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.

OP, yes, but I think that's why you're focusing on the wrong thing.

the MRAs and TRAs are asking us to accept men as women. That doesn't need to be divided by category.

like I said, unless you're encountering a lot of this IRL, I would try not to worry and do any campaigning based on bio sex.

I have to go out now so not ignoring any replies!

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

In legal terms there is no distinction. The change in the law now being discussed is for 'transgender' people, which includes transsexuals as well as fetishists and cross dressers. Transsexuals is now seen as an obsolete and outdated term by campaigners.

Does it not bother you that the law is to be changed to accommodate people like Pips 'when I put on a dress it turns me into a woman' Bunce and beardy Alex Drummond in their quest to access women's spaces and awards for women?

I'm not a fan of categorizing people either. Too-often this whole area of debate involves an elaborate form of doublethink. Rigid, exclusionary categories are upheld by the insistence on femininity and the oft-parrotted proclamation that TWAW - as if women were one homoegenous group with one set of wholly coinciding interests and needs; one mind, as it were. Try telling that to the likes of bell hooks and the earlier intersectional feminists whose ideas have been completely misappropriated.

On the other hand, distinct 'gender' categories are resisted by pronoun-policing, erasing things like venus symbols from the front of sanitary packaging, 'neutralizing' the threat of the women's bogs and the insistence that 'outting' people as something other than the way they choose to present themselves is incredibly damaging.

This whole, individualistic, identity-categorizing obsession sounds extremely confused to most people.

For my part, I'm not in the least impressed with being re-categorized as a menstruator, gestator, chest-feeder or cervix-haver. I find those epithets profoundly offensive. But somewhere along the way MY rights to self-definition have gone far down the path of being completely eroded.

Shades of Burdekin's Swastika Night. And it scares the liver out of me.

The crux of the issue, as I see it, is that we have some people who want to be categorised according to how they view themselves in terms of femininity and masculinity and for their sex to be ignored or lied about. In such instances, definitions and language will be used to subvert sex.

For me, I don't want to be categorised according to masculinity or femininity or by my sex - with the exception of categorising me by my sex when sex and sexed bodies are relevant to the context. I cannot think of a single situation whereby by identity as masculine/feminine/ something in between has any relevance to any context.

*You need to do more research OP before telling us we should be fighting for 'transexuals'.

Feminism is a women's liberation movement.*

Er thank you - how do you know I haven't done a lot of research? I know what feminism is and I am a feminist. I am not saying that transexuals are female (in fact the ones I know personally don't believe they are female either) just that it might be expedient for all of us to treat them as such.

like I said, unless you're encountering a lot of this IRL, I would try not to worry and do any campaigning based on bio sex.

I think you mean well but this is rather condescending, isn't it? I do come across this in real life because I work with young adults and have had trans gender students.

My point is that the debate is becoming extreme - and we are losing because people think we are bigots. I think we are at a tipping point. I believe that most people still think that trans gender is used to refer to people who have had surgical treatment - in fact THAT (gender reassignment) is protected in law, not gender identity. I believe we should insist on the law being upheld rather than trying to overturn it (which does make us look like bigots!) or extend it to cover gender identity(which is a disaster for women).

This feels a bit like atheists being asked to define god.

If we were being told we were going to have to live in a society where belief in god was compulsory, I think atheists would have a right to discuss what god was and why we should have to believe in him or her.

This is where we are.

I think if you'd done your research you'd understand that it was influential 'transexuals' who have and continue to fight for removal of boundaries and safeguarding. Middle ground positions do not help women or children.

I think if you are sure of your position, you should be able to convince the other person using your arguments (second sentence) rather continually trying to insist that they shouldn't offer up an opinion different to yours (first sentence). Actually, I think "if you had done your research" and similar is pretty much a go-to response for TRAs too to try and stifle debate (as it continually tries to position one person as not being as educated as the other) so I would ask you to refrain from using it. I have no idea of your education or research capabilities so will not comment on them.

My point is that the debate is becoming extreme - and we are losing because people think we are bigots.

Quite the opposite, actually. Sunlight is providing disinfectant. Ordinary women are radicalising, civilians are shocked at the practical outcomes when they become aware, and the unsustainability of the trutrans position is becoming more obvious by the day. None of this means anyone hates transsexuals.

Middle ground positions do not help women or children

There are conflicting interests. Until these are acknowledged and explored/discussed, there is the risk of winners and losers.

There are ways of protecting everyone's rights to safety, dignity and respect. Unfortunately, these do involve loss for those seeking validation for their identity through accessing single sex provision. However, where single sex provision is warranted, this is the only reasonable solution.

I believe that most people still think that trans gender is used to refer to people who have had surgical treatment - in fact THAT (gender reassignment) is protected in law, not gender identity.

To be protected under 'gender reassignment':

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

No surgery is required, and you don't even have to be thinking about it. Under the law there is no difference between transgender and transsexual - the 'other attributes' that a person changes could be simply wearing opposite sex clothing.

I absolutely reject the suggestion that recognising sex is binary and stating that sex matters in certain given contexts is radical in anyway.

The 'no debate' strategy has gone phenomenally well for me this year. I just state 'nonsense' and put my position forward. This has seen really positive changes in the contexts in which I work.

it was influential 'transexuals' who have and continue to fight for removal of boundaries and safeguarding.

Stephen Whittle for example.

