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.

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'.

This.

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

There you go again with the language of fear - you commonly use words such as danger, extremism - and yet you don't understand risk assessment.

No one is saying that we have no commonality at all. We all benefit from basic human rights that are available to everyone.

We are saying its not possible to identify your way into another group, and each group has specific needs - that's one way you can identify which group you belong to.
Our group has to assess risk so often it becomes second nature, there are books and articles written to help us become more effective at it, and that risk is recognised in several laws.
We are also used to dealing with claims that risk assessment is a type of discrimination, or hate.

Some 'arguments' rely on obfuscation. Keeping people confused is one way to try and control them.

Can you post some evidence of that? I think we have all agreed that we have something in common with transwomen. We're all human.

Discouraging risk assessment, or impugning the principles of safeguarding, is literally dangerous.

An answer to Trying20 from Yesterday 21:39. I am just catching up and noticed that I am tagged here. I have not read the many pages to come, but knowing MN FWR I am sure that this has been analysed already. But here goes:

So you agree with Barny's post. Great. Barny's post is yet another well intentioned poster who is, for whatever reason, minimising the harms that this conflict of whose rights to prioritise has already brought.

I asked you up thread, you might have missed it.

How many females of any age, are you prepared to have harmed as collateral damage so that a small group of males get their demands met?

Do you have an answer?

1 female raped in prison? That ok? Will it be 10 before it is ok to act, in your eyes? (We are already past 1 in the UK by the way!)

1 female missing a medal place in sport, or even missing their park run win? Or 10? or 100?

1 female not receiving the support they need from a rape crisis centre, or 1000?

you are directing all your anger and hatred towards a very small minority of people in our society.

No, we are directing our anger at the policy makers and those misinterpreting laws. And we are horrified at the abuse that 'a very small minority of people in our society ' dish out to those of us who publicly fight to have female's rights protected.

What you and Barny are doing, is saying that females need to stand with transitioned males together because otherwise x political movement wins is the way I read what you both are saying. Fuck off. Why do women have to be forced teamed to support something that we see as harmful incase people with malign intentions see us as being 'aligned' with someone else? Are you teenagers? This is not how a reasoned adult thinks.

Also:

I think there are many situations in life where people’s wishes and needs conflict, and we need to work together on respectful compromise.

You have continued to ignore our posts covering these compromises. You really need to acknowledge that you have ignored these or that you don't understand them. Barney too. Because do you actually understand how patronising, and how offensive it is to be told 'compromises' when that is what has been put forth and rejected already.

And that in some instances there really is no 'compromises' to be done without it directly harming females. Prison is one. Rape Crisis Centres is another. Sports is another.

All topics you have avoided up to page 14, you might have finally pulled your head out to address them later on.

You might not agree with my views here and point out how I'm a man and I've no skin in the game. But BarnyBrown did have skin in the game.

Yes. We are well aware that there are women out there who are in a privileged position of this not actually impacting them adversely enough that they will continue to support it. OR they have a trans loved one and cannot conceive of being disloyal to that person. OR... whatever reason they have. It doesn't matter.

The collectivism that is feminism will continue to work for females to achieve protections for all females who need it, even those who disagree. Amazing.... that is what collective movements do.

And yes, we know that WE don't speak for all women. How presumptuous of anyone to think that. We speak for us, and we seek to find solutions that work for us and for trans people.

That is what you and Barney keep ignoring / missing / not understanding. Barney is actively downplaying women's experiences.

They have referred to them as 'exaggeration'. Obviously, Barney has never actually spoken to some one who now will not swim due to their religious beliefs, and believes that it isn't happening. Maybe, just maybe, Barney, and you, should watch who was attending the Hampstead protest over the weekend. Or.... don't THOSE women and children with religious beliefs count.

I noticed on the AIBU thread that you fully agreed with the one poster that used some of the most misogynistic trope around. Hysteria. I don't care if that poster is a 'woman' or not. They also wrote absolute crap and obfuscation about 'science' that was irrelevant and almost straight from a trans activist playlist. And you were there saying well done.

Do you actually know anything about DSDs? Do you realise they were trying to say how science is now updating its thinking and progressing? No. It isn't saying that because of DSDs males can now be females. If you fall for that ideological thinking, that is up to you.

But seriously, if you think that any poster who dismisses women's concerns as 'hysteria' is someone you fully agree with, that says everything we need to know about you.

And yes, we know that people think this to:

I think mumsnet has somehow managed to attract a particularly vocal anti trans voice and has become an echo chamber which is just as bad as the extremist trans writers you are quoting. Polarising extremism will not get us anywhere.

Because just like you, Barney cannot present any evidence to support their claims, they rely on just saying, 'it is complicated', 'a compromise', 'you are all x' etc.

Because Barney cannot present any evidence, or even an argument that is outside the usual trope we have seen for years, Barney resorts to categorising the board in the way they have. We know, we have seen it, we also know that not once has any poster who says this had anything convincing in the end except emotional manipulation.

what makes you think the trans-rights activists don't have other trans people saying they don't speak for them?

