I'm a young feminist; I cannot understand your Gender Critical positions

[borandukht]

Hello all, I'm writing this because I'm at the end of my tether with my mother, who has become engulfed in the gender critical discourse mainly thanks to this website (cheer or weep for that depending on your view). She had originally been very comfortable with transgender rights, and given we have a closeish relative who is transgender too, I've never felt put out or uncomforted by what the trans-rights movement was all about.

After absorbing what you lot have to say about the matter (in general, I know there are some pro-trans feminists on here) she's completely changed her tune and frankly it's becoming exhausting and absurd. I had never really listened to the arguments of GC feminists before the last year or so, and frankly after listening to them I have become ever more convinced that you are unfortunately gravely misinformed on a variety of topics regarding transgender individuals, the goals of the rights movement, and the resultant society that values trans-lives. Some of the repugnant transphobia I've seen online further makes it hard for me to value this movement's "genuine concerns" as truly genuine. What made me snap was yesterday seeing a comment on here stating that the Daily Mail was more feminist than the Guardian. I read neither, because they're both toilet paper, but anyone who says anything so blatantly obtuse to reality clearly has a very specific, narrow view of feminism predicated entirely on not liking GNC people - I don't see how anyone who's read any Daily Mail article ever could say that without laughing.

So, I'm here to listen. GC people always say they just want an open discussion, and I am happy to oblige. There will be no hate, nothing like that. I will try and engage you directly, and respond to why you have these positions as fairly and equitably as I can. Hitherto the arguments I have read/heard from GC's online and in print have been unconvincing, but here at least I can respond directly and try and start this discussion that is so desirable.

If you want specific starter questions (god I sound like my lecturers), think about stuff like:

1. Why do transwomen represent such a threat to you in women's spaces, in your mind?
2. Where do intersex women fit into your feminism?
3. What makes a woman? If it is genitals, does a transwoman with bottom surgery count in your mind? If it's chromosomes is Caster Semenya a man?

I hope to read your answers soon. In the meantime, merry post-Christmas!

The problem is all inside your head, my dear OP
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty lies in all your answers

OP, it's really not my habit to argue;
Your habit is to take our words then twist and misconstrue
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty lies in all your answers
Fifty lies in all your answers

You talk jack about sports, Sport
Call us all cis, Sis
You spread lies about crimes (why?)
And you love self-ID
You just ignore the facts, Jack
You don't want to discuss that
Just insult your mum's chums
And go off, OP

I don't actually believe the OP is here in good faith but, imo, arguing about statistics (scary though they are) is irrelevant
The simple truth is that men and women are, biologically, completely different. The physiology is different.
Including any males in the female category renders categories meaningless. It makes sex discrimination impossible to identify. It makes statistics, from crime to cervical cancer rates and all the rest, meaningless
We either have single sex spaces or mixed sex spaces, there is no middle ground. And feminism should be for women or it isn't feminism

That’s great that you like rugby. Did you know that females have more delicate brain fibres than males?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51434749

Now, your 80 kg hero of solid muscle will cause significant damage to even an 80kg female. Even after hormone treatment because of muscle strength, speed (you are reading the studies we post right?), lung capacity, distribution of weight.... and you know that a woman would not cause anywhere near as much damage to a male (obviously with a brain more about to take a knock) and a female simply lacks the momentum and strength.

You know that transwomen have caused serious injury to people including a coach who suffered broken bones. None of this gets recorded though, because it just goes down as a ‘female’ who did the damage.

Please do explain why you think women are not at risk of brain injury from males who wish to play as women. And you may have heard that at least 100 elite men are suing for early dementia right now!!!

Please show us the studies that prove this is safe.

it's christmas, I'm bored and I felt like invading the place my mum comes to unwind - go me!

if a person thinks some men are women but can't explain what a woman is (I take it OP hasn't as I would have heard hell freezing over), there's not a lot of hope getting sense out of them on this topic.

OP could have just read the break it down for me thread but instead chose to troll her mother. what a delight she is.

Thanks posters. I've just remembered why I love Mumsnet.

Please can this go in classics?

@334bu

I see jj is back with their very restricted view of what constitutes a transwomen sexual predator, ie there aren't any and if there are they aren't really transwomen merely cross dressers or men just pretending.

I was using self-ID, according to many here the broadest possible definition and one fraught with risk.

The vast majority of crimes listed on the transcrime website were carried out by men who identified as men and occassionally cross dressed. You asked specifically about evidence that "the subset of the male sex who identify as women" carry out crimes at a lower rate than men. I've provided evidence. Perhaps you can explain why there have only been two convictions in five years when you would expect 36 if trans women retained male patterns of criminality. That is not really a difference that can be explained by statistical noise. According to you there should be around 7 self identified trans women a year convicted of rape, yet there aren't. Why is that?

