GC turned trans ally in Independent

[notassigned]

Article here

What trans boy or man would use a tampon dispenser in a gents?

That feels like something they would avoid at all costs.

The rest is be kind.

The bit about using all infractions to demonise a group- that's not the point. The point is that if you remove current protections for women then it's a free for all.

By her argument everything should be unisex as men currently are not allowed in eg women's prisons because a few of them present a risk. And that's not fair on the men who don't.

This idea that men who say they are women (even if they don't feel it) are different from men who say they are men when it comes to single sex stuff is bonkers.

Just starting to read this. Her nephew came out as trans, her sister's son is thriving.

This language is entirely designed to confuse. If a nephew came out as trans they must be a boy who thinks they are a girl now? But they are still referring to them as a son who is thriving... which suggests they consider them a boy now. So which is it?

Reading on...

deeply hypocritical by the gender-critical campaigners who both insist on medical transition, whilst also condemning it.

I have heard this come up a number of times. Every time an expectation of medical transition is mentioned GC people immediately say that we cannot support laws which push people towards unnecessary drugs/surgery. So we mostly think the law shouldn't do the legal fiction of changing a person's sex.

the collective punishment approach to trans women. All trans women are held accountable for any misdemeanour by any trans woman.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting punishing a person for crimes they haven't committed. I think she is considering it a punishment to treat men who say they are women exactly the same as we treat other men.

@testing987654321

Just starting to read this. Her nephew came out as trans, her sister's son is thriving.

This language is entirely designed to confuse. If a nephew came out as trans they must be a boy who thinks they are a girl now? But they are still referring to them as a son who is thriving... which suggests they consider them a boy now. So which is it?

Reading on...

I think that you may have misunderstood the article’s author.
My interpretation is that her sister had a child that was identified as female at birth. That child subsequently identified male and hence became the sister’s son and author’s nephew.
Whilst I respect that you may not agree with either the principle or process involved in gender transitionIng, it is generally considered a mark of respect for the people involved, and for others, to refer to them by their chosen name, pronouns and gender identity. I believe that the article was consistent in this respect.

it is generally considered a mark of respect for the people involved, and for others, to refer to them by their chosen name, pronouns and gender identity.

The problem with doing that is you end up with a 1984 style "we were always at war with Eurasia".

It's nonsensical to describe someone having transitioned without being able to name the before and after correctly.

The child is still only 14, so I sincerely hope any transition is purely social at this point.

The article was about the author’s attitudes and their changing perceptions of transgender people. Whilst it was a personal story and involved a member of the author’s family, whether the young person had transitioned from male to female or female to male was In my opinion largely irrelevant.
If I divorced, I would be upset if other people In day to day life insisted that they had a right to refer to me as a divorcee or to continue to refer to me by my married name (assuming that I had changed it when I married). If I chose to legally change my name, I would be upset if other people insisted that they had a right to continue to call me by my previous name. I believe that these are analogous situations. They cost little or nothing and constitute nothing more than respect for the feelings and sensitivities of the human beings involved. Again, in my opinion, showing this respect harms no one and improves the quality of life for the people involved. Maybe it also helps them feel a little happier. Perhaps it can also help the person showing the respect feel better about themself. Both are no bad things in these troubled times.

we are not in the day to day life of the authors young relative though, are we? And since she has chosen to cite this person, and her relationship to them as material in discussing her own opinions of this issue IMO it's quite legitimate to expect her to be clear about what sex this person is and what gender they now identify into.
I'm assuming they haven't named or identified this teenager.

StillWeRise
I 'm not aware that the author has named or identified the teenager, nor do I think that they should have done so. I also don't agree that we need to know the sex of the (third party) person referenced in the article. I have 2 reasons for this opinion:

1. If someone wrote an article about their attitude towards motorists that speed through villages or along city side streets after they had seen a motorist travelling at speed in the area where they live, then I think their article would be relevant regardless of whether they lived in Bradford or Chew Magna. Similarly, I don't think it matters whether the motorist that they observed had been driving a Skoda Fabia or a Ford Mondeo. Perhaps you disagree.
2. I don't see why this article is any more or less interesting, relevant or valid if the young person referenced is a male to female or female to male transgender person. If there is a reason why you think this is relevant, then please explain it to me - I'm keen to learn.

The message that I'm taking away from reading this article is that sometimes we form or express opinions about a thing, person or group of people based on what we read or hear from others but once we experience something directly or personally interact with someone affected, then we achieve a greater understanding, awareness or empathy and we change our mind. That certainly fits in with my personal experience. I'm pleased that NotAssigned brought this article to my attention.

I don't need to know the sex of the child involved. The whole language around transgenderism is designed to confuse rather than be clear. The author doesn't have a nephew she has a niece. Her niece is a girl but they want us to pretend she is a boy. Apparently this is normal and I am unkind for finding it nonsense.

This idea that men who say they are women (even if they don't feel it) are different from men who say they are men when it comes to single sex stuff is bonkers

This. It really is this simple - until TRAs and trans allies are able to produce credible evidence to the contrary, I see no reason why gender identity should have any impact whatsoever on any form of womens' sex-based provisions.