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 sounds terrible. I obviously condemn any personal threats against you. Could you possibly just post your clarification to clear up any confusion about your argument before you go?

@Trying20 I’m truly sorry that this has happened - I’m not sure what you have said which could cause such a reaction. Threats of violence is not an acceptable response to debate. Ever

And a cattery now providing care for cats would lose all the cats who could not cope with the lion, and instead become a facility for the lion and the cats fortunate enough to be able to cope with the lion.

It would no longer be for all cats.

This means the excluded cats will need another resource for their inclusion and access. However the lion and it's supporters and it's political lobby group will immediately wish the lion to be able to enter and be validated in its role as a cat by this new resource too - or to prevent the resource existing. Because if it exists and refuses access to the lion because it is meeting the needs of actual cats, it is unhappily suggesting to the lion that it is a lion and not a cat.

So do we make the lion sad that it can have some spaces and lion specific spaces but cannot have everything because other cats matter too? And that facilities can exist for all, but not everyone can expect to have everything all the time, or to be the primary focus of everything?

Or do we just make it so that any cats unlucky enough not to be able to cope with the lion or willing to cope with the lion must suffer exclusion from society as a punishment for their social wrongthink, and lions are more important?

But lions and cats have so much in common. I’m sure they could find a compromise if only the cats would stop being so mean…..

I think the parallel arguments go:

• Not all lions are like that!
• Don't judge all lions by the occasional one that savages cats
• if you as a cat are savaged and eaten you can always call the police
• you should reframe your trauma about being savaged by previous lions because you might not get eaten by the ones here now
• cats being savaged and eaten is part of the price lions are willing to pay for a more lion enriched life experience and reduction in lion oppression

cats being savaged and eaten is part of the price lions are willing to pay for a more lion enriched life experience and reduction in lion oppression

This being the most important one, natch.

Tame lions definitely exist. This doesn't mean putting your head in a lion's mouth is generally a good idea.

Er, seeing as Trying has now (very awfully) received threats, which I'm sure we all agree sounds terrible, does anyone have that definition he said that he gave us?

Interesting to see how threats to a man are a concern but the threats to women which the convoluted 'definitions' which trying is trying to force on women in order to accommodate the wishes of those with male privilege seems to be of no concern to him.

I think The definition was women and anyone who believes they are a woman.

And since hardly any tw can actually believe they are women, otherwise they wouldn't be trans, that would translate to deluded males. If you genuinely believe you're the opposite sex, you're deluded.

So trying's definition would appear to be women and deluded males.

Although quite what the commonality is, is anyone's guess.

Yes, that hasn't gone unnoticed.

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.

And yes, this. But genderists seem to think that these labels would essentially be as valid as biological sex.

I think The definition was women and anyone who believes they are a woman.

I think it might have been "anyone who does not have both non-trans and male privilege"

Not a definition which is worth building any policy on clearly because it's ramming together two disparate groups in order to achieve MRA political aims.

This post deserves a standing ovation.

At what time does a biological male not have male privilege? It's very obviously in action at all times when women are forced teamed in this way. It doesn't vanish. There is absolutely no equity of any kind in expectations, treatment, there really isn't.

I think the definition was 'all those who believe they are adult human female'. So the fact of being a woman is equalled to some men's conviction that they are actually female.

I was not sure what this set is useful for, but I think he was trying to show us the commonality between women and transwomen, and decided that it was based on belief. I'm not sure if the childbirth or peri-menopausal flooding is also part of this belief, or if that's a universal human experience now.

They always do and I think trying could at least see that. I believe his argument was that you are a 'woman' if you don't have both (male privilege and non-trans privilege). So some men, by nature of facing trans oppression are now women despite continuing to have male privilege.

Not convoluted at all......

I think it might have been "anyone who does not have both non-trans and male privilege"

So a Transman doesn't not have non trans privilege (😁😁😁) nor do they have male privilege, so they're a woman by tryings standard???

He moved on from that when people pointed out that women don't believe they are adult human females in the way he thinks.

Didn't feel any need to re-examine his assumption of commonality though because he has the benefit of being inherently right.

Yes I think so.

But it protects TW so all is good.

I'm a woman - a female one - and from what I can tell - it's never been quite defined to the extent that I am certain I understand it - I am more 'trans' than I am 'cis'. I don't have a gender identity, I'm fairly sure of that (agender and genderless are explicitly identified by Stonewall as being 'under the trans umbrella').

I can't tell if I have a gender that 'matches' being female because no-one will say which genders match female or how you find out which gender you are.

I don't feel particularly comfortable calling myself a trans woman, because most people assume that means you are male or have 'crossed' something (the meaning of 'trans'). But I am at a loss as to how to label myself if required - mainly because there are no agreed definitions of man, woman, gender, trans, etc.

Gosh can you identify your way into male privilege?

Giving some serious thought to becoming a Transman

Once we get to 'women are people who don't have male privilege' then we're into there are men and there are the non-men.

Gosh girls, where have we heard that one before?

Male privilege is very much front and centre in TW in female spaces and with female people. Again I would suggest finding the Debbie Hayton threads, a well known TW who has always been polite, civil and engaged on threads here, and is treated extremely badly by the TQ+ political lobby for their views. However the belief of superiority and entitlement over females is very, very obvious, including the end point of all discussions which is 'having heard all you have to say, my decision is that we will all do this, and sorry you don't like it'.

Female lesbians get to 'learn to cope' with unwanted sex, and should not 'selfishly prioritise their own orgasms' rather than provide sexual access to male people who would like it. There is no reciprocal requirement, responsibility or sensitivity/compromise required of the male in the situation: they are the served, not the servant.

In fact find evidence anywhere of TW compassion, concern, responsibility, reciprocation or even basic awareness or interest in female need in situations where needs clash? (I'm not joking, I've lived in hope for years of seeing this). There's a wealth on what females should do, provide, think and feel and prioritise to benefit the other party; you can sort out the expectations and requirement for effort and labour on a wholly sex based, binary basis.

What this in effect says is that to male people when a male ceases to identify as a man, they see them as no longer having the same status and privilege and so assume that they have more or less become like the other group of low status humans by default.

Instead of thinking that females are not just not-men, but a different thing entirely in their own right, with wholly different experiences and views that do not revolve at all times around men and being defined only in terms of their relevance to men.

I've skipped a few pages while hanging my laundry out to dry on the equines (who I'm sure won't roll it into the mud or shit on it at all)... I'm confused, is Clive a lion now? Will somebody please take that dog out for a walk and encourage it to play fetch or something.

Extraordinary, isn't it? It only protects the males. Despite their lack of male privilege.

Males opt into the trans identity of women, leveraging their male privilege in order to protect themselves from their own claim that they just lost it.