Ideas for spreading the word to others - What would it take for you to say : the trans movement isn't what I thought it was?

[Leafstamp]

Some amazing advice and suggestions here for speaking to friends and family.

elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/its-time-to-break-the-awkward-silence?msclkid=a1d855e5a6c311ec99198214e0692b31&s=r

I wonder if any TRA lurkers might also pop by to answer the question in the thread title....

Send what she has written and take her name off. That’s what they did with a quote from Robert Galbraith and those who usually scream ‘bigot!’ We’re all liking it.

“OnlyTheTitosaurusOfTheIceberg

Reading this thread, my first thought was “you invited trans allies to post, don’t immediately shoot them down when they do”. But that was before I read crap about “cis brains and trans brains”, and lazy “but she’s a billionaire as well as a ‘transphobe’ therefore anything she says can be ignored” ridiculousness to name but a couple of the less convincing arguments on this thread.

For me, something that might make a start in changing my mind in the opposite direction is when doctors are able to determine which are the roughly 15% of gender-questioning children who will persist in their desire to present as the opposite sex well into adulthood and which are the c.85% who will desist, long before any of them are prescribed puberty blockers. Because at the moment we seem to medicalising, and permanently altering, far too many of the 85%.

I’d also be more convinced if people could sort out once and for all whether being transgender is a crippling dysmorphia which gives rise to suicidal ideation if not addressed and must be treated in a medical setting to allow people, especially young people, to gain an approximation of an oppositely-sexed body to relieve that dysmorphia, or if it has nothing to do with profoundly hating one’s sexed body and is simply a means of self-expression whereby there is nothing incongruent in keeping - and indeed, often displaying - one’s (usually male, if on display) genitalia, facial hair etc, or in giving birth while claiming to be a man. Because at the moment there seems to be an element of “having one’s cake and eating it” in how transgenderism is expressed: it’s not a mental illness, but young people need PBs to prevent suicide; it’s so profoundly triggering to be reminded of one’s birth sex that we need to change language, but transmen give birth and transwomen use their penises to have sex with lesbians; (male, in particular) children need to be transitioned earlier so they have a chance of passing better, but it’s transphobic to expect someone to “pass”, and so on and so on…”

@OnlyTheTitosaurusOfTheIceberg
I think you have put that very well.

Please would you link if possible to any information about the 15%/85% sex non conforming children/ later desisting children?
Also how many might simply be gay if left alone?

Just to point out that Eresh is entirely correct in her last post in terms of the rUK but in Scotland, women's rights are even more down the route of being eliminated. James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance has made it his mission to do so.

Apologies, I should have been clear that Scotland has different rules.

Thank you, adding it to the list...

(Not read thread just op!)

I would like to talk more about gender identity if any TRA are willing to.

Identity to me is not just about recognising facts, it is considering them to be highly relevant to your sense of self. So I know I have 10 toes but that does not mean I have a ten-toed identity. Same with dark hair, chunky calves, long-sightedness etc. Each of these has some influence on my life. My dark hair means my grey shows quicker and I started dying my hair quite young to cover it up. I can't but many knee-high boots as they won't go over my calves. I need reading glasses. But it's not helpful to group all of the ways my body influences me into some massive concept of infinite identities. For me, sex is the same thing. I am a female. I bore children, I have periods etc. These things are true. But these facts do not feel different to the 'I have chunky calves' facts and therefore do not feel like part of my identity.

If you are saying that by nature of not feeling that I need to reject the biological facts which show that I am a female, that means I 'identify as' a woman, then 'identify as' simply becomes a marker of accepting biological reality. And 'identifying as' something not actually in-line with those biological facts therefore becomes a denial of a provable biological reality - which we would consider in all other areas to be a mental illness or caused by significant brain injury. But you deny that people who identify as a gender not matched to their sex are neither mentally unwell nor victims of head injury.

So I don't think you can force the idea that 'everyone has a gender identity' onto people just because I don't mind stating the biological fact of my being a woman.

