Q&A thread for New Posters

[CharlieParley]

Welcome to the FWR board and welcome to the debate. If you're new here and have been told your questions might be better on their own thread, but you're not comfortable starting your own, then please feel free to ask your question here.

I'll try my best to answer and some of our other regulars might pop in too.

@jj1968

Thank you to jj for drawing attention to what a valuable resource Trans Crime UK is. For newcomers, this website collates data to counter the “this never happens” claims:

As a very quick point most of the people on transcrime are what the site calls 'violent male transvestites' which seems to mean any man who was known to occassionally wear women's clothes. They are not trans women, they don't identify as trans women, they were not treated as trans women by the justice system and if imprisoned they went to male prisons.

So would you differ with the Stonewall umbrella? You would argue that some/many of these male people are not trans?

Picking up on the Swedish study, here's what I wrote in a thread where we discussed the issue of crime rates (I've taken out the bits that make no sense in the context of this thread.):

"The study was set up to compare criminality between those who transitioned and those who didn't.

No data was provided about crimes committed by those who transitioned prior to transitioning. It did not compare rates of criminality in pre- and post-op transsexuals but only between post-op transsexuals and control groups.

The study did indeed adjust the results, and it did so for mental health issues in recognition of the fact that those who transition have very high co-morbidities with mental health issues. (And there are higher rates of criminality in people who suffer from MH issues.)

It then presented the findings in a measure called an adjusted hazard risk or HR for short.

It found that post-op transsexuals were more likely to commit crimes than controls but only in the earlier time period when conditions for transsexuals were worse than they were for the second time period.

The study found that for the second time period, post-op transsexuals were possibly less likely to be convicted of crimes than controls of the same biological sex, but as they did not disaggregate the data by sex or violent crimes, we do not know whether this was due to female-to-male crime rates falling or male-to-female ones. So no further conclusion could be drawn about the latter period.

Quotes from the study:

Abstract

Results:
[...]
Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.

Conclusions: Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

From the study itself

Crime rate
Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.

In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females.

[my emphasis]

In summary then, the study showed exactly what we say it showed: male to female (post-op) transsexuals retained male patterns of criminality. They pose the exact same risk as all other males. They pose a much higher risk than female controls.

This is also born out by the rate of conviction for sexual crimes for male GRC-holders in the UK, which again showed convictions at the rate predicted for males.

It must be emphasised that these figures concern only post-op transsexuals (for the Swedish study) or those who have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria (for male GRC-holders).

There is absolutely no question about the risk posed by males who merely self-identify as trans. Claiming a female identity does not magically lower the risk a male poses to females.

The statistics discussed above demonstrate that even a medical diagnosis and/or fully transitioning does not change the risk a male poses either."

And I'll just add here that in a discussion about the much larger group of those who self-identify but do not transition medically, there is no evidence whatsoever that feeling like a woman, growing one's hair long, crying at movies, or favouring stereotypically feminine pursuits lowers the risk a male poses to female people.

This is the thread where we discussed crime rates:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3994546-stats-on-attack-on-women-by-men-self-identifying-as-women

And here is a link to the study in question:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

@CharlieParley

Perhaps start another thread if you want to discuss the Swedish study in more details rather than make this thread unwelcome for new people. I'm not really minded to join you because the latter cohort of the study only included four violent crimes I believe, and we don't know if they were committed by trans women or trans men, so I don't think we can really deduce anything from such a tiny sample and incomplete data.

But you are quite happy to say that males who identify as women should be allowed into female prisons when there is no evidence that this particular group of males are less dangerous to women than any other males .

@Callixte

(Thank you! It is easier to post on a Q&A thread than to make a new thread for something that may have been discussed.)

My question is about the term "gender critical" or GC. In my native language, sex and gender (as a classification system) are the same word. For example if I say "We don't know the baby's sex yet, but we've chosen a traditionally gender-neutral name" the two highlighted parts are the same word. There is a separate word for a sexual act: for example, "nonconsensual sex is a crime".

I find the use of sex and gender in English confusing. I understand the separate status of "sex" and "gender reassignment" in UK law but the words sex and gender still seem to be used nonconsistently in most other ways. If sex is biological and gender is the culturally specific traditions (stereotypes) around it, where is the line drawn? Can it be drawn consistently?

Someone used a comparison with age earlier which I found thought provoking. Someone’s age is a biological fact, but there is cultural padding around it: both laws that vary and may not even exist in some places (age of consent, age of majority, drinking age, conscription age, retirement age) and more social or stereotypical concepts like “acting your age” or “you’re too young to wear makeup” or magazine articles (mainly for women) showing how to dress appropriately for your 20s, 30s, etc. Why linguistically separate sex from its cultural baggage, but not age?

