Transsexual women face erasure

[joannegosling2]

It's a fine state of affairs isn't it?

Please - before the administrators axe this post, at least hear me out.

August 2019 - Transsexual women (not the self ID-seeking transgender - I refer to those of us who surgically transition lock, stock and barrel under strict medical supervision but whose narratives have been appropriated by the TG activists and advertised as their own) now being clobbered by feminists, not only here but every where else on the internet too, whether it be on TGN or this new Spinster group I've heard about. I understand the voice of feminism on the latter has reached unseen heights of extremism.

In fact, if I may say, equally as extreme as the trans activists whom feminists have been resisting for quite some time now. But what a difference a week makes. It seems they are now mounting a full-on attack on their own allies - we transsexuals (who are no less
appalled by the behaviour of the transgenderists and feel equally threatened by them), suggesting we are exactly like those same people with no respect at all for women. AND IT IS CATCHING ON.

They insult us further by calling us men and insisting we submit to male pronouns and acknowledge the absurd assumption that we benefit from male privilege (whatever that is, I surely never realized there was any).

For the zillionth time WE are NOT the problem. This entire farce was started by the self ID demands of the TG crowd. It is true - and we recognise - that women are fighting for their rights as never before. But regrettably there are certain feminist agitators who now see this as a golden opportunity to rid the streets and social life of not only
cross-dressing men who seek to enter their spaces but transsexuals too. To this end they have petitioned MPs to scrap the Gender Recognition Act which affords some legal protection to us...which by happy coincidence (though for different reasons) is exactly what their enemies demand also.

So here the two opposing sides have found common ground, and the politicians, having had the wool pulled over their eyes by the TRAs using narratives stolen from us, are joyfully legislating to bring peace and harmony to our troubled society. Cross-dressers will have their self ID on condition they respect segregated spaces and women will be safe from men in their toilets. And we will all live happily ever after.

Not so for us transsexuals. Someone somewhere has decided that we must be the sacrificial lamb to enable this to happen. We must cease to exist as a group. And not existing together with self ID being in place means it will be deemed no longer appropriate to transition via surgical means. Consequently all such treatment, once tailored purely for he needs of transsexuals, will vanish forever.

I hear women repeat over and over that they were never consulted about 'old-school' transsexuals using their spaces like we have done for years. Since in all probability many of you here weren't even born when I had my operation some 30 years ago that would have been rather difficult. And besides I don't recall being consulted about these outrageous proposals to erase me and my compatriots from society. There are certain well-known individuals on social media claiming to be transsexual but who eagerly cow to feminist insistence that they be labelled men. If they are happy to be blokes, fine. But they
certainly do NOT speak for most of us. I will NOT degrade myself in that way just to please others - nor to seek validation.

Personally it matters little whether women accept me or not. They never did when I was trying my best to present myself in the male role either. That used to hurt me a lot. But now I've grown harder. If the feminists treat their allies worse than they do their enemies, then they do not deserve allies. Whilst still supporting women's concerns in general, transsexuals are also entitled to fight for their existence - especially in the face of so many seeking their total erasure.

I believe feminists have singled us out for one simple reason. Thanks to our years of serious and medicated transitioning (unlike the TG community) many of us pass so well women cannot tell should they brush by us in their toilets. (If you have they're most probably cross-dressers). This I feel is what irks them most as it makes it near impossible to keep us out. So the fewer transsexuals enabled to transition, the less will be in their spaces.

I refuse to pay atonement for the sins of transgender activists. I'm sorry but I just cannot accept that from now on we be barred from women's toilets and hospital wards. For I can tell you it will not stop there. Next it will be parks, libraries, shopping centres and schools -
indeed any place where there are children. Apartheid sound familiar?

So know this Mumsnetters. I shall go on using women's toilets as I've done for half my life now. Not because I'm some misogynistic, foul-mouthed lager-drinking bloke who seeks to undermine or abuse women as many feminists seem to relish believing these days, but to
quietly assert my right to exist; you see I do it in the context of the time when black people once sat at segregated lunch counters enduring terrible abuse and violence from bigots.

Feminists can so do their worst. We few transsexuals who are left have nothing to lose now.

IIRC the GRA was a compromise because the end goal even then was self-id. The requirement for a medical diagnosis and (in its original form) evidence that one intended to medically transition by including a treatment plan in the material submitted as part of an application was not agreed to all that happily.

As for women - given that there was no public consultation, no public awareness campaign to inform the populace of any of this and no public debate, almost no women knew about "legal sex" and what it may have meant for us.

We therefore generally (but not universally) would have had no idea on seeing a male dressed as a woman in a female-only space that he might have believed himself to have a right to be there. Like me, most wome would have seen him as just another boundary violating male. Something most of us would be all too familiar with by our late teens.

