transgender supportive, TRA unsupportive

[polarpig]

Am I the only feminist who supports people who are transgender who are living their life as a woman and getting on with it with the minimum amount of fuss, with the support of their partner and not creating TRA style controversy?

I know a lovely transgender woman who I consider to be family and she is just getting on with her life with the minimum of fuss. She is transgender at home and work and is accepted by all and doesn't shout from the rooftops about it.

Ugly don't leave us, it did make me laugh!

polar your OP is a bit of a red rag... and whilst late to the pary I want to tell you why that is so, for me.

About 2 years ago I could have typed something similar. I have trans friends, full medical version and weekend tranny type. I am not transphobic.

I used to support tranwomen in their quiet usage of women's spaces. Why not? What was the harm?

The TRA happened and I began to see it differently - as I believe Debbie Hayton has also done!

Why?

Well... as far as I am aware not a single one of those nice quiet transwomen went unnoticed in any woman's space. Every time I saw one I had to stop and remind myself they were transwomen and I should be nice, accepting. But I was always initially unnerved and always reprimanded myself... in women's spaces!!!

The TRA happened.

And after a while I thought hang on... every single time that has happened I have acquiesced to the wants of a man!!! Decades of it! Why?

Then TRAs demanded that I simply must acquiesce.

That was part of what peak TRAd me. Once seen you cannot unsee it!

Hey OP

It's a strange learning experience huh.

I think for me as I tried to (badly) say earlier:

I guess what I'm trying to say is trans women are not women in the same way as women are not trans women - we cannot experience life as the other.

We are equal, but different.

I don’t care how anyone wants to present themselves or what stereotypes they wish to adopt. In fact, I’m all for challenging gender stereotypes - it goes hand in hand with smashing the patriarchy.

I object to misogyny, violence, bullying, dishonesty, ideology and the insistence that lies must be truth.

IME women are supportive of one another, and empathetic. Whether by nature or nuture we are good at putting other people first. TRAs have yet to cotton on to that. That if they want to ‘think like a woman’ as they say they do, this whole shit storm would blow over.

TRAs have yet to lose their Male privilege from what I can see.

Being gender critical does not equal being transphobic.

I shouldn't have to say that trans people are entitled to health, safety, respect, sexual freedom (with consent natch), housing, friendships, jobs, dignity, in fact everything that any human is (should be) entitled to. These should be non-negotiable. You know the saying that "trans rights are human rights"? We should flip that. We need to say that human rights are trans rights.

AFAIK there are no human rights that they are being denied.

I'm allowed to have opinions about single sex spaces and the exemptions allowed those - that's not transphobic either.

I'm allowed to want language to talk about the things that affect my sex - that's not transphobic either.

IDIC infinite diversity in infinite combinations. A Vulcan philosophy I love. Trans people are part of IDIC.

That the problem. It is sometimes difficult to say no to a friend and prioritize women and girls that you don't know. But that's why feminism exists to prioritize women and girls, sometime making others feel not centered.

Indeed.

Being gender critical does not equal being transphobic.

Of course not. But it is a very handy tool to shut people up and carry on pushing your own agenda through.

I’m pro safeguarding of children and pro women.

I’m pro everybody being able to live their lives and express themselves how they like, provided that does not impact on the rights of others.

I don’t believe in trans ideology (or any other religion) as is my right. I support other people’s right to believe in what they like, but not to enforce it upon others.

The Equalities Act 2010 and HRA actually agree with me, despite the many and varied attempts to misrepresent what they actually say.

I agree with what we're saying here, but I do think there's two varieties of GC - there's a view that people should be able to transition, that some in fact may have to. And there's a view that really no one should.

It's not clear most of the time, because nobody is actually running a campaign to ban gender clinics or sex reassignment surgery. But clearly some GC people think that trans just shouldn't happen.

I can understand - though of course its ridiculously overdramatic - when trans people come out with "You're against my right to exist!" And the response from our side is aggrieved, because of course none of us mean any harm to trans people. We don't want them rounded up into camps: we don't want them to lose jobs or their homes or be chucked out of restaurants. But some of us want them not to be trans, and there is often a feeling of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" about it.

There are lots of varieties of 'GC' because its not a unified thing you sign up to. Everyone involved has their own thoughts and opinions because it's not a cult.

