Great blog about being a trans inclusive feminist

[spannablue]

Here: alicenuttallbooks.wordpress.com/2018/11/04/why-i-am-a-trans-inclusive-feminist/

Enjoy!

MsMcWoodle I’m not asking for anything to change, I’m against self ID. I am simply happy with the current rules under holding a GRC being able to access our toilet and changing rooms.

It is extremally unlikely that you would be accepted for a GRC if you are not taking hormones.

Can you evidence that?

The author has said themselves to not use the study to back this whole claim of ‘transwoman commit at the same rate as men’ and says her study has been misinterpreted repeatadly to support this.

But clearly they do commit crime at the same rate as men. I don't think she would have the nerve to refute that, because it's an extraordinary claim.

You of course can prove they don't?

excellent back to the study that does not show what you keep saying it does and as been shown by its author to not be used in the way you all keep using it simply because you don't have anything else to base your argument on. when people question your view. hope everyone is having fun repeating the same arguments we have had a 100 times before lol

Did you name change by accident there Bespin?

Oh no, my mistake, the other one can punctuate. As you were.

Ooh, hi Bespin. Like you, I'm late to the thread.

Haven't had a chance to read right through. But there seems to have been a lot of effort by a lot of women to discuss and debate the points here.

What do you think about the blog that spanna posted originally (they don't seem to have been back since, but never mind). Shall we get the thread back on track?

(I'd say 'lol' like you, but right now, women's rights, dignity, privacy and single sex spaces don't feel much like a 'lol'. Maybe you'd like to talk to some of us about why it's a 'lol'?)

Once someone is on hormone therapy Their levels of testosterone drop to less than half that of a man. Still more than the average woman, but far less than a man.
Testostorone doesn’t account for everything, as I say, some people are bad and some are not.

It’s irrelevant whether testosterone decreases. Even at half the normal amount for men it’s still ten times the normal amount for women.

In any case, aggression isn’t about the amount of free testosterone in the system.

Testosterone aids in the learning of aggression.

Take that testosterone away and you still have the learned behaviour, just as you still have the greater musculature, the greater bone density, the greater lung capacity, etc.

Imperial China had armies of eunuchs. They didn’t sit around swapping knitting patterns.

Nobody is committing a crime by not being ‘proper trans’ so I’m not sure how it relates to pedophilia or drunk driving.

Being a man isn’t a crime either.

Trying to argue that trans women are women seems like a dead end given that most of the time it doesn’t matter whether somebody is male or female and it is really difficult to identify what the two groups have in common.

Why not just accept that all people have rights because they are human, but some have slightly different needs in specific situations.

It seems like fighting to use a disabled loo so that I can use a disabled loo rather than asking for more baby changing facilities so that it’s easier to go swimming with children.

excellent back to the study that does not show what you keep saying it does and as been shown by its author to not be used in the way you all keep using it simply because you don't have anything else to base your argument on.

You're kidding, right? What, exactly would you like women's boundaries and consent to be based on?

Because it is you who is demanding that no isn't enough. You who is demanding we have to have some other reason. You who is demanding that reality, science, biology and statistics aren't enough.

My 'argument', as you so like to call it, is NO.

You making it necessary for women to spend time they don't have, coming up with reasons to satisfy, and then dismissing them, is just disgraceful.

Leave women alone.

you all keep using it simply because you don't have anything else to base your argument on.

Ugh. It's such a fucking giveaway.

you all keep using it simply because you don't have anything else to base your argument on.

What argument? How is any of it relevant anyway given that there is no agreed objective definition of ‘trans’?

So early, bespin have I got it you right ( it’s a long thread with many turns)

Transwoemn with a grc and full surgery you think should be generally allowed to access single sex spaces? And the grc should remain a strongly gatekeeper process as part of this?

I guess a while back I would have gone along with that, but now I worry about the practicality of that position. How can I differentiate between an “acceptable” transwoman and any other kind? Given the other outnumber the “acceptable” by a large majority it seems I must accept a lot of false positives if the true positives are to be allowed in unhindered?

Further, the data that suggests transwomen have Male violence pattens makes me think my original acceptance was flawed. However, i wonder if the violence data is based solely on grc holders or if it is dominated by self id trans

If the violence data isn’t from the U.K. after 2004 it won’t relate to a U.K. concept of a GRC.

Having a GRC or surgery is an indication of genuine gender dysphoria.

Not an indication of respect for women, boundaries, consent. Or indeed, property, driving regulations, or any other law.

It's completely illogical to use it as any kind of criteria other than you (probably but not definitely) have gender dysphoria.