-makes-transmen-more-aggressive-especially-if-their-periods-persist/#11fbb9b85b9d

Regarding my own experience, I'll try to explain it more clearly.
First of all, to make clear I wasn't a violent person pre-transition.

However, my experience of anger was different before I started taking estrogen and testosterone blockers.

Previously pre-transition my experience of anger would feel different, for example, if I was feeling angry it would feel like there was a more primal part of my brain active that at times wanted to be more aggressive and took more thought to control.

Post-transition, my testosterone levels are now the same as natal females and my estrogen levels are equivalent as well. Yes I can still get angry but I don't feel that aggressiveness lurking at the back of my mind anymore - it's a different kind of emotion - sorry this is really subjective.

RE: the effect of feminising hormones on male genitalia, re-reading the NHS documents (if you look at page 7 and 8 on the following PDF) it looks like male sexual dysfunction as a result of hormone therapy is variable.

www.rotherhamccg.nhs.uk/Downloads/Top%20Tips%20and%20Therapeutic%20Guidelines/Therapeutic%20guidelines/17-10%20Trans%20%20woman%20Prescribing%20Guidelines.pdf

I'm just one of those who has experienced complete dysfunction.

Not sure I can get much more personal than this in a reply.

Italian, good question about where are the transmen on social media.

I have not noticed any either since I have been active on Twitter.

My guess would be they are where most transsexual women still are and pretty much all were up to fairly recently - just getting on with life and not making much of a song and dance about anything because being trans is not the end result if who you are - it is the thing you have to get through to BE who you are.

So, unless what you want to do is become a trans personality - as I suspect most do not but there are suspicious signs that many of tge new wave trans community do - then you are likely to be out there living and appearing on social media but not proclaiming or engaging as trans. Just talking about the 99.999% of life that isn't that.

With transmen there is also less need to come out and fight because there is less conflict over rights. Half the men they might be in conflict with seem too busy identifying as women so that might be a help too!

Nor are there many extremely daft transmen activists making statements at odds with reality that they have to go out there and confront.

I know it seems from the outside looking in as if being trans is some kind of aspirational social status thing. I wonder that about the umbrella these days looking in at it.

But that is not the natural inclination of transsexuals who like nothing better than just to get on with living in a way where it actually does not even matter we are TS. We never forget, of course, but piost transition it ceases to be what it is all about. So we do not live every day as if that is the centre of your experience.

It seems as if that is more true of transmen as well. But it is certainly an interesting question to pose as to why the differences.

Hmm.

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.

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

What this says to me is that gatekeeping is working as it should. We can put aside for now the discussion about what level of inclusion in women's spaces should be extended to old school transsexuals (about which there is likely to be some disagreement among as many people as we have here) - what we I think can agree on is that part of what the gatekeeping was designed to do was to only allow what we could call old school transsexuals through and filter out crossdressers, fetishistics transvestites, etc. What I see happening is those that the system was designed to filter out demanding that the filters be removed for their benefit. I see no way in which this improves the situation for old school transsexuals, and it actively harms women and girls, so why should those two groups have to live with a situation that either doesn't help or actively harms them for the benefit of the transvestite group? All medical treatment comes with gatekeeping of some kind, as do high level administrative changes such as acquiring a new passport, changing citizenship, etc. It may be a hassle but it's a necessary one. In other words...

Letting it be self choice sets a massive precedent that is bound to be abused by someone.

Yep, and anyone with even the most basic understanding of human nature knows that, so why are so many TRAs insisting that it won't happen, or won't happen often enough to be a problem? In terms of the "deluded, lying, or both" question I'm currently leaning towards "a bit of both".

I think that if transsexuals want to form an alliance with women one of the most useful things they could do would be to lay out very clearly how the gatekeeping system works and how the proposed changes are not for their benefit, because a lot of well meaning people are assuming that they must be.

I think the gatekeeping system is also designed to filter out people who genuinely believe at the time they begin the process that it's what's best for them but who are wrong, and I think that part of the process would benefit from being strengthened in order to better filter out what appears to be a substantial number of autistic young people who're being encouraged to view their difficulties with social interaction and societal roles as being the result of a need to change their gender. The system should be slamming on the brakes rather than hitting the gas pedal in the case of those young people in order to protect them from what could be irreversible mistakes.

Let's just pretend I didn't totally mess up the tags on the comment above...

(Sorry, had a couple of glasses of wine!)

Of course, the gatekeeping is vital. I certainly do not think that should be removed. I don't think any transsexuals do. We know the value because it helped us immensely.

On Twitter last night I had an interesting discussion on this with one of the activists over children and blockers. She had seen me saying that gatekeeping is essential and sometimes adults have to make informed choices for children, such as if blockers are offered. How do you decide whether this is the right thing for an 11 year old to do.