@OldCrone - I stand corrected! I still think the original point stands though - that we have to have a clearer definition of what it actually means as it is not going to just disappear.

that we have to have a clearer definition of what it actually means as it is not going to just disappear

You won't get one because that is not the political aim. And hasn't been since the 1990s. You're not listening.

we have to have a clearer definition of what it actually means as it is not going to just disappear

I am happy for it to mean whatever people want it to mean. People can have, or not have a gender identity. What does is matter if it is simply about how they think of themselves or reconcile different parts of themselves.

I am interested in sex discrimination and having single sex spaces in some contexts and what matter here is sex, not gender identity. I am focusing my energies on this.

I believe we should insist on the law being upheld rather than trying to overturn it (which does make us look like bigots!) or extend it to cover gender identity(which is a disaster for women).

How can you tell whether someone is 'really' transsexual (but has not had any medical treatment) or is just a cross dresser or fetishist? How do you know, when you see someone like that in a female changing room which category they are in? At what point do you think people actually change sex?

Plenty of people who identify as transsexuals don't mind the transgender umbrella term, and those who feel that they have been thrown under the bus should thank other transsexuals and organisations like Press for Change and GIRES, not Stonewall or part-time crossdressers.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?pg=1&order=

At what point do you think people actually change sex?

Where did I say that people can change sex?

You won't get one because that is not the political aim. And hasn't been since the 1990s. You're not listening.
Yes, I am. I'm just a realist. I think on mumsnet we are older than average. Most young women I talk to absolutely think that trans women should be treated as women - but they also think that trans women are mainly transexuals. I think we may need to use this as a starting point to get what we want. At the moment we are losing everything.

If we were discussing reincarnation:

I see little point in analysing which people are really incarnated, vs those who like the idea but don't fully believe it, vs those who have grandiose ideas about being the reincarnated spirit of Gandhi, vs those with nefarious agendas using the concept for gain.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as reincarnation, and it demeans me to pretend otherwise, or categorise and rank the strength of other people's false belief in it.

And, should a true believer falsely consider themselves related to me on account of them thinking themselves a reincarnation of my grandmother, I reserve the right to vehemently deny their offensive claim and draw a considerable boundary between them and me.

It's irrelevant. What men believe, or don't believe about themselves, and about how similar or different they think they are to me.
It's irrelevant how committed they are to their beliefs about them and me, and our purported similarities.
All that matters is that I retain my right to have my actual, physical, biological, reproductive sex recognised, and distinguished accurately from theirs. And that my right to preserve an unbreachable boundary between them and me is unquestioned.

I'm not interested in the false beliefs of men, or how I distinguish between varieties of men with false beliefs. Even if those false beliefs pertain to my sex, what makes me (and they believe, them) female.

I'm interested in preserving the recognition of my physical sex, and the rights pertaining to it.

Most young women I talk to absolutely think that trans women should be treated as women

I work with young people, most of whom would happily say TWAW and should be treated as women. They would also say that single sex provision in hospitals, prisons, open plan changing areas etc are important. When you ask them if sexed bodies are important in these contexts they would say they are. If you asked them if senile people with penises and mental illness should be allowed in wards for people with vaginas and mental illnesses they say no.

Straight, clear talking is all that is needed to sort this nonsense out. The ramping up of efforts to obfuscate and to silence shows that this is recognised. The madness won't survive the next decade.

I hope we get to a place where gender non conformity is a non issue, as are same sex relationships and that people with dysphoria are helped to accept themselves as they are, with invasive treatment being used as as a very last resort

Where did I say that people can change sex?

You didn't say that exactly, but you did say this:

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.

So you have said that you think that 'treating them as women' is appropriate for some men (although you haven't said what this actually entails). I assumed that you meant things like letting them into women's changing rooms, so I wondered at what stage of their transition you thought this was appropriate.

And the fact that you think that 'treating them as women' is appropriate implies that you think that in some respects they actually are women - hence my comment about them changing sex.

I made some assumptions about what you meant by 'treating them as women' - maybe you meant something else?

The definition of transgender probably does need some discussion and clarification as it's become meaningless and damaging to some transexuals.

But I'm not interested in being involved in that discussion as I am not transgender or directly involved in transgender groups myself, and have other more pressing interests. But I wish them well and think they need to sort it out.

I am however interested in protecting the definition of women in the law, protecting women's boundaries and rights and ensuring that men don't get to redefine or remove my rights. Because I am a women.

I'm not interested in the false beliefs of men, or how I distinguish between varieties of men with false beliefs. Even if those false beliefs pertain to my sex, what makes me (and they believe, them) female.

I agree with the above.

I'm sometimes shocked at how our notional past social politeness was abused to the point where we had GRA 2004 and the consequences that have flowed from that despite contemporary warnings that this would be the logical outcome.

I don't know how we get to a working compromise from here or if it's possible. And I'll never understand why all of this effort is being expended on reducing the rights of women rather than other solutions.

And the fact that you think that 'treating them as women' is appropriate implies that you think that in some respects they actually are women

I think this is a huge illogical leap! I definitely didn't say this, nor do I believe it. I am talking more about establishing a legal fiction, not changing reality. I don't know whether this is possible or even something which is worth exploring which is why I am discussing it here - in RL it wouldn't even be entertained! I think having a GRC rather than relying on self-ID is a big part of this - not so much because the certificate would need to be produced to use a bathroom (that would never happen) but because it recognises the conflict of interests.