Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

I found this slightly reassuring - re girls IDing as boys

851 replies

QueenPeary · 21/08/2021 13:36

Until recently despite engaging in the gender debate a lot and having a VERY full-on TRA family member, I hadn't had much direct experience of trans-IDing children.

But recently 2 of my DD's female classmates (year 6), one a close friend, have started IDing as boys, have boys names etc and this is being embraced by the school. My DD knows my GC views and we discuss it, but I have agreed to be respectful in using the right names etc (though I avoid using he pronouns).

Anyway - what I found reassuring is that both have discussed it with my DD and said they know they are not actually boys, and are not interested in taking drugs or having a penis. So despite the school being captured and going along with the full TWAW/TMAM etc, the kids (sometimes) aren't. They seem to realise it's an identity to try on, akin to a fashion or music tribe, and so maybe - I hope - there's a way in which girls (and maybe boys too) can go through this without it having to involve the long-term risks to their health.

I still don't think they are a "he" and I don't think it's going down a very healthy or feminist path to ID as a boy instead of just being a girl of whatever type you want to be. But I am kind of heartened that maybe this trend could default back to something more akin to good old 80s "gender bending" and away from the idea of actually changing sex.

Of course many kids still are at risk of both harmful medicalisation and anti-science ideology and I'm not minimising that – but wondered what people thought.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Artichokeleaves · 21/08/2021 19:04

I fundamentally believe that you cannot discriminate against people of a certain demographic.

But this will also have to include not discriminating against the women from other certain demographics, who cannot use mixed sex spaces.

This does not work for all women. This inclusion excludes. It can't be the answer.

R0wantrees · 21/08/2021 19:04

How about a compromise?

Post-op transwomen can use the ladies, but no willies allowed in a space not designed to accomodate them?

Why would you offer to compromise women and girls' privacy, dignity and safety? Men have many sorts of operations and /or injuries, none of these result in a change of sex.

GregTransphobia · 21/08/2021 19:04

Of course if someone displays predatory or intimidating behaviour to women they should be removed from that setting.

Before or after a woman or girl has been sexually assaulted?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/08/2021 19:05

am saying the response of automatically banning all trans women from single sex spaces is not necessarily proportionate to the risk of harm, when looked at at a population level.

And I am disagreeing with you, because it isn't about banning just MTF trans people, it's about males.

Jaysmith71 · 21/08/2021 19:06

What the Equality Act says is that you cannot discriminate against a person who has undergone or is undergoing or intending to undergo gender reassignment compared to any other member of that person's actual sex.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 21/08/2021 19:07

[quote TheFairPrincess]@ItsAllGoingToBeFine I have never once said it can't happen.

I am saying the response of automatically banning all trans women from single sex spaces is not necessarily proportionate to the risk of harm, when looked at at a population level. I fundamentally believe that you cannot discriminate against people of a certain demographic. I do not believe trans women have the same lived experience and motivations as cis men, and I believe that even excluding genuine trans women from the argument completely, the proportional likelihood of men using this loophole to exploit women is not any more likely than many of the the other ways women are sadly exploited.

I don't believe all transwomen who say they are transwomen should be let into any single sex space. I don't believe women should not be able to request biological female counsellors or medical practitioners. But I believe that trans women are also vulnerable to male violence, and as sex is binary the only alternative for trans women would be to use male services, which seem more inappropriate in those more vulnerable situations such as prison.

Of course if someone displays predatory or intimidating behaviour to women they should be removed from that setting.

I still don't believe it's fair to refuse trans women access to single sex spaces, especially something normal and every day like a public toilet. And we don't do that! We don't refuse access. So it's obviously not just me who thinks this.

Also to the person who said I'm using triggered to what, be performative or whatever. I wasn't. I don't feel like I should have to explain my psychological triggers to an internet forum, so all I can say is I hope we can move past it now.[/quote]
You are still missing the point.

All males are currently segregated from females in a variety of situations because of the risk some males pose.

You are arguing for a subset of males to be allowed to use female spaces.

You have no evidence to suggest that this subset of males offends at a lower rate than males as a whole and no evidence to suggest that this subset makes women less uncomfortable than males as a whole.

You additionally have no way of distinguishing this subset of males from the overall male population.

Can you share the evidence which leads you to believe that this objectively unidentifiable subset of males is of no risk to women physically or mentally?

Artichokeleaves · 21/08/2021 19:08

Now read the bits of the Equality Act for people with disabilities - you'll find plenty of women with Autism who have shared their particular challenges with mixed sex spaces on MN and the relationships board is sadly full of women who can tell you about the effects of trauma and VAWG.

And people of faith, culture, race.

Their inclusion matters too. This is why the ongoing debate as to how the Equality Act is interpreted, because the characteristics were never intended to create a hierarchy with one more powerful than another. To coin another often used phrase, in this sense rights have become pie: single sex spaces cannot exist at the same time as people having the right to use whichever sex space fits their personal comfort regardless of sex. For that right to be gained, women must lose the right to single sex provision, which excludes some women.