If you have another way of defining gender identity which puts this into a different light, can you share it? Otherwise I will have to continue to tell you that I do not have a gender identity. This means it can't match my biological sex and that I am therefore according to some categorisations trans. But then so are most biological women and this makes the category of trans unhelpful and not useful as a way of dividing up any aspects of life and leaves us with no terms to describe people who experience what you describe as gender dysphoria.

Gender identity is a luxury.

It's a privilege.

Black female slaves in the us were used as currency, as bonds.

They were valuable as they could be raped and create more slaves.

Did they have a choice in their "gender identity?"

Young girls are trafficked today for sexual abuse. They are valuable. Can they identify out of it?

Gender identity is a luxury.

If the gender people really believed their ideology they would explain what it is they see in the picture I posted earlier.

They cannot explain it therefore they ignore it and pretend it does not exist.

We know it, they know it, but they cannot admit it so they brush past it without admitting that yes, the middle aged man in the picture is indeed the one that looks like a middle aged man.

And the reason that we know he is a middle aged man is the total contrast with the girls in their team.

Has anyone clearly answered this question yet?
What would it take for you to say : the trans movement isn't what I thought it was?

@NonnyMouse1337

Has anyone clearly answered this question yet? What would it take for you to say : the trans movement isn't what I thought it was?

I don't think so. See my post from yesterday at 20:04.

@NonnyMouse1337

Has anyone clearly answered this question yet? What would it take for you to say : the trans movement isn't what I thought it was?

Maybe no one really understands the question? If the trans movement turned out to be a potholing club it would not be what I thought it was.

I'm guessing this is supposed to along the lines of ...

TRA patsie: I really like the trans movement, but I'd think again if it turned out to be, oh I don't know, let's say something silly like a conspiracy of secretive predatory men manipulating social media to bring down feminism, to gain access to female-only spaces for their perverse sexual gratification and to corrupt our children.

GCF: Aha!

@DrDinosaur

TheLoneNameChanger Why are we deferring to the gender identity claims of male rapists and serial killers?

Because you can't make basic human rights conditional on being "nice". If trans women are women, then shitty trans women have to be women too. It's the same logic that says taking passports away from convicted criminals is shit. Fundamental parts of someone's identity needs to be allowed to remain consistent no matter what.

But clearly transwomen are NOT women, as they are males. It is a courtesy to refer to them with female pronouns, not a human right. People who behave badly forfeit any right to courtesy.

Can't say it bothers me whether we are 'deferring to the gender identity' of rapists and murderers - what matters is that people convicted of violence against women aren't able to mix with vulnerable women. Whether that's in the womens estate or male estate, the top priority is safety.

What it takes for me is the appropriate moment in an individual conversation. I've recently gently scratched the surface with a friend to find she thinks the same as me (although I didn't unleash the full range of topics that several years on here has made clear to me, but covered the basics! )

Once you realise it's about stereotypes and linguistic sleights of hand you can't help but find it offensive.

Again, I fully accept that there are people who genuinely want to be the opposite sex and being seen as such helps their mental health, and conversations should be had about where any line should be drawn. It's the necessity of this nebulous "gender" that is forcing the conflict of rights.

Thanks LoneNameChanger. I'm pro trans rights but not really interested in the philosophical 'what is a women' debate as it isn't productive - people don't change their mind, it's basically faith one way or the other.

What has had an impact on my thinking is the practicalities - the law allows discrimination between (my terminology, others are available) trans women and cis women and trans men and cis men. When is this morally and legally acceptable? If there are women (whether cis or trans) who can't access rape counselling then that is wrong. It's clearly unfair to have trans women in those womens sports where they would have an unfair advantage or it would be unsafe. Unfair to the likes of Lia Thomas? Yes - but plenty of people who need certain medications are excluded from sport because they would have an unfair advantage. Prisons, anyone convicted of sexual or misogynistic violence against women should never be in general circulation with vulnerable women prisoners. The Tavistock - even most families with trans kids think its dysfunctional.

