We need to talk about what transgender means

[smemorata]

Now that Stonewall has put just about everyone who ever even thought about wearing a dress under the transgender "umbrella", they have more or less forced women to push back at everyone. I find this really ridiculous and also counterproductive. Women (and men surely?) know that we are talking about different things. For example -

1. an "AMAB" who feels acute gender dysphoria and goes through a lengthy process (both legally and medically) to gain a feeling of acceptance is not the same as -
2. an "AMAB" who occasionally wears women's clothing but also enjoys male privilege in most situations
3. an "AMAB" who always wears very OTT sexualised "feminine" clothing as part of a fetish which women are expected to collaborate in.
4. a woke "AMAB" who dresses as a man, has a beard but claims to know what feeling like a woman is. Has no intention of giving up male genitalia but expects women to recognise it as female.

I have met some lovely people who are in category 1 and would actually have no problem in treating them as women in most (though not all) circumstances. But what do they have in common with the others? Are we expected to forget that festishes exist? I really resent the way that the MRAs and TRAs are asking us to treat such very different people in exactly the same way - and that's before taking into account the ROGD people and trans men. I don't see how the debate can move on until these differences are recognised.

Before seeing all those categories, I'd say we don't need to talk about what transgender means

after seeing it, I think we should ignore it more. I'm not a fan of categorising people. In my head, I meet a nice lady, she's called, for example, Sally, I think no more of it.

I think we should talk about biology and science and where we need to make progress more and also the basis for queer theory and where all this came from, so we can understand it and expose it for what it really is.

I'm not sure what you mean. You don't care which category Sally is in?

Of course you are right. Not worried about (1) although we also have to keep making it plain that having gender dysphoria does not mean you were born in the wrong body. It means you have a deep disconnect with your own body and feel better dressing as the opposite sex but that you are still your original sex. Magical thinking around ‘sex change’ and ‘born in the wrong body’ don’t help.

I don’t, for example, have a problem with someone like Jan Morris but they are not and never will be a woman. I think JM now accepts they are not a woman but thinks they are somewhere between man and woman. More magical thinking.

We should also note that almost everyone in (1) is MTF. And older. Even if (1) is the least problematic category, there is something sexed about gender dysphoria. The teenage girls, of which there is of course an epidemic right now, are experiencing a horror of womanhood that is to be expected in teenage girls. Most I think will desist if they get the chance. There are barely any middle aged women who are living as FTM. It’s worth wondering why.

I don’t know if any of these people in your categories are transgender. But I know that they are not women. Because biology.

AFAIK there is no legal definition of transgender, so it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

And AFAIK there is no special legal protection for transgender people ( or blondes or people who love gardening or bird watching ).

But there is for women and people who have the characteristic of gender reassignment. So these seem like important legal terms to be clear about.

It's not really now that Stonewall. This shit has been around for a long time. Transgender has never been nothing more than a branding, designed to pull together various groups (to my mind in the service of male sexual rights). Here it is, way back in 1995.

It doesn't matter which box they fit into. I'm happy with women/not women.
However men want to identify is nothing to do with me.

Smem apologies, I misunderstood that and I thought there was an actual woman in there.

so I should rephrase - I have hit the point where none of those men are people I'd be friends with. Even the first one. Not because prejudice, but because life is hard enough already and while I might be sympathetic, it doesn't necessarily mean I want that person as a friend.

I used to work with two transsexuals - not sure if that word is still allowed - and that was fine with me at the time in terms of sharing bathrooms. Now I'm not sure what I would feel about it.

In reality, all the explanations in the world don't matter. Biologically male or female matters to me. The rest, I don't really care.

I mean, someone might describe themselves to me as one category but in reality be another category.

AutumnRose - I completely understand. I just think it's a shame that we have reached this point. I have never felt threatened by the people in category 1 (and yes, they describe themselves as transexuals). The others are a completely different kettle of fish!

I agree! Long time lurker, but I have so many conversations with friends and family about this. For me one of the key issues in this debate is that the general public assume 'transgender' means the people in group 1 and most feel sympathy for people in that position. So the debate is framed as these nasty feminists hating on the trans (gender dysphoric) people.

