Mumsnet says Trans Rights are Human Rights!

[ool0n]

I always assumed Mumsnet were not the biggest supporters of trans rights, given the stories about them. But this is a good statement on Twitter, "of course trans people exist, and of course trans rights are human rights"
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367071394870276099

Also I thought using terms like cisgender or cis were against the rules, this isn't true either -
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367080005193318401

So can I get a trans rights are human rights, trans women are women, trans men are men and non binary people are valid!

i'm a woman, my sense of my gender identity matches my biological sex and always have.

Can you explain this please? You say your gender matches your sex. As you say you are a woman I will assume your sex is female, but there is no gender identity called female (there are hundreds to choose from but none are called female) so which gender do you have that you say matches “female”?

@TransRightsRCool

Trans women are women, and that doesn't stop you from being women. Trans men are men. Nonbinary people exist (hi). People with cultural genders exist.

Transwomen are transwomen Transmen are transmen Non binary people exist

Some UK women are getting as much as £50 000 back payments!

Wonderful news.

a woman is an adult human who identifies as a woman.

a woman is an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as a woman].

a woman is an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as a woman]].

a woman is an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as a woman]]].

a woman is an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as [an adult human who identifies as a woman]]]].

...

Great game, when can we stop?

Trans women are women, and that doesn't stop you from being women

Exactly

Damn, posted too soon - meant to say exactly, just because trans women are women doesn't make me any less of a woman.
I still am one.

I do take issue when people come onto threads all 'the transphobia round here is sickening, TWAW, you are all awful bigots' but then when they are asked basic questions that they can't answer they deflect for a bit and then fuck off the thread.

I am totally up for engaging on this, but I kind of expect that if I pose questions as part of that discussion, then they will be answered in good faith.

/// this with bells on.

I don't identify as a woman, I am a woman. I have no gender identity. As someone previously said, if I was unconscious, I could express nothing but I would still be a woman whether I liked it or not.

BirdsEye and Flora (amongst others) have terminated their advertising contracts with Mumsnet re controversial forum content re the topic of trans-people? Isn't that correct?

The NSPCC also pulled out of a live webchat because of this too, correct?

Oh, and thinking of trans rights and rights in general:

Trans rights are surely human rights, of course.

And transmen have all the rights other women do, as transwomen have all the rights other men have.

Who would think otherwise?

@UhtredRagnarson

i'm a woman, my sense of my gender identity matches my biological sex and always have.

Can you explain this please? You say your gender matches your sex. As you say you are a woman I will assume your sex is female, but there is no gender identity called female (there are hundreds to choose from but none are called female) so which gender do you have that you say matches “female”?

please point out where i used the term female in reference to myself?

The only place i've used that word is in talking about societal stereotypes where i used the descriptors of 'female' and its corresponding 'male'

It just means expressing your identity.

How does it express an identity if nobody agrees what it means?

How would my opinion about my identity negate others perceptions of what they can see and here?

"Everyone has a gender identity, there are 60+ years of research into gender identity and when children express theirs"

Interesting take, but feminism has been about for quite a while too, and the whole point about that used to be (and hopefully still is) that gender identity is a social construct you're taught to fall in line with. So, a gender identity, with all the roles, responsibilities and limitations which go with it, was always what feminism refuted in favour of finding yourself, expressing your personality, being you.

And regarding children, whatever they express, in my humble opinion, is their personal identity, and should be cultivated and respected as such. If they fall in line with social constructs, so be it. Likewise, they want to do their own thing - respect and acceptance.

MrsHusky Thanks for giving it a go.

I guess I don't 'feel' overweight. However, by standard UK objective methods I am. So I could say 'I don't feel overweight' but if someone was grouping people into 2 groups using UK standards I would be put into the overweight group. I don't think my 'feeling' should override the objective reality of the scales.

I also don't think that 'being kind' is enough of a reason to let male sex people into female only spaces such as sport or prisons. I'd rather 'be kind' to the female sex people for whom those areas were set up.

@Sophoclesthefox

I have seen a few new faces on this thread, which is great, because contrary to popular belief, dissenting opinions are welcome.

You’ve probably been told that this places is full of senseless bigotry, overrun by “t*rfs” (that word is treated as a slur here, and it will generally get you deleted by the way) who are immune to logic and reason.

It’s not true. Women here didn’t get here through being ignorant. Many are like me, and started off as natural trans allies, being on the left and well disposed towards championing the underdog and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly.

I reached my position because I couldn’t find the logic.

The parallels with religion bothered me.

The compulsion to “be kind”, while in the same breath someone dehumanised me by calling me a cervix haver, or threatened rape.

So I read, and I talked, and I listened, and I processed, and I reflected, and I arrived at an ethical position that I have tested and questioned over years. It is: sex matters, women’s rights have to be defended and while anyone can believe anything about themselves that they choose, belief cannot be compelled, and makes bad law. If there’s no conflict between women’s rights and trans rights, then nothing about that statement should be contentious.

But do please know this, however I got here, it wasn’t through ignorance or bigotry, so telling me that will just make me make this face

I am not going to get involved in sudo-philosophical debates about what, who, or why is woman.

