If this thread was started today it would have very different responses

[Earlywalker]

Having a look through old threads, trying to decide where I stand on the GC debate. I’m still solely against Self ID but still have no issues at all with someone holding a GRC under the current criteria accessing facilities of their desired sex. I do not agree with some of the views regarding trans people that are so obvious on here.

Anyway, I came accross this old thread - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1591015-Which-toilets-a-F-to-M-transgender-student-should-use?pg=1&order=

And looking at the responses, they are so ‘tolerant’ staying that ‘in the 21st century this should not be an issue’ nearly every response says a transgender person should use their desired facilities and now, over 5 years later.. I believe the responses would be VERY different on mumsnet.

When did it change? Why did GC start objecting to all transpeople using their desired facilities?

Disclaimer - I do NOT want a fight, I want a discussion. Every time I try to discuss I get jumped on by posters, so without saying ‘ladies please be nice’ I will address now that I am not a man, a spy or a TRA.

OP this statement by a group of transsexuals highlights the trajectory of this issue.

transsexualwomen1.blogspot.com

For me personally one of the biggest turning points (beyond the numerous examples of trans ideology be abused by individuals) was the discovery that Stonewall had been actively lobbying to remove sex as one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

Women and girls are true screwed if that goes, Stonewall know that but campaigned for it anyway.

there is a trans rapist who now has a GRC after a court case. It is happening. Hope someone else can provide link

It's becoming a moral stand point about the politics of this 'identity' versus the biology as much as anything, regarding women's safe spaces, sport and lesbians. The fact that the majority of trans women have a penis has made people think more carefully about safeguarding, along with documented predatory behaviour. This shouldn't be representative of trans people as a whole at all but as will any safeguarding, the tiniest loophole is where it goes wrong.

On an individual level people don't feel threatened or are less likely to be, unless they have specific reason to be or are in a vulnerable position.

Personally, while I may have been "nice" quite far ago in the past, I've always found the idea of "living as the opposite sex for two years" to be ridiculously sexist. So even while being nice, I found it offensive that "woman" is not only used as a costume, but expected to be so by the hcps who dealt with it.

After reading through, and having been involved in debates a few times on here, there has been a number of posts almost bluntly saying ‘a man is a man, if you were born a man you can never access a woman’s space’ so to me, this comes accross as saying that even if you medically have gender dysphoria or have surgery or have lived as a woman for 50 years - you’re not entitled to use woman’s spaces as it’s dangerous for women. There is so cut off or distinction.. I can’t get my head around the thinking? Men are rapists, and groomers and statistically you’re far more likely to be abused by a man... but we don’t say that men can’t be in positions of trust? Such as teachers or doctors or gynachologists? So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

That’s one thread, 5 years ago. Many of us didn’t know most with a GRC kept their genitalia. Most women are socialised to be accommodating and often its only when a few brave voices start saying something that other women feel comfortable revealing what they actually think. There are many reasons there might be a change, if indeed there is one- it’s not enough just to use one thread as evidence of this shift in thinking at all, we’ve not had a consultation before.

Personally, I’ve never been ok with someone of the Male sex being in intimate spaces, taking women’s places in politics, being included in female crime statistics, being included in female sports.... but now there is a big effort to force this on us legally, I’m now speaking out in a way I didn’t before.

I notice the thread you linked was in AIBU, it might have had different responses in FWR.

But I agree with Lang comments.

but we don’t say that men can’t be in positions of trust? Such as teachers or doctors or gynachologists?

Who has said transgender people shouldn’t be in these positions? That’s a lie. Do not twist things please.

What has actually been said is, women should still get a choice of female doctors and should expect the doctor to actually be female.

I’ve never seen anyone on MN day they shouldn’t be teachers. That’s ridiculous.

I would however (saying this as a disabled person so it is relevant) perhaps support those who have sex dysphoria having access to disabled toilets - as I can see the understanding that such a mh condition is disabling. But not any old random person who calls themself trans.

