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?

Some great posts on here. Thank you

There is tic remover? I wish I'd known that when I lived in the highlands.

@Joisanofthedales

There is tic remover? I wish I'd known that when I lived in the highlands.

OT, but we always carry a tick card in our rucksack. Its the size of a credit card with a small and a larger slot - simple but effective.

Much easier than grappling with them. Thank you Errol. Mumsnet is always educational.

Cis" as well as being a linguisitic sleight of hand which assumes everyone has a and agrees with "gender identity", enables women to be relabelled as the oppressors, which is of course ridiculous. "Cis privilege" my arse (my arse which will be judged and groped against my will).

I therefore wholeheartedly reject "cis".

Plus it implies that I accept the premise that males are just as much women as women. Which I do not. So no thanks, I won't be using it and I don't want it applied to me.

People use cis to offend women. That is all.

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

Wait, you surely don't believe that there is nothing in your genetic make-up that makes you male or female, and that your sex is only determined by your actual external genitals?

I know I failed to spot someone taking the mickey upthread about livers and spleens etc matching penises (hard to spot a joke these days amongst all the genuinely-believed nonsense), but you're serious here, right?

That's a 'no' then joisaninthedales

The acceptance of the mantra TWAW, No debate,

I can't imagine what it must be like to have your very existence as a trans person debated.
When you say debate, what, like debate whether you're really trans?
(With all the how do we know comments etc)
Whether you should get rights as a trans person, whether a trans man or a trans woman?
So I can understand no debate stance a bit there - to constantly have your entire existence up for "discussion" by people who aren't trans must be

Wow that was quick.

But it's not their existence that's up for debate. That's emotive hyperbole. What's up for debate is whether a male person can be considered a woman.

No one is denying that a group of people who believe they are the opposite sex internally exist.

What was that, Joisanofthedales? paraphrasing obviously!

I can't imagine what it must be like to have your very existence as a trans person debated.

Probably because that's not a thing that really happens here. The 'no debate' there is referring to the assertion 'TWAW', not "do trans people exist". Well, personally I don't think there's much to debate there either. Transwomen most certainly exist, but I don't believe they are actually women.
The idea that 'TWAW' should be asserted and not debated by women ... is that really what you want to support?

@Quaagars

The acceptance of the mantra TWAW, No debate,

I can't imagine what it must be like to have your very existence as a trans person debated.
When you say debate, what, like debate whether you're really trans?
(With all the how do we know comments etc)
Whether you should get rights as a trans person, whether a trans man or a trans woman?
So I can understand no debate stance a bit there - to constantly have your entire existence up for "discussion" by people who aren't trans must be

“Your very existence debated,” MY ARSE. (Sorry, came over all Jim Royle there. How non-binary of me)

We’re not Voldemort, we aren’t puffing people out of existence with our words.

We are disputing claims they make about themselves.

I can claim to be a wealthy young Zimbabwean princess, but that doesn’t change the fact I’m a middle aged white Brit from a long line of labourers and peasants.
A transwoman can claim on Twitter to be female but that doesn’t change the fact they were born - and will remain - male.

The argument is about when that matters, and how much.

Quaagars.
Given the breadth of stonewall's definition of what constitutes being trans, how do you know that lots of us aren't trans.
How very transphobic of you.

I think someone is being disingenuous here.

The phrase TWAW - does this mean "it would be nice to legally accept people who, though biologically male, very sincerely feel they ought to have been born female, and would like to be treated as if they were female according to the conventions of how society treats women"? Or does it mean "these people who were born unequivocally, biologically male have somehow (insert hand wave here) literally become women"? Or indeed "always were women really" (insert spurious bullshit science about pink brains in blue bodies here).

That's what the debate is about - which of these readings reflects reality.

No-one's denying the existence of people born unequivocally male who sincerely believe they ought to have been women, and would like to be treated socially as if they were women, nor is anyone proposing denying them human rights, nor anything like that.

We're arguing over the "literally" reading of the word "is".

But I suspect this is well known. Just that some people try to pretend it isn't.

When you say debate, what, like debate whether you're really trans?

The obvious clash of rights would be a good start, rather than the flat out denial from lobby groups like Stonewall that there's even an issue, whilst at the same time quietly trying to get sex removed as a protected characteristic. They know there are problems, that those pesky exemptions/protections are a barrier. That's why they wanted no debate, so people couldn't point out how sinister certain aspects are.

No one wants to debate whether trans people exist-of course they exist, we all know that.

No-one is debating a trans persons existence as a trans person, transwomen are transwomen they should and do have the same rights as any other human being, what they don't have and should never have are the additional rights and protections afforded to a section of the population that they are not part of.

To constantly have your entire existence as a woman up for discussion by people who aren't women is more than a bit and the end result of the blind acceptance of the TWAW mantra are the horrendous incidents, abuses and problems highlighted earlier in the thread.

To constantly have your entire existence as a woman up for discussion by people who aren't women is more than a bit

Exactly. The only people whos existence and right to name themselves is being denied are Adult Human Females.

While I agree that trans people exist I very much doubt that they wish to be treated socially like biological women with XX chromosomes. Lower pay, fear of rape and sexual assault, being talked over in meetings, nasty comments when they put on weight or don't conform to the norm, being ignored when trying to buy a drink at a crowded bar, being called a slag for wearing a vety short skirt or to much makeup.The list is endless and this does not include those pesky biological issues.

I can't imagine what it must be like to have your very existence as a trans person debated.

Can’t you see that that is exactly what you are doing to women? If woman isn’t related to biology I honestly don’t know what to call myself.

Quaagars
I can't imagine what it must be like to have your very existence as a trans person debated.

But Quaagers, you say you're a woman, so you don't have to imagine what having your very existence debated is like. It happens to women all the time.