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.

This.

No commonality whatsoever. Forced teaming? Yes. By males for the benefit of males, which does not wish to listen to females on the subject and has absolutely no comprehension of the indigenous population it's trying to do a hostile take over of. Hence the endless male intellectual wanking women are subjected to while trying - fruitlessly - to have some kind of say before their rights are ripped away because they weren't any use to males so were seen as terra nullis. Wasted, unused, unvalued ground that could be put to so much better purpose.

Anyone (female) yet missing the terra nullis and the endless insulting nature of 'yes but' incomprehension that females might have a problem with all this? And not want to revolve their little lives and selves around the better nurturing of biologically male people?

Hence the endless male intellectual wanking women are subjected to

The "testicles of objectivity" that so many men affect to have so they can pronounce, Solomon-like, on what rights women should have is one of the most tedious and infuriating aspects of this. Turbo mansplaining.

Trying, the Internet is littered with males who say they are up women, in women's spaces. Very much enjoying the fact that they are forcing women out of their own spaces. In a similar way to you trying to force women out of their own category.

The answer is no.

The point I'm making is that saying that there is "no commonality as all" determines that in a Venn diagram of women and transwomen, there is absolutely no overlap because they have absolutely nothing in common. That obviously isn't true and I find it really bizarre how strongly it has been fought for as a stance. As I say, the strong view that there's absolutely no overlap, despite how utterly illogical it is, does support my view of a narrative of transwomen as the enemy.

Of course we have something in common with transwomen. We're all human. But so are men. What we're asking is that you explain what women have in common with transwomen that we don't have in common with men.

Can you answer that @Trying20 ?

I'm just emphasising the point that there is a commonality between transwomen and biological women

The best you've come up with there is that both groups are not 'something else'.

Which isn't the kind of commonality that fosters actual connection. I can apply that to lots of things. I have commonality with American Republicans in that we're not Japanese. I have commonality with biological men in that we're not aliens. I have commonality with devout Muslims in that we're not hamsters.

But those shared 'commonalities' are simply about category. They aren't indicative of any genuine shared experience or connection.

They already have their own scratching post.

They always had a scratching post as it was the cats campaigns over 100 years ago to get their own scratching posts that were safe from violent dogs that they have been using quite happily until dog rights activists realised that this was a super easy way of reducing safeguarding and allowing [redacted] access to vulnerable cats.

But I'd still give them a scratching post.

That scratching post isn't yours to give however. It doesn't belong to you.

I know. I have to say, when I was first looking at this issue, the sheer numbers of men who genuinely believe their opinion is right on what women should think, even as it directly conflicts with what women say was overwhelming.

trying, the women here are telling you they have no applicable commonality with men who say they are women, any more than men who say they are not women. And you're trying to tell them they're wrong!

In fact, I have more in common with men who say they're not women, obviously. They are not trying to colonise my space or change the meaning of words.

I share a lot more in common with a man who understands why I have my own space, than with those who don't.

In fact, I have more in common with men who say they're not women, obviously. They are not trying to colonise my space or change the meaning of words.

I share a lot more in common with a man who understands why I have my own space, than with those who don't.

Exactly. Excellent point.

Ok, so basically there is actually no practical issue that you can point to similar to you "we both fancy men" for women and TW.

You just like the idea that we are somehow matched kindred souls somehow.

I mean, I can accept that maybe lots of us might choose to wear women's clothing. (Most women, because the sizing is better, most TW because they desperately want to be women).

But I really don't identify as a "woman". Only as female, biologically speaking. I would give up the burden of "pretty", plus most of the mental load, plus all the femininity shit in a heartbeat. I would give up the bras and all the other crap. I wouldn't give up the chance to carry my kids. If you gave me 10 mins at the bus stop (and a free pass on being overly familiar), I'd be able to find something "female" in common with pretty much any woman. There's no guarantee i'd find a commonality with a TW, or that it wouldn't be one that I would have with any man. See, biology.

Sorry, have I missed the bit which explains what I have in common with all transwomen? That only applies to Eddie Izzard when he feels like it?

You seem to be saying there is no value in having a category which groups horses and clothes horses. I would agree.

You also that What do men who identify as women have in common with actual women? ....They have in common that they are not men who identify as men. That's all there is to it

So you are proposing a category which includes all people who are men and don't identify as men. So TW, most women and indeed most men. A binary categorisation of the few genuine 'cis-men' and trans men and then everyone else.

What is the value in this categorisation? How do you think my rights might be affected by having no way to define my sex class but being grouped into a larger set which includes perhaps 90% of the population, both male and female?

Is this any more useful than a set which includes women and clothes horses?

All I have in common with transwomen is that we don't identify as men. But neither does my husband. Can you clarify for me. Is he a lesbian, or is he trans? Or both? I'm getting confused and need your guidance.

So what is the point of minimising clear, meaningful categories in favour of pointless atomised ones, like "women and males who claim to be women", other than to benefit those males? How is it useful to women? It's not, it's actively harmful.

I'm proposing we give them a new scratching post.

How about you do that then, and leave women out of it.

You do not appear to be stupid so I think you know perfectly well that you have not answered this. What is the value in refusing to? How do you think this advances any communication?

If you genuinely think you have answered this, state it again because there's not one single person on this thread who can tease your answer out which suggests a communication flaw on your part.

I'm proposing we give them a new scratching post.

Cool, everyone on here is on board with that

You seem to be offended at the idea that they're allowed a scratching post at all?

Pure projection on your part, support for third spaces has been stated many times on here.

Sorry, have I missed the bit which explains what I have in common with all transwomen?

We've all missed that bit, I'm sure @Trying20 is going to clarify.

If men who are trans identifying have a different scratching post from women then your commonality argument falls apart doesn't it?

The commonality is that TW, gay men, lesbians and hetero women and indeed yer average "bloke", are all human beings. That's why they have human rights.

I've read the whole thread and I haven't seen you explain once, let alone multiple times, what attributes women share with transwomen that we don't share with all men.

But that's not a commonality with all cats. Because not all cats like scratching posts.