This is largely why at present we have the unedifying sight of our government realising what an utter mess it all is and trying to pretend that the two things can exist at the same time.

The only reasonable answer to meet all needs equally is to provide unisex spaces in addition, alongside single sex spaces.

ohstopityourmakingitup · 21/08/2021 19:08

@WhatsAppening

I think HexedBoogie is either very very young or taking the piss.

Because I’m struggling to believe anyone is this stupid.

Yep.
Artichokeleaves · 21/08/2021 19:08

Oh and freedom of belief. Forgot that one.

Nellodee · 21/08/2021 19:09

I don't think that interpretation about the case by case basis is actually correct. I know we have many posters on here that are very well informed about the law, and I hope one of them is on hand to put the correct interpretation across, but I recall a number of very in depth thread whereby the precise wording was analysed and it was not what you have posted at all. There was some debate about exclusions v exemptions, if I recall, and it was all very technical, but I think the conclusion was that exclusions did not have to be made on a case by case basis at all.

Where did you find that explanation of the act, if you don't mind?

Blibbyblobby · 21/08/2021 19:10

@TheFairPrincess

*Just like how the actions of Claire Lyte don't mean lesbians should be barred from being tennis coaches.

Actions of individuals do not justify discrimination*

Exactly.

disprove a generalisation thatno-onecan identify as transgender and be a predator

Literally who said that any person identifying as trans could "not be a predator". Who??

You're not doing that. You're using awful examples of female victimisation, committed by individuals, while denying that you are not trying to represent all trans people as predators. It's literal concern trolling.

If you honestly believed that you were not using individuals to represent the whole group, you literally would not be posting about indiviudals, it wouldn't even factor in. You're just trying to hit people who disagree with awful triggering cases in order to "prove your point".

That is not what you are doing. You are justifying your own transphobia.

Right. So let's get away from individuals.

We have (had) single sex spaces, rights and provisions based on the observation that male people - not all male people, not even a majority of male people, but enough to be a problem - encroached on female people socially, physically and culturally in a way that disempowered and often physically harmed them.

The argument seems to be that trans women, while being physically male, are actually not going to behave in the same way as other males (ie, that not all, not even a majority, but enough to be a problem, will encroach on female people socially, physically and culturally in a way that disempowers and often physically harms them), but do in fact behave like females, and therefore that it is right, good and proper to include trans women, but no other males, in the previously single-sex provision for females.

What I want to see is evidence - any evidence at all, that trans women align to female gender behaviour norms not male. I don't mean clothes, or femininity, or how they feel inside, but simply whether, for the measures and outcomes where we can see differences between the male and female population (eg crime, political representation, income, lifetime wealth, caring responsibilities, victim of sexual violence), trans women line up to the female measures and not the male.

It seems like a fairly reasonable thing to know before we dismantle single-sex protections surely?

Jaysmith71 · 21/08/2021 19:10

Back to my example of the secondary school, do you suppose that any adolescent boys would, you know, fib, just to get into the girls loos?

Waitwhat23 · 21/08/2021 19:10

@Artichokeleaves well put.

TheFairPrincess · 21/08/2021 19:10

Yeah, and it specifically mentions single sex spaces? I just feel like the quote from the act is a more rational way to explain what I'm trying to say. What is incoherent about the point I'm making @Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes I was upset and it got convoluted, but the conversation between me and that poster posting pedophile and rapist examples was this:

Me: I don't think you can exclude TW from single sex spaces as a blanket rule

Them: But this person is a rapist, and they had access to single sex spaces

Me: While awful, you can't use individual examples to make decisions at a population level on a whole community

Them: You just don't care about women

And apparently I'm the irrational one! Because I'm emotional I guess?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/08/2021 19:10

It seems like a fairly reasonable thing to know before we dismantle single-sex protections surely?

You would think.

Artichokeleaves · 21/08/2021 19:11

@GregTransphobia

Of course if someone displays predatory or intimidating behaviour to women they should be removed from that setting.

Before or after a woman or girl has been sexually assaulted?

Good question.

I'll add of course: less than 1% of rapes end in a successful prosecution. So the hope of anyone being successfully removed from anywhere because of predatory or intimidating behaviour is pretty small really. Not to mention it will very often be impossible for a woman to evidence and nothing more than her word against the offender's.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/08/2021 19:11

Me: I don't think you can exclude TW from single sex spaces as a blanket rule

Why? What is it about their feelings that trumps women's?

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 21/08/2021 19:12

extract from a speech by Onjali Rauf

"As a woman of faith – whose God, may I please remind everyone, IS genderless, I have zero problems with anyone who is anything ‘other’ than me.

