If I argue transwomen are men is this an extremist position?

[DJLippy]

In my opinion this should not be viewed as an extremist position.

I think there is a humane argument to be made for this.

For example. I want transwomen to be protected from violence and prejudice but I think the best way forward is by recognising transowmen are still male. You can play with words but at the end of the day - saying transwomen are male - what you mean is the same. Let's be honest and stake our ground.

I don't know if the TW I am sharing an intimate space with has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. I don't know if they have a penis. I don't know how I am supposed to tell the difference between a male with bad intentions or a transexual who just wants to pee in peace. I can't inspect genitals. I can't ask to see a GRC.

I actually think the demand to remove your genitals to gain entry into the club male/female club is barbaric.

Can we make a more human argument from such a position? The idea that some male born people can be considered women but some male born people cannot seems so difficult to manage. Who decides that? What criteria do they use? How are women supposed to tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' trans.

I am not being goady. I genuinely want to hear what people have to say please take this post with the good intention it was intended.

It is an extremist position, if it is extremist to insist that words have meaning and need to be defined somehow.
As long as the woke brigade can‘t come up with a noncircular and objectifyable definition for ‚man‘ and ,women‘, the original definitions stand as far as I am concerned, and the rest flows from there.
If the only alternative to extremist is nonsensical, I choose extremist. Case closed.

Of word have meanings then maybe the twits need to look up the meaning of the word 'literal' as in "omygodomygodomygod she called me 'Mr' - literal violence! I'm soooooo scared of the nasty 68 year old hate-speaking transphobe! I'm going to smash her eggshell skull in for that!"

Terfsup personally I don't mind a transman in a female changing room, but I do think its unsettling for children.

Given that women can naturally look androgynous or hirsute, can have mastectomy scars from cancer treatment, can have prosthetic limbs, can have birthmarks, can have a million things that can make them look 'different', do you really think that "It's unsettling for children" is an acceptable attitude?

jellyslice the problem arises, when a transman really looks like a dude. How do you know it is not a dude? In principle this also makes women get used to not asserting their boundaries, getting used to apparently males...
What do you tell your daughter, when there‘s suddenly Buck Angel in the changing room . ‚Don‘t worry, that‘s probably a woman on hormone treatment.‘ ? How will this kid learn to assert her boundaries?

Though maybe that is just a hypothetical question, Someone like buck Angel would probably go to the men‘s facilities. Yeah, I don‘t know.

I'd say any 'extremist' position would have to have both these features:

(a) It has to be a minority opinion, not one shared my the vast majority.

(b) It has to be held so strongly that you'd be prepared to impose it on the majority - by force of necessary - and refuse to listen to any opposing voices.

There's nothing extremist about common sense, even when it's wrong, which you aren't anyway.

Well I will say to anybody that transwomen are men.

That is not only my opinion but my belief. It will never change and I will not be co-erced, forced or bullied to say any different.

I'm no more extreme than the next woman or the next one or the next one, this thread as an example.

O....kay... that was an education.

I had no idea that transmen could 'pass' in that way.

I'm not sure how I feel about this now. I still think that children need to learn to accept variations in appearance, and not stare at or 'other' people who look different. Being unsettled by someone looking different is not an acceptable reason to exclude them.

But how to reconcile that with such overt performance of masculinity and associated body-mods on a female body? I don't know.

It really does assault reasonable boundaries, far more than, say, a female bodybuilder.

we see women on FWR saying they can't say different or they will never work again. I'm assuming they work in the public sector
That assumption would be wrong, any large organisation would sack you for failing to call a trans woman a woman. Businesses are often less "woke" than the private sector but there's often not much in it.

Gosh, is it as bad as that, Turph? I'm leading a sheltered life. Haven't worked for a big company for 20+ years.

I think it's not an extreme position.

I think that constantly correcting and refusing to use preferred pronouns in real life would be an extreme position and one requiring justification. Just as it would be extreme if I kept telling my Christian relatives that there's probably no god.

Or perhaps they believe that animals can be trans, too.

