Letter in the Times - Plea To The Trans Lobby from group of transsexuals

[PimmsnLemonade]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/times-letters-reasons-for-private-schools-oxbridge-success-sqjb6kkgt

self-identified transsexuals

Surely the definition of transsexual requires at a minimum medical diagnosis if not medical transition.

I don't see how you could have a self id transsexual.

I think its fine for one TS to say that another doesnt speak totally for them

That isn't all that Kay said though, was it?

The words be kind does tend to rile feminists now though so should be avoided!

The whole reason we're in this mess in the first place is because we have complied with exhortations to 'be kind'. It's spelled out in the Goodwin ruling:

... the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.

(for 'society' read 'women' - this has never impacted much on men).

Kay, you read it as trivialising. I make no apologies for my opinion.

Transexualism up until 1983 was a medical condition. In the 90s it was replaced with Gender Identity Disorder and then in 2013 became Gender Dysphoria. Putting the modern ideology aside and the manipulation and political agendas going on GD diagnosed correctly is a severely debilitating condition that massively impacts someones life. Actual incidence of transsexualism is rare ... you only have to consider the fact that 4900 people in total have attained GRC.

See previous suggestion that you follow up who the key people were and are who have lobbied for legislation, policies and definitions.
Stephen Whittle is a good place to start (a transsexual)

By all means say no to TG, argue against TS too but please never trivialise what genuine GD sufferers experience.

See previous comment by LangCleg, it really isn't for you to tell women what they should do and within what limits.
(its not very civil)

If your best response to women's justifiable concern at the erosion of our language, boundaries, spaces and services is 'be kind' then you are adding insult to injury.

The whole reason we're in this mess in the first place is because we have complied with exhortations to 'be kind'. It's spelled out in the Goodwin ruling:

... the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.

See also one of the few mentions of how vulnerable female prisoners might be affected by the transfer of a male transsexual (prior to both genital surgery and GRC but with diagnosed gender dysphoria) into the female estate.

This set the precedent for the state being required to house some males in the female estate, regardless of them having convictions for sexual assault and violent crimes.

Successful appeal which overturned the Home Office's previous refusal. (2009)

No apparent dicussion or assessment of impact on female prisoners except the following evidence from an expert in gender dysphoria, Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic, Charing Cross Hospital, who had also known the Claimant for many years, explained why living in role in female accommodation was required:

"it will become clear that she is so widely accepted as female in that unit that location in the main prison will follow. I think that such acceptance will pretty generally apply in the main prison, also, although there will probably always be a small number of prisoners who will choose to make an issue of the matter because they are the sort of women who enjoy conflict. If this patient is able to cope with protracted close proximity women of that sort I would judge her able to cope with the less prolonged, more avoidable, travails of the civilian world."

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2220.html

, it really isn't for you to tell women what they should do and within what limits.

Nothing I say is ever going to be right. The assumption always seems to default to my speaking from male privilege or my motivation is to tread on womens rights. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I have personally not done anything to anyone here the issue is what I appear to represent. I am not a TRA. I am against self id, demedicalisation, promotion of TG agenda to children, I don't believe TWAW, I dont believe it's possible to change sex.

It is of course your right to refuse to accept me as a transgender person but I fail to see the alternative has to be that I must therefore be recognised as male.

The comments have been made as a criticism of your words, not who you are.

The comments have been made as a criticism of your words, not who you are.

This ^^

The comments have been made as a criticism of your words, not who you are

My point is that it feels like the interpretation of my words is always going to be taken in the worst possible way.

I fail to see the alternative has to be that I must therefore be recognised as male.

Do you acknowledge ‘trans women’ are male?

What do you intend to do about that?

Miranda Yardely does not represent " the acceptable face of " transsexualism " in the eyes of many of us who see ourselves as anti self ID , and have lived long lives in the acquired gender role, and may have a GRC.

Or not. No matter.

Wow. So who gets to decide who the "anti self ID" self IDers are then? Not women, obviously.

If your best response to women's justifiable concern at the erosion of our language, boundaries, spaces and services is 'be kind' then you are adding insult to injury.

This.

Do you use women's spaces, cantgetridofthekids? Apologies if you've already said and I missed it.

My point is that it feels like the interpretation of my words is always going to be taken in the worst possible way.

It may well feel that way to you. I don't doubt that.
The truth though is on the thread.

Its worth re-reading and reflecting on what was actually said.
Your choice of course.

Do you acknowledge ‘trans women’ are male?

Of course. You can't change biology.

Both male transsexuals and male transpeople are pushing women's boundaries whether they acknowledge it or not.

The 'honour system' was only for a few appropriate public toilets, not changing rooms, not sports or AWS. Does any women agreeing to the 'honour system' really think it acceptable for a male person, transsexual or transgender, to be alone with a teenage girl in an open plan changing room? Yet TS have stated that they have the right to do this. Many TS think that it is right that they take part as women in sex segregated sports. Many of the male transpeople on AWS are TS.

Often transsexuals talk about knowing they are trans from an extremely young age and talk about being near suicide before transitioning. The often talk about how TS differ from TG by the medical processes and hormones they have taken. How is this not encouraging young people to bind their breasts and seek puberty blockers?

This is FWR, I don't think it's fair to expect women to differentiate between male transpeople when their demands impact women's rights and safety in the same ways.

Here's my definition of a meaningful transition: dispensing with male entitlement; dispensing with ordering women around; acceptance that women's consent is never limited.

Surgery, it would seem, has little to with this.

Do you use women's spaces, cantgetridofthekids

99% of the time I use disabled spaces.

I have on occasion used womens spaces but rarely.

I am not a TRA. I am against self id, demedicalisation, promotion of TG agenda to children, I don't believe TWAW, I dont believe it's possible to change sex

Thanks for the preceding answer. Are you able to define yourself by what you do stand for?

Does any women agreeing to the 'honour system' really think it acceptable for a male person, transsexual or transgender, to be alone with a teenage girl in an open plan changing room? Yet TS have stated that they have the right to do this.

Some TS maybe but not all. Most TS I know would be the same.

I would never put myself into that position even despite the fact I am incapable of any sort of male sexual capacity.

So kay signs letter for the intimidation of women to stop.

But when asked says that TS men and women will be in the loos of the acquired gender, whether anyone likes it much, or not.

The number of transsexuals it seems, who actually have an affinity with women is vanishingly rare. Hamster and Miranda, being current exceptions.

So transsexuals who have no affinity with women, who disregard women's consent, but who are quick to condemn other interlopers hellbent on taking up their space in women's toilets and changing rooms?

Sometimes the hypocrisy so strong, it almost makes me itch.