She asked me when I knew I was TS. I told her. I also told her that if it was 50 years later I would have wanted blockers and fought for them and that they would have likely benefited me had they existed.

But, I added, that this decision should not just be a child's because we know too little about the risks of these drugs as adults and the child will know even less. And because the desistence rate for trans has always been high - 90% or so - and still is with trans kids today.

So you have to be very, very sure and not just do what a child wants. Because the risk v reward balance has to be better than it is now.

You cannot risk kids taking this stuff inappropriately, then regretting it as many will do, but possibly having irreversible side effects. Just to benefit the few cases where it would be the right thing to do.

I probably could not have seen that as a child, but my parents might have been able to as they became very knowledgeable on being TS at a time when this was not a topic anyone talked about. And others involved acting as gatekeepers would have the knowledge to do.

I pointed out that many things were necessary. Stricter assessment on these drugs first. More research into causes and reasons why some kids are trans from the get go and always will be but others are not and can get over it with effort. And gatekeeping that offers an independent assessment and does not just leave the choice up to those who will do what they want because it is what they want and the possible consequences for them or the wider consequences for others will be invisible because of self interest.

You need outside trained eyes to see the bigger picture.

I added that IF it was decided not to use blockers the child still could transition later. Yes, they would lose something, but they could still do it. A child who wrongly took it and found their fertility compromised when they realised the mistake could not go back so easily.

You have to balance rights not just hand them over on demand. I added too that having to wait had its advantages for me. It builds understanding, certainty of what you want and realism of what you can and cannot do. This helps when you transition.

The conversation was terminated by the woman soon after because the above was construed as me being transphobic and willing to sacrifice the happiness of kids so I was therefore a really awful person who they no longer wished to talk to.

This reveals the crux of the argument over gatekeeping.

A trans person wants what they want as quickly and as easily as possible. It is an enforced selfishness caused by circumstance.

But society has a stake in this too for many reasons and needs someone in the mix here to balance rights and to assess when or if things should happen that help one person without risking harm to others.

It is not cruel to balance the bigger picture. It is necessary because the person wanting these things is too close to judge.

Gatekeeping, whilst not perfect, makes it necessary to really need or want the rights you seek and so fight hard to achieve them.

And offers that wider perspective any good society must have.

Great post homefromthehills
I worry that people like you (along with the rest of us) are being so marginalised by powerful lobby groups that our voices are disappearing under a torrent of vicious abuse. They are determined that they will have their way - no matter what cost to the vulnerable..

The only hope is that journalists are starting to cover the reality of what is happening but until politicians like Penny Mordaunt , Damian Hinds et al are made to explain why medicating children in this way is OK then I can't see anything changing.

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?

Whether you're genuinely trying to be supportive and understanding to the cause or not, I think it's pretty out of order to expect feminists to let this go out of politeness/gratitude for your apparent support. This is bullshit, no matter how you want it to be true.

I was washed in utero
It really isn't fair
My mother cruelly laundered me
And now I've too much hair
She didn't read my label
For proper foetus care
And rinsed me in testosterone
Then spun me for a dare
It's why I am the way I am
A willy like my brother
But I have got a ladybrain
I blame it on my mother

Dixie, I think that is a little unfair to the poster. She is being honest and trying to help as far as I can see.

What causes transsexualism is unknown. They have been looking for causes for over half a century. Many ideas have been considered.

Some kind of physical cause like this is one possibility that has been investigated. But there are others. They have sought psycho-social factors such as absent fathers, abusive pattern childhood etc but not found any consistent pattern there either.

It is still up in the air, but most doctors agree that the consistency of accounts and the stable predictable level of TS occurrence is indicative of some kind of common cause.

Because the much wider transgender umbrella seems to fluctuate quite markedly in response to social changes in a way that TS does not. We can see that evidenced all around us now post 2004.

Thousands of new wave transgender people have arrived out of nowhere alongside the prevalence of the internet. Is that coincidence?

The recent appearance of rapid onset dysphoria amongst teenage girls is very noticeably new, too, and alarming and hard not to see as an entirely different cause from whatever is behind being TS.

I think it is important that the poster recognises the reality we all accept that you cannot change sex and alter biology.

Beyond that it is wise not to over claim outside of something is obviously going on and appears very early in life as too many of us consistently experience that. It has long been recognised as having a cause not yet proven.

I am sure one day it will be and am happy to wait until such evidence appears before arguing one way or the other.

*bigwhitecat
Garam - the research you’re referring to is a single study, I think (2009). So not particularly reliable. *

Eh? what are you talking about?

Its a position statement of consensus.
Thats covering decades of experience and studies and personal opinion.
Just about everything ever published on biology/endocrinolgy and resulting atypical gender identities.

The Endocrine Statement, covers everything on this subject, as world class experts, not one study or two, everything.