@borandukht

You asked for a link re the 400% increase in crime recorded for females. It is here, albeit in Norwegian:
www.politiet.no/globalassets/04-aktuelt-tall-og-fakta/voldtekt-og-seksuallovbrudd/voldtektssituasjonen-i-norge-2017

I believe a mumsnetter was hoping to get a translation, but please be assured that there is evidence to support this claim. In the meantime, I'm sure you can work with Google Translate.

Is JJ suggesting that the men who identify as women after being caught are not to be trusted? What happened to acceptance without exception?

@borandukht

Hello all, I'm writing this because I'm at the end of my tether with my mother, who has become engulfed in the gender critical discourse mainly thanks to this website (cheer or weep for that depending on your view). She had originally been very comfortable with transgender rights, and given we have a closeish relative who is transgender too, I've never felt put out or uncomforted by what the trans-rights movement was all about.

After absorbing what you lot have to say about the matter (in general, I know there are some pro-trans feminists on here) she's completely changed her tune and frankly it's becoming exhausting and absurd. I had never really listened to the arguments of GC feminists before the last year or so, and frankly after listening to them I have become ever more convinced that you are unfortunately gravely misinformed on a variety of topics regarding transgender individuals, the goals of the rights movement, and the resultant society that values trans-lives. Some of the repugnant transphobia I've seen online further makes it hard for me to value this movement's "genuine concerns" as truly genuine. What made me snap was yesterday seeing a comment on here stating that the Daily Mail was more feminist than the Guardian. I read neither, because they're both toilet paper, but anyone who says anything so blatantly obtuse to reality clearly has a very specific, narrow view of feminism predicated entirely on not liking GNC people - I don't see how anyone who's read any Daily Mail article ever could say that without laughing.

So, I'm here to listen. GC people always say they just want an open discussion, and I am happy to oblige. There will be no hate, nothing like that. I will try and engage you directly, and respond to why you have these positions as fairly and equitably as I can. Hitherto the arguments I have read/heard from GC's online and in print have been unconvincing, but here at least I can respond directly and try and start this discussion that is so desirable.

If you want specific starter questions (god I sound like my lecturers), think about stuff like:

1. Why do transwomen represent such a threat to you in women's spaces, in your mind?
2. Where do intersex women fit into your feminism?
3. What makes a woman? If it is genitals, does a transwoman with bottom surgery count in your mind? If it's chromosomes is Caster Semenya a man?

I hope to read your answers soon. In the meantime, merry post-Christmas!

For my own mental self preservation I won't be reading any comments or engaging, but wanted to say good on you for posting in here. The culture around trans issues here is toxic. Hope it's gone well

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Is there some brainwashing technique used by TRAs that prevents their sympathisers being able to read easily available crime reports

Many TRAs are masters of the fake news technique. Repeat a lie enough and at least some people will believe it.

I think it's more that most people can recognise that posting the same isolated cases over and over again does not really make for a very persuasive argument of a trend. In fact a lot of people might even suspect it was motivated by bigotry rather than a desire to establish the truth of the situation. Any marginalised group can be attacked by focussing on a member of that group who committed an awful crime, but surely only a bigot would assume that says something about inherent rates of criminality amongst that group. To do that you need large samples and conclusive evidence which in this case simply does not exist.

The vast majority of crimes listed on the transcrime website were carried out by men who identified as men and occassionally cross dressed.

You might like to check out the Stonewall definition of "transgender". Why are you making this distinction? Policy makers don't?

Including any males in the female category renders categories meaningless.

This.

Also, women have the right to organise without the permission or inclusion of male people. It doesn't really matter if it makes male people feel sad and 'excluded'.

Oy

if you can't engage in debate to defend your opinions then maybe something is wrong - did you ever consider that?

that twisting sensation in the back of your skull is cognitive dissonance. once you let yourself understand that men aren't women no matter how they dress, how they act or what cosmetic surgery they have, it will ease, I promise.

then you'll be able to be less grumpy and self righteous and engage in debate on topics you feel strongly about

To do that you need large samples and conclusive evidence which in this case simply does not exist.

Then we're back at the default position that there isn't any known factor which makes this group of males pose less statistical risk to women than any other. You think differently, you need to show how they are and why.

For my own mental self preservation I won't be reading any comments or engaging, but wanted to say good on you for posting in here. The culture around trans issues here is toxic. Hope it's gone well

Yes, heaven forbid you should read or engage with anything that doesn't confirm with your views. That would be sooooo damaging. And the OP's ridiculous posts have gone as well as you might expect when she is incapable of defining the very categories she is engaging with.

@testing987654321

Is JJ suggesting that the men who identify as women after being caught are not to be trusted? What happened to acceptance without exception?

No I think transition probably has an impact on offending patterns and am specifically challenging the claim which is often made that trans women retain male criminality patterns.

However even if you include those convicted of historic offences who later transitioned it's still nowhere near the number required to establish an equivalence of offending patterns with men.

