Are these stupid questions?

[IdentifiesAsTired]

In any negotiation, there's usually some kind of mutual benefits, right?

So, what is transactivism bringing to the table for females? What do natal women get in return for opening up their female-only spaces and the female legal identity to literally any male that says they identify as a woman? How do members of the female sex benefit from transactivism turning everything mixed-sex? How is the category 'woman' being enhanced by denying that female reproductive biology is what defines the group, in order to protect the feelings of some males? How is it valuable and enriching for lesbians to be told they must include a penis in their sex lives?

Should I be considering (in their terms:) AFAB nonbinary folks/transmen as the net beneficiaries from the female sex here? Is it that feminists should be fighting for some female's rights to attempt to modify their bodies, take testosterone and undergo double mastectomies/ hysterectomies because they feel their internal identities don't fit with the rigid and harmful feminine gender role?

I can think of multiple negative effects transactivism has on females as a sex, but I am struggling to see the benefits.

Can anyone help?

It's not a negotiation
why do you think it's a negotiation

the people who benefit are men
whatever their gender id

theres your answer

our job is to do as we're fuckign well told and smile while we do it

why do you think it's a negotiation

It's not a negotiation because it's a male sexual rights movement.

I can think of multiple negative effects transactivism has on females as a sex, but I am struggling to see the benefits.

That's because there are no benefits for females, only for males.

why do you think it's a negotiation
Because when I've tried to talk about this with some people, they say it's a debate between two sides and that women need to compromise?
Maybe negotiation isn't the right word, but it just made me wonder is in it for females, if anything.

Debate is the wrong word. Debate implies consession is expected on both sides in order to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

The reality is that women are expected to concede all in the name of inclusivity and progress - and be happy while doing so.

no they say

#nodebate

any women who disagree are bigots committing literal violence

they attack trans people who want to debate as well

From some people's perspective it is not a negotiation. They think some women have a penis. No debate.

Some people believe in a flat earth. Others are creationists. We don't much bother negotiating those beliefs. So long as those with the power don't put flat earthers in charge of aircraft navigation systems nor creationists in charge of science education then nobody's much bothered.

oh sorry misread

who are you talking to who says that?

what do they thikn women must compromise on

by comprimise do they mean shut up and capitulate

Isn't this the same though when any minority group is given rights?

So what was the benefit to men when women were given rights?

The benefit to white British people when BME people gained rights?

To able bodied people when people with disabilities gained rights?

I don't know that you can view it in a "what's in it for me" way.

well no

because women are not higher in the pecking order than men

in your examples the people with power fight to lose any

in this example the people with power want to remove even more from the people who have less

That's because there are no benefits for females, only for males.

This is what I strongly suspect. I am just wondering if/how someone can argue the opposite case. Sorry if this question has been done to death already.

Because when I've tried to talk about this with some people, they say it's a debate between two sides and that women need to compromise?

Depends what the compromise is.

It's not possible to compromise on facts. Women exist as a biological sex. There is nothing intrinsically similar about trans women and women.

However, I think it is possible to share services - e.g. both buses and bikes are completely different and both use the bus lane. However, that is because of practical convenience, not because anybody has ever argued that a bike is a bus.

it is certainly possible for a service to meet the needs of two different groups, but the first step is to recognise the needs of the groups and who they are. We haven't got there yet, and we never will while everything depends on agreeing that TWAW.

Isn't this the same though when any minority group is given rights?

So what was the benefit to men when women were given rights?

The benefit to white British people when BME people gained rights?

To able bodied people when people with disabilities gained rights?

I don't know that you can view it in a "what's in it for me" way.

No but you can argue that in the above groups, nobody lost anything. Men are still quite comfortable now women are allowed to have bank accounts. White people haven't suffered because Asian people are allowed to apply for the same jobs as them. Able bodied people aren't disadvantaged by wheelchair ramps.

This is more like disability funding being reduced even further because it's got to buy equipment for transabled people, who identify as paraplegic...

I think that some people in those groups would argue that they did lose out though.

Realistically men did lose out when women were able to compete equally in the workplace eg become the MD rather than than the secretary.

And the same with all of the other categories. People had to move over and share a previous exclusive space with others.

