”Hypothetically, if there was an organisation of trans people who wanted to stand with women against the current ideology - perhaps a campaign group based in biological reality who fought for third spaces, trans dv services, the cessation of misogyny and the co-ercive and bullying nature towards lesbians etc etc (we all know the issues) - what would you like to see as immediate priorities?”
The problem for me is the idea people can change sex, either through identifying or through medical interventions, I view it as sexist and homophobic. I doubt such a group would be willing to accept that medical interventions are an extreme solution to dysphoria around one’s sexed body, with the understanding that it does not alter one’s sex, i.e. a male accepting that undergoing medical interventions does not turn him into a type of woman. If the group could accept those things, it would help reduce the expectations of those who pursue medical interventions, and also help stop women being reduced to a set of cosmetic surgeries that males can obtain, but would they be willing to accept those things?
If the group supported those who advocate for therapies that help people accept themselves as their biological sex, that would be beneficial, as there is very little evidence medical intervention is helpful to most people. Talking therapies that explore and identify the cause(s) of why someone identifies as the opposite sex, and then addresses those causes so people can accept themselves as their biological sex, prevent people having to live with medical interventions they later regret. Though how would this sit with a group made up of people who think medical interventions were beneficial for them?
I think if the group advocated for all males to use either spaces for their own sex or third spaces (that are single occupancy that anyone can use) that would help to keep females safe and respect our privacy, whilst also adding an extra option for everyone, so I think that is a good idea. In the case of refuges and shelters, I think male shelters should be sufficient, the males in them will overwhelmingly be gay and bi men, I doubt a male who identifies as a woman will be in anymore danger in them than a feminine gay man. In prisons there are wings for at risk prisoners, which should be sufficient.
If the group supported females and lesbians having female only spaces, where we can meet and socialise without the presence of males, then I think that would be a positive thing.
If the group helped to make it more publicly known that it is not only gay men who are identifying as women, but also heterosexual men identifying as lesbian women and claiming that women can have a penis etc. And also helped bring the cause of why heterosexual males identify as women out into open, as well as the fact that most males keep their genitals intact despite identifying as women, then that would be positive.
If the group condemned the policing of language that many activists insist on, that would be positive, as people should not be forced to ‘validate’ someone’s subjective self identity or face sanctions or being reported for a ‘hate incident’. As well as the DARVO of males who claim to be victims and scream they have been discriminated against, if a women refuses to ‘validate’ a males self declared identity as a woman or a lesbian.
The group would have to understand that there would be times when their aims would be very different to women’s, though I think such a group would certainly be better than the Stonewall advocacy we see currently. I also think it could be helpful for females, if males who have had medical intervention had their own group, rather than them being constantly platformed in women’s groups, as that could help those groups to focus more on women.