What rights don't transpeople have?

[CrossStichQueen]

It's a question I have seen asked many times and it is rarely answered. When it is its usually a list of things that are not "rights" or a list of rights/demands not held by anyone else.

It appears Katie M has provided a list of Countries with each trans right they don't provide. KM has also provided source links however many just link to a chart with dots indicating the "trans right" that country doesn't have. No explanation as to why.
For example:

Albania - No legal name change at all.

Quick look and it turns out in Albania nobody can legally change their name. Anyone can socially change their name and change it on their passport and driving licence but nobody can change their BC. So this is not a right others have and trans are denied as implied by KM it is in fact the same rule for all.

While Albania like many countries is behind on LGB support/rights it appears that the lack of rights transpeople do not have are the same rights those who are LGB are also denied yet it seems only the fact that transpeople don't have them is what matters.

The list for each country is very much the same for those countries that share a geographical location/religion/culture and so the sources linked appear to be the same dot chart I mentioned earlier.

The UK list is interesting.

No legal gender recognition without mental health diagnosis. This only applies to changing your BC and the person must have medical support to state they have/had gender dysphoria. Nobody else in the UK has the right to change their BC

No legal gender recognition without spousal consent. This is so that spouses are not forced to be in a now same sex marriage without their consent once the transperson has changed their BC. Transpeople appear to want to remove the consent of others in a legally binding contract which marriage is

No legal ban on conversion therapy. The Conversion therapy ban in the UK is made up of 3 existing Acts. Sexual offences Act 2003. Criminal justice Act 1988 and the offences against person Act 1861. This covers all physical acts and medication abuse used in order to "convert a person's sexual orientation or gender identity". What the trans movement want is affectively counselling of transpeople banned. This means no transperson could seek therapy if they have feelings of GD or confusion around their gender. That is not a right.

No legal parenthood recognition. Any male or female who parents a child has the right to be legally recognised as either their mother or father dependingon the persons sex. Legally in the UK if you are the biological or adoptive parent you are legally recognised as mother if female and father if male. That right applies to all including transpeople.

No legal right to religious marriage. In the UK no religious organisation can be compelled to marry same sex couples so this is a right LGB people do not have also so why does it only matter for transpeople?

No practical access to trans healthcare. This is just a lie. Transpeople have the same access to healthcare as anyone else in the UK. What the source linked discusses is that some transpeople when polled stated they felt prejudice from some healthcare professionals which "put them off" seeking healthcare. While this prejudice is wrong it is sadly experienced by many different people due to their culture/racce/religion/sexual orientation. Transpeople have the same RIGHT to access healthcare un the UK as anyone else

I havent gone through the whole list but looking at certain countries the rights trans people claim not to have are either the same for all trans or not, women do not have those rights either or those in the LGB community also do not have those rights. It seems to me that the trans Community do not want equal rights or rights for women or those in the wider LGB community they just want trans rights (most of which are not rights) for transpeople only and screw everyone else.

My theory is that for some posters, the world is divided into men and non-men.
TW are non-men so they should be treated the same as other non-men, i.e. women. TM are also somehow non-men. It’s a very ego centric view of the world.

No one treats MTF trans people and women the same, though I broadly agree with you.

But I’ve also said there’s plenty of commonality? No? How many times throughout this thread have I said “I agree on a lot of issues”.

That’s the point I’ve always been making. There’s so much that people agree on - but so many people just read it and fuck off really early because they look at those loud, kind of extreme posts about “them” and “we” and go “nah, danger lies that way.”

So, again we cycle back around to ‘you agree but …. you didn’t like how it was written’.

Whether that is that it didn’t suit your needs as a male poster arriving on the feminist board who feels defensive and confronted by the collective use of ‘we’ by women discussing our needs. (Yes, a collective ‘our’ there too!!)

When we told you it was a collective ‘we’, you didn’t even register that you have sought to impose your own individualist needs onto a board about feminism which really is about class analysis. You doubled down and are still doubling down.

You obviously have your own prejudices about feminism and that came out loud and clear from your second post.

However, while you were doubling down did it ever occur to you how hypocritical your posts have been. You now say…. Oh… well I didn’t mean ‘Lets pick a bit of a silly one; prisons.’ in a way that demeaned females in prison and made light of their plight (while being dishonest and mentioning you asked questions about the topic and had not, I must add). And now you have said, I’d be open to compromise on whether “extreme” is the right word or not - because it doesn’t bother me that much.

So, did you mean it? or did you just use it as a rhetorical device? or do you now look back and see the hypocrisy in your posts? That we are still not quite understanding what you have meant and despite your examples and your comparisons, I don’t think you have managed to articulate your position yet past: I agree with most of what your saying, but the way you are saying it infuriated me so I am going to say that you are extreme. (That for clarity is my interpretation of your posts).