We KNOW! WE KNOW THAT! Do you ever read posts? Do you ever read anything on this board. There have been quite a number of regular transitioned males on this board discussing in depth their views. They are telling us that the extremist activists DON'T speak for them. We also meet some of these personally at events.

Only those who hold the deeply prejudicial views of the posters on this board think otherwise.

How could you possibly make that assumption that trans people aren't approaching TRA's and saying they don't speak for them, and then from that point, assume that these people are therefore awful people.

Yes, if transitioned males don't agree with what is happening, why are they not speaking out.

Shall I repeat what we have been told directly from transitioned males who don't agree with the extreme activists? It goes along the lines of:

being abused (including being called trusc*m, maybe if you have been taking notice you will have noticed this)
being ostracised from their groups and their community
being doxxed
losing relationships
being called extremists and vilified on online forums

Sound familiar? Oh yes, they are treated pretty much as women who disagree are.

We knew this. As a gay man, why didn't YOU know this?

I don't think they should have a load of people saying they're awful people when they're just trying to live their life.

So, they get to 'live their life' while females are the ones to be harmed and take the brunt for speaking out. Females are being raped, attacked, expelled, excluded but that group of males should be just allowed to live their life and then probably benefit from those extreme activists successes.

Yeah. Ok. You obviously cannot see the misogyny in that statement.

In fact, I don't think you recognise misogyny at all. Do you?

Ok so:

• "Other Men" (people born as male who are not trans)
• Transmen (people born as male who are trans)

They have the commonality of being members of the sex which can produce sperm

• "Women" (people born as female who are not trans)
• Transwomen (people born as female who are trans)

They have the commonality of being members of the sex which can produce ova

I'd be happy with this. Because there's no way males can be "born as female" so anyone born female, however identified, is likely to have a uterus, vagina and ovaries, because female is the sex that can produce ova. Barring medical conditions, all female people are born with these.

Or was that not how you meant it, Trying?

You're not engaging at all, Trying. You're just making long and empty posts that fail to answer the very simple questions, while casually impugning women here and there.

You're twisting what I've said there and I don't think it's fair.

I'm really not but perhaps you are struggling to be clear.

A white male and a black female have different privileges? Yes? A white female also has a different privilege, and a black male has a different set of privileges again?

What privilege do you think a black female has?

There are commonalities between all three of them - they all face oppression which the straight white man does not.

They all face oppression but not the same oppression. Why are you collapsing the category? Do you see your oppression as exactly the same as a black female seeing as you are a gay man?

I think your last point is a bit unfair. I work with someone from Singapore; he came to work furious one day because kids on the bus had been pulling their eyes back to make inappropriate faces. Nobody who does not have an East-Asian heritage will experience that. I never will, a mixed race person never would. It doesn't mean either of us won't face prejudice in other ways, but neither of us will experience that.

No - that is exactly my actual point. A white person does not know what it is like to live in a world which others you. The fact that a mixed race person may be differently disadvantaged to a black person does not mean that the white person has the same experiences as a black person. You are collapsing the categories and I am asking you not to.

No one is saying that we have no commonality at all

Only if you're being disingenuous and choosing not to recognise that the context of commonality being posited was 'TW and females are all women because they have things in common'.

No. They don't.

TW, females, males, people with disabilities, mammals in general - all have things in common, obviously.

But the reason of trying to intellectually juggle females into agreeing commonality here is to let male people do what they want with female people's words, spaces, sexualities and to remove their sex based rights.

No thank you.

Take this again from this terribly interesting intellectual thought experimenting with other people's rights and identities into an actual practical issue that female type women are fighting on this board as a direct result of this 'commonality' and 'let's be kind and not use pattern recognition in case we make questionable generalities' (which upset males, how they disadvantage and upset females is let's be honest not something ever considered or of interest which should really give some useful information there.)

Sarah. Sarah went to her public funded rape crisis centre which prides itself on its inclusiveness. There are no other services. There are three separate groups available for males to select their personal safest and most comfortable choice. There is one group for women. It's mixed sex. Sarah, despite her trauma, tried to use this group, and a male user made her very uncomfortable. She attempted to ask for a female only option or support and was refused and rejected from the service for her behaviour.

This is not one person/cat/dog/whatever the simile currently is; this is a political group including these people who are causing there to be no accessible option for females, and females to have less than males, and this is based on a political belief, and this case is due to be argued in court.

Behind all this, we have a very traumatised MNetter, who has not only had to deal with her trauma but additional trauma of a group that didn't work for her that she had to leave, being rejected on the grounds of TQ+ people finding her needs unacceptable and threatening and being backed by a political group attempting to manage regulations and change laws to fix their beliefs to the disadvantage of Sarah. Sarah's third trauma was that to try and get her services she needs to go to court, fund this, go through the extreme stress of having this case all publicly dragged out and fought and her needs challenged at every step. Her fourth is that this political group, TQ+ group centred on the needs of TQ+ people, have set out to attack her on social media and in every possible way, with a complete lack, an absolute poverty of any compassion, fellow feeling, awareness of Sarah's trauma or even the basics of recognition of the needs and feelings of a fellow human who has been assaulted.

