Jk Rowling and trans issues... talk to me!

[bunters]

Ok mumsnet, please talk to me. I’ve noticed that the feminist section of mumsnet seems disproportionately preoccupied with trans issues and I’d like to understand it. I opened the feminism chat today and topic after topic related to trans this, gender that

It is an indisputable fact that women suffer horrific domestic violence in this country (and worldwide), at the hands of men. Women are regularly beaten, raped, controlled, murdered and otherwise abused by men every single day. It’s so standard that it barely makes news when it happens, unless the crime is truly shocking.

This whole trans hysteria feels to me like if the government were to start a huge campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of choking on peanuts, while ignoring the huge damage caused by alcohol and tobacco.

JK Rowling has started a bizarre war around the language used to refer women, in the name of women’s rights. With her money and popularity she could have done any number of things to help women in a huge way. What has this achieved, other than pitting feminists against each other? Even if you believe she has a point, surely you can see that whatever ‘danger’ trans people pose to women is minuscule compared to the very real danger men openly pose to women every day?

We all know that men have felt entitled to take what they want when they want for centuries, and they don’t need to dress as a woman to do it. The women gang raped to death (can you even imagine the horror) in India weren’t attacked by men in dresses. I’m despairing of the fact that attention has been diverted from these horrors in such an extreme way.

When I look at my beautiful, tiny daughter I don’t worry about some trans person hurting her, I worry about the very likely situation when a man hurts her. In fact, I’d worry more that she’ll be trans and be hurt by someone before I’d worry about a trans person hurting her. When I walk alone at night somewhere, my mind isn’t imagining trans people waiting in dark doorways to rape me, it’s men. Men being bloody men.

If we accept that men don’t need to be trans and gain access to women’s spaces to hurt us, and we accept that trans people are way more likely to attempt suicide than the rest of the population (and so really are in need of help and protection as much as women), why do trans issues continue to cause such anger?

And if you do feel justified, what tangible thing are you doing to help women, besides moaning on mumsnet and signing petitions?

biology is only your outside part of your body not your skin but like your penis. whether you are man or woman depends on whether the inside of your body (eg your lungs and liver) aligns with your penis

Of all the daft comments I've read about the biology/gender debate, that is definitely the silliest. Human beings are born as a complete item, not assembled from separate bits which may or may not 'match' or 'align' with each other.

"If you've met trans people, you know they pose zero risk to anyone else

What, you've met all of them? That's about as logical as saying "If you've met dogs, you know they don't bite people" or "If you've met women, you know they have long hair".

"Sex is only the outside of your body"

JFC.

I don't want to sound unkind but i do wonder sometimes whether we're engaging with (and perhaps being unduly harsh at times towards) people who would be benefit from some professional support to help them access this topic area in a meaningful way.

If you identified as a cup of coffee, would you literally be one? If someone ordered a coffee in a cafe and got you on a tray instead, would it be 'phobic' to send you back and ask for the real coffee they ordered? If you identified as next door's cat would the neighbours be phobic if they did not let you in and give you cat food? Of course not. Same goes for transwomen pretending they are women. Be who you are, wear what you like, but don't claim something is true when it isn't.

@lazylinguist

biology is only your outside part of your body not your skin but like your penis. whether you are man or woman depends on whether the inside of your body (eg your lungs and liver) aligns with your penis

Of all the daft comments I've read about the biology/gender debate, that is definitely the silliest. Human beings are born as a complete item, not assembled from separate bits which may or may not 'match' or 'align' with each other.

I'm pretty sure that poster was indulging in reductio ad absurdum, not writing that seriously. But, Poe's law being what it is, it can be hard to tell..

I think I see what you are saying, my next question would be why is acceptance of trans people as trans invalidating or denying their existence? Surely it is the polar opposite yet those accusations are flung round with alarming regularity.

I don’t know, I don’t understand it either.

Like SunsetBeetch I think transphobia isn’t going to go away until trans people are accepted as trans people and that being ok.

Errol
You can certainly define 'Cis' without reference to men or women because it's got nowt to do with them. Cis has no connotation at all of moving or not. It means objects literally, spatially, being on the same side. That's all.

Ah, in the same way that 'gender' is properly defined as 'a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun,' without any gobbledegook about feelz.

(In Dutch the genders are 'common' and 'neuter'.)

Since my post was deleted.

I like to think that some posters on this thread are providing a live FAQ stream for people reading who might have had questions or have similar opinions to the OP.