If you’re a man who wants to step out of the socially constructed He-Man box that is ‘man’ to make a home in the socially constructed box of ‘woman’, then go for it.

But please, please, please, don’t do so to invade a space that women are still fighting so hard for.

Create your own space – a third space – a fifth space – a seventh space – one which caters to your own unique experiences and needs too – because you will have plenty of both that we as women won’t understand or share in too.

Or better yet, take space from the men – they have lots!

And please don’t pretend that my own experiences of transforming from girl to woman – and all the millions of tiny hurts and pains and prejudices and pushbacks all women have suffered as a result of being a girl, then woman, can be shared by you either.

Whether it’s toilets or changing rooms, specialist services or a refuge, school toilets or prison cells or hospital wards, it’s vital women’s uniqueness, lives and wants be as respected as you want your uniqueness, lives and wants to be respected.

As someone working with women fleeing domestic violence and war, human trafficking rings, childhood sexual abuse and a million and one other experiences of male-inflicted violence in between, our under-funded, drastically reducing, single-sex spaces are literally our last vestiges of safety.

For women who have been punched, beaten, raped, and broken at every possible level you can conceive, to be forced to accept former men as part of their healing process, will, to put it bluntly, lead to further trauma, or worse still, a distrust and turning away from the very services they believed might help them.

And I have to ask our policy makers, our parliament, and organisations like Stonewall and basically any human being with a shred of humanity:really?

Do these women’s needs and the needs of the young boys and girls they bring with them, really matter so little to you?

Aren’t they just as important as those wanting to be granted access to our worlds? And not only access – but special rules and allowances too?

As I look around in today’s world, I see more and more bewildered women and girls feeling confused, alienated and afraid.

Women like myself and my Sikh or Hindu or Jewish friends who need single-space places to safely unveil, wash up and reconfigure ourselves; or women who are breastfeeding and lactating and needing a space to let it all hang out; or women going through the menopause or chemotherapy who need safe spaces to just be looked after, or young girls on their first ever periods or sprouting breasts who need space for support and reassurance.

Or every woman ever, who needs a safe space like this to come and meet and talk about our fears and battles, and hopefully create better policies and movements for our future women.

Even the smallest annihilation of the basic right to be a woman in the presence of other women can have dire impacts on our health and state of mind.

A case in point: three weeks ago, I took a dear friend to lunch.

All was going well, we were having a beautiful time, and halfway through the meal, she left to go to the restaurant bathroom.

The woman that came back, was not the same one who left the luncheon table: for instead of the carefree, happy being I knew, came back a pale, quiet and slightly shaken version.

It transpired the restaurant had a gender ‘neutral’ bathroom, and as she had made her way down, a very innocent man had walked out of the toilets, banging into her.

Nothing of any significance to anyone watching – not until I tell you that this friend of two decades, had been raped in her university dorm room at the age of twenty, and feared all contact with men – no matter how nice, kind, friendly, non-threatening or ‘effeminate’ they might seem."

Continues: womansplaceuk.org/2019/10/01/the-sheer-audacity-of-our-existence/

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/08/2021 19:12

Not to mention it will very often be impossible for a woman to evidence and nothing more than her word against the offender's.

And she might get accused of "misgendering" as pp think is beyond the pale.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 21/08/2021 19:12

I don't think that interpretation about the case by case basis is actually correct

I believe here it means by assessing by service, rather than by individual transperson.

TheFairPrincess · 21/08/2021 19:13

The argument seems to be that trans women, while being physically male, are actually not going to behave in the same way as other males (ie, that not all, not even a majority, but enough to be a problem, will encroach on female people socially, physically and culturally in a way that disempowers and often physically harms them), but do in fact behave like females, and therefore that it is right, good and proper to include trans women, but no other males, in the previously single-sex provision for females

Yah definitely this is what I think. How do you prove by omission though? You're asking me to quantify a psychological mindset really - the idea that at least most TW behave like women and not men. I don't know how to provide that.

We're not dismantling anything or making any changes though, this is the way things are, like, currently.

Jaysmith71 · 21/08/2021 19:13

Compromise Two:

Instead of re-educating females to accept male transwomen in their female-only spaces, why not re-educate males to accept their fellow males however they present?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/08/2021 19:13

And she might get accused of "misgendering" as pp think is beyond the pale.

Like the Wi Spa woman.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 21/08/2021 19:14

Me: While awful, you can't use individual examples to make decisions at a population level on a whole community

Again, because you are carefully ignoring this, why do we have single sex spaces at all? It's not because all men are violent or predatory...

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/08/2021 19:15

Yah definitely this is what I think. How do you prove by omission though? You're asking me to quantify a psychological mindset really - the idea that at least most TW behave like women and not men.

I couldn't be less convinced of that hypothesis, and as you admit, you don't have any evidence. So it's a no thank you from me.

Swipe left for the next trending thread