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.

Claiming that men who say they are women have less privilege the men who say they are men is neither here nor there

Oppression is not something you opt into!

If the vote was suddenly taken away from anyone who 'identifies as a woman', do you seriously think they would not opt straight out of it?

and it's laughable really, to think that identifying as trans actually reduces privilege in many cases, rather than the other way round. Even doctors say the aspirational aspects to children identifying as transgender is significant. It pushes them up the hierarchy, not down.

When a convicted rapist gets given access to incarcerated women as part of his sentence, purely on the basis that he is transgender, the owner of the privilege is indisputable.

I’ve been following this thread with interest and can’t help thinking that it’s been derailed by a discussion against groupings / sets and language again.

@Trying even if some commonality was established (I’m not saying it has been) what would be the point? How would this make any difference to the need for women to retain our sex based rights?

A pp a while back tried to bring this back to a discussion about practical issues. (Sorry there have been some truly excellent posts on here and I can’t remember who they’ve all been by).

So, focusing on practical issues knowing that women have spaces segregated by their biological sex for reasons of privacy and safety how does establishing any other commonality between men who identify as women and women make any difference at all to the erosion of our sex based needs

Non-trans biological men have privilege set A and B. Agreed?

Not universally. For this to work, all men would have to be more privileged than all women. So you would have to argue that Joe Bloggs, unemployed and homeless, is more privileged than the Queen.

Similarly for trans people. For example, Caitlyn Jenner is far more privileged than most people of either sex whether they identify as trans or not.

So what attributes do I, the Queen and a homeless woman share with Caitlyn Jenner that I don't share with any men?

And your explanation doesn't work at all for transmen. They would be lacking in all privileges so couldn't be considered to be men in any way according to you.

Women risk assess on a basis of whether someone is in good faith or in bad faith.

In the absence of evidence, we have to assume someone is a risk.

Predators, abusers and plain old narcissists are very adept at pretending good faith. They may appear very charming, reasonable, even paint themselves as the victim.

In the normal course of things, women can take the time to do a more thorough risk assessment. We can check for tells and red flags - whether someone is love bombing, jealous, controlling, a liar, manipulative, swerves or is evasive about some questions, etc. We can look for qualifications, reassurances, references, back-up from other women, etc.

But in a standard split-second risk assessment, such as in the forest while dog walking, in a public toilet, in a changing room, in a doctor's surgery, etc, a woman's most logical and practical risk assessment remains:

Male. Risk. Avoid.

I think the commonality is that both groups 'feel' oppressed. But that is specific to .. all minority groups.

Women should not have their sex based needs eroded for that. Trans can have their needs improved if they wish but not in female spaces, in their own.

So what attributes do I, the Queen and a homeless woman share with Caitlyn Jenner that I don't share with any men?

This is an excellent question while also being illustrative of how far through the looking glass we have ventured here.

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

Now you see the problem is that I don't recognise this claimed lack of male privilege as applying to many of these males.

I think the commonality is that both groups 'feel' oppressed. But that is specific to .. all minority groups.

And fast numbers of non trans identifying men also

For women's day to day safety, dignity and practical reasons too, our quick, split-second risk assessment is and will remain this:

Male. Risk. Avoid.

Regardless of how said male sees themself, describes themself, or wishes to be seen by others.

On commonality, well you can draw things in common with just about anything, what I have in common with my cat is that we both like food, like to sleep a lot & be waited on hand and foot.

But broadly, we'd never belong in the same class as these are individual traits that I personally have with my cat.

To say TW have a lot in common with women is flawed, well what women? I know a number of butch lesbians that don't wear a scrap of make-up, have short hair and live in t shirts and trousers. The commonalities fall short there don't they?

Perhaps this is difficult for a man to see.

The true commonality is biology - menstruation, menopause, smear tests, you could go on and on. XX basically.

I think it's a dangerous viewpoint because it begins that narrative of them being an enemy

You're the only person who thinks having nothing in common makes someone your "enemy".

A risk is not the same as an enemy and its disingenuous in the extreme to suggest it is. My eight year old can understand the difference.

Caution is not the same as hate and it's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest it is. It is not 'hatred' to ask for a DBS check for people who will be working with children.