The lack of any commonality being demonstrated to Sarah, and to any other female who gets out of line, is really quite stunningly obvious.

I don't think Sarah 'hates' anyone by wanting a bit of accessible rape service support as a tax payer, do you? I don't think Sarah's particularly interested in A or B or cats or dogs, or whether the language is right, Sarah just wants to be allowed as a tax payer to have an accessible service provided alongside everyone else's needs being met. The barrier is that TQ+ politics centred around TQ+ people and in this sense explicitly TQ+ male people, wish to be in female groups and to not permit any female only provision to exist. And would prefer Sarah to go unsupported and excluded than to permit her to have her needs met separately to a mixed sex group.

Compassion ain't for women, Artichoke. We are the dispensers of compassion, not the recipients.

So, they get to 'live their life' while females are the ones to be harmed and take the brunt for speaking out. Females are being raped, attacked, expelled, excluded but that group of males should be just allowed to live their life and then probably benefit from those extreme activists successes.

Trying doesn't have an issue with any of that. He has been totally clear about that throughout.

Rules of Misogyny

1. Women are responsible for what men do.
2. Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
4. Women’s opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.
5. Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
6. Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breastfeeding babies deserve punishment.
7. Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
8. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
9. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.

10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad. 11. Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men. 12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry. 13. Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves. 14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent. 15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others. 16. Everyone owns and controls women’s bodies except the women themselves.

I've left off the last one, because it might fall foul of board rules. But it's easily googleable.

I think it's a dangerous viewpoint because it begins that narrative of them being an enemy with absolutely NOTHING in common. I've not got a lot in common with people who like trainspotting, but I'd never say I have absolutely nothing in common with them and there's no way that we could ever be grouped together. Of course there is, there obviously is.

So the only point I was making is that I think that is a bit of a dangerous, "us and them" type perspective to have.

For us, the perceived 'commonality' that Stonewall et Al have decided is a human right and the law, is quite literally putting us in danger. Like real actual danger.

I think that was what blew it apart for me, Arabella, and I've reached this point of advanced cynicism from a beginning point of being a very happy and convinced ally. What made me cynical was unfortunately direct experience, a lot of it from a wide range of TQ+ political figures and supporters, and pattern recognition skills.

The words like 'inclusion' and 'diversity' and 'intersectionality' - where you try to point out, that ok, great, yes, that's really important but don't you see that if you include male people into this group but this bounces out these disabled females, and females from these cultural groups, and faiths, and these females who need privacy and dignity, it's an inclusion fail, it isn't inclusive?

You realise, eventually, in sad bewilderment, that there was no understanding of the word at all. It stands for no value. It's just a shallowly perceived powerful word to manipulate others to the desired agenda.

You listen to the lectures on the importance of people choosing their own words, and their own terms and not assigning them labels or using language that they don't feel is ok for them, and you think yes, I get that, I'm for it. And then you find out that this applies only to some, and females? No. They get cissed and told that 'words evolve' (but not evolved by you, you'll be who you're told to be and shut up.

And you realise that this is just the same boss with a different look that you've been dealing with your whole bloody life as did centuries of women before you, and you've been a bit of a gullible twit all in all. And then you realise that it's time to be a bit less Neville Chamberlain.

What is the commonality between all women? Their basic biology? That's it. That's the one thing they all have in common

Yes. So why is this fact of reality, known by the entire human population, suddenly 'dangerous' to state?

That is what women are. Adult human females. It is that simple.

I think it's a dangerous viewpoint because it begins that narrative of them being an enemy with absolutely NOTHING in common. I've not got a lot in common with people who like trainspotting, but I'd never say I have absolutely nothing in common with them and there's no way that we could ever be grouped together. Of course there is, there obviously is

Your thinking is really odd. Of course you can be grouped together, you're humans. But we are looking for a grouping which excludes others. That's what 'have in common' means in this context.

The question which you don't seem to be able to focus on is what this grouping share which others don't. So you and trainspotters. What's it that groups you and trainspotters together but excludes every single other non-train spotter?

The problem with commonality is not that it doesn’t exist, but that we don’t separate people in prison, in medical settings, in sport or changing facilities based on whether they all like the music of Coldplay, or the works of Shakespeare, or wearing nail varnish or liking Parma violets or being a cat person or finding it acceptable to wear crocs because that would be stupid.

I'm honestly not that bothered about the whole 'echo chamber' accusation - apart from that it is just a tediously repeated thing to try and make women here feel guilty and convince newbies it's a Bad Place. It's obviously not an echo chamber in that this thread is 26 pages into a heated debate.

This is where women share and gain knowledge, and organise to deal with and stand up to the direct threats on their rights and support women at the sharp end such as Sarah.

Ticking nice boxes on the 'has passed all purity checks to be permitted the 'is not an echo chamber and is properly balanced in an objectively judged way' silver shield scheme is something we can get back to when we're all a bit less busy and on the edge of losing sex based rights for women.

And that while discussions happen, it's overall about women here talking to each other and sharing knowledge on information, articles, ways to respond to particular arguments, as opposed to a debate with any one person.