Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Please can someone who thinks that TWAW..

336 replies

BertrandRussell · 22/09/2018 01:03

...explain to me the intellectual process that got you there? I promise -and as far as I can I promise on behalf of other people - not to challenge or argue and only ask clarification questuons. I just want to understand, even if I don't agree.

OP posts:
BrownPaperTeddy · 22/09/2018 12:36

I realise that might not be much of problem to you personally, but it becomes so for those women.

But there you are wrong. I do have a problem with men being in that space. I also have a problem with women, who look like men, being in that space.

In effect, you are saying that women have no right to feel safe or have their privacy respected because some tims want to feel validated in their choices. So, 100% of public space becomes open to tims and 0% to large swathes of women. If this is a situation you're happy with, at least have the balls to state that. Honesty is better than this dancing around obfuscating that happens when people posit that TWAW, because everyone knows they aren't in any rational sense.

Show me where I've said that women have no right to privacy or to feel safe.

I don't think that nor do I think that the rights of men to enter female spaces should over ride the rights of women to privacy or to feel safe.

What I don't agree with is your definition of what is a woman.

I don't want a "woman" with a beard, deep voice and dressed like a man to be in the open plan changing room. Or to be conducting my smear test. But to have no right to object because you have defined them as a "woman" by virtue of their birth and chromosomes. Because to me he isn't a woman.

Now, how do we differentiate?

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:37

My comment about the unintended consequences is that I'm assuming the notion of self ID came from a good place.

I think that is a somewhat naive assumption when we are discussing where this impetus came from.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:39

Precisely. But can you rely on people to self govern?

You have to, to some extent. What needs to be thrashed out is to what degree that is reasonable.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:41

Now, how do we differentiate?

How do you suggest we differentiate? You're not happy with any of the suggestions. What would you do?

BrownPaperTeddy · 22/09/2018 12:42

My comment about the unintended consequences is that I'm assuming the notion of self ID came from a good place.

I think that is a somewhat naive assumption when we are discussing where this impetus came from.
In that case I stand to be corrected.

I do find it hard to believe that MPs or whoever are agreeing to this are coming at it from the view point of "let's make it easier for perverts to get access to women" or "let's make it so that women don't feel safe anywhere so all stay at home". Maybe I am wrong. Possibly there are some people trying to do that but I doubt that is the intention of most of the policy makers. I'm just not sure that they have considered the reality of what they are planning.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:43

Sorry for the derail, but this argument seems anti-feminist to me - Anything that makes it harder for mothers to leave the home is a negative for society.

I agree. And I don't want intact males (or any others actually) in with you and your twins. People need to start fucking listening to women and what women say. It's not all about what men want, all the time.

FermatsTheorem · 22/09/2018 12:44

I agree with Lass on the floor-to-ceiling cubicles and religion aspect. I was recently in a unisex changing village in a pool (in a town with a large ethnic minority community) and was struck by the number of women changing from salwar kameez/hijab into burkinis. They were clearly not worried or put off by it being a changing village (and the cubicles weren't even floor to ceiling). There will be people whose interpretation of their religion is much stricter (there were no niqabis that I saw, for instance) but I don't think these arrangements are an across-the-board problem for all Muslims for instance.

In contrast, my local outdoor pool (run by a community charity, changing facilities are two small, open plan, single sex rooms) would cause a big issue for Muslim women were "non-binary" male individuals to start changing in them.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:45

Possibly there are some people trying to do that but I doubt that is the intention of most of the policy makers

It's not the policy makers. They don't actually care. It's the people who influenced them.

BrownPaperTeddy · 22/09/2018 12:48

Precisely. But can you rely on people to self govern?

You have to, to some extent. What needs to be thrashed out is to what degree that is reasonable.

You can't do that though can you because these things have to be testable in court. You can't argue someone did something wrong if that wrong thing isn't defined and relies on individuals to determine for themselves what is right or wrong.

How do you suggest we differentiate? You're not happy with any of the suggestions. What would you do?