Anyway, I wondered if the term "gender critical" is something some feminists have chosen for themselves, or is it a label imposed on them? And can one be gender critical without being a feminist, or vice versa?

Also, the term "radical feminist" seems to be used interchangeably with "gender critical feminist" but much of the feminist analysis I've seen that's labelled as "gender critical" from the UK seems based in Marxist, materialist or socialist feminism rather than radical feminism. Is there a difference between radical feminst versus Marxist feminist views on "gender" and the conflict of rights?

It's not an imposition, but it's not a term I use about myself. Feminism, by very definition, includes a critique of the system of gender. To say someone is a 'gender critical feminist' is redundant, and even implies you can legitimately be a feminist and support and celebrate gender.

It's like saying wet water. It's a pointless term because water by definition is wet. Or saying 'I am a feminist who supports the rights of women and girls'.
Feminist is sufficient. I'm not inclined to add qualifiers to perfectly clear terms and watch those terms get diluted and appropriated. I won't do it with woman, I won't do it with female and I won't do it with feminist.

[quote jj1968]@CharlieParley

Perhaps start another thread if you want to discuss the Swedish study in more details rather than make this thread unwelcome for new people. I'm not really minded to join you because the latter cohort of the study only included four violent crimes I believe, and we don't know if they were committed by trans women or trans men, so I don't think we can really deduce anything from such a tiny sample and incomplete data.[/quote]
🤣🤣🤣

Tut. Charlie, away with ye and all those facts.

Well this q and a for newbies/ lurkers has gone a bit wrong!

Reading it though in conjunction with something Helen said on another thread made me realise something though.

Helen said that gender is about social norms for the sex. And that some people feel that the norms don't fit, and some of them will ID as trans.

Thing is that most feminists believe that enforced gender roles are shit. We generally want to let people break outside those often stifling norms.

Then I thought. When we have the same complaint, why such different ways to solve it?

And then I thought. Well it's mainly about something males want. And males are used to having things oriented towards them, in favour of them. Whether they realise it or not and yes even if are not very far up the hierarchicy in society.

I always wonder why with all the money and support and corporate funding and etc. There's not lobbying for trans specific stuff. Refuges, DV helplines. And yes changing and whatnot. All other groups who find the world is not built for them/ sympathetic to them etc lobby and fundraise and set up their own stuff.

There is massive political support for trans people. As a group I'm sure they could get a lot done. It would be something for stonewall to get their teeth into as well- real changes on the ground.

Anyway then I realised. It's mainly about males. Who are on the whole used to getting stuff they want. So when they want something, and it already exists, they say ok I want to get in on that. And the group it was created for say hold on a minute and they're shocked.

Take homosexuality.

Through my career the visibility of gay people, throughout orgs and increasingly in exec roles, has gradually increased. That's great. But it's men. Gay men. Out lesbians in my industry are, where are they? I've met one. The groups etc seem to be all gay men, and female allies. It's an interesting dynamic.

Anyway. That's what occurred to me earlier.

@Okokokbear

What do gender critical people want? Or if this varies which it probably does could you say what generally as a group gc people are looking for?

Women's rights as laid out in the Equality Act upheld and protected. Children protected from experimental health care that may be dangerous and seems to be based on the flimsiest of evidence. Language that we use to describe ourselves respected - no erasure of 'woman', and terms pertaining to it. Our democratic rights to discuss our rights and anything that may affect them upheld and protected.

[quote jj1968]@CharlieParley

Perhaps start another thread if you want to discuss the Swedish study in more details rather than make this thread unwelcome for new people. I'm not really minded to join you because the latter cohort of the study only included four violent crimes I believe, and we don't know if they were committed by trans women or trans men, so I don't think we can really deduce anything from such a tiny sample and incomplete data.[/quote]
Very funny

I started this thread so new posters can ask questions here that crop up elsewhere but cannot be discussed in detail there because that would derail discussions dedicated to specific topics.

Addressing the claims you made about the only longitudinal study that looked into patterns of criminality in post-op transsexuals does not make this thread unwelcome to new people. I explained the study to new posters, gave its basic findings and linked to the already existing discussion on crime rates. That's wholly in keeping with both the aim and the spirit of this thread.

@Helen8220

Have only just seen this thread and dont have time to read 10 pages.

But I understood your question to be about intersex.

There are people but one of the problems is that being intersex is a biological condition. There is little or no evidence that it has anything to do with being LGB or even gender non conforming.