I don't see the point. There are plenty of reasons to reject biological essentialism throughout the history of feminism. I've read them; I reject it. Others may have another view but I am yet to see a feminist reasoning for its return.

The reason that this forum has developed it's reputation is the suggestion that those sudo-philosophical debates provide any justification at all for the removal of human rights and legal protections from trans people in the UK.

To draw on your religious parallel - I can join the debate about how many angels may dance on the head of a pin but that doesn't change the fact that people have the religious freedoms in the UK. To pretend otherwise is the problem. To present such debates as a justification for religious hatred is the corollary to the situation on these boards and in this thread.

On the other hand, @Sophoclesthefox your attitude is one I remember from the time before transphobia infested this place and I would welcome the return to those days in a heartbeat.

This is contradictory, identify as a woman means saying "I'm a woman" to the question "Are you a woman?". It seems you think "identify as" means something else. It just means expressing your identity.

But I know I am a woman because of my female body. Because of my breasts, my vagina, my female reproductive system, the fact I have had periods since I was 12, that I have had to run the gauntlet of many forms of contraception since I was a teenager, and then stopped that contraception when I wanted to get pregnant, then had two humans hauled out of my vagina with giant BBQ tongs, that my periods stopped when I was having chemo and I was told it might make me menopausal, but they came back and now they are all over the place and I am going to have investigations to see what's going on.... And so on and so forth.

All those things, among other things, are how I know I am a woman. Absolutely fuck all to do with my 'identity'. I can't, and could never, identify out of any of it.

@9toenails

TransRightsRCool: It doesn't matter what definition I provide, you won't be satisfied. So I'll stick with this one: a woman is an adult human who identifies as a woman .

I suppose you really do not understand, TransRightsRCool, otherwise you would not post this. This supposed definition is circular.

So what? Allow me to try to explain.

Some people are saussurite-gabbros . Huh? You ask. ...

-- Let me tell you what a saussurite-gabbro is: a saussurite-gabbro is an adult human who identifies as a saussurite-gabbro .

Now you know what a saussurite-gabbro is? Nope. Because the definition is circular. You could only understand the definition if you already knew what a saussurite-gabbro is (which I will take a guess you did not). So the definition does not tell you what you wanted to know.

It is exactly the same with your definition of woman . It does not tell anyone what a woman is unless they already know what a woman is. It is a circular definition.

[Exercise : can you think why this might be called 'circular'? (Hint: who might be going round in circles trying to understand what a saussurite-gabbro (or a woman) is, just from the definition?)]

As I said, it was clear you did not understand this, TransRightsRCool, otherwise you would not have posted what you did. Do you understand it now? And, if so, are you a big enough person to admit it and try for another, non-circular, definition?

As I said before, you people will not be satisfied by whatever definition of woman I provide. It'll always be too circular for you. This is meaningless exercise that is getting no one anywhere. Why does woman have to be defined anyway? Wouldn't it be better to leave it undefined? So that you don't have to look and dress and be a specific way to be considered a woman? Or is that just for excluding trans women?

@ool0n

"So if I don't identify as a woman... does that mean I'm not a woman?"

This is contradictory, identify as a woman means saying "I'm a woman" to the question "Are you a woman?". It seems you think "identify as" means something else. It just means expressing your identity.

It doesn't mean that though. It's a loaded question that is set up to ensure the respondent validates the notion of gender identity and the reason this is done is to ensure that persons of the opposite sex can identify into the category too.

It's a type of forced teaming or forced belief. It replaces the definitive with something that is nebulous, shifting and interpretive.

please point out where i used the term female in reference to myself?

You didn’t. As I said, you called yourself a woman so I assumed you are a female because women are female. You do have a sex, it will be either male or female and you used the descriptor for an adult female. Are you male? In which case which gender do you have that matches your male sex?

@Mockolate

Damn, posted too soon - meant to say exactly, just because trans women are women doesn't make me any less of a woman. I still am one.

What is the definition of a transwoman?

@ool0n

"So if I don't identify as a woman... does that mean I'm not a woman?"

This is contradictory, identify as a woman means saying "I'm a woman" to the question "Are you a woman?". It seems you think "identify as" means something else. It just means expressing your identity.

Walk me through that one again...

How can someone be answering by “expressing my (their)identity”, when they’ve just said that they don’t have an identity

How does that clarify? I’m not being goady, we can juggle with words as much as we like, but there’s still no way to have a word that includes both people who have a characteristic, but not an identity, and people who have an identity but not a characteristic, and have that word refer to both the identity and the characteristic as the same thing.

@9toenails - "And, if so, are you a big enough person to admit it and try for another, non-circular, definition?"

That's fallacious, there are lots of words that are defined in a circular manner. That doesn't make the definition less valid. They're also rather ill defined or have multiple defns as you can see here

1. Is ill-defined and wooly
2. Is circular

... But we can all manage to identify chairs and understand the word www.dictionary.com/browse/chair

I am not going to get involved in sudo-philosophical debates about what, who, or why is woman.

You don't need to. We all know who is a woman and how. The pseudo philosophy has no impact or bearing on reality.

What rights and protections are being removed from trans people bigotryisbad?