To wonder why trans/non-binary can’t be a third gender?

[Imworthit]

Basically that. I’m not trying to be offensive I’m genuinely curious. Would like to understand both points of view on this?

I support trans rights but not when they undermine the rights/identify/safety of women. Just wondering if there is an other solution.

It's disturbing how many people, places and official forms use 'gender' when they mean biological sex'.

Why are we allowing this?

@Tambourina

It's disturbing how many people, places and official forms use 'gender' when they mean biological sex'.

Why are we allowing this?

I was just considering starting a thread saying the same! Every single form I’ve seen recently says “Gender” rather than “Sex” It’s infuriating 😡

I always click “other“ now and my other is a variation of “don’t you mean sex”

From my POV if you needed it for a logical reason you would ask for sex, if you are just asking because hey we always ask for random info... then it doesn’t matter if they get junk back in return anyhow

@Imworthit

Misogynistic transwoman & incle is a good description of the person I had the misfortune of meeting. Unfortunately it’s really tainted my view of trans people. I like to be very live and let live but is that what’s going on misogynistic men trying to re-oppress us?😭 I really hope I’m wrong ☹️ No one really seems to care much about female to male transitions.

You met one unpleasant trans man and it's "really tainted your view of trans people"

I hope you never meet an unpleasant lesbian or Jewish person etc, etc.

@Tambourina

It's disturbing how many people, places and official forms use 'gender' when they mean biological sex'.

Why are we allowing this?

as most forms are online drop down boxes, I use other and then say "I dont have a gender, I have a sex which is female" and if there is room for comments I will ask why they're using gender when they mean sex and list the protected characteristics under the equality act

@MissBarbary , she said she dated an unpleasant transwoman, and it tainted her view- made it abundantly clear to her that trans people are still the sex they were born as. The person she dated was male in terms of violence, strength and entitlement despite calling themselves female and wearing dresses and makeup.

Meanwhile, the young people are doing something else altogether.

Some non-binary (afab) people I know, teenagers, come to it from the position of knowing that sex is immutable, but gender is a trap, so they want to be without gender. Which kind of makes sense, and I can see the point of being called they, under those circumstances.

As a teenager, I think the expectations and stereotypes of teenage boys in a pornified society are something that quite a lot of people would like to escape.

However, I would rather than being a woman and female could encompass all the options available, and I do feel that I, as an older feminist, have failed them if this is how they feel.

[quote picklemewalnuts]@MissBarbary , she said she dated an unpleasant transwoman, and it tainted her view- made it abundantly clear to her that trans people are still the sex they were born as. The person she dated was male in terms of violence, strength and entitlement despite calling themselves female and wearing dresses and makeup.[/quote]
She dated one trand person- and that "really tainted her view of trans people"

Can't you see how bigoted that sounds?

I find NB really bothersome for a couple of reasons. Adopting difficult pronouns just feels like a way for rather sad people to force others to give them a level of mental and emotional labour they’re really not entitled to. Someone can tell me their pronouns are xi/xir when we meet, but if I don’t see them again for six months they’re lucky of I can remember their name, let alone their fantasy pronouns. The sort of personality who thinks that’s all hunky-dory to do doesn’t strike me as a pleasant one, there’s a glaring narcissism in manufacturing a situation that will inevitably lead to future opportunities to put on a performance of hurt and upset at some poor saps expense. Add to that that NB doesn’t do anything to challenge gender norms, as claimed, but like nearly all trans ideology, only reinforces them.

YY, that's exactly how I feel about it. It's controlling others and forcing them to walk on eggshells.

Some non-binary (afab) people I know, teenagers, come to it from the position of knowing that sex is immutable, but gender is a trap, so they want to be without gender. Which kind of makes sense, and I can see the point of being called they, under those circumstances.

In my experience they really don't like it when boring old "cis" people say they don't have a gender, and are therefore agender or gender free. Because it's not special then.

MissBarbary it may sound bigoted- as a sound bite, out of context.