And in fact there are some intersex groups who actively reject being colonised by Stonewall et al who use it to make their umbrella seem bigger that it really is.

So if you question was about people who are actually intersex, in your role it might be better to find out about existing inersex support groups and have this information available rather than presume some rainbow coalition is the most supportive place for them.

You could use the mumsnet search option to find earlier threads about this.

Addressing the claims you made about the only longitudinal study that looked into patterns of criminality in post-op transsexuals does not make this thread unwelcome to new people. I explained the study to new posters, gave its basic findings and linked to the already existing discussion on crime rates. That's wholly in keeping with both the aim and the spirit of this thread.

Fine. 4 crimes. Decades old data. No Matching. No information on whether the crimes were committed by trans men or trans women. Are you actually serious?

The reason a control group is used in longitudinal studies like this by the way is to measure social trends. A rise in crime rates or suicides could be down to social factors, such as a recession, so you need a control group to measure against. It doesn't need to be particularly well matched though. To carry out a study comparing criminality amongst different groups you would need very precise matching on a range of matters to meet even basic ethical standards. For all we know half the trans people in that study were sexworkers who were matched against middle class professionals. Without matching you cannot deduce anything which is why the author of that study has gone on record more than once to condemn those who misuse it to prove something it didn't find and wasn't looking for.

And I'm not really interested in discussing it further tbh.

links to threads on intersex www.mumsnet.com/SearchArch?mustmatch=intersex&dontmatch=&nickname=&src_displ_option=s_t_d_t&fromDate=&toDate=&topicmode=chs&chosentops=5365

I dont think its a surprise that those who are socialist or marxist feminists have a similar understanding of gender to a radical feminism one.

That's because both groups understand that the basis of the oppression of women is because of the sex they are born. Marxists might write about it as a sex class, and radical feminists might right about it as biological reality. But they are both saying that sex is real and it is the reactions of others ie the sex class of men to women as a sex that is the basis on which men oppress women.

That is why the TRA movement is so similar to the MRA movement. If you can argue that the category of women is not real, and can be opted in and out of, then it would be true that there is no such thing as sex discrimination, or male violence.

On other issues such as the solution to the oppression of women based on their sex, there is much more diversion between marist and radical feminists.

@Okokokbear

What do gender critical people want? Or if this varies which it probably does could you say what generally as a group gc people are looking for?

The list is long but includes having those rights already stated in law to be for women and girls recognizing their needs as females including needs due to the direct impact of their biology. This may be in safeguarding, health care, employment, education and sports and to name ourselves and use our language to describe ourselves to name a few.

The impact maybe due to historical sexism that still prevails as is proven with studies where CVs with female names are less likely to be employed and would be paid less (British veterinary organization released this study last year).

The impact may be due to biological advantages. Currently males are winning sporting events and claiming women’s sporting awards.

The impact may be that women and girls are put in danger due to allowing males who identify as women into single sex spaces needed for their protection.

The impact may be losing the language we need to describe outselves. For example victims of FGM are being abused for calling it by its recognized name and appropriate name of female genital mutilation. Trans activists are sending these women who are campaigning to stop FGM abuse and telling them it is exclusive language.

Anyway, I wondered if the term "gender critical" is something some feminists have chosen for themselves, or is it a label imposed on them? And can one be gender critical without being a feminist, or vice versa?

Good question, Callixte. The term gender critical to describe those who disagree with the doctrine of gender ideology and its associated politics gained widespread popularity in response to a slur applied mostly to women who rejected the doctrine.

There's a widespread myth the slur (the abbreviation for trans exclusive radical feminist is banned here, so I'll just say "the slur") was coined by a radical feminist, but it was actually coined by a transgender person and then picked up in feminist circles whose members accepted the doctrine and wanted to distinguish themselves from feminists who didn't.

So yes, one can be gender critical without being a feminist and a feminist without being gender critical. (The most prominent strand of feminism that accepts the doctrine of gender identity is liberal feminism.)

Almost from the beginning it was used in a derogatory way, and in usage today its regularly combined with threats of violence, so those who wanted to discuss why sex and not gender should form the basis of legislation called themselves gender critical to more accurately reflect their position. As did those who reject the doctrine of gender identity not because they are working from a radical feminist perspective but from a free speech perspective - who may or may not hold feminist views.

Also, the term "radical feminist" seems to be used interchangeably with "gender critical feminist" but much of the feminist analysis I've seen that's labelled as "gender critical" from the UK seems based in Marxist, materialist or socialist feminism rather than radical feminism. Is there a difference between radical feminst versus Marxist feminist views on "gender" and the conflict of rights?