I never said it was everyone on here. I said there’s a few here that really give it an unfortunate vibe. And I stand by that.

Excellent. You stand by your posts railing against the use of ‘we’ because you don’t like feminists using collective language because you feel excluded.

So, this ‘unfortunate’ vibe had nothing to do with your second post using the words ‘incel’, ‘extreme’ and ‘made up war’, then other posts with more examples including ‘a bit of a silly one: prisons’?

Like accusing me of : ‘You've deliberately misinterpreted what I've said, and reframed it, to make me sound like an idiot.’.

No. I asked you clearly to clarify what you meant. And you wrote and infuriated post back that didn’t clarify anything. You have told others they misinterpreted your posts too. Doesn’t that signal anything to you?

Do you even see that ‘unfortunate vibe’ now?

Why did you think writing those words was going to foster engagement? Do you understand just how hypocritical that is?

Great. You engaged. Super.

Have you actually processed anything posters have written in response to your posts?

Sorry, I meant that they are categorised as non-men so some posters don’t see why they shouldn’t have access to non-men spaces etc.

It’s funny how sport is often the one caveat though. Almost as though because they have some experience of that they can see it, but because they don’t have experience of the way female biology affects our everyday lives they can’t see the other issues.

I have now caught up with the thread and I am in awe of the calm intelligent posters who despite having the usual insults thrown at them respond with integrity. Thank you.

I am not sure if I have missed it but did Trying ever answer my original question?

I also have realised I didn’t end up posting my thoughts on this narrative about the 80% business.

I keep forgetting that there is a group in society who think only in terms of ‘purity’. I shouldn’t forget it, as we see accusations of it constantly in some form or other on this board. Whether it is the echo chamber route (and the fuckwittery of accusing us of an echo chamber when those people are free to post and engage if they actually wanted to) or discussion on who we should or shouldn’t listen to or read, or the constant ‘you all think alike!’ routes.

Maybe if you live your life measuring purity, you will find it fascinating that you can belong to a political party and disagree on some issues. Or can post on a forum board and not have people agree with everything you say. Or fully respect someone’s views on one thing, when you completely disagree on another.

Like that is not normal expected adult behaviour.

To be clear, I do not know if this is at all relevant to Trying. It may be.

So, when some posters expect that other posters won’t agree with you on the x%, you write off an entire board because of your prejudices. Because that poster has projected their need for ‘purity’ onto a community they haven’t tried to engage with properly.

There is an expectation that the x % is extreme. That extreme’ group use language that is exclusive, when society is demanding inclusive in language and every other aspect and that dissension is hate. Hence it is absolutely fine to ban dissenting females from political parties for not being pure enough in thought.

No. They truly don't. Take a two minute look on AIBU to look at what women expect of each other in terms of resilience, discipline, abilities, independence, they have high expectations of each other, they don't pander at all. And take a look at any dynamic where women and TW are involved, for example the idea of homosexuality being homogenderality, and look at who is expected to 'learn to cope' with straight sex and to 'get over their genital prejudices' in order to provide sex needed by the other party, and who has no responsibilities whatsoever including their partner's enjoyment, sexual orientation, or even for basic human compassion towards them and just has entitlements.

I'm interested in the difference between the experience of a lesbian when a TW meets them expecting drinks and then hopefully sex, and a gay man with a TM.

A friend on a business trip to another country booked for a massage and told me he was shocked when a male masseur turned up to do it. He had the massage but didn't enjoy it and was bothered by how vulnerable and tense he'd felt being intimately handled by a large bloke when he would have relaxed and been fine with a female masseur and very much enjoyed it.

I pointed out that it was his first experience of feeling sexually vulnerable. Of being in the hands of someone who might not be safe or respect his boundaries ^and who he didn't have the confidence and certainty of being at least the equal if not the stronger and with more power member of the situation if things went wrong'. He was bothered by his own anxiety and knowledge that if things went wrong he would have a hard time and be unsafe in trying to resist it.

Women feel that vulnerability all the time. Women are very used to men who proposition them and hear no becoming angry and this including a threat of rape or violence. For most of them it's something they've got a grip on before their late teens, and they get trained by a lot of social knowledge that if you let a man get to a certain point where he feels entitlement and you interrupt him and stop the process - you have some kind of murky responsibility for having triggered him. Certainly in a rape trial you're going to have dissected in detail how much responsibility you can have dumped on you for what you wore, where you were, what you said, what you started that you wouldn't see through - no male ever carries that particular can.