And elicit the range of reactions as detailed by pp. I have at times waited in cubicles myself or turned on my heel and walked straight back out or kept my head down to avoid eye contact and got away fast or (on very rare occasion) challenged a male, usually on walking in.

Having more often seen older women challenge a male presence in female-only spaces where younger women and girls were visibly uncomfortable or scared, I'd like to think that I would do the same now that I am middle-aged.

And I no longer believe in that mythical honour contract either.

So politicians 'compromised' not sold women down river to an ideology?

Would it be seen as a compromise if we were talking abortion? Or maternity leave? Or any other women's rights?

And when those saying no amounts to a considerable number? Almost everyone in fact?

But as you know current public opinion is ‘yes’ to post ops like the op using female toilets.

Why did politicians have to give any ground at all to transactivists even for the GRA?

They could have pushed back by informing and consulting women probably at that time.

But they didn't.

They would have written into law, a third option which didn't create a legal fiction but did provide legal protection.

But they didn't.

They rolled over because they thought it acceptable to tell women to suck it up and shut up or to bury it under the carpet and hope no one would notice because it wasn't a big enough issue for them to care about.

I am left wondering what some people don't understand about 'my consent is not yours to give'.

This ^

Consent is not decided by consensus.

If 99 women out of 100 say yes and 1 says no, that single no is an absolute veto.

I see your point Red I'll try to clarify.

I'd still argue that it was a compromise position, but my meaning was a compromise made between men to deal with a presenting problem in 2004. As we know, women were not consulted or informed or involved in any way, never mind given a say. #spot the misogyny inherent in the system.

It was a compromise that meant avoiding having to legalise gay marriage and the Hansard record shows that debate in detail. Permitting limited use of women's spaces (by men, for men, at the time quite specific about the criteria for those men) was seen as the lesser evil. It's also in general debate been discussed as a position between women's needs for single sex and allowing some people in very limited circumstances and at the time strict criteria (guess was 5000 in total) to have a legal fiction of being the opposite sex: a compromise discussed in the sense of both sides having given ground a little. This has been vigorously and emphatically abused by males wanting access to women's spaces, proving that for women to compromise at all on single sex spaces is not possible. It's also led to women questioning in much more depth why it was ever seen as acceptable to let males into women's spaces anyway, and pointing out the misogyny and lack of recognition of women's needs and equality that underpins it. For women this has been a quietly bad situation from the start that has bubbled over. Not a good situation that has been exploited.

I used the word appreciated in the sense of understood rather than liked/approved of. Until the situation began to escalate, many women (and I was one of them) understood the situation of TS males living with severe gender dysphoria, had some sympathy for the position, and while certainly not all women were fine with people with TS using their spaces, the numbers were small enough that it did not lead to the kind of women's movement arising that the TRA movement has created, and the clarifying of boundaries that the OP is objecting to.

But as you know current public opinion is ‘yes’ to post ops like the op using female toilets.

Eh? This is most definitely not current public opinion among women.

But as you know current public opinion is ‘yes’ to post ops like the op using female toilets.

Even this is based on women thinking that if you have a GRC you are post op though.

There is no information on the number of post op transwomen there are. The suggestion is that most are not post op.

Plus we have the phenomena of this being lied about or transwomen being deliberately obtuse about their surgical status.

If women knew the reality of this would they still be as accommodating?

Check out the AGP thread - ‘post op’ no longer guarantees the absence of a penis - due to ‘penile preserving vaginoplasty’ or orchiectomy as a less invasive alternative to penile inversion SRS/GRS

There is no information on the number of post op transwomen there are. The suggestion is that most are not post op.

In UK, there is this reference [see para 1 on pg 2]:

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19292.pdf

30000 from 650000 = 4.6%

This is why, for UK, I always say that 95% do not have any treatment, which means 95% are transvestites who are demanding access to women and children.

Having said that,

^Consent is not decided by consensus.

If 99 women out of 100 say yes and 1 says no, that single no is an absolute veto.^

So many woke men and "inclusive" women fail to grasp this.

It's not a vote.

And, if we assume that the split between those who have a GRC in UK is even between males and females, that means that only 0.5% men can prove they have had any treatment. Given normal rules for rounding up ... it could be said that no men who are transvestites have had any treatment!

This is why, for UK, I always say that 95% do not have any treatment

Me too. I'm not sure that "treatment" is all SRS either.

As we know, women were not consulted or informed or involved in any way, never mind given a say. #spot the misogyny inherent in the system.

I said much earlier in this thread, that it's hard to argue that the GRA is not inherently misogynistic and therefore it is totally legitimate for women to question it and voice the opinion that it needs complete repeal - even if you ultimately disagree with doing so. Woman were never given the opportunity to be involved in its writing when they should have been.

It was a compromise that meant avoiding having to legalise gay marriage and the Hansard record shows that debate in detail. Permitting limited use of women's spaces (by men, for men, at the time quite specific about the criteria for those men) was seen as the lesser evil.