It's the equivalent of thinking snow is pretty and wonderful and loving it- until you get snowed in, crash your car in it, or slip and break a leg.
A tiger cub is the most amazing pet ever- until it guts your dog.
The sea is awesome and breathtaking and wild winter swimming is amazing- until you get cramp and nearly drown.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I find NB really bothersome for a couple of reasons. Adopting difficult pronouns just feels like a way for rather sad people to force others to give them a level of mental and emotional labour they’re really not entitled to. Someone can tell me their pronouns are xi/xir when we meet, but if I don’t see them again for six months they’re lucky of I can remember their name, let alone their fantasy pronouns. The sort of personality who thinks that’s all hunky-dory to do doesn’t strike me as a pleasant one, there’s a glaring narcissism in manufacturing a situation that will inevitably lead to future opportunities to put on a performance of hurt and upset at some poor saps expense. Add to that that NB doesn’t do anything to challenge gender norms, as claimed, but like nearly all trans ideology, only reinforces them.

YY, that's exactly how I feel about it. It's controlling others and forcing them to walk on eggshells.

Choosing ' your' pronouns is at best nonsense, at worst bullying.

Pronouns express the speakers perception. If I saw the Queen across the road I'd say to my dc "See her over there, she's the Queen." (Only, because that would be considered rude, I'd probably say "See that lady over there, she's the Queen".

Telling me that you'use' certain pronouns, or that ' your' pronouns are whatever, is an attempt at controlling my freedom of expression. It's a pity that you feel upset because I don't perceive you the way you perceive yourself, or would like others to perceive you, but that's not my problem.

@picklemewalnuts

MissBarbary it may sound bigoted- as a sound bite, out of context.

It's the equivalent of thinking snow is pretty and wonderful and loving it- until you get snowed in, crash your car in it, or slip and break a leg.
A tiger cub is the most amazing pet ever- until it guts your dog.
The sea is awesome and breathtaking and wild winter swimming is amazing- until you get cramp and nearly drown.

No it isn't- and those justifications make it worse, not better.

The correct analogy is another person with a particular characteristic. If the horrible person had been Christian or Jewish or Muslim or lesbian or German or autistic and so on you would (I hope) never think it reasonable to expect that "tainted her view of [insert relevant group]"

If the horrible person had been Christian or Jewish or Muslim or lesbian or German or autistic and so on you would (I hope) never think it reasonable to expect that "tainted her view of [insert relevant group]"

It works both ways, though. I've lost count of the number of times I've read something along the lines of "all the trans people I know are absolutely lovely". They then explain that they're all ftm teenagers or transsexuals who had full genital surgery 30 years ago and refuse to see the problems with someone like Yaniv.

No, I still disagree. It's akin to realising that a vegetarian won't eat the bacon you've cooked for them, no matter how nice they are. A vegetarian can be a lovely person, eager to please and accommodating, but they won't eat the bacon sandwich you cooked.
A transman can be a lovely person, eager to support charities and volunteer for good causes, but they will still be a woman.
A transwoman may be a lovely person, eager to support charities and volunteer for good causes but they can't play rugby with women.

You are assuming I'm imputing characteristics to all other transwomen, autistic people, Christians- that certain people are unpleasant/lesser/objectionable. I'm not. I'm stating identity. You can be a lovely transwoman or a vile transwoman, but you weren't female at birth.

Perhaps an even closer analogy is not of a characteristic such as nationality or skin colour, but one of an ideological belief that inherently includes an offensive precept about an entire class of people?

So, bigotry to assume the one person you met from Tanzania has any bearing on any other people from Tanzania - this is prejudice, literally prejudging a person based upon a physical or material characteristic, making the false assumption that because they belong to a group who share characteristic A, they must also share negative trait B because you once met another person of that characteristic who had both.

However it doesn't follow with professed belief. If I meet one white supremacist, and I understand their professed beliefs, I can reject their position and find it appalling. I can extrapolate that to every white supremacist once I understand the precepts of this belief. I don't need to meet every white supremacist individually to check if they too are appalling or perhaps a jolly good chap. Their publicly professed beliefs tell me in advance that they already hold distasteful opinions. I'm not prejudiced, (literally pre-judging without facts) or judging them before I know the truth. Their professed belief as a self-declared white supremacist allows me the judgement based upon what those declared beliefs are already known to be.

I've purposely chosen an example where it's self-evident that a group holds unpleasant beliefs (the name gives it away). But there are other beliefs and belief groups that hold unpleasant ideals as a core principle of being in that group. And these are not always as transparent to others, until they dig deeper.

'Trans' is an ideological belief about the nature of men and women. One which I reject as firmly as I reject the idea that one 'race' is superior, or that wives should submit to husbands. I find the very principles it rests upon to allow a person to believe anyone can 'be trans' are sexist. Offensive beliefs come in all shapes, severities and sizes, some are obviously insidious and others not immediately so.

