I found this slightly reassuring - re girls IDing as boys

[QueenPeary]

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.

Haven't rtft but lifes too short and the first page was mind -boggling enough!
If Facebook removes anti-vax and dangerous unscientific posts, shouldn't mumsnet consider removing the patent nonsense of Hexed?
It could be dangerous if vulnerable or easily-led people are reading.
Why are we wasting our time with it?

@2old4thissite

Haven't rtft but lifes too short and the first page was mind -boggling enough! If Facebook removes anti-vax and dangerous unscientific posts, shouldn't mumsnet consider removing the patent nonsense of Hexed? It could be dangerous if vulnerable or easily-led people are reading. Why are we wasting our time with it?

No, just leave those posts up. Others can then see what we say and our responses. It tells readers way more than you think.

If you read a bit more of the thread 2old4thissite you'll see that more knowledgeable posters have clearly explained what is wrong with what Hexed has posted. I think leaving their posts up along with the more informative posts which follow is much better than just deleting Hexed's nonsense.

Anyone reading who starts off by thinking that Hexed might have a point will soon discover that they are actually talking nonsense and will become much better informed as a result.

Allowing idiots to talk nonsense and taking their argument apart is better than censorship.

Agreed.

It's also for people who are new to the debate or lurkers who have heard that FWR is full of evil transphobes. We've seen it on this thread - one poster said 'of course transpeople don't believe they've actually changed sex - that's ridiculous!'. We were then able to pinpoint specific posts by another poster who was, in fact, saying exactly that.

It's so easy for people new to the debate to think that the claims made here are ridiculous and overstated. Leaving the posts which show that these 'ridiculous' ideas are actually held by TRA's is very instructive. Particularly for lurkers.

Yes! Leave it be.

Unlike others we on FWR don't silence people we disagree with

hell yes, leave the posts where they are

Regarding the point about an abusive husband claiming to be trans to access his wife's DV shelter: do DV shelters routinely let abusive lesbian partners follow their wives in? Or are there entirely separate safeguards to prevent both parties in a given relationship being in the same shelter?

@snekkes

Regarding the point about an abusive husband claiming to be trans to access his wife's DV shelter: do DV shelters routinely let abusive lesbian partners follow their wives in? Or are there entirely separate safeguards to prevent both parties in a given relationship being in the same shelter?

There are safeguards. It's also a much, much rarer, whereas abusive men taking extreme measures to get to their victims is commonplace.

So there are safeguards to prevent both halves of a couple being in the same DV shelter. That's very reassuring! A cis man managing to claim to be trans to get into the same shelter as his wife would be a tragic and frightening failure of those safeguards, not a reflection on the trans community.

@WhatsAppening

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

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

You took the words right out of my mouth. Young and a bit dim, imo.

@snekkes

So there are safeguards to prevent both halves of a couple being in the same DV shelter. That's very reassuring! A cis man managing to claim to be trans to get into the same shelter as his wife would be a tragic and frightening failure of those safeguards, not a reflection on the trans community.

I don't think you understand safeguards.

You don't just do one thing.

You do lots and lots of different things, each one reducing the risk a little bit, in the hope that they all add up to stopping as many people being damaged as you can.

In the case of DV, males pose a greater risk to females than other females, both because the males commit more violent acts and because they can cause more damage when they do.

So a refuge that excludes ALL males has removed entirely the risk that a so-called "cis" man, OR a trans woman, OR any other variety of male person whatever their gender identity or lack of gender identity happens to get in and abuse a female person.

A refuge that does not exclude ALL males, by definition, increases the risk of male on female violence.

Of course males with trans identities should not be singled out, but neither should they be given a free pass.

(By the way, you forgot that that trans women can also identify as lesbians.)

@Waitwhat23

It's also for people who are new to the debate or lurkers who have heard that FWR is full of evil transphobes. We've seen it on this thread - one poster said 'of course transpeople don't believe they've actually changed sex - that's ridiculous!'. We were then able to pinpoint specific posts by another poster who was, in fact, saying exactly that.

It's so easy for people new to the debate to think that the claims made here are ridiculous and overstated. Leaving the posts which show that these 'ridiculous' ideas are actually held by TRA's is very instructive. Particularly for lurkers.

It's a really good point.

Many, many transactivists subscribe to the notion that sex is not based on biology. And believing that it is, is old-fashioned and outdated. They believe sex is determined by the way you think, or feel.

Of course, it never holds up, because well, it's obviously nonsense. But, nonetheless, you will get plenty of people doggedly sticking to it regardless.

@Datun that's gender, not sex. Sex is what you read about in medical books what doesn't belong in a medical book (like for example wearing a skirt or liking a particular colour) is cultural ideas and therefore gender

[quote grey12]@Datun that's gender, not sex. Sex is what you read about in medical books what doesn't belong in a medical book (like for example wearing a skirt or liking a particular colour) is cultural ideas and therefore gender[/quote]
Indeed but you will get many a transactivist claiming otherwise. That transwomen are actually women. That their penis, for example, is a female organ with a different 'mouth feel' to a male penis.

The distinction between sex and gender isn't something always subscribed to.

This is the state of the debate. A great many, perhaps the majority, of British people would assume that a transwoman was a born-female who wishes to become male, such as Ellen/Elliot Page.

Others will assume that 'trans' means medication, surgery etc, again like Elliot Page.

