Trans women are women, is the biggest oxymoron ever written.

[happydappy2]

If trans women are women, then why do the words trans women exist? I don't understand how law can not be written in a way that recognises women as women and trans women as trans women.

Thus trans women are treated with respect and dignity, and so are women. This blurring of the lines is helping no one.

Who ever claimed that trans women are women? Unless we can differentiate between the 2 there will always be conflict. Is it too late for reality to kick in here?

Hi Glitched.

You said: Woman = adult human female and transwomen.

I assume you also think:
Man = adult human male and transmen.

In that case, by your definition, transwomen and transmen can be classed as both men and woman.

I'll repeat that. By your definition, transwomen are men and women.

Not sure your definition works tbh.

Not sure your definition works tbh.

I'm quite sure it doesn't. It would have to be something like:
Woman = adult human female, except for the transmen who think they're men, plus transwomen except those who don't think they're women.

Yeah. Sure. It's a nonsense. Take a perfectly good, objective word and render it essentially meaningless.

Woman = adult human female, except for the transmen who think they're men, plus transwomen except those who don't think they're women.

Exactly! Also except non binary females and genderfluid females on the days when they feel they are men. And including genderfluid males at the times they feel they are women (hello Pips Bunce!)

It's this blind insistence that transwomen are women simply because they say they are is one of the reasons why I became gender critical.
It's so obviously not true that I could never just accept it.

The definition of men should be expanded to welcome men who wish to express themselves in a feminine way.

It is biology that is the reason why women need their own places and protection, nothing to do with gender expression.

A thought that occurred to me reading the comments from our new transsexual commenters in this thread compared to Snappity's comments - the standard TRA position is actively unhelpful in terms of achieving both peace and happiness for people who are transsexual. What I mean is, denial of the reality of one's sex and attempts to force others to pretend that they believe one is the sex one wishes to be clearly create a lot of stress and anxiety and anger. When you engage with people who've pursued that path it's clear that whatever peace they've managed to achieve with themselves is entirely dependent on being able to prevent others from saying things that remind them of their birth sex. With the more mature, at peace with themselves transsexuals that we sometimes have commenting though, they seem far more at peace with themselves and who they are, and I think that's in part because they're not constantly fighting that (doomed to fail, because we can never entirely control other people) battle to prevent anyone from saying anything that reminds them that they weren't born the sex that they wish they had been. How can anyone achieve any sort of lasting happiness if that happiness depends on preventing other people from noticing things about oneself that one would rather they didn't notice, and if they do notice preventing them from mentioning it? It's a recipe for a miserable life.

Coming to terms with those realities that can't be changed may be hard and painful, but it beats the hell out of the alternative.

Great post AAK. A lot of living life well is about knowing what you can control and what you cannot. And you can only control your reaction to people .... not them. Trying to control other peoples' behaviour is the fastest path to misery that I know

All of that is true and the worst possible thing that the trans activists can do FOR themselves is what they are trying to do.

Kill off what is left of the psychoanalysis and gatekeeping as to who should and - then how they should - transition.

Because transsexuals who had this are very aware of what value it brought. This protects trans people from themselves as much as it protects others in society.

And it instilled realism and understanding of what matters when you transition. Which is not to control thinking with words and become a trans figurehead, but to get over your dysphoria and live a productive life. If you have dysphoria - which, of course, many of those now wanting to do this really don't seem to.

Gatekeeping also means acceptance of limitations of reality and understanding what is/is not possible and how to get on with people. And to know that this is not all about you but that other people matter too and might just see things differently. And if they do that is not some evil to be obliterated. It is cause to try to understand the basis of those differences and find an understanding.

Something many women are good at but trans activists seem spectacularly bad at even attempting. Which is a puzzler.

The gatekeeping was not just built around deterring inappropriate people from transitioning (which given the desistence figures is a lot - possibly as high as 90%). It was also built around teaching limits of what you should and should not do and what is or is not possible so that you can attempt to live in harmony.

