I’m so confused by my opinion on the transgender debate

[OkayOkay1]

I have never, ever known a trans person in real life. I thought I had my opinions on the whole issue until this season of I’m a Celebrity. I know it sounds silly, but listening to Caitlyn’s plight has made me question everything.

My views have always been that sex should be determined at birth and cannot be changed but that gender is something that people can choose if they so wish.

That way, sporting events should be categorised by sex, regardless of what gender you may identify as.

I also sympathised with the fact that women who have been subjected to abuse from males would hugely benefit from toilets etc being strictly female only. Although I could see an argument for trans women using women’s toilets at a point where they have fully transitioned surgically.

But I listen to Caitlyn Jenner and what she has been through and she has my utmost respect for being brave enough to go through all that she has. Being in the public eye, the transition process must have been even more daunting. She has lost family over this. I feel for her so much and think that I would love her to be fully treated as a woman. She has fought so hard to get to the place she is now. Wouldn’t it be so humiliating to have to join in with the males in sporting events that are segregated by sex? Or use male changing facilities etc.

I don’t know what the answer is but I am really confused. 😔

Why do you think we segregate most sport by sex fox?

Why do you think we segregate able bodied people and disabled people in sport?

So given that trans women are legally recognised as women you're going to have to come up with a better reason for excluding them than just calling them men.

Please define what you mean by 'trans woman'.

Olympic 100m men's finals for the past 35 years have been overwhelmingly comprised quite specifically of African American and African Caribbean people and nobody except racists have a problem with that.

I'm not sure what 'overwhelmingly quite specifically' means statistically, but men continue to compete in the 100m at all levels regardless of their skin colour.

Without sex segregation women would be pushed out of all competition, everywhere, at the age of about 12.

If you can't define 'trans woman' and explain why they should compete in women's races on the basis of their physiology, you are arguing that anyone should be able to compete in the 100m race regardless of their sex.

I think you should bare in mind that under these new rules where sex isn't taken into account, Caster Semenyaya also loses.

That whole "you will have to justify maintaining sex segregation" thing - no. It is you who are pushing a drastic change in how sporting competition is organized, and using frankly racist arguments to do it, therefore it is you who needs to justify your demands. Why should females and males who have taken specific forms of medication compete in the same category?

The racism is so hardwired in they don't even know they're doing it, do they?

Olympic and World 100m and 200m champions are almost all of West African origin, but there is an occaisonal Alan Wells, Pietro Minnea or Defne Schippers.

Champion distance runners are almost all of East African rift valley origin, but there is an occasional Paula Radcliffe, Liz McColgan or David Moorcroft.

There has never been an XX woman capable of making an Olympic Mens final in athletics, swimming, ski-ing, cycling or any other event measured against the clock. Not one. Not ever. Never.

So given that trans women are legally recognised as women you're going to have to come up with a better reason for excluding them than just calling them men

No, we don't. Women's sport is listed as an exemption under the Equality Act. Women's sport is for females.

Women themselves have fought for women's sports categories - and indeed to partake in sport at all. It was only a few decades ago that a man tried to pull a woman out of the Boston Marathon. We didn't fight for women's sporting categories so that males, with male bodies, having gone through a male puberty, could identify as women and take part.

Sex is not comparable to race.

Again, why should females and males who have taken specific forms of medication compete in the same category?

STOP falsely invoking racism in a disgusting attempt to shame women into giving up their boundaries.

STOP DOING THIS.

It is incredibly racist as well as misogynistic.

The racism that is inherent in transgenderism, is abhorrent.

So given that trans women are legally recognised as women you're going to have to come up with a better reason for excluding them than just calling them men.

Nope. Just apply the, very sensible, but currently overlooked, legal exemptions. Because the equality act absolutely recognises that they're men.

I'm not sure Caster Semenya is quite the gotcha that poster thinks they are, either.

If trans women were legally recognized as women, why are the various trans lobby groups pushing the Scottish and UK governments to remove the legal exemptions in the Equality Act?

Are they pushing to remove all exceptions, or will they keep the one that stops a transman inheriting things that currently go to the first born son?