Yes, most of us come from a liberal perspective of 'if it doesn't hurt anyone, do as you please' - but the more you think and explore the issue, the more harm you discover. The transwidows, the confused, possibly gay young people set on a path of mutilation, the reinforcing of Gender by trans everything that comes up with ideas like 'cis' and tries to impose it on women, the continual erosion of women's ability to set their own boundaries, sexually and otherwise, and even just the pernicious effect of defining woman as whatever fantasy exists in a man's head.

Obviously, adults are free to choose whatever course they follow. It isn't remotely incumbent upon feminists not to critique things which harm women. Simple as that.

And there's a view that really no one should.

If we come from the actual basis which is that there is no way, on earth, that someone can actually 'change sex' as sex is fixed at conception. From there it really depends on what 'transing' is.

If it is someone saying words in order to gain access to spaces that will actually endanger the usual users of that space then how is that transing anything?

If you are saying that transing can only happen once surgery on genitals has happened then you will be targeted as being a bigot.

Nobody can actually change sex.

But clearly some GC people think that trans just shouldn't happen. No! I think you might be mistaking I have no bloody idea how I am supposed to deal with that for not wanting something to happen.

I cannot square away my willingness to live and let live with the misogynistic bollocks we are being asked to swallow by TRAs. At this precise moment in time my opinion is that anyone can be as trans as they like, but piss off making me feel uncomfortable in female spaces. As a woman I have the right to say "No!" and I do!

Not because I wish to deny anyone's being but because I want to say out loud that transwomen are not women - because they are not! Thank the TRAs for pushing and shoving me into that corner. I like it no more and no less than anyone else!

Fantastic post by theotherpamayres at 10:35 which I will repeat again here

*When people accuse women us of being anti-trans, I just give them examples of women working for female-to-male transmen, when everyone else looks the other way and ignores their needs.

For instance...... The government department of Women & Equalities proudly announced a health initiative for LBGT women, specifically mentioning lesbians and transwomen.

It was women who pointed out that, yet again, the female sex was last in the queue. They pointed out that it was more important to the government to validate MTfs than deal with the very real and present health challenges facing transmen.

The LGBT health organisations wouldn't dream of standing up for transmen, if it meant that transwomen's feelings were hurt. In fact, they were silent. They consistently show that they don't care about the female sex. Women stand up for FtMs all the time.

Another example would be the groundswell of concern about teenage transmen. It was places like Mumsnet that cared while the trans lobby used girls on the autism spectrum to further the cause for self i/d. History will judge whether the trans lobby acted in the intrests of teenage transmen. Personally, I think the women's movement may have stopped a catastrophe in the making.

When people accuse feminists/mumsnet/women of being anti-trans, we just point to a record of including transmen in our feminism. We don't care about your gender. It is meaningless to women. Transmen are adult human females, transwomen are not.*

And yet to say that feminists include transmen in their feminism because of their unique health needs due to their female biology is transphobic. Which is why the banned term 't*fs' is absolute bs; feminists do include T in feminism as pam points out more eloquently than me.

Well said FloralBunting.
It isn't remotely incumbent upon feminists not to critique things which harm women. Simple as that.

It's also not incumbent on feminists to make sure our critique is dampened with enough platitudes so as to be palatable to men.

Also, don't mistake critique of an ideology with hating on an individual. It may feel like a personal attack if your entire identity is the ideology, but that's not actually relevant.

Your absolute right to wave your arms around ends at someone else's nose.

That's it. That's all.

Sorry haven't read all the thread, but I wanted to add this and don't have much time. I will report it to Mumsnet in case they want to delete and because I want them to see it.
I just caught the thread about narcissism about ignoring the monkey tantrum before it was zapped. It was about narcissism generally and how to cope. This is what has just been posted on Twitter about it.

Ah is that what that foot Stampy thread was about earlier that got zapped?

That person needs to grow up a lot.

That was the purpose of their visit today @MsMcWoodle, to collect screenshots and quotes to suit their agenda. Best ignored and forgotten about as a total irrelevance.

I have to confess that even in the conservative circles in which I move, I don’t know anyone who claims that adults who are exhibiting severe distress shouldn’t be allowed surgery.

Admittedly Catholic teaching doesn’t support gender theory, but there are a minority of cases whereby people feel they have no other choice.

That said, someone who did transition, even if the right pronouns etc were used, would still have to accept that formally they were viewed as their birth sex and so would not be able to contract a valid marriage with someone of the same birth sex and wouldn’t be accepted for priesthood.

You can deal with someone pastorally on an individual level, ensuring that they were made welcome in the parish but at the same time, you would still need to apply the same safeguarding procedures etc and the person wouldn’t be able to force the church to accept that they had ontologically changed.

