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.

That's not me wading in with my male privilege telling you what to think. That's a woman. That's one of the people you are claiming to speak for, saying that they don't think you speak for them.

And? Google the Anti-Suffrage League. Your male privilege is that you think it's your place to referee between women you agree with and women you don't,

why are we assuming trans rights activists speak for all trans people?

We're not.

As a long-time lurker, I've found this thread fascinating.

I've been wary of posting here for some of the reasons Trying expresses: I agree with much of what I read, but am sometimes unsettled by the content or tone of a post. But I can also see why posters are frustrated by Trying, as he seems to focus on debating the character of the debate at the expense of the central issues, and this sometimes feels like avoidance. Extremism, acceptance, threat... all these are becoming untethered from concrete examples that may help further shared understanding, and this is shifting the thread into unhelpful hyperbole ('hate' and 'all women' etc.).

Trying, could you answer some of the more specific questions posters have asked? You're engaging so much more fully than many others seem to, and I think some people are genuinely interested in more concrete examples of your thinking. I have a particular question that's troubling me, as a possible starting point, and it drills right down into such specifics and this central issue of language and meaning. It seems rather arbitrary, but...

Earlier in the thread, you quoted the use of 'experiment' as potentially offensive, and supported the meaning of 'lesbian' being expanded to include transwomen. Both of these advocate adapting language to mitigate transpeople's distress. And, I believe, this is often reasonable - I've used individuals' preferred pronouns. Yet I see an inconsistency in these particular examples that's been troubling me...

To me, the use of 'experiment' in the context you quoted was brutally direct, yes, and somewhat sarcastic, agreed. There are instances when a euphemism would be kinder, and I'd have felt more comfortable were it not used in the way it was, although I also understand the choice to use it. Fundamentally, though, it was a rhetorical point, made in a niche chatroom.

In contrast, the redefinition of 'lesbian' of recent years actively removes a marginalised group's ability to name themselves, absorbs this group into a new, different political entity, and has been reported (by the BBC, no less) to be increasing this group's members' exposure to unsafe situations.

I really do see a contradiction here. The use of 'experiment' may be offensive, even to the point of 'making transpeople feel unsafe', as the phrase goes... but the redefinition of lesbian is making women less safe, in a quite literal, physical sense, by opening up their dating pool to stronger, male-bodied people who may well not declare their trans status before meeting.

How can these views be reconciled, and our use of language negotiated in a way that maximises clarity and acknowledges all parties (both a genuine question, if you can answer, and also, perhaps a rhetorical expression of my own confusion!)

I'm really sick of men holding naive women with poor boundaries up as an example I must emulate to be a Good Person, a f someone who will be thought of as reasonable.

PS I know these threads move fast, so a heads-up if you reply that I do appreciate it and will be back eventually, but it may be a few days or more - I've a couple of tough days lying ahead of me this week for various reasons! I hadn't intended to post for this reason and others, but am genuinely interested and troubled by these various issues, and couldn't resist...

"These other women are fine with transgender ideology/porn/prostitution so why aren't you?"

I don't AT ALL think "the trans-rights activists don't have other trans people saying they don't speak for them" at all - I have engaged with many trans people (I myself may be trans, I am trying to find out) on these boards over the years and they often say the same - I'm perplexed as to what I have posted on here that has led you to believe I hold that belief?

I don't know what posting that weird and obviously false straw man claim has anything to do with anything I've posted in this thread, let alone the one you have quoted and replied to. I don't know who you mean by 'these people'. This thread is about legal rights, discussing the claims made by KM.

Have you read any posts you're not tagged in @Trying20 ? If not, that might explain why loads of the thread doesn't really make sense/follow.

"Why don't you all know your place like the woman in this thread?"

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4623510-woman-cant-leave-house-without-husband-what-have-i-just-read

I was parroting your words in my choice of the word awful :@Trying20, and proceeded to point out what I consider to be awful behaviour, you clearly don't consider any of that to be awful.

Also, note that the examples I gave of two recent incidents involving prominent TW, note carefully the fact that in BOTH those cases there was a perfectly acceptable, viable alternative available to them - a compromise, a middle ground - and what did they do? Don't come the oh your all nasty, mean, you don't want to compromise, find a middle ground so everyone can just get on with their lives when you have TW behaving like this - that is the problem - not the women on here, we are not the ones being extreme or hateful, their behaviour shows exactly what is demanded and that there is NO middle ground as far as they are concerned it is everything women have and more and it seems as far as you are concerned we should just shut up, roll over and let them.

Yes I am angry, I am extremely fucking angry that women and girls are being put in this position by, invariably, men and that some women are cowardly and cravenly helping them on and cheering from the side-lines - wouldn't you be if this was happening to you?

If TW like those I mentioned and TRAs continue in this vein then there is only one solution and that is watertight legislation, the days of being kind, mutual co-operation, finding common ground went up in a puff of smoke due to the entitled, patriarchal, misogyny shown by TRAs and TW who behave like those I have mentioned. Time and time again they have shown by their words and actions that they do not respect or consider women and girls at all and you think we should be respectful and considerate of them? They do not believe in live and let live, just wanting to get on with their lives without harming or inconveniencing others, far from it.