Misogyny can be against women as a sex class, as a gender or more frequently both. 99% of the people I think of as women, GC think of as women and vice versa. I don't think GC are inherently transphobic, and I know plenty of amazing GC women who make a huge difference for that 99%. It does feel a bit off though when you have a minority who spend all their time focusing on trans people, when most of the sh*t we get is from cis men and the society they set up - in the same way it feels off when you get people who focus on 'Asian grooming gangs' and ignore CSA in white families or who are obsessed about Israel but not other states with similar human rights records. That's not most GC women though, and FWR certainly gives me a lot to think about.

Similarly its decidedly off for supposed TRAs to try and doxx, dogpile, harrass GC women who aren't being transphobic (it's also counter productive tbh).

I'm pro trans rights but not really interested in the philosophical 'what is a women' debate as it isn't productive - people don't change their mind, it's basically faith one way or the other.

No it is not. Unless you can define "woman" in a non circular way that doesn't involve biological sex, one is factual and one is faith. Can you?

Once you realise it's about stereotypes and linguistic sleights of hand you can't help but find it offensive.

Which is why trans activists and their supporters will avoid the question of what a woman is like the plague.

The question of what a woman is is absolutely fundamental, and towering castles of nonsense and erasure of and disregard for female oppression have been built on the avoidance of it.

I'm pro trans rights but not really interested in the philosophical 'what is a women' debate as it isn't productive

We do need to define terms though. Are you not happy with the standard definition of woman = adult human female?

What does 'trans' mean to you?

If we were talking about, say children's rights, it would be important to define what a child is. No?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I'm pro trans rights but not really interested in the philosophical 'what is a women' debate as it isn't productive - people don't change their mind, it's basically faith one way or the other.

No it is not. Unless you can define "woman" in a non circular way that doesn't involve biological sex, one is factual and one is faith. Can you?

That might come as a surprise to Maya Forstater's lawyers when they (rightly) proved that the belief in the immutability of sex (and therefore that woman = biological human female is a philosophical belief and therefore protected in law, not 'just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available', in the way that scientific fact is.

@NonnyMouse1337

Has anyone clearly answered this question yet? What would it take for you to say : the trans movement isn't what I thought it was?

I will. It took my gay, slightly tomboyish daughter deciding they reject their birth gender, changing the name that my husband and I chose for her, and deciding to be referred to as he/him. That really hurt. As his mother I took it Very Personally. And there's nobody I can talk to about it, especially not my son because I love him and still want him to be part of my life.

It also took the realisation that should one of my daughters be incarcerated, hospitalised or just want to use female only changing rooms that they could be at risk of indecent exposure or abuse when they should be protected from this.

I never expected this.

Trans is an invented condition / state of mind / opinion / 'medical' condition.

It does not exist in the natural world.

See also; religion.

It's based on sexist stereotypes- invented by society.

That's evolved purely because of the reproductive abilities between the sexes, including how long it takes to raise a baby, which is entirely due to our brain and pelvis size (see prof Alice Roberts...) and and also general average biological attributes.

It's the new "opium of the masses" and people are making a lot of money out of it.

EverySporkIsSacred : your child is lucky to have you

That might come as a surprise to Maya Forstater's lawyers when they (rightly) proved that the belief in the immutability of sex (and therefore that woman = biological human female is a philosophical belief

It's a belief and protected in Equality law in the same way that atheism or veganism is, that it's right to be able to disbelieve or believe things which other people contest. A statement that people don't change biological sex is a fact.

There is a group of people who believe that it is possible for the word "woman" to have a meaning separate to "adult female person". They cannot define what that alternative is, just like you can't, CrowUpNorth without relying on circular arguments or sex based stereotypes. That is the only reason there is any question as to why it is or it isn't "worthy of respect in a democratic society" to hold the belief that sex is immutable. Because those people have an ideological belief that "woman" is an essence, Profoundly disingenuous stuff from you.

It's based on sexist stereotypes- invented by society.

That's evolved purely because of the reproductive abilities between the sexes, including how long it takes to raise a baby, which is entirely due to our brain and pelvis size (see prof Alice Roberts...) and and also general average biological attributes.

It is entirely based on sex and reproductive role, there is literally no other reason for the concept of "woman" to exist.