Now I wasn't aware of this explicity.

It demonstrates that the GRA is can be openly argued strongly as misogynistic but also it can be easily be argued as expressly homophobic.

And its easy to see why in practice it has therefore enabled widespread homophobia in how this subject is being handled in children in medical circles, in school classrooms lobbying children directly and against homosexuals, particularly lesbians.

All because there were some politicians who were too homophobic to allow gay marriage, or too stupid to see how the GRA enabled homophobia in the trans community.

Woman and homosexuals were not seen as important enough by Labour to protect.

It's worth pointing out that in 2004 when the GRA was passed the Labour Party had 413 seats in the HoC. The Lords was more difficult but the power did ultimately rest with a party which had a majority of 100 seats at the time. It could easily have found an alternative to the issue of marriage but chose not to do so. Instead the fudge was made to create a legal fiction over sex rather than a legal fiction around marriage.

How much more loudly did the Labour Party have to say that their commitment to women and the homosexual community was very shallow and ultimately they were really committed to them?

The Hansard Reports are a fascinating read:

House of Lords: api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/feb/03/gender-recognition-bill-hl

House of Commons: api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

Pointing out that men who identify as women are still male isn't an insult. Human beings can't change sex. It's just factual.

At first, I thought it was a genuine transexual person talking and was prepared to be very supportive and sympathetic. But no, it's yet another person who was born male who's made themselves look like a woman. You can't change sex, so you are NOT a transexual. This is offensive to those who really are transexual. This is clearly, someone who really doesn't understand what being a woman in today's society is really like.

SheWhoMustBeSilent, children who being medically doped up in preparation for being butchered, are the trojan horses and cover for all the late transitioning individuals who don't have surgery.

It creates the illusion that path is the rule rather than the exception.

And we have no idea about the long term consequences of that.

The first Hansard Report from House of Lords:

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/jan/29/gender-recognition-bill-hl

And its easy to see why in practice it has therefore enabled widespread homophobia in how this subject is being handled in children in medical circles, in school classrooms lobbying children directly and against homosexuals, particularly lesbians.

Isn't it just?

4910 GRCs issued (as of end of 2018)

3100 to males
of whom
900 did not have genital surgery

Please note, genital surgery, as a PP stated, also includes orchiectomoies which are far more common than penectomy.

I delved deep into the available research and statistics last year which strongly suggested the number of fully post-op males who identify as trans is less than one percent. And that's who the general public think of when they hear post-op.

So we don't actually know if the 2200 post-op GRC-holders are fully post-op.

However, as I have said before, I don't believe any of that truly matters. Yes, these are males who have made a serious effort and have meaningfully transitioned. This does differentiate them from the purely self-identifying crossdresser.

That's why in my view, the law should continue to protect the former group - those whose dysphoria is life-limiting and for whom transition is the only way to be able to lead a productive life. And given the high rate of complications, the risk to normal sexual function and longterm mental health outcomes, I do not support any requirement for genital surgery to be eligible for legal protections, whatever those may look like in the future.

However, none of that should have any bearing women's sex-based rights or on the legal set asides that exist to preserve the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls and those that exist to redress the inequality we suffer because of our sex.

I am left wondering what some people don't understand about 'my consent is not yours to give'.

This ^

Consent is not decided by consensus.
If 99 women out of 100 say yes and 1 says no, that single no is an absolute veto.

YY. And why should dysphoric males be prioritised over women who object? What is it about their condition that trumps women's feelings and traumas?
People who believe that 'genuine' or 'old-school' TS should have access to women's spaces, please explain this hierarchy.

And, if we assume that the split between those who have a GRC in UK is even between males and females, that means that only 0.5% men can prove they have had any treatment. Given normal rules for rounding up ... it could be said that no men who are transvestites have had any treatment!

I understand the split is more like 2 to 1 male/female (circa 3,500 MtF and 1,500 FtM) Until the recent meteoric rise in the number of girls being referred to gender identity clinics, the majority of referrals were of boys.

But as you know current public opinion is ‘yes’ to post ops like the op using female toilets.

Is there a current poll?

If there is such a poll - it would first need to educate the general public as to the realities of trans identities.
Most people I have spoken to think of a transwoman as ftm transitions not mtf/ self id.

Datun there has never been a poll about post-op transsexuals using female-only spaces.

There have been several about self-id where IIRC always about 75% of women said no.

(Caveat: this may be with don't knows excluded as is customary in reporting poll results. But in every poll I've seen, an outright majority of women said no to self-id, even including don't knows).

And I completely agree with Wurzelsnewhead that before any such poll, people need to be educated. There was an international poll, this year I think, that was touted as "majority of women support trans rights" reported in a way that implied majority support among women for self-id and when I checked where else this was being reported, it turned out that in quite a few countries the women asked had no idea what "trans" was and guessed it was something to do with rights for homosexual people.