I had a 'discussion' on Twitter today with some trans activist. I had been exchanging posts with Alison Moyet supporting her over the C*s nonsense as a transsexual who thinks the word is a control mechanism playing on the 'transwomen are women' mantra.

This person came on saying how the only people who wanted to stop the word being used were the ones favouring anti trans oppression.

I tried to explain how he was speaking to a transsexual who will not use that word and that I had never felt oppression even with zero rights before any acts of parliament afforded them.

So if there was such oppression now maybe it was something to do with the method of the argument and its overly aggressive and selfish tone and denial of the right for anyone to have a different view without being a bigot.

He blocked me and withdrew his posts.

Which is the whole problem in a nutshell. You cannot have a discussion if one side only wants to discuss provided that you agree with everything they say.

I think I saw your post, Home.

Well said.

I wish policy makers would listen, and give appropriate weight to, people like home.

Gender identity

Is also an oxymoron.

The point of gender is that it doesn’t care about your identity

Great post Home - I sure hope you and your contemporaries are filling out the government consultation document - your considerable experiences are meaningful and not to be ignored,

Betty a few of us are doing, certainly. We understand the importance.

Trouble is other than a few younger ones and someone like Debbie Hayton, who is a union rep and so used to fighting politics in public, there is little incentive within the 4990 to do face what they will anticipate as disapproval from both sides. I would imagine a few are just sticking their fingers in their ears, humming and hope the government will just see sense and it will all go away.

But you cannot sit silent on something this important, and, noticeably, every week someone seems to be waking up (a kind of trans peak trans moment) and speaking out.

That's why I made the decision after the Guardian letter to out myself on Twitter a few weeks ago because the more who see that they are not alone in feeling this way then the more we can persuade to make their views known to the government.

So we have to try.

homefromthehills

I think there are a lot of people on both sides that can see this in a more complex way and that there does actually need to be a proper discussion around this that both sides can simply not demand absolutes in this. there is a discussion about where the boundaries do lay in this as it will need to be defined by law. if we could get back to the original debate and consultation that both sides seem to have moved on from but what is actually up for discussion at this time. then we might be able to find a way forwards. I have a lot of time for people like Debbie who are trying to find there way through this as it effects all our lives. I know a lot of trans woman who are just like you say hoping it all just goes away and they can just carry on with there lives.

I agree Bespin. It was Debbie's stance that made me come forward. She knew my views as we had talked privately but was aware why I was wary to get 'out there'. It was just taking that step. I decided to sign that letter to the Guardian because it was calling for dialogue involving all impacted parties and that was not happening. From deciding to go public at that point there was no step back.

I absolutely concur that what is needed here is sensible discussion and a search for some kind of agreed way forward.

The stance that Mumsnet took a few weeks ago by asking for the voluntary refrain from using loaded terms on both sides that - regardless of how some may have felt these were justified - was a bold step in the right direction.

It needs to be built upon.

Of course, to do that it is not really the sensible middle ground that we tend to find on here that need to be persuaded to lay aside theor weapons and talk peace.

Despite the antagonism from trans activists some of the best debate anywhere IS nonetheless occurring on here and that is because all sides are engaging and trying to keep within the rules and holding back from being overly personal whilst setting out what each wants from the outcome.

There are multiple (not just two but at least four - women, transgender, trannsexuals and intersex) groups of people which all have a stake in this from different perspectives. There are probably others.

It is good to see some starting of a discussion around these needs.

If we can restrict the debate to positive arguments and looking for solutions that might work and tune down natural inclinations to snipe and fight our corner and I think here really is the best chance of that happening.

Indeed I would love to see Mumsnet boldly suggesting a set of rules controlling a proper on line debate of that kind on here.

They could invite participation and position statements from leading figures on all sides - including the government - and then use that as the basis for a full discussion with the goal only of finding a path that would satisfy everybody.

It needs to happen during this period of consultation so the government can see the outcome of what that debate brings forth.