For women's day to day safety, dignity and practical reasons too, our quick, split-second risk assessment is and will remain this:

Male. Risk. Avoid.

Regardless of how said male sees themself, describes themself, or wishes to be seen by others.

Yes. Exactly.

I think saying that there's no possible way you could have any commonality with another group is a dangerous approach - as outlined above.

But that's total batshit. As an entire group there is no commonality, but how does that equate to hate? At an individual level there will be lots of commonality as with any other group.

Your attempts to conjure up 'hate' towards TW on here is becoming increasingly ridiculous.

Still waiting for what the commonality consists of ...

Trying is attempting to conflate a linguistic argument with an emotive one.

As far as sex class goes, there are two, and one cannot become the other.

It's absurd to suggest that classifying someone as being in one sex class or the other is classifying them as 'an enemy'.

I could - yes. But it wouldn't include all women and all trans women, nor would it exclude all biologically born men. That was the ask, and that is what I achieved.

You can't achieve it, without denying the settled facts of biological sex, which makes you an extremist believer in gender identity ideology. So no.

Men, have a set of societal privileges? Do we agree on that?

I agree

I have privileges as a man who identifies as a man? If I send an email and at the bottom of that email it has "Mr Trying", there is a possibility/probability that I would be taken more seriously than if it said "Mrs Trying" - right?
If this is point A, we're agreeing it's true?

Yep

Not being trans, also has a set of societal privileges. Do we agree on that? Nobody is going to throw transphobic slurs at me in the street, are they? Or attack me for being trans? They might attack me for other reasons, but not as a specific factor of me being trans, and that is a privilege that I have. Neither of us will be attacked in the street because we're trans are they, because we're not. So we agree on that one, as well?

But simplistic really because women's non trans 'privilege' is not the same as men's. Given that trans now does not mean there is any obvious sign to others, many trans people also won't get transphobic slurs, e.g. the man who put himself in the female rape support group in Sarah's case. He looked just like any other man, so he also has that privilege by your definition

If this is point B, we're agreeing it's true?

No I'm not.

So if both A and B are true.
Non-trans biological men have privilege set A and B. Agreed?
Every other group has only either A or B.

So the commonality is....?

TW has male privilege.

I have non-trans privilege.

What's the commonality here? That we don't both have male and non-trans privilege? But our experiences are nonetheless vastly different. Showing how another group has something we both don't have is really not the same as showing what we share. It's distasteful as the same logic can be used to show similarity between me (white person) and a mixed race person because they are not black. That's a shitty thing to say.

Really that begs the question of so what? How is that a useful focus? Why are you talking about these two privileges and not race, ability, finances, class?

Claiming a group of males are "biologically born women" is akin to insisting that a god created the earth a few thousand years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YoungEarthh_creationism

The question that was asked of me was to create a set of inclusions and exclusions that included all women (by the definition agreed on this board) and TW, but excluded all non-trans males. I did it.

No you didn't. Only within your own belief system.

Your attempts to conjure up 'hate' towards TW on here is becoming increasingly ridiculous.

Especially as several women have said they trans family members and friends.

Now you see the problem is that I don't recognise this claimed lack of male privilege as applying to many of these males.

Same.

Convicted sex offenders only get given access to incarcerated women if they say they are trans. Men only get to dominate women's sport, if they say they are trans. Men get to throw lesbians off their own dating sites, if they say they are trans. Stonewall only gets to call lesbians sexual racists, if they refuse to sleep with men who say they are trans.

when you have the leader of the opposition on record as saying you can't say that only women have a cervix, and one of his MPs claiming that a parliament half made up of men and half of men who say they are trans, to be acceptable, you certainly know where the privilege lies!

An entire male Parliament is perfectly acceptable, if they say they are trans.

The question that was asked of me was to create a set of inclusions and exclusions that included all women (by the definition agreed on this board) and TW, but excluded all non-trans males. I did it.

No you didn't. I explained why in my post at 11:30.

Note: @Trying20 is going to keep claiming that he has demonstrated his "point" when he has done nothing of the sort. This is how media fake news stories gain ground. It's a good way to control the narrative, and focus on the confusion.