The person referred to in the other thread is a transman. GC feminists in general think transmen are confused woman, and hence have no objection to them using women's bathrooms. The responses might have been different if the OP had referred to a transwoman. That said, they do not seem to be as polarised as things are now.

if you medically have gender dysphoria or have surgery or have lived as a woman for 50 years - you’re not entitled to use woman’s spaces as it’s dangerous for women.

How many fit that criteria? Also, how do I know that a transperson has being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, has medically transitioned and lived as a women for a number of years?

Who has said transgender people shouldn’t be in these positions? That’s a lie. Do not twist things please.

I don’t know who said that, I certainly didn’t say anyone did.

My point as I said was that, we are not accepting of transpeople in these spaces because men are ‘‘dangerous’ but statistically, you’re far more likely to get abused/groomed by a man in a position of trust than you are by a transgender in a toilet, so where is the line between stating all men as a threat and campaigning for regulations around who could be a threat?

you’re not entitled to use woman’s spaces as it’s dangerous for women

That is one reason. I’m not sure what you find hard to understand about that. Again, most with a GRC retail genitals and of course other physical male characteristics which pose the same threat as any male.

Another reason that’s just as valid: women’s comfort. Everyone alive today is used to sex separated spaces. That’s what the majority are comfortable with. You cannot force women to suddenly be comfortable with male bodied people getting changed next to them. I’m not sure why that’s so fucking hard to comprehend?! Do you get dressed next to your brother? Dad? I don’t and I simply am not comfortable doing so with any man but my husband. It’s really odd to me to somehow make out that that is unusual or discriminatory, when it’s entirely reasonable and very common.

I was also fine with the old status quo. My sibling's best friend is MTF post-op trans and I watched the process she went through 10y ago to transition. I also worked with a similar individual. I am more than happy to call both she and use the bathroom with both. Both are comitted to living as women, neither have a functioning penis and both are respectful of the fact that they have not experienced female socialisation and dont have the biological realities of female biology to deal with. Neither claim to be better or superior to biological woman (though one does play conpetitive female sports to a high level, including inflicting some nasty injuries grrr).

These people have been quietly getting on with their lives for over 10 years. They don't cause me or other biological women any issues, that I am aware of. I know nothing about their sex lives or sexual proclivities, other than they both have relationships with gay men, because they dont talk or blog about it. This is very different from the newer (younger) breed of trans activists who seem to be sex and porn obsessed with a variety of fetishes between them who spend their time shoving it down your throat on social media and seem to have lost all sense of boundaries and, in at least one case, still have a penis, because they wave it about. I know not all men are like that, I know not all trans are like that, but once they have a legal right to womens spaces, how can you tell which you're encountering?

there has been a number of posts almost bluntly saying ‘a man is a man, if you were born a man you can never access a woman’s space’ so to me, this comes accross as saying that even if you medically have gender dysphoria or have surgery or have lived as a woman for 50 years

But in some cases, that is true, even if you have GD and surgery, should you be able to compete against women in sport, even though your body still has 90% of the advantages that male bodies have over female bodies?

So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

Because Stonewall now places all transsexuals and transgenders and Autogynephiles and cross-dressers and self-IDing-rapist-paedophiles under one umbrella, and says we are no longer allowed to differentiate between them.

That wasn't GC women who did that, it wasn't the transsexuals who did that. It was Stonewall and men with dubious motives who used genuine transsexuals to get what they wanted, and ruined it for everyone in the process.

My point as I said was that, we are not accepting of transpeople in these spaces because men are ‘‘dangerous’ but statistically, you’re far more likely to get abused/groomed by a man in a position of trust than you are by a transgender in a toilet, so where is the line between stating all men as a threat and campaigning for regulations around who could be a threat?

Seriously, what? Are you saying we should open all spaces to being mixed sex then? Because, if the risk is higher elsewhere we should just open the doors? You’re making a pretty weak argument that doesn’t make a lot of sense at all.