Which begs the question of how animals manage to reproduce. Since they do not have language or postmodernism, how do they know which other animal to mate with?

refusing to use preferred pronouns in real life would be an extreme position and one requiring justification.

So if I object to being forced to grind down my cognitive dissonance and continually lie to support someone's abusive behaviour, that is an extreme position? I need to justify refusing to lie? I need to justify simple truth and honesty?

It's seen as an extremist position, but it shouldn't be. In all the ways which matter for the safety of women and girls, trans women are more like men than men are.

They're more aggressive, more domineering, more violent,* and with a stronger propensity to commit sexual violations. And more prone to suffer/make everyone around them suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

This obviously sounds like the rantings of a rabid transphobe, but I'm actually just an autistic woman who obsessively reads up on things. Most of what I'm saying above is backed up by research, but there isn't enough research into any of this, because the TRAs campaign to destroy the careers of academics who reach conclusions they don't like. I'd never have started reading the research if I hadn't become alarmed by the behavior of trans activists online, and put that together with the creepy vibes I got and ignored from various encounters with TW in person. A few months ago I'd have happily chanted along with "TWAW" because I didn't see the harm in it.

This one particularly annoys me. There's a Swedish study that is often referenced and interpreted to mean "trans women are equally violent to cis men" - but actually, when you look at it properly, the "equally violent" thing is after adjusting for psychiatric status. To compare rates of violence at population level, which is more relevant for safeguarding, you want the unadjusted rate. Trans women are 1.8 times as violent as cis men* (and something like 20 times as violent as women - I've forgotten the exact figures.) There are no other studies on trans women and violence, probably because no academic's career would survive the findings. The author of that study has had to recant her heresy in the TransAdvocate.

"So if I object to being forced to grind down my cognitive dissonance and continually lie to support someone's abusive behaviour, that is an extreme position? I need to justify refusing to lie? I need to justify simple truth and honesty?"

I think that speaking in a way that is likely to cause affront, hurt and distress should always be justifiable, yes, absolutely that is my position.

Transwomen are men. You can't change sex, only gender.

Asking us to lie causes us hurt and distress, so how do you justify that.

You’re getting confused.

“Asking us to lie causes us hurt and distress” IS your justification. You just gave me your justification.

As you whether others accept that justification is sufficient: well that is another question.

As to whether....

But if I have to jusitify why speaking in a certain way causes hurt and distress then why do you not have to justify your behaviour. Telling me that the word she includes men is hurtful and distressing to many women yet you are doing it, what is your justification. I am not having a pop here, I am just trying to understand why feelings only seem to matter on one side.

I think that speaking in a way that is likely to cause affront, hurt and distress should always be justifiable, yes, absolutely that is my position.

Why would speaking truth cause affront, hurt and distress? Speaking, not taunting. (As a member of a minority group myself, I am aware of the difference.)

"You cannot be considered for the job as you do not have the required skills." Might be upsetting to hear, but should not cause affront, hurt and distress.

"You cannot be considered for the Women's Award as you do not have the required biology." The same.

If hearing the simple truth causes affront, hurt and distress, perhaps the hearer needs to consider why their sense of self is so fragile, and perhaps their mental health, too.

Birds your post is muddled, I can’t answer it.

I have given a clear answer to the OP’s question: no.

And a clear statement of my own position: use of words that hurt should be justifiable.

Many on this thread have produced justifications.

I don’t see I can add anything.

Jelly, clearly there has been a lengthy education of people to experience “affront, hurt and distress”. In the era of the film “Kinky Boots” the Male drag artist has a female name but does not object to being called a man. He is exploring different ways of being a non conforming man. Other men find that unsettling.

Somehow that cultural norm has changed. Now it is routine for trans people to experience affront, hurt and distress when referred to as a man.

“. Telling me that the word she includes men is hurtful and distressing to many women yet you are doing it,”

I am doing no such thing.

"You cannot be considered for the Women's Award as you do not have the required biology."

Jelly, I would accept that that is good phrasing.