If you don’t think it’s the case that trans rights activists are representative of all trans people - great. You don’t think that. Thanks for clarifying. But others have suggested that they do so I was throwing it out as a wider topic.

I don't think many people posting here think that TRAs are representative of all trans people. What makes you think they do?

@Trying20 I've been trying to follow your logic and not quite managing it.

You talk about sets and subsets but what is a set or subset in your definitions?

So in terms of lesbian, if the word no longer refers to women who fancy/ have sex with women because is refers to those people but also males who fancy/ have sex with women, that what is the purpose of the set 'lesbian'? Lesbian can't simultaneously mean two different things.

To be a subset of a set, you need coherence between all elements in a set and then all sub-sets in a set. There is no coherence between men who have sex with women and women who have sex with women so they can be two separate sets but can't be sub-sets.

The actual outcome is to remove the possibility of there being a word which describes women who fancy/ have sex with other women. Which is worrying because removing that word does not remove the appalling ways which lesbians can be treated.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but whilst you say that it does not change your identity if a female person is now also a gay man, that begs the question of what is the purpose or value or evening meaning of saying your identity is that of a gay man? In the expanded definitions, there is no meaning to the concept of gay man as it can refer to a person of any sex who has sex with a person of any other sex. So it means nothing at all?

It does clarify and helps me understand that I completely disagree with you.

I get the set/subset thing. We need to not use the concept of cis and think it refers to all non-trans people. Only a few people define themselves as cis women. They are welcome to but the sets cannot be cis women and trans women. They would be cis women, trans women and women.

But we should not treat transwoman as a subset of women because to even be in the same set there needs to be some common features which also is not shared by other sets. And in this instance there isn't. i.e. there is nothing women have in common with trans women than they don't with any other male. Perhaps cis women do have something in common because they 'identify as women' but we would be mistake to think this applies to many people.

So if we have no single sub-set which can meaningfully contain both women and trans women, then the word lesbian cannot be used to refer to people in both sub-sets. Using one descriptor for people in two completely different sub-sets is clearly unhelpful. Much as if we decided to use the descriptor 'human' to refer both to humans and to animals. It erodes the value of the descriptor.

I think where things might have gone wrong is the assumption that people are either trans or cis. A lot of damage is done with that falsehood.

Semantic quibbling really doesn't work. Not at all.

Humans. We have women. We have men. Two sex classes. Mammals. We have female. We have male.

Impossible to change from one to the other. No "spectrum" where sex is concerned. No "intersex" (outdated term).

Humans have females - girls, women; and males - boys, men. Based on potential reproductive capacity and age.

Boys and men can never become women or girls. It's a factual impossibility; regardless of artificial hormones and any body modification surgeries.

So, it is an established fact that men can never be women.

And yet here we are, so very many women who are seeking to maintain women's sex-based rights in the state-sanctioned onslaught of men seeking to remove our rights under the guise of "trans rights" and "inclusion" and "be kind".

What rights do trans people lack in the UK? The TRA goal of depriving women of single-sex spaces, single-sex attraction, is not any sort of right - it is malicious activism - it is misogyny writ large.

Then within people there'd be a subset of people over 50

Can 45 year olds be in this group? How about 25 year olds? Some of them really really want to be, let's say.

Yes I think the logic is confused. What people are trying to do is make a sub-set of 'people who are over 50 and people who wish they were over 50' but pretending (to themselves as much as anyone) that the imagining of this sub-set suddenly means that people over 50 are just like people who aren't over 50 but wish they were. As someone over 50, I can tell you I have nothing in common with someone who wishes they were over 50! Just like I have nothing in common with a man who identifies as a woman.

Cat. Meanings:

1. Felix catus

1. Dogs who sit on laps

1. Rabbits who use a litter tray

Is this a useful definition? What if someone was allergic to dogs, regardless of whether they sit on laps? Or allergic to Felix Catus?

The sets/ subsets is a slight of hand/ obfuscation. The dressy presentation hides the logic fail - members of a particular set are supposed to share distinct features which things outside that set don't share. This is not the case in your example @Trying20

I'm thinking @Trying20 that actually you've made sets of 'people who sleep with women' and 'people who sleep with men' rather than lesbian or straight.

So heterosexual mean would be in the first set along with lesbian and gay man and heterosexual women would be in the second set.

Why would a man who identifies as a woman be more of a lesbian than a heterosexual man?

Are you happy for me to be called a gay man just as you are? is there anything that feels uncomfortable about that? I sleep with men too and I don't identify as a woman.

All of this semantic nonsense is just a playground of entitlement for the privileged, usually white men, but it comes at a COST. Usually to biological women.

The reality, what is ACTUALLY happening is what should wake up our eyes. If this was all just fine and lovely, then so called ‘cis women’ competing against ‘trans women’ in running would just be a light hearted conversation over tea. But in REALITY it is women who have trained hard overcoming many barriers, are not just completely F*&%^d.

So I agree with the original post from OP. This all seems like mostly an exercise of pushing hard fought boundaries of groups such as women who suffer inequalities, just for the playground privilege of a few elites.

I don't know anyone who identifies as a woman. I know lots of women. For most people the concept of identifying as a woman is incomprehensible. I am not denying that some do to be clear. There are loads and loads of women on this site who say they do not identify as a woman