I think once a person has concluded that they reject the entire foundational belief that male people can be 'female inside', it's fair to understand that they will judge every person who holds that offensive belief similarly.

@Hotcuppatea

They can be any gender they want. What they can't do is change sex. Because its impossible.

...and look how many "genders" there are to pick from!

Only one particular "gender" will do tho.

Funny that.

@OldCrone

If the horrible person had been Christian or Jewish or Muslim or lesbian or German or autistic and so on you would (I hope) never think it reasonable to expect that "tainted her view of [insert relevant group]"

It works both ways, though. I've lost count of the number of times I've read something along the lines of "all the trans people I know are absolutely lovely". They then explain that they're all ftm teenagers or transsexuals who had full genital surgery 30 years ago and refuse to see the problems with someone like Yaniv.

That is a fair point. Not all trans people are lovely- not all lesbians, etc , etc are lovely.

@picklemewalnuts

No, I still disagree. It's akin to realising that a vegetarian won't eat the bacon you've cooked for them, no matter how nice they are. A vegetarian can be a lovely person, eager to please and accommodating, but they won't eat the bacon sandwich you cooked. A transman can be a lovely person, eager to support charities and volunteer for good causes, but they will still be a woman. A transwoman may be a lovely person, eager to support charities and volunteer for good causes but they can't play rugby with women.

You are assuming I'm imputing characteristics to all other transwomen, autistic people, Christians- that certain people are unpleasant/lesser/objectionable. I'm not. I'm stating identity. You can be a lovely transwoman or a vile transwoman, but you weren't female at birth.

You really should stop digging here.

@Barracker

Perhaps an even closer analogy is not of a characteristic such as nationality or skin colour, but one of an ideological belief that inherently includes an offensive precept about an entire class of people?

So, bigotry to assume the one person you met from Tanzania has any bearing on any other people from Tanzania - this is prejudice, literally prejudging a person based upon a physical or material characteristic, making the false assumption that because they belong to a group who share characteristic A, they must also share negative trait B because you once met another person of that characteristic who had both.

However it doesn't follow with professed belief. If I meet one white supremacist, and I understand their professed beliefs, I can reject their position and find it appalling. I can extrapolate that to every white supremacist once I understand the precepts of this belief. I don't need to meet every white supremacist individually to check if they too are appalling or perhaps a jolly good chap. Their publicly professed beliefs tell me in advance that they already hold distasteful opinions. I'm not prejudiced, (literally pre-judging without facts) or judging them before I know the truth. Their professed belief as a self-declared white supremacist allows me the judgement based upon what those declared beliefs are already known to be.

I've purposely chosen an example where it's self-evident that a group holds unpleasant beliefs (the name gives it away). But there are other beliefs and belief groups that hold unpleasant ideals as a core principle of being in that group. And these are not always as transparent to others, until they dig deeper.

'Trans' is an ideological belief about the nature of men and women. One which I reject as firmly as I reject the idea that one 'race' is superior, or that wives should submit to husbands. I find the very principles it rests upon to allow a person to believe anyone can 'be trans' are sexist. Offensive beliefs come in all shapes, severities and sizes, some are obviously insidious and others not immediately so.

I think once a person has concluded that they reject the entire foundational belief that male people can be 'female inside', it's fair to understand that they will judge every person who holds that offensive belief similarly.

I don't find your analogy convincing (even if I were to agree with your statement about "offensive belief").

The context here is the poster met one horrible trans person and that " really tainted her view of trans people"

You are extrapolating that the poster finds the very idea of transgenderism "offensive" - which she clearly didn't as she was happy to have a relationship with a trans woman. Her unfortunate experience with that individual then "really tainted" her view of trans people.

"There is no transphobia on MN" is frequently said. I don't agree.

"There's no transphobia on Mumsnet" is often said on here- well sorry but I'm see it here.

Thank you @Barracker.

No, she met a transwoman and realised being trans doesn't mean you no longer share the traits of your birth sex.

You can accuse me of sexism if you like. Because I believe that a random man is significantly more likely to harm me than a random woman. I also believe that a random transwoman is no less likely to harm me than a random man.

Anyway, all that is a digression from OP's thread, and I won't engage any further.

It's basically called "peak trans" isn't it? (Referring to the OP's experience). Happens to us all...