It is important to keep this discussion going as it is always helpful to hear new information and get a different view point. And in this instance, to see just how much our speech is controlled.

@Quaagars

Is birth sex on the outside then? Well, yes, your birth sex, what's between your legs on the outside, that's your birth sex, right, surely you know that?

First I thought Quaagars was being absurdist and I laughed.

Then I thought “where do you even start with this nonsense?”

Now I’m at “sod this for a lark, is it wine o’clock yet?”

Birth sex on the outside. Like a meat suit we wear. I’d to return mine because peri menopause is making it malfunction; do you have an address I can contact, Quaagars?

@lazylinguist

biology is only your outside part of your body not your skin but like your penis. whether you are man or woman depends on whether the inside of your body (eg your lungs and liver) aligns with your penis

Of all the daft comments I've read about the biology/gender debate, that is definitely the silliest. Human beings are born as a complete item, not assembled from separate bits which may or may not 'match' or 'align' with each other.

Worth noting that that comment you're saying is silly is one made by a "GC" poster, nobody on the other "side"

Worth noting that that comment you're saying is silly is one made by a "GC" poster, nobody on the other "side"

I've already noted it.

I think that poster was taking the piss, hence the amiright at the end?

Says it all that we can't actually tell.

I've already noted it

Good good

I think that poster was taking the piss, hence the amiright at the end?

Yep, I thought so too but it's the way it's insinuated that anyone who doesn't always agree with "GC" must think that.
When nobody's said that at all apart from a GC poster!

@Quaagars

I think that poster was taking the piss, hence the amiright at the end?

Yep, I thought so too but it's the way it's insinuated that anyone who doesn't always agree with "GC" must think that.
When nobody's said that at all apart from a GC poster!

Well who was it who started on the bits between the legs? Ok, so maybe that shouldn't have been taken at all seriously either but if not then it was a weak deflection tbh.

How is me accepting trans women meaning that I'm suddenly a subset of woman?

What do you mean by 'accepting trans women'? What are you 'accepting'?

I meant accepting that they're women doesn't mean I automatically become less of one.
It doesn't mean I'm suddenly not a woman anymore, or a subset if woman.
I still am one, it's not magically been taken away from me.

Well who was it who started on the bits between the legs

That was in response to someone who didn't seem to know what birth sex on the outside meant, or was doing that pretending not to know thing, so tried to spell it out.

@Quaagars

How is me accepting trans women meaning that I'm suddenly a subset of woman?

What do you mean by 'accepting trans women'? What are you 'accepting'?

I meant accepting that they're women doesn't mean I automatically become less of one.
It doesn't mean I'm suddenly not a woman anymore, or a subset if woman.
I still am one, it's not magically been taken away from me.

It's not all about you. It's not about any individual woman. It's about women as a class. If you don't understand why that's important yet then frankly you've been wasting your time on a feminism and women ps rights board.

But the word woman has then become useless as a category Quag Surely there are better ways to help a trans person feel comfortable.

OP you need to do a LOT aid reading. I don't think it's possible to grasp the issues unless you spend some time embroiled in the discussion.

@Quaagars

How is me accepting trans women meaning that I'm suddenly a subset of woman?

What do you mean by 'accepting trans women'? What are you 'accepting'?

I meant accepting that they're women doesn't mean I automatically become less of one.
It doesn't mean I'm suddenly not a woman anymore, or a subset if woman.
I still am one, it's not magically been taken away from me.

When you use the word 'woman', what do you mean? What is your definition of 'woman'? Because if you use the dictionary definition of 'adult female human', then obviously 'transwomen' are not women.

The point has flown straight over your head Quaggers the poster was taking the piss out of your absurd comment about birth sex being on the outside and whether or not it aligns with what's on the inside, the liver or heart maybe? You've yet to tell us what our outside birth sex does or doesn't align with on the inside of our bodies to determine whether we are trans or not.

and whether or not it aligns with what's on the inside, the liver or heart maybe?

Yes.
Yes, all trans people have a misalignment with their heart and their liver.
Possibly their kidneys too
Who'd have known?!
That doesn't deserve the piss ripped out of it too? Or is that getting overlooked lol?!

I notice how @Quaagars has nothing to say about the bisexual erasure here.

Yes, should have mentioned bi in there too, wasn't intentional erasure for goodness sake.
Way to be pedantic though and miss what I was actually saying.

There you go, better?
From what I can gather, just means not trans
Kind of like being straight means not gay/lesbian/bi