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?

The compromise line is unfair: essentially what is meant by it is women must be prepared to give up some rights in the name of kindness and fairness.

No. They really mustn't. It's not about kindness, it's about plain right and wrong. It's about facts. It's about not removing rights from women to give to men no matter how distressed or loud or threatening those men get.

The 2004 GRA has already been pushed from 'a tiny amount of fully transitioned transsexual women will be granted a legal fiction to get around some marriage and pension issues' to 'there's no such thing as biological women and women are no longer allowed any space or service or meeting away from men'. ANY ground given will be an immediate standing point for the next landgrab from women.

It is not about rights, but validation.

I think that is the central problem.

I suffer discrimination because I am observed to be female and need particular services because of the practical consequences of being female. It has sod all to do with identity.

Stonewall style trans activism is all about validation of identity.

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

Because the aim of the movement is to remove sex segregation.

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.
I'm not convinced by that. If I was to identify as a man (and self-id was in place) I'd have no extra rights. So how do transmen benefit? What rights do men give up to transmen?

Men being asked to give up some of their privilege because women got employment rights is not the same thing as women being told they must give up some of their protections.

It is not about rights, but validation.

Exactly. Transgender people already have the same human rights as everyone else, so there is no comparison with other groups being recognised and being given equal human rights, because trans people already have those rights.

Because the aim of the movement is to remove sex segregation.

This is at the heart of it, and they occasionally admit to this. On a Newsnight discussion, transwoman Helen Belcher was asked if she'd accept a unisex space, as an alternative to using women's toilets/changing rooms etc. She said no, as she is a woman, she should be treated the same as any other woman.

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

Because tra do not want reasonable solutions, they want to put women in our place, which is submissive and subservient.

Men being asked to give up some of their privilege because women got employment rights

Well, men weren't asked to give up anything, they were told to.

If I was to identify as a man (and self-id was in place) I'd have no extra rights. So how do transmen benefit? What rights do men give up to transmen?

I was meaning that trans men (who are born women) will benefit as much as trans women (born men) will benefit. So by recognition, being treated as a man, accessing male spaces etc.

If you feel that men are benefitting from self ID because men are identifying as women then women must also be benefitting by identifying as men.

Obviously only those identifying as trans will benefit and not the natal members of either sex.

The equality part is a red herring. You can only see this as women having to give up privilege for equality if you agree that TW are an as yet unrecognised, (and sometimes by TRAs even framed as a disabled) form of women.

TW are men. This is a fact, however distressing for some. Do we, as a society, encode into law that people may legally choose to be included in a societal group and have equal access to all their resources when they do not in reality have the characteristic of the group? Or do we say that society has groups in need of specific resources to meet the needs of the group that must be protected?

Are we going to let people opt in to BAME provisions? Disabled provisions and benefits? Children's provisions, benefits and services? Particularly when the given grounds for inclusion are mental health based (distress, suicidality, dysphoria if refused) and include large numbers of those who wish access through sexual motivations? And have no care or interest for the negative impacts their inclusion will inevitably cause?

What matters in society more? Fair and just provisions for actual, real needs based on our limited resources, or not thwarting individuals' personal preferences?

If you feel that men are benefitting from self ID because men are identifying as women then women must also be benefitting by identifying as men.

Red herring I think? The (debatable) benefits to this small group of women doesn't change the massive negative impacts to all women of self ID. It's also not equitable in terms of the negative impact on men.

Well, men weren't asked to give up anything, they were told to.

Told to give up advantage not increase disadvantage.

You made a false equivalence as you well know.

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.
This is what I am also curious about. Is a feminist priority to petition for the inclusion of male rapists in women's prisons in order for some females to have the option of transferring to a men's prison?

The compromise line is unfair: essentially what is meant by it is women must be prepared to give up some rights in the name of kindness and fairness.
I think it's playing on female socialisation in a really insidious way. Men seem to be allowed to ask "what's in it for us?" without being judged. Compromise to me means each party is mildly dissatisfied, but they cede ground in order to gain something. It just quite obvious to me that the beneficiaries of transactivism are males.

But I really am interested to see if anyone can show me otherwise.

