Will society accept transwomen ARE women in future generations?

[interestingdebatetoday]

Today I debated with a young woman I adore. I'm in my 30's, her in her 20's. She attended uni in a very liberal city and has studied psychology. Definitely armed to hold an opinion.

We disagree currently on several of the current topics re trans. I personally hold what's probably the norm on the feminist boards of mumsnet in my views.

It made me wonder though - she claims not to feel women are really impacted, uses unisex bathrooms as a norm, and obviously has been socialised to not find an issue in accepting transwomen as women. Is it possible that actually society will progress in a way that her generation down simply won't have the issues which I feel exist when trying to include transwomen AS women?

Can women be educated/socialised to a place over time where several generations on - we will be the old women with outdated beliefs and the world simply isn't bothered about the things which we were?

It has to go one way or the other really doesn't it? Either a big u turn and the idea that transwomen ARE women becomes laughable and delusional is mainstream and acceptable (as many of us might feel on the boards) OR transwomen ARE women and we were the ones who were wrong

It made me wonder... I was really suprised tbh. 10 years later made a huge difference to whether we felt our rights were under attack...

Are you advocating then that women should return to work earlier than six weeks then? Only I don't think that is good for anyone and good luck establishing breast feeding if you go back to work within 6 weeks of giving birth.

I guessed you would say this.

I'm not advocating anything. As I said the ins and outs of maternity leave are a discussion for another thread.

The point is that whether you are assuming that female MPs should stay at home for a period post partum or whether you are assuming that their partners should be caring for the baby, (and you seem to have suggested both) you either need to structure parliament so that it accommodates MPs who have babies or you need to make it easier for men to care for babies. You could even do both. Otherwise you exclude women.

What you can't do is pretend that sex doesn't exist. That is what the thread is discussing.

merrymouse

You've lost me.

I don't understand why women MPs are a unique case and why the rules around maternity leave need to be different for them?

I also don't understand the relevance of the rate of maternity pay paid for the first 6 weeks vs rates for paternity pay unless you are wanting men to take paternity leave during the first 6 weeks? Surely it's maternity vs paternity pay after 6 weeks that is relevant? And even then, I have no idea why this is only an issue for women MPs?

Weetabixandshreddies

"I'm not talking about trans women at all." But isn't that the topic of this thread?

"I am talking about some women demanding that facilities are sex segregated and that not even young boys"

Never heard anyone demanding young boys be excluded from toilets etc. What age is young? 3, 4, 5? I'd say pre- adolenent is fine, primary age, up to 9.

It's totally fine with me (and probably many women) that young boys be permitted in female spaces where appropriate. E.g. public loos as opposed to a womem only spa day.

"...or boys with disabilities"

Mums with boys with disabilities could use the disabled space which would be suitable for those specific needs surely. Likewise dad's with daughters. Surely the disabled space is for disabled people and their career if they have a career.

As in "(can be allowed in, thus excluding any women who are caring for them.)"

"Some of the replies on here are illustrating exactly what a lot of us are saying - that trans isn't the only issue and that many women face problems which are now being over looked by other women hell bent on excluding men at all costs, even if it's other women paying those costs."

Why do you think the average female might want spaces away from the average male?

The areas most of us (on mumsmet) are worried about are not public toilets but actually prisons, hospitals, shelters for women, and rape crisis centres etc. Where make children are not normally an issue. Plus some places for vulnerable mums and domestic abuse centers where children may factor.

If we need to include males we need third spaces and anyone wanting these needs to make that known. Third spaces would help all those people you mention plus trans and non- binary. Plus (o expect) any vulnerable male - like make a with leadnibg difficulties. Or should all the vuberavke adults be in with the women?

The service of third spaces would help all these people and any natal women or men who also want that service. I'd use it! So where is the campaign from high profile people and high profile trans 'celebs' campaigning for this?

I don't understand why women MPs are a unique case and why the rules around maternity leave need to be different for them?

This is an issue for everyone. I am using MPs as an example.

I don't understand why women MPs are a unique case and why the rules around maternity leave need to be different for them?

They are not a unique case but MP is one example of an occupation where

1). It is very difficult to take a break
2). The structure assumes that only men will be MPs
3). Women are at a disadvantage because of their biology.

I have said all this before.

Women face work penalties for bearing children and when it is assumed that they will soon bear children. You might think that is a problem or you might think that a woman's place is in the home. Either way women are being prevented from engaging in public life on equal terms with men.

Again, see the subject of the thread. We are discussing recognising the impact of sexual differences.

unless you are wanting men to take paternity leave during the first 6 weeks

Yes, some women would be helped by this, but, again the ins and outs of maternity leave are less relevant to this thread than acknowledging that only women become pregnant and give birth.

merrymouse

You are being very clear, to me. And I like clarity.

Never heard anyone demanding young boys be excluded from toilets etc. What age is young? 3, 4, 5? I'd say pre- adolenent is fine, primary age, up to 9.

Really? Well whenever it's raised on here it's usually said that 8 and over should use the men's, and on one thread a poster said over 6.

merrymouse

I am not comfortable with any woman being encouraged to go back to work within 6 weeks of giving birth. I think you need time to recover and I'd hate for women to start to be under pressure to go back because some do. Isn't there a legal time limit anyway?