And of course a timely reminder that a trans woman academic teaching in philosophy who has also benefited from winning female cycling championships, shows us the ultimate goal. That being that allowing kindness and accepting males as being accepted ‘women’, it is simply not acceptable to then not accept them as female.

I am sure as people realise that well known activists are pushing that agenda, the support will drop away quickly.

That being that allowing kindness and accepting males as being accepted ‘women’, it is simply not acceptable to then not accept them as female.

Well that is an awkward sentence
Sorry.

@snekkes

So there are safeguards to prevent both halves of a couple being in the same DV shelter. That's very reassuring! A cis man managing to claim to be trans to get into the same shelter as his wife would be a tragic and frightening failure of those safeguards, not a reflection on the trans community.

Oh dear.

First there's the issue that there's no reason at all why an abusive man stalking his ex - please check out the relationship board for the extreme lengths men will go to to find an ex and children who have escaped him- is very likely not going to be all helpful and give a true name and mention that his ex is in that shelter. If however he knows she has gone into a shelter, presents as trans at his local services with his current name and a different address and presents a case history that makes him keen to be housed, he is likely to be told the names and addresses of the local shelters. Which will make it so much easier to find his ex and certainly raises the possibility that he will be in that shelter before she has realised he is there and can tell anyone.

An abusive man - I won't use the word 'cis', it's extremely rude unless someone has chosen it politically for themselves - is obviously, to anyone but the very hard of thinking, not a 'reflection on the trans community'. I'm not sure who they are, I see a wide range of opinions on this from trans people rather than a united groupthink.

This issue, yet again, in very small words, is that there is no ability to distinguish between a sincerely trans person and a male person who is just saying the words.

And being a male person who is trans is not incompatible with being an offender, see many cases referred to on this thread. That is not a 'reflection on the trans community either' any more than Ian Huntley is a reflection on the male community.

We obviously cannot just abandon safeguarding and women's rights and needs in order to not make any male trans person feel personally responsible that a male person somewhere offended. It would be nice if male people, trans or otherwise, would have some care or respect for women's feelings, needs and best interests and accept, letting any male person into a female single sex space is, to use a word so often thrown about, 'problematic'.

And male needs do not automatically trump female ones.

What a great post @Artichokeleaves

As soon as the practicalities are addressed the whole thing just dissolves doesn’t it?

The gaps do get quickly apparent.

As shown on this thread, if a male in poor faith does present at someone's helpdesk or help line, many women will be understandably anxious to show kindness and supportiveness to any presenting trans person who appears in a difficult situation, to be sensitive to their particular needs and vulnerabilities and to fight their corner - and this is great. This is as it should be.

But they are also showing here that they would regard standard safeguarding wrong in this situation, they would be openly upset about a suggestion to stop and think and consider what safeguarding calls 'the unthinkable' and 'the difficult questions' because they find it too unkind in possible implications. Offensive. Almost every serious case review involves well intentioned adults falling into this trap.

And this still sets aside that when you include the loveliest, kindest male in a single sex refuge, you exclude females. Who unlike that male don't have any other options and are at much higher risk of being killed if they cannot escape violence. Why cannot all needs be met? Why can't we have some refuges that are openly mixed sex women's shelters for the women who are able to use them and some female only refuges to ensure that inclusion and diversity works for everyone?

Instead of making a political desire by male people, for male people, to eliminate any female space at all that male people cannot have access to as part of their gender identity, more important than all female people having access to services? Even life saving ones?

I just feel like people who go through their lives as subjects as ridicule and persecution, taking hormones and getting feminisation surgery, all sorts, are really not doing this so they can harm women.
How do you know this? Is their supposed ridicule and persecution more notable, more different, and more special than the persecution and ridicule natal women go through simply for having female sexed bodies?

That's what I mean when I say we shouldn't discriminate. How can a TW who has gone through all that feel safe in male spaces?
Because transwomen are MEN. If they don't feel safe in male spaces that is for men to sort out.

If sex is binary, and there isn't a third gender, and they identify, live as women, how can we not include them when they need to be included?
Sex is binary, gender is bullshit, and no man can "live as a woman" because it's impossible. Provisions for women and single sex spaces must not ever include natal men.

And how often do they even need to be included? Is the time and effort we spend fighting off trans equality worth it? Is there not a middle ground or specific situations where we can say it is or isn't appropriate?
Oy. If "trans equality" means my rights will be stamped on then I'll ensure that won't happen, but if "trans equality" means that transmen and transwomen can live out their lives as TM and TW safely and comfortably, using spaces for their sex observed at birth or third spaces then I'm all for it.

And a request to Princess: please don't use "cis" as a descriptor for women. It's unnecessary, inaccurate and annoying, as women are adult human females, no need for any prefix. Thanks.

From Artichokeleaves And male needs do not automatically trump female ones. 👏👏👏 Succinct and well worth repeating.

HexedBoogie "Puberty blockers are harmless and trans kids should have access to them once they reach puberty age, in order to prevent any irreversible changes.

Biological sex can be altered, and if that's what a kid needs to be happy, they should not be locked out of developing the kind of body they want"

Coming to this a bit late so assuming this is a windup. No-one can be this dim/ill informed.

@AlwaysTawnyOwl - not a windup, true belief there.

I came across this article earlier, which just illustrates everything Artichokeleaves was saying.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6894599/amp/When-man-called-Mark-locked-threatening-kill-mother-child.html