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.

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

Are transpeople at greater risk of suicide than people who do not identify as trans? What about for teenagers?

Transgender Trend have produced this review of the available evidence: www.transgendertrend.com/the-suicide-myth/

MildlyIrritated based on the ONS figures, trans people are actually safer (from murder) than the rest of the population.

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

'The limited data we’re working with suggests that in the UK at least, the “trans murder rate” is lower than the UK average.

But – again based on unofficial figures – it appears that trans people are more likely to experience other violent crimes, for example domestic abuse.

All of this is a best guess, not a firm conclusion: we don’t yet have a robust estimate of the total trans population of the UK, and the number of recorded trans murder victims is so small that it would only take one or two more cases every year for the “trans murder rate” to double or triple.

The Office for National Statistics say they are working on creating a standard process for recording violence against trans people.'

Transphobia undoubtedly does exist - usually rooted in homophobia, I would suggest, and there are horrible people out there who just don't like people who are outwith the norm.

The trouble is that the definition of 'transphobia has been used to accuse people for - well, everything:

wingsoverscotland.com/everything-is-transphobic/

And the hate crime laws, including hate 'incidents', are so vague and problematic that I don't know how anyone can really refer to them usefully. Issues are, for example, that a hate incident can refer to absolutely anything, can be reported by absolutely anyone (not necessarily the 'victim'), are entirely a matter of perception.

Trans people share the same protections, rightly, as any other member of the population.

@12frogsincoats for someone who thinks feminists are the hitler youth, you sure do spend a lot of time hanging out with us. Maybe you need a new hobby?

I hadn't heard of sealioning until today. I guess it's a diversion tactic, not unlike whataboutery.

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

I often see talk of "lifesaving trans healthcare" being banned or restricted.

What is the healthcare? How does it save lives?

Why would healthcare be refused to people presenting to the doctor saying they feel they are trans? What treatments are offered? What is the person's problem with being trans that requires medical intervention?

You probably won't get an answer to these questions here. These are questions to ask of TRAs who are the ones saying these things.

Like you, I don't understand how this treatment saves lives. I also don't understand why a condition which we are told is neither a mental health condition nor a physical health condition needs treatment in the first place.

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

When I first became aware of these issues I frequently saw claims that transwomen suffer serious violence in the UK. I still keep seeing it claimed that transpeople, especially transwomen, are the most marginalised and oppressed group, even more than women, black people, people with disabilities and homosexual people.

Is this true?

I have been looking for evidence that transwomen are at any more risk of violence in the men’s facilities than any other vulnerable male group like teen boys of small slight men and so far have found nothing.

I have requested this info from our resident trans posters arguing that they must use the women’s facilities because they are in such terrible danger in the men’s but still had nothing.

One respondent posted a self selected survey from about 6 yrs ago in America (a noteably different society to ours) that claimed greater danger but it wasn’t contextualised with violence suffered by any other group.

There have been zero trans people murdered in the uk since 2018 and on internet searches, despite the fact that the media (and Stonewall, Pink News etc) report any trans victim as being trans (but if they are a perpetrator they are reported as they choose, usually as a woman) I’m struggling find any reports of violence against trans people that fits the argument that they are safer in the women’s toilets.

In fact, the only ‘attack’ on a transwoman I could find was in Canada where a person was ’karate chopped’ by two girls in the ladies toilets after they challenged a male bodied person’s presence in the women’s facilities. I don’t think much actual injury took place.

It was mentioned by a man in social media that men are quite used to seeing bolder women pop into the men’s toilets because they don’t want to wait for the ladies so it sounds like not much attention would generally be paid to a female presenting person using the men’s toilets.

If anyone has found any actual reports of transwomen being attacked in the men’s facilities I would be interested to see. In the other hand I have seen some pretty awful reports of male people accessing women’s facilities to attack women and young girls.

^^ Regarding the toilet issue, I've said recently that the TRA response when we say we don't want men (however they identify) in our spaces is to say that if men want to attack us they'll just come in anyway. So if TW are afraid of being attacked by other males (this seems to be their reason for wanting to use ladies toilets), why do they feel safer if, by their own reasoning, men can just come in anyway?

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

I often see talk of "lifesaving trans healthcare" being banned or restricted.

What is the healthcare? How does it save lives?

Why would healthcare be refused to people presenting to the doctor saying they feel they are trans? What treatments are offered? What is the person's problem with being trans that requires medical intervention?

The first medical step for children in the UK is puberty blockers, then cross-sex hormones and some choose to have surgery too.

Since the Judicial Review brought by Keira Bell, GIDS now require a clinician to apply to the Court of Protection for permission to give the puberty blockers because they're considered an experimental drug in the context of gender dysphoria. The ruling of the review is being appealed.

Adults can do what they like.