I've seen first hand the pressure to just have a drink, go on, have a drink with this nice TW and show that it's not transphobia. And then of course you're onto the next salami pressure slice, because sex is on the menu, it is what is wanted.

The experience of being born inside a female biological meat sack is not an irrelevant one, it frames and colours everything. It is only irrelevant to those who are not inside such a body and so don't have to think about such things.

Sorry then missed a point after all that.

Is the reluctance to engage or the resolution to walk away due to the lack of purity? If you are not pure enough in thought and expressing those thoughts, then some people feel that that impure community don’t deserve attention from them?

Is this like the posters and the tweeters who thought that Allison Bailey’s inclusion of women with abhorrent views in her feminism activation was a sign of her impurity? A bug in the system, while we consider it a feature. An imperative.

I said it up thread, and I will
say it again, only a person who has no care for female prisoner’s needs, and all the other issues, had the freedom to ‘walk away’ when the community is deemed to be problematic because [tone, beliefs, insert whatever you think fits].

‘We’, the collective ‘we’, can’t walk away because this is ‘our’ fight. Walking away (as opposed to taking time out when needed), is simply not an option.

Regardless of how hateful, impure, extreme the people who benefit from our engage seem.

I wonder if watching some of the Mr Menno you tube videos , such as In the ladies and the one about chromosomes night assist Trying to understand it all better!
I would like to see him campaigning to change male behaviour.

I am not sure if I have missed it but did Trying ever answer my original question?

Their first post - a flippant non-response. And then later explained that "To me, starting a discussion of "what rights don't trans people have?" is not helpful."

I'm sure they'll be going onto trans forums to tell them the same thing.

Is the reluctance to engage or the resolution to walk away due to the lack of purity?

I'll try and explain the vibe I get. They dipped in and out, refusing to go back and read what had been asked, and just picked out odd words to focus on replying to (see my own posts and how they were treated).

As if "women's opinions" are a swirling soup you can pick out a spoonful of and it'll essentially be the same as any other spoonful - so the 'echo chamber' accusation almost becomes self-fulfilling.

Rather than just treating the thread as an evolving conversation, with posts made in the light of previous posts, as you would if you were in a respectful discussion. I don't get the impression they understood the OP or where it was coming from.

Thank you Laughing

My reason for posting the thread was in direct relation to the calls from the trans Community "trans rights are human rights" and "what do we want, trans rights, when do we want them, now"
So that begs the question what rights do they want that they don't have?
Surely understanding what a campaign is about is the first step to supporting that campaign?

Why Trying sees this as unhelpful is confusing.

I suspect that Mr M will be considered extreme.

I had this conversation with a friend in Australia recently where we discussed Kath Deves blunt language. The friend agreed with the substance, but found the blunt language to be disturbing.

Why? Because it was saying the bits that we are told we shouldn’t say. She recognised it and then evaluated why and realised some groups have really done a number on women and we are not supposed to vocalise it. Why other groups are fully accepted that they be able to abuse anyone who they feel (imagined, real, intentional, or not) hurt them.

The same old double standard that women and girls (collectively) have always experienced.

Because it was saying the bits that we are told we shouldn’t say. She recognised it and then evaluated why and realised some groups have really done a number on women and we are not supposed to vocalise it.

I agree with this, but would love to understand more about how it has been achieved

The experience of being born inside a female biological meat sack is not an irrelevant one, it frames and colours everything. It is only irrelevant to those who are not inside such a body and so don't have to think about such things.

100%, and vice versa for male meat sacks. So to speak.

Yes. I read back on this thread because I couldn’t quite process it this morning.

But reading the posts through the timeline, this is exactly how it comes across. Someone infuriated about males being unequivocally told no. And a whole lot of projection.

I thought this section of a post highlighted it well:

You know what that leaves you with? An echo chamber.

You know what echo chambers lead to...? Extremism.

So if you're not there yet - it'll get there.

If you actually don't believe you're in an echo chamber here, there's really nowhere to go. Aside from the other forum I mentioned earlier.

I think I'm actually feeding it a bit. I'm the fuel on your fire. Even though I agree with you. But, okay.

I mean this genuinely and truly - I really, really hope, that you find a solution that works for you and doesn't make you feel attacked and afraid.

That was an amazing side step alright.

So despite initially calling you extreme, with no evidence to support that claim, I'm now saying you definitely will be extreme in the future.

What an argument 😂

Some people are extreme, some people achieve extremeness and some people have extremeness thrust upon them.

Anyway must get on, I have to decide what to do with these puppies. Do I drown them now, or do I wait until the neighbour gets back so I can borrow his ladder?

Choices, choices....

*I had this conversation with a friend in Australia recently where we discussed Kath Deves blunt language. The friend agreed with the substance, but found the blunt language to be disturbing.