This thing about wanting to strip trans people of rights is a canard.

Does living as a transwoman with a minimum of fuss involve using women's toilets, expecting to be treated on female wards when they're in hospital or taking on female pronouns? My thoughts will always be with the women' and girls using the toilets when they find a man in there or the woman in hospital bed next to a man or the wife and children who now have to believe their husband and father is a woman. In the case of the transwoman you know OP, my thoughts would be with their colleagues, especially the female ones, who are forced to accept them as a woman or risk their jobs.

I'm deeply suspicious of the "minimum of fuss", "quiet life" cliches that are wheeled out in order to divide trans into good or bad as if it's only the naughty ones over there who are causing the problem. It was trans living so-called quiet lives who gave us the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 which kick-started this whole debacle. Public transactivism didn't exist back then (so no vocal TRAs to blame) they just quietly got on with their agenda behind the scenes and managed to legally erase the biological category "woman" without even talking to women once, let alone asking our permission.

As far as I can see the artificial division between "good" transwomen and TRAs is the last vestige of the cognitive dissonance caused by the demand we accept that men can become women. We know it's not true, but the social pressures on us are so strong that the line is drawn between "good" and "bad" transwomen rather than women and people who can never become women (men), which is where it needs to be.

Sorry that was rambling. What I am trying to say is that the morality of being trans isn’t up for debate. It’s a private matter and vulnerable individuals should be given support along with decent medical gate keeping.

But what is being pushed back against is the imposition of an ideology on society and its resulting consequences.

I have a theory regarding the "surgery helps some, as a last resort" idea.
I suspect that for many, surgery is a disaster. I've read enough horrifying accounts where the facade finally drops and people admit they're terribly damaged.
But perhaps there are some people who have been satisfied. And yet, I imagine a huge part of that satisfaction is dependent upon the illusion that society was once prepared to uphold: you've had the surgery, we'll play along with you, you're a true Trans.
Physically, the body is permanently hurt. Nerves are severed, genitalia is scarred, urinary function damaged, infections are rife, and often things fail entirely.
Once society withdraws it's cooperation in playing along, the psychological reassurance that it hasn't all been in vain evaporates too.
I think we're heading towards the end of the era where surgery is considered a last resort of good practice. I think it possibly bought satisfaction for a limited number of patients who lived through the particular decades where their belief that they were considered truly changed was indulged kindly.
Those days are numbered, I think.

Barracker, yes, I think you're right. That's probably the most poignant thing about the behaviour of transactivists in this - we talk about people being 'thrown under the bus' and the cliche, like most phrases like it, doesn't really convey the true horror of what has happened.

We did, at one point on this board, talk about how there was a tacit agreement that women politely accepted the troubled trans person who 'presented' female out of kindness. Actually, that was something of an illusion itself, but it was probably the best a transfeminine person could expect in fairness as an accommodation. We weren't exactly willing participants in the illusion, but it was a reality. The people who underwent these experimental cosmetic surgeries could comfort themselves that their suffering had achieved something, however illusory.

The AWAs have used the trans issue, and the few troubled individuals who lived as best they could, to groom and gaslight a whole society, and their over reach will create a backlash that we've been warning about on here for ages, and part of it will be the people who had these brutal surgeries will no longer be able to comfort themselves that anyone is willingly playing along with the illusion. That is what under the bus means for transsexuals, and it is really cruel.

Although in the long run, and noone will believe me when I say this, I really think it will be much better for people who desire such surgery when it's not available.
Supply is creating demand, and noone is served except those who profit financially.
These surgeries are ethically wrong. Treating a psychological disorder of thinking and reasoning, with physically devastating surgery on a healthy body is just wrong. It needs to end, and the demand will reduce accordingly.

And after a while I thought hang on... every single time that has happened I have acquiesced to the wants of a man!!! Decades of it! Why?

That's a good point.
The family member of mine uses, where possible, the toilet that is unisex. I've never seen them use the female toilets.

I’m critical of the concept of gender but wouldn’t want to associate myself with Gender Critical movement because of some of the vitriol (not just on here - on other sites too). It seems like most posts on the feminism boards are about trans people to the expense of more positive discussion.

I dislike the misgendering and dead naming. I’ve never been a trans person so I can’t know what that’s like, and the most compassionate road seems best to me.

Imo we can advocate for female only spaces and still say that trans women are women - I just think it’s a small linguistic concession we can make that doesn’t really hurt and means a hell of a lot to some people.