I have heard GC women say that men might pretend to be trans to attack women and that's why transwomen should not be allowed to share with women. I have seen many rebuttals saying that men would not go to that much trouble to gain access to victims nor would they do it in a way that would make them so disadvantaged in society.

Now I know that's not strictly true because of high profile cases of violent and/or abusive people who claimed to be trans and used this to gain access to victims. I'm thinking of Karen White, Jessica Yaniv and Barbie Kardashian. They all claim to be transwomen. I'm told it is unfair to pick on these very rare cases as an indication that violent men will claim to be trans. You can find violent people in any group.

Is it rare? Does it matter? Is it genuinely a problem? Or just a disguise for bigotry? Is there any evidence one way or the other?

I finally understand what sea-lioning is from this definition. The cartoon, which I've seen before as an explanation, doesn't make sense to me at all, and seems to be about something completely different

My thoughts exactly. I also think the cartoon is a bit silly, but the behaviour it describes when enacted by actual humans rather than anthropomorphised pinnipeds* with a grudge is a very real thing. I couldn’t give a hoot that the cartoon isn’t that helpful, because the phrase itself is useful to me.

thank you arabella* for my word of the weekend. I hope I’ve spelled it correctly

Why is cis a banned term? Why do people get so cross when it is used on here?

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

I have heard GC women say that men might pretend to be trans to attack women and that's why transwomen should not be allowed to share with women. I have seen many rebuttals saying that men would not go to that much trouble to gain access to victims nor would they do it in a way that would make them so disadvantaged in society.

Now I know that's not strictly true because of high profile cases of violent and/or abusive people who claimed to be trans and used this to gain access to victims. I'm thinking of Karen White, Jessica Yaniv and Barbie Kardashian. They all claim to be transwomen. I'm told it is unfair to pick on these very rare cases as an indication that violent men will claim to be trans. You can find violent people in any group.

Is it rare? Does it matter? Is it genuinely a problem? Or just a disguise for bigotry? Is there any evidence one way or the other?

Well ~98% of sexual offences are committed by males.

There's zero evidence at the moment that any type of transition (social, medical, top surgery or bottom surgery) has any effect on this.

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

Why is cis a banned term? Why do people get so cross when it is used on here?

Because it makes women feel like a subset of their own sex class.

@CharlieParley

Well, yes Datun, I agree with you that the issue of male-on-male violence is not ours to solve. We do have a role to play - research shows after all that violence, whether male-on-male or male-on-female is less prevalent today than in the past. And one of the main causes for this is thought to be that female people have more rights and input into modern society, and as a sex class we prefer other solutions to violent ones. And we have a role to play as mothers, especially those of us raising boys, to teach them how not to continue the cycle of violence.

Of course, what we are focusing on here as women's rights proponents are the practical and not theoretical issues arising for female people from male-on-female violence. Like you, I don't believe it's our job to also focus on practical solutions to male-on-male violence to keep male people safe.

But I didn't share that view when I first took an interest in this debate. I felt that it was women's responsibility to find a solution to keep those males safe who couldn't be in our spaces because they were the opposite sex but wouldn't be safe in the spaces of their own sex.

And I didn't travel from there to here in a straight line either. I learned about male and female socialisation. About boundaries (mine and those of other women). About having the confidence to say no, and the self-worth to expect to be heard.

So when I read those but what about genuinely ambiguous people? comments, I don't think derail, I think let's look at the question, and what's behind it. More often than not, there's a lack of knowledge not wilful ignorance. A lack of understanding not indifference. (I've had that experience with professional feminists, who are paid to know this stuff, so I'm no longer surprised if ordinary women think this is an insurmountable problem.)

You're a better woman than I !

I am an advocate of patience, and you are brilliant at it. I'm always impressed with your detailed and irrefutable posts.

2 reasons. Cis implies that there are two types of women - cis women and trans women. There are not, women are adult human females

Secondly definition of cis women’s is a woman whose gender identity matches their sex implying that cis women identify with the oppression that goes with being a woman.

Regarding the use of 'cis':

notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/objections-to-cis/?fbclid=IwAR0Nz5kSFVhauvDJZgaVfsGaY2xz9YkpENKO2xuXOogo4NUhK0TTVfp562w

Twitter tells me Mumsnet opinions are those of straight white middle-class English women, right wing, Christian (evangelical). It is full of "Karens".

I'm a left of centre bisexual atheist. I am white and middle class but am not English. I am not called Karen.

Do you think the Twitter characterisation of Mumsnet FWR posters is valid?

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

Why is cis a banned term? Why do people get so cross when it is used on here?

There is no need to use cis. Women are human adult females. Transwomen are adult human males that wish to be perceived as if they are a subset of women.

Therefore there are women and transwomen. There is no need for the label cis. Its use also assumes that everyone has a gender identity, which many don't.