Nope. Just apply the, very sensible, but currently overlooked, legal exemptions. Because the equality act absolutely recognises that they're men.

This very vital piece of information is so often overlooked - although I would say the EA exemptions recognise trans women are not biologically female rather than that they are men.

This very vital piece of information is so often overlooked - although I would say the EA exemptions recognise trans women are not biologically female rather than that they are men.

It's semantics, as there is no biological difference whatsoever. Men are adult human males. Women are adult human females. There are only two sexes. Sex is immutable.

And yes, MTFs without a GRC are legally men in terms of the protected characteristic of sex. So the exemptions should apply to them in the same way they apply to other men.

So given that trans women are legally recognised as women

Untrue, unless they have a GRC.

What does ‘treating someone as a woman’ mean?

Because, depending on where you live in the world, that can mean discriminating against them in the workplace by paying them 20% less than their male counterparts, to burying them alive at birth.

When transwomen say they want to be treated as women, what they mean is they want to be treated as objects for the male gaze (which is what they understand ‘woman’ to mean, because of their inherent misogyny), and it means they want to claim for themselves the very few hard-won rights and privileges women have fought for over the centuries.

All the other bits of being ‘treated like a woman’ - like not being believed when you’re trafficked internationally to be raped by royalty; or being described as someone who enjoyed rough sex and therefore partially responsible for your own murder, or being denied education, or being forced to carry a pregnancy - all of that kind of ‘being treated like a woman’, well, that can be reserved for natal women (maybe we should file it under ‘cis privilege?’)

Race is completely irrelevant and not at all analogous to transgenderism.

Sex is binary. Race is a spectrum. It is possible to be half black and half white, or 2/3rds Asian, or whatever combination. It is possible to combine different racial characteristics in one person. It is not possible to be ‘half XX and half XY’. You are either of the sex class that makes large gametes or small gametes. End of.

First they hid in the church and got found. Then they hid in the bbc. Then scouts. And then Hollywood and allegedly even in royal circles. There is nowhere left for the predators to hide and access potential victims. So what do they come up with next. "Let's hide in plain sight. Let's make it legal to be where we want to be in order to access potential victims. We can pretend to be them. We can make it so they daren't say anything. If they do we will shout and threaten and silence. Until everyone believes what we tell them. And then we will make it the law that they accept us. And then it is too late. Cos these (mainly female) victims in the bbc and the church and Hollywood, they had the nerve to speak out. They took our predatory space. So now we will take theirs. And we will take their children too. We will teach them our way is the only way. Within a few generations they won't know it was ever any different. And hey, once we have done this imagine what else we could do!"

I never thought it would come to this being a serious rhetoric. I'm astonished. I imagine I will continue to be astonished if we don't stop this invasion now. Protect ourselves and our children.

And yes I know that it's not all trans. But just one would be too many.

Should Yaniv have a gynae consultant? Yaniv's gynae consultant refused to consult with Yaniv.

Race is completely irrelevant and not at all analogous to transgenderism.

I agree. It's bloody pathetic the way these people keep on with this. Can't we report and have this shite removed? Surely Mumsnet don't permit racism on the site? Only just had this idea. Has it already been tried?

It’s also worth noting that a recent transgender conference held at Edinburgh University was accused of outright racism by both organisers and delegates. I work in academia and have attended loads of conferences and this trans conference was the only one where I heard of such blatant examples of racism taking place. When challenged, one person blamed their racism on ‘not being neurotypical’.

These people are not tolerant and progressive although they pretend to be. They are for the most part white men’s rights activists and they will happily throw people of colour under the bus to promote their own agenda. That’s why they say offensive shit like that black women are not women.

The only area where there is an analogy is that transgenderism (ie the claim that a male person literally is female due to a feeling) is absolutely no different from transracialism. Luckily the latter hasn’t been given much traction so far but the two are the same in terms of offensiveness.

The only area where there is an analogy is that transgenderism (ie the claim that a male person literally is female due to a feeling) is absolutely no different from transracialism. Luckily the latter hasn’t been given much traction so far but the two are the same in terms of offensiveness.

Yes I agree. Both equally offensive.

Interesting thread.