And I really do not see anywhere out there better suited to hosting it because Mumsnet has already shown that contributors from all those involved, regardless of stance, can come on here and talk to one another in ways that just is not happening out there on sites which are just devoted to entrenched positions.

Any debate hosted by Mumsnet will carry weight with government thinking too - surely?

So it is a bold step to take but one I feel should be considered.

I love it when transpeople come onto a feminist board and agree that women should negotiate their rights away.

ZuttZeVootEeVro

Dontcha just? I want to keep sex-segregated spaces, sports and roles, please. It's non-negotiable for me.

Hopefully, it was not - but if those two posts were aimed at me, then I suggest you read my posts elsewhere on the subject in here across various threads and you will see that trying to negotiate women's rights away is not my personal stance at all.

But what is inescapable is that this discussion is needed and government will do something from its current consultation process come the autumn and it makes good sense that Mumsnet would be a great place to host such a discussion.

It clearly matters a great deal to many people on here.

Then all views - such as yours - can be expressed.

Because if nothing is done there is more than a reasonable chance that the very thing you fear will happen by default.

Self ID has already been sneaked through in quite a few places (such as the Guides and on Scottish sleeper trains) on assumption that it is happening so might as well just be done now.

This is clearly wrong, but the way to stop it is to say that in places where it gets attention.

I agree Home and Bespin

It is simply a case of conflicting interests. It is pernicious to try and dismiss the interests of any one group. All interests should be listened to and explored.

Vicky, those safeguarded spaces already exist and the government have made very clear these are NOT up for negotiation.

I certainly do not want them to be either, as I believe absolutely that they are important and necessary, and have said so in other posts.

What is up for discussion and will be decided this Summer is allowing (or not) self ID to change sex on birth certificates and removal of all medical and psychiatric gatekeeping.

Again I have made very clear I am personally opposed to these too.

Perhaps it was a silly suggestion, I don't know. But I just felt that Mumsnet hosting a sensible debate in front of government eyes where we can all make our case and try to chart a way forward was better than doing nothing and hoping common sense prevails.

Right now I do not have much faith in that eventuality. But a Mumsnet debate would be listened to out there and might be the best way to make apparent what the majority want to see happen.

Vicky, those safeguarded spaces already exist and the government have made very clear these are NOT up for negotiation.

I don't doubt your absolutely supportive (of women) cred for a moment.

But as you know, that govt 'promise' means nothing if any old bloke can use self-id to get himself into 'safe' spaces.

It is simply a case of conflicting interests. It is pernicious to try and dismiss the interests of any one group. All interests should be listened to and explored.

How many interest groups are there that have a right to redefine 'woman' and take away female only spaces?

We either have female only spaces, or we don't.

Certain people want to remove sex segregation, but in limited terms. But it's still the removal of sex segregation.

Vicky, I agree entirely on that which is why I am flat out opposed to self ID replacing safeguarding.

I would not want to be negotiating that away any more than you do. But the reality is it might just happen if we do nothing to make clear the strength of feeling.

Yes, we can all, and many have submitted letters to MPs, but in the end the government will do what it thinks is popular.

And a debate on here with them involved would at least make clear the strength of feeling on these issues from women AND from transsexuals and just might have influence on thinking.

Mumsnet as a force is far bigger and more persuasive to government thinking than any number of individual letters to our MPs.

Zutt - nobody has any right to redefine woman and you should say that. And I WILL say that. But what matters is how to get across to government how and why people feel as we do on something they seem to be treating as a minor tweak to smooth over bureaucratic difficulties.

I just thought a debate on here would air these issues in front of the right eyes and ears.

If it was a stupid idea then I certainly won't push it again. But I am concerned that this is all just inevitably moving in one direction right now.

Zutt, who wants to remove sex segregation in limited terms?

As far as I can see the only changes being planned are in who or how and how many gain access to a GRC. Not to change any of the exemptions that apply there.

The problem seems to be that if self ID replaces gatekeeping and swells numbers by an unknown amount that the control over those spaces will be much harder if not impossible.