Mildly it couldn't be more wrong

Why is cis a banned term? Why do people get so cross when it is used on here?
Because 'cis' requires women to be put into a gender-conforming box or not really count as a woman at all (trans/nb).
This is a feminist board and most feminists have problem with the idea that being a woman is about how much we conform with gender stereotypes.

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

Why is cis a banned term? Why do people get so cross when it is used on here?

You will hear different definitions of cis, and the one usually used when a woman like myself objects is 'it just means the opposite of trans'.

Well, for a start, I do not need a qualifying definition according to how some else defines themselves.

But this definition of cis is not the one used in most trans terms glossaries. In those, we are told cis means that you 'identify with the gender you were assigned at birth'.

I am a feminist. I was a tomboy as a child, I became embroiled in conservative Christianity and was forced into a straitjacket of feminine gender - in clothes, in role, in behaviour. It was a cultural and religious fiction and it took me a lot of work to break free.

I do not have a 'gender identity' as a specific part of myself. My sex is female, and via that I find solidarity with other female humans and the issues we face. Some of us conform more to society's expectations, and some less. To say that I am 'cis' because I know that I am a woman is saying that the only permissible way to challenge the straitjacket of the gender system is to deny I am a woman. It also assumes there is a correct way to be a woman, which is performative nonsense.

@MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

I have heard GC women say that men might pretend to be trans to attack women and that's why transwomen should not be allowed to share with women. I have seen many rebuttals saying that men would not go to that much trouble to gain access to victims nor would they do it in a way that would make them so disadvantaged in society.

Now I know that's not strictly true because of high profile cases of violent and/or abusive people who claimed to be trans and used this to gain access to victims. I'm thinking of Karen White, Jessica Yaniv and Barbie Kardashian. They all claim to be transwomen. I'm told it is unfair to pick on these very rare cases as an indication that violent men will claim to be trans. You can find violent people in any group.

Is it rare? Does it matter? Is it genuinely a problem? Or just a disguise for bigotry? Is there any evidence one way or the other?

Predatory male people have entered professions in order to have sexual access to vulnerable children, so why would they not be prepared to enter sex-segregated changing rooms or other facilities in order to gain the same access?

There are reasons apart from just Ian Huntley for people who want to work with or supervise children to have to have a DBS check before they are allowed to do so.

If there is no legal reason to prevent a predatory male from uttering the magic words "I identify as a woman" and thus gaining unfettered access to all women's safe spaces, what is to prevent him from doing so? He wouldn't even have to change the way he is dressed, far less do anything more personally inconvenient like shave off his beard, take drugs or have surgery; and he could revert to identifying as a male the following day, or an hour later, at no cost or inconvenience to himself.

I have seen posts deleted for misgendering and dead-naming. I have also seen posts calling Jessica Yaniv Jonathan Yaniv and calling her a him.

Is it OK to misgender and dead-name? How do I ensure that my posts stay up?

@TheBuffster

One question I wondered about was seeing a user post her previous alignment with trans rights. The user said she'd done a lot for pride and was part of the first trans rallies in the 90s. It was something about sitting on a beach for viability with people who were unassuming and just get on with their lives. That was my original understanding of trans movement. People quietly going about their day in a dress. Fast forward and the movement seems to have been hijacked by extremists deliberately exercising misogyny and eroding women's rights as key aim.

My question is what happened from it being a small group of unassuming people who just wanted to live to an aggressive, uncompromising lobby group with lots of members?

Because when I first heard about jk I thought of group a. Then saw actually they have minimal visibility in all of this.

That might well have something to do with the two types of transwomen posited by Ray Blanchard's typology.

Historically, you would have what has been coined an HSTS (homosexual transsexual). An effeminate gay man who was railing against homophobia. To the extent that he would reject his anatomy and everything to do with being male. This is what most people think of when they hear the word transsexual, a man trying to just get on with it under the radar.

The other type is an autogynephile (AGP). A heterosexual man man who is sexually aroused by thinking of himself as a woman. Akin to transvestism and cross dressing. (See transwidows).

So the first type actively reject masculinity, but the second, actively embrace femininity.

It's the difference between I don't want to be thought of as male, how do I go about that? And I must be thought of as female, how do I go about that?

Two distinct motivations.

Stonewall expanded the umbrella of what it meant to be transgender, when they officially included cross dressers and transvestites.

It would appear that a lot of this stems from that.

You will notice that there is a distinct push to deny that AGP even exists. But since it's plastered from one end of the Internet to the other, that doesn't really wash.

One of the big ones is “there is no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights”.

There absolutely is, and most reasonable people understand that rights frequently conflict, and the only way to resolve that is by discussing how the two sets of rights can be balanced for fairness. My right to build a massive extension conflicts with my neighbours right to light in her kitchen. If I insist that there’s no conflict, I’m saying her rights don’t exist.

If you’re saying there’s no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, you’re saying women’s rights don’t exist. Clearly, there is a conflict and clearly, we need to discuss how to balance that.