And the overwhelmingly supported opinion of the oldest and one of the largest medical fellowships in the world state quite clearly that their position is that gender identity is innate, and has durable biological underpinnings.

Also AGP is based on a deeply flawed 30 year old study, so don't make me laugh.

And trans women do not retain male pattern criminality whatsoever, there is no study to suggest so that doesn't come from a wordpress blog.

The swedish study has been entirely refuted by the author.

transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm

But if you keep believing the kind of propaganda that turns up on here, don't be suprised when you end up more and more confused about why the world continues to move forward with trans rights.

Dixie, I think that is a little unfair to the poster. She is being honest and trying to help as far as I can see.

I really don't see it as being unfair, and don't see how it matters particularly if it was an attempt to 'help'. It's not helpful.

As you say, there are many things being considered. Subtly or not-so-subtly pushing one above the others because you hope it's the answer and want others to believe it's considered the likely answer is dishonest and not at all helpful. The waters are muddy enough with all the bullshit people believe and/or try to get others to believe.

I think that if transsexuals want to form an alliance with women one of the most useful things they could do would be to lay out very clearly how the gatekeeping system works and how the proposed changes are not for their benefit, because a lot of well meaning people are assuming that they must be.

Yes, exactly. I am entirely unaware of any good reason why gatekeeping should suddenly become a terrible thing.

(I did not intend to make gatekeeping emboldened. It's either the heat or my age.)

Lang Cleg, quite a few of us now are battling daily out there getting those points across. We feel very strongly about it and are not at all liked by trans activists for saying so as it is argued we are being elitist.

But it is goes much deeper than that as I note in my post above. There are many reasons why gatekeeping matters.

For society AND for the transitioner themselves.

@Tryingtolisten Welcome and good to see you here.
@homefromthehills, I've enjoyed reading your posts and touching onto your posting about twitter, I deleted mine after taking heavy flak from certain quarters when I said TW aren't women. At present still trying to come out and live full time as trans and voices of reason like yours that I and others can relate to rather than the TWAW types can help us be where we can be.
Sorry all for slight thread hijack.

Garam - we could go backwards and forwards arguing about The Endocrine Statement, AGP and criminality, as has happened many times on these boards.

As I said before, the science is not settled. There are plenty of hypotheses regarding gender identity, but no consensus. The current opinion amongst those who work in gender identity clinics - those with many years of first hand experience of working with gender non-conforming individuals, and who carry out research in the area, is that there is no one single cause; gender identity is multifactorial.

It's completely inaccurate to say there is a consensus.

But even if in 10 years time if everything you say is proven to be the case, what about the trans umbrella which is the point of this thread?

Very few people under this umbrella have transitioned surgically; many have not transitioned medically; some haven't even transitioned socially (all or part of the time).

Are vulnerable women, with a history of male violence / PTSD and mental health problems, whose are triggered by / distressed at sharing spaces with people with male bodies being unreasonable?

What about the NHS responsibility for safeguarding. Let's not even focus upon physical safeguarding, but emotional. Do you feel the rights of cross dressers, for example, are more important than these womens rights?

Having read through all comments, I really think the only way forward is to stick to the truth that trans women are trans women. That is an accurate description, not hateful. The fact that under the law they can be legally recognised as 'women' does not mean that they magically are women. Women and trans women have their own needs and should be categorised separately.
Homefromthehills & Tryingtolisten is that ok with you, or is another term more helpful? Great to have you both on this thread.

It's completely inaccurate to say there is a consensus.

The endocrine society statement is literally a consensus of endocrinologists worldwide.

Virtually all reputable medical establishments are currently working on the hypothesis that trans identities are formed in utero.

Because thats what the current science leads us to believe.

As usual the propagandists like to think science is on their side, or unsettled. Poppycock.

Just like you may never find a root cause for homosexuality we have the understanding it is innate, regardless of the opinions and whataboutery on here that is precisely the position from modern medicine and sciences that so too is atypical gender identity.

And the reason trans rights are moving forward, and medical insurance covering transition is more and more standard, because the evidence is overwhelming to anyone with an open mind.

I prefer the term trans woman.

Transsexual just sounds icky to me imo.

TWATW and TMATM

As I’ve just said in another thread biology sucks but it is the truth.

The above is just my opinion other trans people might not agree.

(ps. there’s a 2 in front of my name as I deleted my account after a couple of messages but decided to come back)

Virtually all reputable medical establishments are currently working on the hypothesis that trans identities are formed in utero.

Garam - Unless you think the NHS services are not reputable medical establishments, this is not true! The 'in utero' hypothesis is just that - it is one factor being studied. You said in your own post, this is a hypothesis.

I notice you never respond to my questions about the trans umbrella and the rights of vulnerable women. Do you have an opinion on this?