1. The aggression and misogyny shown by many extreme trans activists has made women be very wary of them being in safe spaces
2. The male midwives and professionals have gone through training, been assessed and have a track record. There is also recourse if there is poor behaviour
3. The non acceptance of any man I think is driven by several factors. a) The high level of sexual misconduct by males in societyb) the realisation by many women over the last few months of the overall levels of misognyny in society and the desire to be free of it by having adult human female only spaces c) reaction to the hate of the trans cult. d) desire to hold onto the hard won protected right female sex only spaces

*Who has said transgender people shouldn’t be in these positions? That’s a lie. Do not twist things please.

I don’t know who said that, I certainly didn’t say anyone did*

So why bring it up? You’ve just grabbed that out of thin air and it hasn’t even happened 🤦🏽‍♀️

So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

Many women don't want a male midwife.

The key is choice. Women decide their own boundaries. They're not decided by men, or men who identify as women.

Only 5000 people have a gender recognition certificate. The number is vanishingly small and therefore negligible.

If it was 2 million, no matter what the reason for transition, it would be completely different.

Men identifying as women retain male pattern violence. It doesn't matter whether they have gender dysphoria. In fact, in the only study of its kind, the men did have gender dysphoria.

But historically, the numbers have been incredibly small.

Now they're not. You can blame Stonewall for widening the umbrella, not women for noticing it.

You can blame the memorandum of understanding, pushed by transactivists, where affirmation is the only option. Therefore a GRC is unlikely to ever be refused.

I understand why people want to make a distinction, but it's moot.

Too late.

Within the last five years or so the trans movement has been the very definition of the term 'scope creep'.

The GRA when originally debated flew under the radar of most people but we can see now that those politicians who were involved raised questions and pointed out issues that have indeed turned out to be very prophetic.

Everyone was reassured that the process was water tight and we would be looking at a tiny minority of people (around 5000) who would be seeking a legal fiction of changing sex.

Now self ID is on the table combined with Stonewall's trans umbrella definition (which includes pretty much anyone at this point) we are potentially talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who might self ID.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the repercussions of that are huge in a vast number of areas.

Maybe it was the threats of murder and dismemberment from trans advocates to feminists that made people think 'hmm no thanks rather not share a shower with you'

What changed for me was a growing awareness that wokeness was a Trojan horse that allowed dudebros and their allies to talk circles around the reasonable concerns of their former allies. Then once the TRA movement swelled with people who didn't have the vocabulary to construct a carefully woke argument and had no interest in recruiting feminist allies it was revealed to be chock-full of transparent misogyny. So 'die c*s scum' was kind of a tipping point.

And at some stage it dawned on me that the ongoing concerns of radical feminists included such tedious and 'unsolvable' problems as dv and sexual violence and how could that ever stand up against stunning and brave Jenner on the cover of Vanity Fair? Jenner in a corset = wow, how wonderful and liberated, and how wonderful/liberated I am for recognising and praising this marvellous new world! Rape =

I, for one, had not clear idea of what trans meant. I 'believed' the 'born in the wrong body' narrative and thought it sounded horrific and poor them.

I say 'believed' because I don't think anyone actually believed that - it was more I believed that these individuals believed that.

My point as I said was that, we are not accepting of transpeople in these spaces because men are ‘‘dangerous’ but statistically, you’re far more likely to get abused/groomed by a man in a position of trust than you are by a transgender in a toilet, so where is the line between stating all men as a threat and campaigning for regulations around who could be a threat?

But then we're back to Chesterton's Gate aren't we? We have SEX segregated spaces for a reason, so while of course 'not all man are like that' instead of 'campaigning for regulations around who could be a threat' it makes far more sense to keep single sex spaces as they are. The reasonable people on the planet will of course have no issue with that.

There are websites which coach people on what to say and what not to say in order to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. I wish I had taken a screenshot of the one I was directed to on here quite a while ago. If you're worried you're going to do yourself an injury due to the excessive masturbation as you imagine yourself as a woman, you are clearly not suitable. His fellow forumites didn't tell him that, just advised him to keep that bit quiet. Even the current system is not without abuse potential, and this has been acknowledged in Parliament.