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?

My post was mainly about the way people jump from
Transwomen are not women
to
Transwomen don't exist.

Saying they are not women, is not saying they don't exist.

I should learn though, not to say 'noone' in posts as whatever the opinion, at least one outlier can be found. Hell, some people genuinely believe the moon is a ball of cheese so..

Transpeople do exist. But sex is immutable.

@Cocothefirst

Transpeople do exist. But sex is immutable.

Quite.

But some seem to take even saying 'you cannot change your sex' as denial that transpeople exist. Its weird.

NRatched
My post was mainly about the way people jump from
Transwomen are not women
to
Transwomen don't exist.

Saying they are not women, is not saying they don't exist.

The equivalent would be asserting that if I say "cats are not dogs" I am saying that cats do not exist. Or so I see it.

I see it more as:
Some people believe they are reincarnated.
They are definitely people.
They definitely exist.
But they are not reincarnated people, even if they call themselves this.
Because
Noone is reincarnated.

Reincarnated people don't exist.

Or if they do, it is completely irrelevant since they don't have any recall about their previous incarnations.

I think Julia Long simply doesn't believe "trans" is a particularly meaningful category. Hence the idea that she is denying their existence. She of course knows that this group of people exist, and as she writes about them frequently it's absurd to suggest she doesn't.

And yes, Barracker has it with that analogy. Perfect.

@Barracker

I see it more as: Some people believe they are reincarnated. They are definitely people. They definitely exist. But they are not reincarnated people, even if they call themselves this. Because Noone is reincarnated.

Reincarnated people don't exist.

By saying no one is reincarnated though so that just makes them people, as reincarnated people don't exist, if you're saying this in relation to trans people, as in they exist as people but not as trans, as trans doesn't exist, how can you not see that you're denying them being trans? That you'll accept them as people, but not as trans, as that doesn't exist going by your analogy?

That's exactly what I am saying.

I can understand this existing thing.

The persona created by someone becomes false when the person is addressed and not the persona. The constructed identity only works until it's contradicted, all the work that's gone into building it becomes nothing as it's not working, it's "existence" is not the solid thing that it's creator wants it to be.

By saying no one is reincarnated though so that just makes them people, as reincarnated people don't exist, if you're saying this in relation to trans people, as in they exist as people but not as trans, as trans doesn't exist, how can you not see that you're denying them being trans?
That you'll accept them as people, but not as trans, as that doesn't exist going by your analogy?

If you want us to accept them as trans, can you define what you mean by 'trans'?

Trans ideology depends on a personal belief system as does reincarnation. These beliefs are not universal.

@Barracker

That's exactly what I am saying.

Exactly lol! So how can people say that "of course trans people exist" then in the next breath "trans people don't exist, they exist as people but not as trans people as trans people don't exist?!" It's either one or the other, they either do or they don't

I'm only speaking for myself!
I assume others use 'trans' as a euphemism rather than literally. Or simply because telling the truth is enough to get you banned or censored.

How would you refer to 'reincarnated people' Quaagars, without feeling as if you were dishonestly implying you think they literally do have the soul of someone else inside a dispossessed body?

Of course people who identify as trans exist!

But underneath their sense of self is a male or female person. So while an individual may identify as something other than the sex they are, the reality (to me, anyway) is that they are still a human of the male or female sex. It is not possible to change your biological sex. It is not up to that individual to tell me how I perceive them.

So a transman is a transman as opposed to a female who is now male

Barracker hits the nail on the head, as usual.

Let's face it, people believe all sorts of shit about themselves. They believe they're beautiful when they're not. They believe God talks to them. They believe they're uniquely special and loveable.

The point is, these people exist, and their beliefs exist. It doesn't mean they're right. There are men who believe they are women born in a man's body. They certainly exist, but it doesn't mean they really are women born in a man's body. They're just men.

That you'll accept them as people, but not as trans, as that doesn't exist going by your analogy?

I accept them as people. I accept they are trans
I do not accept that this makes them the opposite sex.

^That kind of thing is generally what people mean when they say 'you wish/think transpeople don't exist. Unless you say TWAW or TWAM this means you do not think they exist. They exist, just not as the opposite sex. IMO anyway.

Women exist as a distinct sex class. That sex class matters when it comes to social and legal issues that affect women.

If you accept men into the class of women you are saying women don't exist.
We see this time and time again when people who say they support trans rights can't give a meaningful definition of 'women'.
Don't push that back onto us. Its not us erasing a class of people.

People who identify as trans exist.

So do people who identify as estate agents, as bald, as athletes, as left-handed, as having size eight feet (size ten in America, 40-41 in Europe, no idea about Asia), as liking dogs more than they like cats, as being able to climb a tree or Mount Everest, and as belonging to several zillion other sub-sets of the species "human".

I know nobody for whom one single part of their identification is deemed by them to be so important that if I fail to acknowledge it all the bloody time and in every way, they will regard my failure to do so as in some way meaning I believe they are not a human at all.

You'd need to be a bit weird to be so obsessive about one small part of what makes you human, I feel. And talking about the same thing all the time means a person surely has to identify as a bore, like the bloke in the pub who talks about nothing but having no freedom of speech any longer.

(In extreme cases there are people who identify as teapots, or Napoleon, or doctors when they have no medical qualifications, but let us leave them out of it. In any case I don't happen to know anyone who believes they are those. I expect that someone who believes they are a doctor though they are not qualified has other things they do at weekends: golf or reading or making net curtains or something. A teapot might have to spend their entire time sitting on a table somewhere, I don't know.)

Everyone has explained it clearly above but...I know that people who believe in God exist. I respect the fact that they have this belief. That does not mean that I have to also believe it. By not believing I am not taking anything away from those that do, or denying in any way that they exist.

Then they have no business being in women’s spaces. The GR Panel arbitrates after a medical diagnosis. A lot do make medical changes

Moonbasealpha, do you realise that that view - which I don’t think anyone here would disagree with - would get you ripped apart on Twitter? What Stonewall etc are campaigning for is for any man to be able to access any female space he chooses, regardless of how he presents or whether he’s made any changes to his body, simply because nobody should have the right to challenge his gender.

I have an evangelical Christian friend from school(I think he's supposed to be funding this...) who believes he is one of the very few who will spend eternity with God in heaven while us sinners will burn in hell.

Now, heaven and hell do not exist. My friend is a very devout Christian. He definitely exists. But he exists as someone who believes he will spend eternity with God in heaven, not as someone who actually will spend eternity with God in heaven. I appreciate this analogy won't necessarily work if you are religious.

Now, trans women exist. But they exist as men who identify as women. They do not exist as women.

I don't think your analogy works, CaptainCorelli. You cannot state as FACT that heaven and hell do not exist. We don't know, and cannot prove that statement as true or false.

We can, though, state as fact that men are not women, no matter what they feel, or think, or what surgery they may have undergone (so I agree with your sentiment, just not your choice of analogy).

@HBGKC

I don't think your analogy works, CaptainCorelli. You cannot state as FACT that heaven and hell do not exist. We don't know, and cannot prove that statement as true or false.

We can, though, state as fact that men are not women, no matter what they feel, or think, or what surgery they may have undergone (so I agree with your sentiment, just not your choice of analogy).

Yes, We should leave all religious arguments out of this; because religion is based on things we cannot ever prove. Saying that God or heaven do not exist, as if that is fact, is not a good argument. Nobody actually knows for sure. But we CAN prove, and know for sure, that there are two sexes and that it is not possible to change from one to the other.