Men being asked to give up some of their privilege because women got employment rights is not the same thing as women being told they must give up some of their protections.
This.
Women-only spaces are really not the same thing as a boy's club where the purpose seems to be to smoke cigars without wives present. I think there is much misunderstanding of why women's protections were put in place, because they're needed as a respite from male violence or to help females as a sex specifically as a response to being disadvantaged compared to males (like female sports). Opening the doors of female-only space to any male who wants in seems like it defeats the purpose?

Knicknackpaddyflak

I think my difficulty is that within this group there are those who are genuine and therefore have genuine distress, dysphoria etc and also those who are in it as a way to get a kick, exhibitionism etc.

That seemingly is an impossible question to solve.

Told to give up advantage not increase disadvantage.

That depends on what side of the equation you are on.

Women would have seen it as men giving up advantage.

Men would have seen it as increasing disadvantage.

Not a false equivalence at all.

Christ on a bike! It doesn't matter how men saw it. That's pomo-addlement you've got going on there. Men had structural advantage and women had structural discrimination. There's thing called material reality and it can be measured, hard though that may be to credit.

Right. But then trans women could equally argue that women have the advantage over them and are potentially being discriminated against? Given that being trans sexual is supported under the EA this argument is supported in law.

Men being asked to give up some of their privilege because women got employment rights is not the same thing as women being told they must give up some of their protections.

Quite. Since when has it been considered a privilege for women to have to fight for protected spaces away from males because they hurt us? That’s a privilege? Or advantage we must now give up? Wow, that is some serious mental gymnastics involved in comparing male privilege or white privilege to women’s protections.

You can only believe that women have advantage over TW if you believe that TW are a type of woman, and that biological women have no distinct needs in society based on the biology TW don't share in.

The Equality Commission just wrote to universities reminding them, it is not against the law to state (factually) that TW are male in biology (and therefore have full provision for their sex, and are of the sex not entitled to access provision specifically set aside for the female sex) and the Equality Act is clear that TW may be excluded from women only spaces if this is justified due to the need of the women involved.

weetabix your argument only works if you believe that women are privileged over men in society (sex based oppression)

and are also willing to ignore the quite obvious differences between men and women, in general and on average, in terms of size, strength, and propensity to violent crime esp sex crime.

Transmen don't gain really do they. They seem pretty quiet and only tend to get in teh news when they have babies. Meanwhile transwomen are winning awards, including ones for women, winning woman of the year, havign history rewritten for them (eg matrix first hollywood trilogy directed by women even though they transitioned later) etc and so on. And of course hammering women at sport left right and centre.

Knicknackpaddyflak

How prescriptive are the EC in this?

Do they specify toilet or changing room provision for example?

trans women could equally argue that women have the advantage over them and are potentially being discriminated against?

They can argue it all they want, it’s still an insult to say that women have an advantage over members of the oppressor group, males, regardless of their personal identity.

There is nothing in law that supports the argument that women have a structural advantage over transwomen, who as males enjoy male privilege whether they ask for it or not.

Are transracial people oppressed by black people? That argument would be seen by most sane people to be racist and an incredible insult. Why must women tolerate being told they’re privileged being born women when it’s abundantly clear that the total opposite is true in every corner of the earth.

Of course plenty of people think feminism has "gone too far" and are gleeful to see the moderate gains we have made being handed back to men quicksmart.

They see women (feminists) as hoist by our own petard.

Of course they are arseholes but there's a lot of it about.

In general a lot of men would be quite happy if women were to some extent forced back out of public life due to creation of subtly hostile environments.

Feel free to go and read it, it's easily Googlable.

Transmen don't gain really do they.

I don't know. If, as many on here argue, that men have all the privilege, then you could argue that trans men stand to gain a lot over natal women.

there is nothing in common sense that says males who are feminine are oppressed by women either

Their real beef is with men (who are in fact way more likely to be v horrible / violent to GNC people ) and masculinity (that says they are less-than-men because they prefer the trappings of feminitity, the lesser class).

Of course taking on men and how they work their pecking orders is way too much like hard work so they attack women. And say we''re mean. If we notce that a person with a cock is a bloke.

Like blackadder. A very perceptive man, sir thomas moore. We need some more like him