No idea whatsoever. Stop the process now and go back to the start definitely.

I don't know how you draw up definitive lines based on only 2 sexes and genetics, when in every day life those judgements are based on far more than XX or XY chromosomes and cannot be practically made other than on appearance.

FermatsTheorem · 22/09/2018 12:49

I don't want a "woman" with a beard, deep voice and dressed like a man to be in the open plan changing room. Or to be conducting my smear test. But to have no right to object because you have defined them as a "woman" by virtue of their birth and chromosomes. Because to me he isn't a woman.

Now, how do we differentiate?

Well, the old GRC, with a period of "living as" your chosen gender to prove good faith and two psychiatrists signing off that your attempt was genuine did at least offer some gatekeeping.

Self ID offers none. If "preparedness to sign a legal document" is the only test, then there is no criterion by which an application could be deemed to have been made in good faith. I put that bit in bold because I'm tired of TRAs saying "but it would be a criminal offence to lie on your declaration" without saying what the legal basis would be for deciding that someone was, in fact, lying.

(Note too that even if "womanhood" is a social construct, which as I understand it, is more or less RatRolyPoly's position, social constructs which carry legal implications are typically subject to gate-keeping. Nationality is a social construct - that doesn't mean you can rock up at the Home Office and say "I self-ID as British, please give me a passport.")

VickyEadie · 22/09/2018 12:49

It's not the policy makers. They don't actually care. It's the people who influenced them.

This. I have no doubt that at least some of the men driving this are doing so precisely because they want to destroy safeguarding and have unfettered access to vulnerable women. The examples of some of these people (and their involvement in the campaign) are already out there for us to see.

BrownPaperTeddy · 22/09/2018 12:49

People need to start fucking listening to women and what women say. It's not all about what men want, all the time.

And I am a woman so it's also about what I want too.

And I don't want someone who looks and acts like a man sharing my spaces.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:53

You can't do that though can you because these things have to be testable in court. You can't argue someone did something wrong if that wrong thing isn't defined and relies on individuals to determine for themselves what is right or wrong.

Have you read the Equality Act? You might find it interesting and instructive to do so.

ShotsFired · 22/09/2018 12:55

All the issues around how do we gatekeep to let the nice TW in but not the bad guy?

NOT OUR FUCKING PROBLEM.

It is MEN who created the risks we are protecting ourselves from, it is MEN who can sort their own rapey/aggressive/voyeuristic/fetish selves out and it is MEN who are responsible for expanding their own safe/private places to accommodate differently-presenting MEN in a safe and dignified manner.

This is 100% a problem created by men, that needs dealing with by men and resolving by men.

We spent decades sorting shit out for ourselves when we realised they were never going to help us with our own requirements. Enough.

BrownPaperTeddy · 22/09/2018 12:55

I agree. And I don't want intact males (or any others actually) in with you and your twins. People need to start fucking listening to women and what women say. It's not all about what men want, all the time.

So you don't want even post op trans women even with a GRC to be allowed in? Or under the old GRC where people have to live for 2 years before surgery - these people aren't allowed in

@FermatsTheorem

I agree with you on this. I think a formal, medical approach is a more realistic way forward. I fear many don't agree though.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:55

And I am a woman so it's also about what I want too.

No one is saying it isn't. Your voice is equally important. But they need to stop pandering to the desires of men.

Melanippe · 22/09/2018 12:56

Please stop using the idea that it's only religious women who will be excluded from public space when self-id goes through. It's so reductive. It's also a fallacy.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 12:56

So you don't want even post op trans women even with a GRC to be allowed in? Or under the old GRC where people have to live for 2 years before surgery - these people aren't allowed in

No. Not sure how more I need to stress this, when I said no males?

BrownPaperTeddy · 22/09/2018 12:58

And I am a woman so it's also about what I want too.

No one is saying it isn't. Your voice is equally important. But they need to stop pandering to the desires of men.

But they aren't. Because all of the arguments centre on trans women.

