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.

Okay - so the cats and Clive both like scratching posts, and therefore there is a need for Clive to also have access to scratching posts?

Scratching posts would only work as an analogy for toilets and changing rooms if it was only Clive and cats that needed a scratching post, and not all men

Clive can use the men's scratching post, or campaign for an individual one. He still has nothing in common with cats other than his claim to be one. See, that was easy.

In the same way that you have a similarity with transwomen, but it doesn't mean they need access to all of your areas.

I've known TW and seen TW.

I can't see that there is any unique similarity between women and TW at all at all tbh beyond any similarity between me and every other human. Absolutely none.

I'm not being obtuse. I can literally see no similarity at all.

They don't have to be the same scratching posts, but we're going to give them both access. Therefore, there is a commonality.

If they're not the same scratching posts, I'm not sure where this commonality gets us. Because men have their own scratching posts remember, when this is applied to human terms.

We are talking about third spaces not second ones.

People on this board are still refusing to accept there's any commonality at all.

In that we're humans and not elephants, sure, but beyond that, you haven't articulated what that would be and none of us see it, so 🤷‍♀️

I think it's that we're all human.

And that if he spots something we all like, say, that the orange Smartie is our favourite, then it's really significant that we have that in common, too.

And that if he spots something we all like, say, that the orange Smartie is our favourite, then it's really significant that we have that in common, too.

yes that's about the depth of it.

What about the cats which don't like scratching posts? What do they have in common with Clive?

What about the other dogs which like scratching posts but don't identify as cats?

The commonality has to apply to all women and all transwomen but not to any men. What is it? What attributes do I share with all other women, all transwomen and no men?

It's gone on, and on and on, because of the absolute refusal to accept that there was any commonality, no matter how small

No, it's gone on and on because of YUOR absolute refusal to accept women saying there isn't any commonality, now matter how much you'd like to pretend there is.

Again, you are not listening to WOMEN who are telling you no, and are putting male feelings as the priority.

I made the point that in saying there was absolutely no commonality at all, this presented trans women as an "enemy" or "other"

We are not saying transwomen are the enemy at all. Those are your words. We are saying they are not the same as women.

That should have said:

What attributes do I share with all other women, all transwomen and no men who don't identify as transwomen?

*YOUR

I can spell, honest.

The commonality has to apply to all women and all transwomen but not to any men. What is it? What attributes do I share with all other women, all transwomen and no men?

He's already answered, apparently, so it should be really easy for him to quote his answer.

@Trying20

What you don't seem to get, and maybe it's just that you haven't been on here long enough, is this:

• if stonewall had started from the position that trans people were an underserved community and they needed third spaces, women here would have got behind that. They would have wanted TW to have recognition too - but separate. If TW wanted to be celebrated as TW, we'd be doing the celebrating. If Emily Bridges wants to race in a separate race to the females in the olympics in a full face of make up and a bra, I'll be cheering her on. I don't think she is an enemy, but she isn't a biological woman and that matters in sport.

The issue with the current debate is that TW (or TRA campaigners) don't want "separate but acknowledging the commonality" - for example, a rape crisis unit that runs single sex groups, along with groups that both TW could particular in if they chose to do so, serving the needs of ALL- what they want is to ensure that there can be no single sex provision, no single sex sports. No option but to consider TW as women for all purposes.

I'm not being obtuse. I can literally see no similarity at all.

People who can't step back from gender ideology can find this hard to understand I think. I feel the same as you. But people do genuinely think we're being obtuse because they can't see that just because it's self evident to them, does not mean it is to others.

That may be why trying is refusing to really answer that question. He thinks we're being obtuse by asking it. He is so convinced that he's right, he can't eve entertain the possibility that genuinely we don't know.

The commonality has to apply to all women and all transwomen but not to any men. What is it?

Just this thanks, just one quick answer to this and we'll all shut up I promise.

Women's rights, which are being removed are not a game, trying.

Their right to recover from rape in a female only environment, to not to be incarcerated with rapists, their right to female only hospital wards and mammogram operators, the right to their own sport, aren't some thought experiment, twisting language to try and find a dog end that means a dog bowl.

Claiming that you're only answering questions you've been asked is disingenuous. You're purposely drilling down into the language women are using in order to rewrite it so that you can unpick what they are saying they want.

You seriously don't think anyone believes that women are on here having a semantics discussion with you, thoroughly enjoying trying to pin down the meaning of terms like 'non trans man', do you?

And I'm not trying to redefine the word lesbian. You were. Again, homosexuality is protected by law. It has to be, because, among other things, there are very many heterosexual men who would like to persuade homosexual women that they are discriminatory by not sleeping with them.

You probably don't realise this, but sex crimes are overwhelmingly committed by males. 98 or 99% of them, in fact. And you feeling a bit odd about being confronted by a woman who says she's a man has very little symmetry to women being confronted by men who demand sex from them.