That depends entirely on the writer. Traditionally Marxist feminism shares with radical feminism the class-based analysis of the issue of women's inequality, but disagrees about the root cause (economic class vs sex).

However, there's less daylight between those two groups today than there was in the past, because both also now consider the intersection of different axes of discrimination experienced by female people (aka intersectionality, this can include sex, class, race, religion, disability, age and sexuality).

Many people now labelled radical feminist because of their opposition to the doctrine of gender identity are neither radical nor feminists but simply women's rights proponents. Women have needs, there's a law that caters to those needs, and they wish to uphold this without necessarily engaging in theoretical feminist discourse. That's where I started from.

Question from observing lurkers and newcomers:

Does anyone ever answer the question of how we determine who is “real” trans and who isn’t?

All of us wearily:

No. No one ever answers that question.

"Traditionally Marxist feminism shares with radical feminism the class-based analysis of the issue of women's inequality, but disagrees about the root cause (economic class vs sex). *

Sorry this is incorrect. Early Marxist wrote about the basis of women's oppression being their sex and (some) contemporary marxists do as well eg Morning Star.

As I said above the difference is potential solutions.

Or if you are Shulamith Firestone you amalgatmate the two.

I'm still learning! I came to this board via a real life friend when the Gender Recognition Act consultation was going on, I'd never been on Mumsnet before this. I was very liberal and in the just be kind camp.
Things I asked her:
Transwomen are such a small percentage of the population why should I be interested?
Why can't you just live and let live?
What is a legal fiction?
What is regulatory capture?
Why is saying assigned at birth not a good thing?
Why is the T with LGB it's not a sexuality?
As well as this amazing board I really like Fair Play for Women which my friend also pointed me to. It is factual and plain speaking and appeals to the scientist in me.
Also
Transgender Trend the real site www.transgendertrend.com/
Safe School Alliance
Our Duty

It can be overwhelming and hard to ask questions and unfortunately once you go down the rabbit hole there is no coming back and no unseeing what you have seen.
I'm so pleased my friend brought me here and I'm so pleased you amazing women have been on the ball for so long. Thank you.

@stumbledin

"Traditionally Marxist feminism shares with radical feminism the class-based analysis of the issue of women's inequality, but disagrees about the root cause (economic class vs sex). *

Sorry this is incorrect. Early Marxist wrote about the basis of women's oppression being their sex and (some) contemporary marxists do as well eg Morning Star.

As I said above the difference is potential solutions.

Or if you are Shulamith Firestone you amalgatmate the two.

Thanks stumbledin, I stand corrected.

@Helen8220
Early on you asked a question, and I'm paraphrasing, where go all the people who don't fit society's rigid ideas about gender?

I think they should live like the rest of us, with respect and dignity, and without fear of discrimination. The rest of us use certain same-sex spaces primarily because select spaces are unique in that our physical sex differences are very much evident in function and vulnerability. We don't need same-sex grocery stores because our sexed bodies aren't impacted differently when shopping for food, but we need them in changing rooms and restrooms.

Women and girls are vulnerable to male-pattern violence in ways unique to our sex (physical strength differences, pregnancy, high rates of male on female violence/rape/sexual assault). I don't think anyone could disagree with the above, so my question is, why would male non-binary or trans people want to make women and girls uncomfortable and fearful by using opposite sex facilities? I know that my DH is a good man and has never and will never rape nor sexually assault a woman or a girl. But he would never use a woman's toilet because he knows his presence would make women and girls uncomfortable. I believe that good transwomen feel the same as my husband. I don't understand why some people think non-binary and trans people should act differently than the rest of us.

We simply want trans and NB to live like everyone else and use same-sex spaces that correspond to their sex.

Another thread becomes the JJ show.

Here’s another good thread for newcomers and we’ve seen examples of this on this thread:

“Anyone who declares themselves as trans is trans. No debate.”

“People who declare themselves as trans but have their criminal activities documented on a website are not trans. No debate.”

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4160881-Gender-doublethink

@NotBadConsidering

Question from observing lurkers and newcomers:

Does anyone ever answer the question of how we determine who is “real” trans and who isn’t?

All of us wearily:

No. No one ever answers that question.

A person has a one night stand (male or female). How do they ever tell who is a murderer or rapist and who isn’t?

Some people are just bad. It doesn’t mean we stop everyone from living their life.

our physical sex differences are very much evident in function

And for the trans woman who has no penis how do they use a urinal?