So what rights do transpeople think they don’t have?

[YuhBasic]

Because I’m still not clear.

Sorry if this has been answered before 😕

I think the word "female" does the job you are looking for in most cases.

No. Female can be used to identify lots of different things. Like animals or one end of a cable from another.
We are talking about adult humans here, not connectors or cats.

"Females" is also how MRAs and incels have referred to women for ages, isn't it? Because "woman" was something nice/desirable, so women who weren't nice were "females."

Bit of an interesting overlap, isn't it?

No. Female can be used to identify lots of different things. Like animals or one end of a cable from another. We are talking about adult humans here, not connectors or cats.

I'm not inventing these defintions, I am providing them. I agree - think the lack of a word for adult human female is real problem. I entirely understand why transgender activists want to talk about pregnant people (to be inclusive of transmen) but the land grab on the traditional definition combined with the pretence that sex isn't real is endangering the rights of female sex. Sex, particularly in medical and reproductive circumstances, is fundamental.

Currently we have by the new human rights approach:

Women divided into ciswoman and transwomen.
Men divided into cismen and transmen.

There really does need to be a word in this new vocabulary which includes ciswoman and transmen, for example. This is where the issue lies - if we recognise the rights of transwoman, where does that leave us with a word for that group? Obvs, the GC approach is "transwomen are not women," which keeps things simple but does not recognise them as who they know themsleves to be.

I have not solution to this at all.

If you really want to have fun on twitter, ask this question (I have, with no response). What is a non-transphobic word for a category which includes transwomen and cismen?

A long time ago I wrote an SF story in which gender was no longer an issue, and sex distinctions become unimportant in part because embryos could be grown in vats. It was set on a generation ship where there wasn't space for the reproductive technology, so all of a sudden biology was important. The characters started referring to themselves "imps" and "jests" (impregnators and gestators) and a sex-based hierachy slowly reestablished itself (the baddies were effectively MRAs).

*Females" is also how MRAs and incels have referred to women for ages, isn't it? Because "woman" was something nice/desirable, so women who weren't nice were "females."

Bit of an interesting overlap, isn't it?

That's a fair point. I was thinking of its use as an adjective, in the context where it's necessary to distinguish between male and female people. But yes, I completely accept it's a real issue and that MRAs creppily refer to women as "females" as a noun.

Some of the issue is that many GC feminists consider ciswomen to be a horrific insult, so I've avoided using it.

Just woman without the cis is fine

I agree - think the lack of a word for adult human female is real problem.

But there isn’t a lack. There is woman. It’s worked fine since the word was created thanks.

Obvs, the GC approach is "transwomen are not women," which keeps things simple but does not recognise them as who they know themsleves to be.

So women have to bend their language to conform to delusional people?

Oh and by talking about a SF story you have published you really aren’t doing yourself any favours.

I didn't think GC feminists believed that gender identity was real, hence my assumption you didn't think GI was a real condition.

You don't have to be a believer in gender identity to acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a real condition.

Woman is fine then it's generous of us to use transwoman tbh, but we've been prepared to do that. If you don't like transwoman it could be transgender male?

Perhaps I should have written a bit more in my last post.

You don't have to be a believer in gender identity to acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a real condition, just as you don't have to believe in god to acknowledge that religions are real and for many people it is an important part of their life.

A belief in gender identity is just that, a belief. It is like a religion, and you have the right to hold any religious belief that you want, but you do not have the right to compel me to share your religious belief. You do not have the right to redefine my identity in order to fit in your belief system. You do not have the right to compel me to use your new definition for 'woman' when I wish to continue to use the current one.

In answer to the original question: They want the right to legally change sex and by-pass safeguarding, violate female’s rights to privacy and enter all of our spaces, groups, and programs set-up to combat the inequality women face, to compete against us in sports and to have everyone submit to their demands we pretend they are someone they are not. There are not any other right these men don’t have that other men don’t have.

The question should be why should anyone have the legal right to change sex when in reality they can never biologically change sex? Why should a sub-set of men be permitted to by-pass safeguarding, violate females privacy, be included in programs for women, compete against us in sports, and force others to pretend they are something they are not, just because they feel/believe they are women?

They should have the right to believe whatever they want, to dress however they want, to not be subjected to discrimination in employment, housing etc, and not to experience violence etc. Those that have dysphoria about their sexed body should be supported to work through those mental problems and accept their bodies as they are. That can all be achieved without anyone being granted the legal right to change sex, which deprives females of our sex based rights. The original 2004 GRA was a sexist and homophobic law, that enabled a legal fiction and negatively impacts females. It should never have been passed, and would not have been passed if we lived in less sexist and homophobic society, which was actually interested in effectively combating sexism and homophobia. And which actually provided decent mental health services.

Passing such a law has also led to MRA’s/TRA’s feeling entitled to mansplain how women should accept our own erasure, and allow males to redefine the words female; girl and women for the good of men. Same old male game plan, to control women and deprive us of rights to say no to men, it’s just dressed up in new clothes.

There really does need to be a word in this new vocabulary which includes ciswoman and transmen, for example.