Arguably this didn't necessarily benefit those doing the moving over but equality has benefits to society as a whole.

It was brought very sharply into focus for me a while back when a poster, it might have been Sweary G, said it's not about rights it's about demands.

Trans people already have rights and protections in law as we all do so TRAs have framed their demands as rights because they know anyone questioning that will look bad and the TRAs can be seen as an oppressed group in a civil liberties "fight".

Once you realise it's demands not rights it becomes much easier to see that not all demands are justified or legitimate.

The warm glow of being inclusive, no doubt. It''s all about the giving, not the receiving.

Trans people already have rights and protections in law as we all do so TRAs have framed their demands as rights because they know anyone questioning that will look bad and the TRAs can be seen as an oppressed group in a civil liberties "fight"

You are right. There is a right against discrimination, rights to life, freedom from torture, right to privacy and rights of safety and dignity. There is not, as far as I am aware, a right to be in other people's spaces or to take on rights granted to a different group. So, arguably you could say that trans women have a right not to have to change with natal males (privacy, safety, dignity), but that right can be met by having e.g. third spaces where needed, or single contained cubicles. It doesn't mean a right to be in women's spaces.

Same with sports, prisons etc. As long as the state can show that it is protecting the rights of trans people, trans people cannot insist that this takes a particular form. The important factor is that they are safe, have privacy etc.

It is not about rights, but validation.

Isn't this the same though when any minority group is given rights?

So what was the benefit to men when women were given rights?

The benefit to white British people when BME people gained rights?

To able bodied people when people with disabilities gained rights?

I don't think so, because this is a case where these rights are being granted to a specific group that directly impacts the legal definition of another protected category. In this case males are historically advantaged over women. Plus there are plenty of benefits I can think of with equal rights going back to the other groups, including economic, political and cultural ones. Additionally, things like disability rights can help everyone as able bodied people can become disabled.
But I feel like this isn't even necessarily about a right that people in another class has (such as the vote or marriage) that some people are excluded from. Open access to spaces designated for the opposite sex isn't a right that some males have, but trans people don't. If that makes sense?

I don't know that you can view it in a "what's in it for me" way.
That's a fair point, but I feel if women are actively giving something up that is designed specifically to meet the needs of the female sex, so that members of the opposite sex can claim it, in an unprecedented re-writing of reality then I'd just like to know if/how the members of the female sex benefit. The price as I see it includes safety from male violence/legal definition of female/women's sports/all-women shortlists, etc.

I agree Weetabix.

I think the main difference here though is that women aren't so much being asked to move over as pretend they don't exist.

So it would be like me arguing that not only should I be able to use a disabled parking space, but that all accommodation of disability on the basis of practical need is phobic.

The practical response to trans people feeling they can't access toilets is to establish the barriers they face and find out ways to overcome them. However that is not the problem that TRAs are trying to solve.

who are you talking to who says that?
I feel like it's a knee-jerk response when I bring this up with people who are new to the issues and truly believe TWAW.

There is nothing in it for women.

More tellingly, the people who are insisting on being women have zero interest in or care for women's perspectives, needs, best interests or concerns, which tells you exactly how skin deep it goes.

Raise this with a TRA, and if they'll discuss it as opposed to shrieking names as you and immediately banning you from the right to oxygen for daring to question, you'll be told that your 'privilege' as a woman means you owe everything women have, immediately, to men, and if you were a decent, right thinking woman you'd focus all your attention and resources on meeting their needs. They essentially mean if you have a uterus you are less than human and your only worth is in providing and nurturing your betters.

Fuck That.

I don't know. I think I see it more as Funkyfunkybeat12. It's about how their rights are implemented.

I'm not sure that we can view it solely as women giving up their rights because of course their are trans men who are benefitting too by this recognition.

There is a right against discrimination, rights to life, freedom from torture, right to privacy and rights of safety and dignity. There is not, as far as I am aware, a right to be in other people's spaces or to take on rights granted to a different group. So, arguably you could say that trans women have a right not to have to change with natal males (privacy, safety, dignity), but that right can be met by having e.g. third spaces where needed, or single contained cubicles. It doesn't mean a right to be in women's spaces.

This. Why can't there be reasonable solutions that protect trans people but allow females to keep their own spaces?