I can’t understand why so many PPs are waffling on about “risk assessing” trans prisoners before allowing them into women’s prisons.
These people have male genitals.
Prisons have communal showers.
NO woman should be forced to stand naked in a shower with a naked man, whatever level of bloody risk he is deemed to be.
Surely even the Geneva convention would ban this for prisoners of war?

I am not comfortable with any woman being encouraged to go back to work within 6 weeks of giving birth

I dont think anyone is

With the possibile exception of xenia

That no problem merry

Ive just reread the whole MP conversation from the start and i really honestly cant see where the confusion is

Petition: Review rules that allow male prisoners who identify as female in women's prisons
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228767

I can’t understand why so many PPs are waffling on about “risk assessing” trans prisoners before allowing them into women’s prisons.
These people have male genitals.
Prisons have communal showers.
NO woman should be forced to stand naked in a shower with a naked man, whatever level of bloody risk he is deemed to be.
Surely even the Geneva convention would ban this for prisoners of war?

It seems that even some women - so woke are they - will apparently support this because some men reckon that despite all available evidence pointing to the absolute contrary, they "are women". THis apparently means that sex segregation can be blithely disregarded because of what these men say of themselves.

Some of these same women are also completely happy for men to compete in women's sports, though sometimes these women rationalise it by saying they "don't care about sports" or (my favourite) "transwomen don't have any advantage over women in sports".

You'll have to work hard to find one of these pro-'men who say they're women doing anything they like' women agreeing to completely abandon all sex segregation completely, however. Or send their younger male children alone into the men's changing rooms or toilets (though one or two have managed to come up with the 'reason' that these boys 'can't manage' on their own, despite the fact that they do at school).

some men reckon that despite all available evidence pointing to the absolute contrary, they "are women". THis apparently means that sex segregation can be blithely disregarded because of what these men say of themselves.

I dont beleive you can make such a blanket statement across the entire transgender spectrum. I would personally maintain that there is evidence than in a small minority of cases (true transsexual) there are those born in the wrong body with diagnosed gender dysphoria who are undergoing medical transition. Even if you dont want to call a person in that position a woman, I dont think you can call them a man either.

I would personally maintain that there is evidence than in a small minority of cases (true transsexual) there are those born in the wrong body with diagnosed gender dysphoria who are undergoing medical transition.

You can't be "born in the wrong body". Gender dysphoria doesn't mean that.

Their sex is male. I am very happy to support anyone with gender dysphoria getting the type of treatment (whatever that may be) that makes them feel better. It doesn't transform them into women, however, because you cannot change sex.

Tbh there’s not much thinking going on with the statement gender dysphoric men can no longer be called men.

Transwomen will never be accepted as women because:

1. We will vote with our feet.

We will vacate services, facilities and sports and set up our own (again!)

1. We will defy being legally co-erced into accepting the lie.

There will be instances of civil disobedience by women, to test the law

1. We will make a noise until the State back-tracks and strengthens women's legal status as a separate sex-class

1. At election time, we will hold political parties' feet to the fire where they have come out in support of putting men's rights before women's.

1. We will continue to raise the consciousness of women to the way the state operates to sideline, ignore and disregard women's views.

1. We will continue to highlight the absurdities, dangers and risks of men claiming to be women, to the general public.

We won't have it. #nodebate

Can we now conclude that the answer to the OPs question is: no?

Isn't it equally selfish though for some women to centre themselves, and their wants, ahead of other women, thereby excluding them?

Who is excluding women?

Thank you for your rallying cry the OtherPam, I will print it out for my kitchen pin board.

Who is excluding women?

Anyone that supports structuring services so that women who can't comply are excluded.

In the same way that you might say that a particular service is open to everyone and then situate it at the top of a ladder so that anyone with mobility problems is excluded.

If you insist that no boys are allowed in somewhere, whether intentional or not, you exclude women that care for boys and who can't leave the boys unattended.

If you insist that no boys are allowed in somewhere, whether intentional or not, you exclude women that care for boys and who can't leave the boys unattended.

I asked earlier what age you'd set as the 'bar' if (as appears to be the case), you don't agree with 8. I'd be interested to hear your reply.

Weetabix what services are you takking about that catet to women and ban boys?

Ive been trying to work it out but all I can think of is nightclubs and the back of an Ann Summer shop.

I dont believe any male over the age of 10 should be in female changing rooms/toilets.
Should a boy need supervision for whatever reason and the carer is female then disabled facilities should be used.

Hyppolyta

Weetabix is mostly referring to an earlier discussion about changing rooms (gyms, pools, etc) in which the age of 8 is usually given (in some places it's 7) as the age at which boys can no longer go in with their mothers (and probably girls with dads, but nobody seems to focus on that much).

This is under guidance from such bodies as the NSPCC, I such add.

I dont believe any male over the age of 10 should be in female changing rooms/toilets.

Guidance from councils, social services, etc is a top age of 8 and in some cases younger.

I asked earlier what age you'd set as the 'bar' if (as appears to be the case), you don't agree with 8. I'd be interested to hear your reply.

I wouldn't set an age. It depends on the abilities of the individual child.

Hyppolyta

I am referring to multiple threads where posters call for boys older than 8 (and in one case older than 6) to be banned from the ladies toilets and changing rooms, even if they have additional needs. If they aren't able to toilet or change independently or aren't able to be left unattended outside the ladies loo while mum goes in then that effectively also excludes women from say going swimming or even going shopping in case they need the toilet whilst out.