AnchorMum · 22/09/2018 12:58

Teddy I see how you're struggling with this and I do understand that it can feel complex and nuanced - especially when you know individual trans and NB people
who simply want respect for being who they are without discrimination and abuse.

My own young adult child is trans. I still think that she's my daughter - I gave birth to her and know the factual truth of that statement.

She was raised as a female, and identified as one for 20 years. Perhaps if she'd felt unhappy being a girl from a young age I might feel different. But probably not.

To me, transmen are still women. Not socially, and not in their own minds of course. But all the surgery and hormones in the world will not make them actual men.

So the truth is they are trans people. The same applies to transwomen. It is sad and unfortunate that transpeople cannot actually change sex - and for some we know this is exceptionally challenging.

However, natal women should not be expected to budge up and make room for transpeople regardless of the consequences. And there are many many reasons most of us don't want to.

Not because we are afraid that transpeople per se are dangerous and will harm us, but because we have sex-segregated spaces to protect women and girls from men who wish to cause harm. And, also importantly, to provide a space where women and girls' dignity and privacy can be upheld.

I would personally like to see trans/NB people thinking about the wider issues themselves a bit more and helping to come
up with some solutions. We live in this world together, and it's important to work for the benefit of all, even if that's personally challenging. My own child will not engage and has cut off all contact. This is the legacy of #no debate.

Aside from personal identity, trans ideology is a multi layered and complicated business. There are so many different aspects to think about - many of which are deeply troubling and of concern.

It's definitely important that we don't roll everything up into one issue or that we stop thinking and caring about the individuals who are at the heart of this. But as women, and as part of a responsible society, we must have boundaries. Without them we are lost.

We must protect transpeople from discrimination and harm
and respect their valid concerns and feelings. But we can't promote this one small group over 51% of the population, not when there is so much at risk - not when actual women throughout the world face sexism, inequality, oppression, abuse, violence and misogyny every day due to their actual biology.

The vast majority of women are unable to identify out of the sex into which they've been born - they just have to get on with it, regardless of what society, men and biology throws at them. My own child has the structures, provision and support systems in place to be able to transition - some would say that is due to first world privilege and I wouldn't disagree.

I know how hard it is to hold 2 very differing viewpoints inside - it's cost me a lot in terms of my
own mental and physical health. But this is what we're all struggling with on these boards.

If we didn't care about trans people you'd soon know it. It's because we care so much, especially about actual women and girls (whether they still identify as such or not), that we come here day after day to read, absorb, think and learn.

It's emotional labour and it's exhausting. But we're doing it because we believe that 'woman' means something and don't want to lose the means of identifying our own selves - and risking all the consequences that will inevitably come from that.

BrownPaperTeddy · 22/09/2018 13:00

So you don't want even post op trans women even with a GRC to be allowed in? Or under the old GRC where people have to live for 2 years before surgery - these people aren't allowed in

No. Not sure how more I need to stress this, when I said no males?

Then that is where we agree to disagree.

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 13:01

But they aren't. Because all of the arguments centre on trans women.

I think you know what I mean. MTF trans people are male. I don't subscribe to the idea that they are in any way women.

FermatsTheorem · 22/09/2018 13:01

Thank you anchor for that - it's a really helpful, rounded post about the complexity and emotional cost of this situation. Flowers

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 13:02

Then that is where we agree to disagree.

Fine with me! I'm not changing my views any time soon.

VickyEadie · 22/09/2018 13:03

Please stop using the idea that it's only religious women who will be excluded from public space when self-id goes through. It's so reductive. It's also a fallacy.

Yes. I'm entirely atheist and know that self-id means I am likely to have to give up using my gym changing room - for my own privacy and safety. Self-id means I am likely to be extremely fearful if I have to go into hospital for any overnight stays - and so on.

But thinking about others than myself - women in prisons are already being placed in danger of sexual assault because self-id is already being used to place transwomen there. Self-id means that my young relatives at school are likely to be made to change, shower and compete in sports with boys - because schools are already adopting 'self-id' principles (despite them not actually even applying to school-age children). Similarly girl guides, etc etc.