Why don't we just keep the word 'woman' for adults who were born female? Why do you feel it's necessary to redefine words we already have

Oh and by talking about a SF story you have published you really aren’t doing yourself any favours.

Wrote not published! Why is that? Are you down on SF? I love Le Guin, Atwood and Leckie.

I mentioned in in the contex of the difficulty of finding the vocabulary.

Obvs, the GC approach is "transwomen are not women," which keeps things simple but does not recognise them as who they know themsleves to be.

They know that they are not women, which is why they have a constant quest for validation as women. Women don't need to do that. Does anyone actually believe that transwomen are women? If they do, what definition of women is being used?

There’s no difficulty. We’re women. Can you explain why you think you get a vote about what WE are called, and call ourselves? Why do you think this is your business, DJ?

Transwomen are not women keeps things simple, also keeps male paedophile rapists out of women’s prisons, keeps fully intact men out of women’s changing rooms, keeps rachel mackinnon out of women’s cycling races. You do see that don’t you? There’s nothing to benefit women with twaw. Nothing at all.

Women divided into ciswoman and transwomen.
Men divided into cismen and transmen.

There are already some great words that include all these people - ‘humans’ and ‘people’.

It really isn’t clear why it would ever be either necessary, desirable or useful to segregate people according to their subjective feelings about gender.

If it is accepted that ‘woman’ now has two meanings, one referring to sex and one referring to gender, you are still left with the problem that legal language needs to be more specific, and while there are clear reasons to recognise the sex group ‘women’ a member of that group doesn’t necessarily share anything with the group of people who believe their gender is female.

It is possible to accept that some people suffer distress at not being biologically female or male and to take steps to alleviate their distress (more unisex facilities?) without effectively wiping out all recognition that biological men and women exist.

To return to the original question, it still isn’t clear what rights trans people don’t already have. If sex on a passport is so irrelevant that it is a matter of identity rather than fact, why does that information need to be on a passport?

Women have long suffered discrimination because of preconceptions about sex. If the data isn’t relevant, why declare it? Why can’t we all keep our sex private?

However, if it is really necessary to collect information on biological sex, that information is necessary regardless of identity.

Wrote not published! Why is that? Are you down on SF? I love Le Guin, Atwood and Leckie.

Well done, you can name some women who have written SF. I’ve read plenty thanks.

But ‘but I made up some stuff with my mind’ simply isn’t relevant.

Why do you think this is your business, DJ?

Because he is a man and therefore very important.
Also he once wrote a story. A story damm it

For more on the widely-accepted concept of gender identity, I recommend this ECHR document, page 3.

What do you mean by 'widely accepted'? They use the definition of gender identity from the Yogyakarta Principles. These were written by a bunch of self-selected lawyers and academics, and have no legal standing. They may be widely accepted amongst transactivists, but not in the rest of the world.

It is possible to accept that some people suffer distress at not being biologically female or male and to take steps to alleviate their distress

How about psychological support, rather than telling them that their delusion is real?

Nearly 350 posts now, and nobody has come up with a single right that transpeople don't have but the rest of us do.

Women have long suffered discrimination because of preconceptions about sex. If the data isn’t relevant, why declare it? Why can’t we all keep our sex private?

I think you have the full backing of the trans lobby here. Except where it is relevant, including your sex or gender on ID and other forms should only be done if it's necessary, for medical, inclusivity and crime (perpetrator and victum) reporting purposes. You don't need sex or gender or similar markers on passports driving licenses or council tax bills. I am all for CVs with names and genders removed, for example.

However, if it is really necessary to collect information on biological sex, that information is necessary regardless of identity

I completely agree. The NHS need that info, for example. Pretending it's not real can kill people.

If it is accepted that ‘woman’ now has two meanings, one referring to sex and one referring to gender, you are still left with the problem that legal language needs to be more specific, and while there are clear reasons to recognise the sex group ‘women’ a member of that group doesn’t necessarily share anything with the group of people who believe their gender is female

Yes absolutely - the law is a mess, and TRAs are trying to conflate sex and gender to gain access to all sex segregated spaces. Though I think transwomen and non-transwomen do share a lot in common aside from their gender identity- structural misogyny affects both groups, for example.

structural misogyny affects both groups, for example.

Only for the very, very small number of people who ‘pass’ as female and keep their trans identity a secret and are facing discrimination because they are genuinely perceived as female.

Trans women face discrimination for being gender non conforming. That isn’t to minimise the discrimination they face, but it isn’t the same.

I think transwomen and non-transwomen do share a lot in common aside from their gender identity- structural misogyny affects both groups, for example.

You can only experience misogyny if people think you're actually female. Very few men who identify as women pass, though many fool themselves that they do, as witness Reddit groups on the topic.

The great majority of men who identify as women are potentially the targets of homophobia, not misogyny, although there appears to be little evidence that transwomen in the UK are being attacked. The opposite is definitely true when it comes to murder.

As for transwomen and non-transwomen! You're just taking the piss, Joke. Think about what you're saying. Non-transwomen covers everyone. My sons and my grandson are non-transwomen, for fucks sakes.