Please don't try to redefine the term lesbian. It's homophobic. And please don't try to pretend that the legal definition is already a re-definition. It isn't.

He thinks we're being obtuse by asking it.

He can explain to us like we're toddlers then

Except that if I like the green Smartie, and the Queen doesn't like them, and my dairy-allergic SIL cannot eat them, we all still have our female biology in common. And the fact that dh and I both like the green Smartie is, indeed, something we have in common, but it does not mean that he we'll ever come into the Ladies with me, because - het, guess what - he is a man.

Thank you for acknowledging that I'm right! And for taking the time to reply. Yes I use the term 'transwoman' because in the context of this conversation it has a meaning. It's meaning is, men who self identify as women. The inclusion of the word woman has no link to them being women any more than a 'trainspotter' is a train.

You cannot group women and transwomen in any sense just based on the idea of being a woman. You could have a group dedicated to baking cakes. Women and transwomen could be part of this group due to their interest in baking. However this does not have any relevance to their status of being a 'woman' or not.

I disagree that there is anything on this discussion which amounts to hatred of trans people and I think maybe this is the key point I am trying to convey. I have a relative who is a transwoman. I love her, I feel for the struggle she has gone through in her life and yes, I am using 'her' even though she is a man, because on a personal level I choose to go along with the fantasy which really has made her a happier person. This is why I personally have struggled in this to reconcile the 'be kind' urge with the purely logical fact that I cannot, for the sake of one person, ignore the massive destruction of women's rights which is the inevitable result of allowing any men to be seen as women.

Are there smarties in the loos now? Is this the key point I've been missing. I clearly need to get out more. 😆

Out walking my dog just now, I noted my usual very quick risk assessment process:

Strange man at fork in path.

I can go left, to a street with houses, or right, where I was intending to go before said man appeared - into the forest.

My risk assessment is this blunt:

I don't go to the right. A man is standing in my path. I'd have no recourse to shout to others for help.

This is not 'hate', it's not 'insane', it's not 'extreme'.

It's entirely rational, borne from a lifetime of making quick sensible judgements about risk, based on evidence of: abusers, flashers, gropers, catcallers, rapists, domestic abusers, harassers - all of which I have encountered and every one of which has been male.

This, btw, isn't 'hysteria', it's the bog standard day-to-day reality of most women; the banality of patriarchal oppression, it's unremarkable to most of us to the extent we hardly even notice the process, and I only was aware today after having had in mind thoughts about how women assess risk.

(I didn't ask the above list of males their gender identity because frankly it wasn't ever relevant. What was relevant in every instance was their sex. One of these people could have been described as a 'transwoman', although that phrase wasn't used at the time.)

This is how women risk assess - it has to be quick, it has to be blunt, it is not assuming anything of said man in path other than: Male. Risk. Avoid.

It's not assuming said male is in bad faith, only that said male is a risk. Because of his sex.

We are told that a male who assumes the title 'transwoman' is 'no threat' to women.

This is statistically & logically false.

@Trying20 Thank you for trying to explain your position.

i do, genuinely want to know if there are any similarities between trans MTF and women which means they should be grouped together for anything? So far, I’ve seen ‘excluded from non-trans-male privilege, but that could be a race/ability thing too, so not really enough. Is there anything else Trying?

This

The problem is that Trying very likely hasn't given it any thought at all. He doesn't need to.

I'm guessing his 'commonality' is things like, well you both like to dress a feminine way. Or are you both like make-up. Or you think the same about soft furnishings. And you both need a big mirror in the ladies.

Sexist and illogical claptrap obviously, but The fact that trying is having so much difficulty in explaining what he means, leads me to believe that he has found his way up shit creek and he's only realising, too late, that he's left his paddle behind.

What would be spectacularly novel, is if he said you're right, I hadn't given it much thought, and the things I thought you had in common are just superficial stereotypes.

But the absolute refusal (by some) to accept the possibility that there might be some commonality there? I think that's incredibly odd; and I think does support the idea that "trans people" have become some kind of "other enemy" in the narrative. That's all.

///

Huge holes here ... my DH has zero commonality with me to justify using female spaces but it's daft to say that = I see him as an enemy or threat.

Ok, so @Trying20

The commonality, is not having the privilege of being born a male who identifies as male.

What common interests do TW and women both have in terms of improving the position on privilege?

Because the issue is this: most women have generally gained rights as a result of recognition of biological disadvantage (maternity discrimination etc) OR by trying to dismantle gendered assumptions. In many ways, the interests of TW work against this, because they want to minimise the biology piece AND because they actually want there to be more gender stereotypes that they can ascribe to (so they have more "in common" with women). That's not me saying they are "the enemy" - I have TW friends - but the movement is very much towards this. So in that sense, it is actively unhelpful to women.

How can teaming TW and women help women, Or TW, more than each campaigning on their separate needs?