From conversations I have about this issue, most people are simply not familiar with the fact that the Equality Act recognises and protects gender dysphoric people. They're not familiar with the Gender Recognition Act either. They just assume that trans (gender dysphoric) people have no rights and the nasty feminists are trying to stop them getting rights.

I've found the most effective way of explaining to people why I'm one of those nasty feminists is to bring it back to the law, to explain that people with gender dysphoria have legal rights and protection in this country. To explain what a gender recognition certificate is and the gatekeeping that currently exists to ensure only the gender dysphoric receive one. To explain the differences between gender dysphoria and autogynephilia (sp?). Then I find people 'get it' and can see why I'm opposed to self-ID and start thinking it's not such a great idea themselves.

I appreciate that the above is quite generalised and lacks the nuances of much that's discussed on here, but I find keeping it fairly simple for people who aren't as familiar with the issues helps.

I'm happy with women/not women.

Me too.

OP

How much of this are you encountering in real life? Just interested because I barely see acquaintances now and only meet with close friends. Since doing that, I encounter much less of it.

Really I’m wondering why you want to talk about what transgender means.

Is it that you want a proper distinction between transsexual and transgender?

I've found the most effective way of explaining to people why I'm one of those nasty feminists is to bring it back to the law, to explain that people with gender dysphoria have legal rights and protection in this country. To explain what a gender recognition certificate is and the gatekeeping that currently exists to ensure only the gender dysphoric receive one. To explain the differences between gender dysphoria and autogynephilia (sp?). Then I find people 'get it' and can see why I'm opposed to self-ID and start thinking it's not such a great idea themselves.

The TRA insistence about 'no debate' has been incredibly effective in preventing most people from learning these simple truths.

Really I’m wondering why you want to talk about what transgender means.

Because I think transexuals are getting thrown under the bus by the whole debate so yes, I think it would be helpful to have a proper distinction (which I think is probably already there in law and in most people's minds but is being undermined by authorities who are happy to go along with what seems right).

Really I’m wondering why you want to talk about what transgender means.

Do you not think it's important? Laws are possibly about to be changed for the supposed benefit of 'transgender' people, which would also have an enormous effect on the rest of us, particularly women and children. We really do need a clear definition of what it means to be 'transgender' if these people's rights are going to be given priority over those of women.

The current state of play was always the end game, as per the 1995 image I posted earlier.

People can't change sex. The GRA was only instituted due to societal homophobia about gay marriage. It should be repealed and men should learn to accept their non-conforming brethren. That's it. No more to it than that.

OldCrone Oh I think it's hugely important to talk about biological sex, yes.

But transgender means zero to me. It has, in my brain, never included transsexual.

People can talk about transgender till the cows come home, pop their slippers on and relax with a whisky in front of the fire, but the only conversation I'm interested in is keeping spaces separated by biological sex.

re transsexuals being thrown under the bus - yes, I think they are. But I have to fight my fight while they fight theirs. My fighting energy is limited.

x post with Lang Cleg

yes, when I first raised this with my MP he said "don't worry, it will get sorted, it was only about gay marriage anyway". How wrong he was. But I don't think many people could have predicted the explosion of crazy we've had.

But I have to fight my fight while they fight theirs. My fighting energy is limited.

But whether or not you think they are female, surely it might be a better tactic to fight for them not against them? The MRA/TRAs seem to be very successful in making out that women are mean and bigoted precisely because it seems that Jo Public thinks of transexuals when transgender is talked about. I think we need to insist on a stricter definition as much for us as for them.

when I write to anyone about this, I never mention any of the stuff linked up to what's listed in the OP. I just emphasise the separation of spaces by sex.

I really don't want to get into a situation where any of those categories actually become important. Can you imagine what that would be like?!

I really don't want to get into a situation where any of those categories actually become important. Can you imagine what that would be like?!

Sort of like the situation now!

But whether or not you think they are female, surely it might be a better tactic to fight for them not against them?

You'll find the majority view hereabouts is not positive about the trutrans position. We understand that some people suffer significant distress with regard to their sexed bodies. This is sad and such folk must be respected, helped and not discriminated against. They don't ever become the opposite sex, however, and should not be treated as such in law. It's not a matter of nice people and not nice people or how much surgery you have. It's a matter of women's rights - which can never include anyone XY.