I'd happily have all rapists, regardless of gender identity, sequestered off into their own isolated wards anyway (failing their execution of course), but the stats do not belly a risk to women inmates.

Are you saying you're pro capital punishment OP?
If so I won't debate with you as I don't think it has any place in a civilised society.

Perhaps you can explain why there have only been two convictions in five years when you would expect 36 if trans women retained male patterns of criminality. That is not really a difference that can be explained by statistical noise. According to you there should be around 7 self identified trans women a year convicted of rape, yet there aren't. Why is that?

Could it be to do with the fact that most crimes committed by transwomen are categorised as being committed by women? Also, where is your information from?

The OP is a spectacular example of confirmation bias - nothing that disproves her belief, even MOJ statistics, actual crimes, experience of women working in the DV sector, is accurate or requires always at least one more source. Anything she believes can be asserted without evidence or fact, even if it’s weapons grade bollocks.

Feminism, and the rights it fights for, exist to counteract the consequences of having a female body in a patriarchal society so that female-bodied people can live lives with as much potential and agency as male-bodied people.

Some of these limitations are simply physical, for example the difference in male and female running speeds means we need to segregate sport; some are purely social, for example the way society conditions male-bodied people to take more space in conversation and female-bodied people to accept it creates a power and credibility difference which means we need to actively promote female voices in public life, or the sad fact that some males are socialised to see female attention and bodies as their right means at times we need places where males have no right to enter; and some are a combination of the two, for example the impact of pregnancy, breastfeeding and maternity leave on financial independence means we have to be open to flexible working patterns.

The key thing is that the female-bodied do not suffer these limitations because of how society reacts to our gender identity but how it reacts to our physical body. A passing transman may mitigate some of the social impact because people read him as male but he still carries the female socialisation of his early years and even on testosterone he’ll never have male physical strength. And of course if he decides to bear and breastfeed children he has to deal with the social and physical consequences like any other female.

By definition these are not things that impact transwomen. Transwomen absolutely have their own challenges but they are not the challenges of the female-bodied. So when transwomen demand Womens rights it is not because they need them but only because they want to be validated as Women.

And I understand why it’s important to them, but in their lack of understanding of what it means to be female-bodied in our society, they are causing harm to the people who genuinely need these rights, because if the structures that exist to counteract male privilege are also open to those who have male privilege they become meaningless.

So Feminism fights for rights and protection for all female-bodied people regardless of gender identity. It doesn’t fight for transwomen as women but welcomes them as allies in destroying gender stereotypes. But it can’t accept extending the rights, protections and opportunities that are necessary for female emancipation to males.

In time I hope the purely social limitations will become unnecessary. I would love to think at some point in the future we won’t need to monitor pay gaps or to separate changing rooms and toilets by sex, because the toxic socialisation that drives the need will no longer be happening. But we are not there today, so here and now, ignoring male bodies and the socialisation that comes with them in favour of self-defined gender identity is not going to take us anywhere good for females.

who later transitioned

define 'transitioned'

what does it mean - specifically how can you tell if someone has 'transitioned'?

For my own mental self preservation I won't be reading any comments or engaging, but wanted to say good on you for posting in here. The culture around trans issues here is toxic. Hope it's gone well

Another poster who thinks everyone on here is wrong but who won't engage. It really is a theme.

Robust discussion happens everywhere else on Mumsnet! You'll never find a Brexiteer or a hardcore remainder saying "well you're all wrong but I'm not going to explain why". No - you have two groups of people on both sides of the debate slugging it out, usually with good points being raised on both sides.

Why is this topic so different and so few posters willing to defend their views? It usually comes down to one or two people with contrarian positions on each thread, max, versus a large contingent of posters taking the GC stance. I would be willing to reconsider my position if credible arguments were put forward.

As for prisons, the statistics show that trans-women have not committed sex assaults in prison

That’s a lie. You either know it’s a lie and are willingly trying to deceive people. Or you just believe every lie you’ve been told without checking the facts. Both of these possibilities show you to be immature and uninformed and wrong. A very quick google would find you the truth, it’s not bloody difficult.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

@Ereshkigalangcleg

To do that you need large samples and conclusive evidence which in this case simply does not exist.

Then we're back at the default position that there isn't any known factor which makes this group of males pose less statistical risk to women than any other. You think differently, you need to show how they are and why.

I think I have shown that before but to summarise. Trans women are far more likely to be exclusively attracted to men than men are. Many trans women don't have a functional penis' due to hormones/surgery and so would be incapable of rape. And if gender is indeed a social construct then you would expect offending patterns to align more with gender than with physical sex.

And that's backed up by the very low convictions of trans women convicted of sexual offences. Way way below what you would expect if they retained patterns of male criminality. Not one self identified trans women has been convicted of raping a woman in the last two years when nearly 4000 men have. Even at the lowest estimate of the proportion of trans women in society you'd expect there to be around 12.