Why? Because it was saying the bits that we are told we shouldn’t say. She recognised it and then evaluated why and realised some groups have really done a number on women and we are not supposed to vocalise it. Why other groups are fully accepted that they be able to abuse anyone who they feel (imagined, real, intentional, or not) hurt them.

The same old double standard that women and girls (collectively) have always experienced.*

Blunt language in this case referring to truth and honesty.

But there's also the issue of feminine socialisation. Not only are we socialised to see bluntness as unfeminine, but we recognise the potential danger of bluntly refusing a man's wishes.

I found Magdalene Berns very uncomfortable to listen to, because she was so blunt and rude. So 'unfeminine'. Her statement "I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar" made me realise what was holding me back.

Thanks jelly you reminded me of this vid.

Around the 2 minute mark is a favourite.

Havent read the whole thread but came across this on twitter which made me smile. Very accurate though!



I think - and this isn't directed specifically at Trying although I'm sure he'd be flattered to think we're still talking about him (and in fairness I would be too) - that we all have 'a tone'. And I mean all of us, including those posters who complain about tone.

What, exactly, @Trying20 is extreme about women fighting, advocating and pushing for the rights they have fought for and been begrudgingly granted to not be removed from them?

Is it extreme @Trying20 for women and girls to need and want:

Exclusively single sex spaces and services - toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, provision of intimate health care, prisons, refuges, rape counselling, sports?

To retain exclusively the language used to describe them and their sexuality?

To retain exclusively the language used to describe them that is easily understood and interpreted by those who have difficulties with language?

To not want to have a prefix foisted on them that makes them a sub class of their own sex class?

To not want to be dehumanised by being described by their biological make up or functions?

To require the basic consideration of safety, dignity, comfort and respect?

All of the above are issues regularly discussed and advocated for on this board and by women's organisations and individual women.

Which of these are extreme? And why?

You posit about compromises and middle ground, yet I would bet my house that your version of compromise and middle ground requires depriving women of some or all of the above. You are not affected by any of this are you? It matters not to you whether women are excluded from any space or service due to the inclusion of transwomen (who are men as they have to be to be transwomen in the first place), your spaces, services and language just carries on the same you lose nothing - what a surprise men retain what they have and gain more.

Denying women any or all of the above smacks of misogyny pure and simple and maybe you could take a long hard look at yourself and the well of misogyny within you that thinks it is acceptable to label women extreme and demand they compromise and give away their hard fought for, begrudgingly given rights.

You are no doubt going to come back with - what about the transwomen, where do they go? and the answer to that is simple - they either access the services and provisions for the sex they are or they campaign and lobby for additional, separate spaces and services relevant to them and their particular needs.

Furthermore, at this point in time after what has been done to women and girls, the manner in which they have been treated, abused and dismissed and what is trying to be achieved by Gender Ideology and TRAs I give not a flying fuck where transwomen go as long as it is not in any space or service that is for women and girls and I care not what you think of me by me saying this.

Women are not some sub human service class put on this earth to pander to the wants of men, to ease their feelings or provide them with validation, act as human shields or be collateral damage. If you think otherwise then as I have said you have a deep well of misogyny within you.

Not to mention that the GRA was the compromise.

Women and girls, some males, (at the time intended to be a very small number, so small the impact was felt - without consulting any women - to be reasonable) with exceptional level needs, with medical gatekeeping, will enter your spaces.

That has incidentally meant women and girls leaving spaces to give way to a male who wished to be in the female space, but that was the compromise.

Male people have taken that chink in the door and hurled the door to its fullest extent.

Now it's any male, at any time, of any description, with no gatekeeping of any kind, and fuck the impact on women and girls who cannot use mixed sex spaces. Hence why on this board, women here are currently supporting a woman denied any rape service when she was unable to access the mixed sex women's service. (Men had a men only and an LGBT specific service option in addition to this: women could do mixed sex or nothing.)

We're supporting the women on the Hampstead Heath ponds who cannot now access any pool at all so that male people can have their preferred in the moment choice from all three options, instead of accept that there was a mixed sex option available as well as the men's pool and choose from two.

We've got the mums of the girls who won't use the toilets in school because there are boys in the next cubicle listening for the sounds of pads and tampons being opened, and so won't drink all day, and we've got the female prisoners locked up with male serious sex offenders who have been raped.

We did compromise. It was not women who pushed until it broke.

At this point, any compromising male people want to do is going to have to be amongst themselves and with their own resources, ours are off limits. They don't belong to male people to appropriate and use and inform women what they may have after male people have finished with them. Fgs are you really at this point expecting women not to be bloody angry about all this?