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.

I would really like to know what the views are that you find 'insanely extreme', though ...

Women are told to die in grease fires, have had their meetings eg to talk about maternity issues disrupted by protesters shouting & banging on the windows, had their employers contacted & harassed, been excluded from rape counselling, sent photos of baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire & told TERFs deserve to be raped by them and told to look forward to our erasure

but yeah both sides

On a personal level, I've found it bizarre (and frustrating) that the TRAs, a subset of whom have been associated with intimidation, doxxing, death threats, blatant disinformation, sexual coercion and a silencing of anyone who disagrees with them are being presented as the 'good guys' here.

Whereas a group of women on mumsnet trying to speak for woman's sex based rights are the big bad.

Its like the memo's gone out and no one's actually bothered to check the veracity of what's it's saying before weighing in.

How did that happen?

Its like the JKR point. I'm willing to bet almost all the TRAs denouncing her on SM haven't actually read the nuanced, empathetic essay that she wrote.

But the memo went out as 'JKR=hateful transphobe' and they all just went with that, without even considering checking the source themselves.

This is the bit that I can't wrap my head around.

I would really like to know what the views are that you find 'insanely extreme', though

Especially as her views, when probed, seem broadly in line with most on this board.

@Trying20 I assume (not in an arsey way) that the reason you haven't responded to any of my questions was because I didn't tag you?

You seem to basically agree with a lot of what is said on here. I'm still interested in the OP question and why you appeared to suggest (but presumably didn't mean) that it should be a "right" to not be criticised.

It's actually quite frustrating to have you drop in and pick and choose which posts you will read - OP included - and then berate posters for 'not being helpful' because you haven't followed the thread. If you are here to derail and goad then you have discovered a frustrating new way to do it but please, if you are genuine then stick around and have a go at clarifying what you mean when people don't understand (usually me). Otherwise it's just shouting then putting fingers in ears - being Mumsnet many of us are familiar with this from our kids

Ok.

so that is the answer then?

@Trying20 agrees with much of what is said, but not HOW it is said.

And rather than engage with the posts they do agree with, will not engage at all?

Ah. I see.

So to clarify, the points raised in the post they used to illustrate the ‘extreme’ position was used because of the tone.

@Trying20 actually agrees with the substance.

And maybe they acknowledge that the ‘middle ground’ they speak of is generally what we are discussing… but we need to all use the appropriate words to convey that message.

It has to do with the ‘tone’ Arabella. That is my take out.

It has to do with the ‘tone’ Arabella. That is my take out.

Agreed, however I think this is just her way of managing the cognitive dissonance.

So, she expected to encounter a bunch of hateful transphobes on here. But in getting sucked into debate with them finds that actually there's a lot of commonality between her view and there's.

So resorts to 'it's not what they say it's how they say it' to try and make sense of that.

I've seen this pattern play out exactly like this before

It's also to do with how people have been indoctrinated to pussy foot around big issues in this debate.

A few months ago there was a poster who played out a very similar pattern to Trying and one thing she took me to task on was stating that you couldn't change sex. She totally agreed with that (because she wasn't stupid) but that was an apparently unacceptable thing to say. It was too hurtful.

So there's this bizarre disconnect between what we know to be scientifically factual and what we are permitted to say in polite company. It's very odd.

I haven't read Kathleen Stock's book, but I gather she a chapter on this exact phenomenon.

It's happening on the lesbians at pride thread; it's s not them, it's not the banners, it's not the protest, it's the way....

Like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Pussyfooting, yes. Bizarre. I recently saw a physio for a problem with my knee. She observed me standing and apologised - yes, apologised - for stating that I was knock-kneed. Ridiculous. The knock knees are causing the pain. How can you deal with real issues if you are afraid to mention them? What's worse, the disabling pain in my knee, or my potential embarrassment at being reminded that my legs do not meet conventional standards of beauty?

Once again I find Magadalen Berns words echoing in my head: I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar.

Like trying to nail jelly to a wall

Standing back, it is fascinating to watch.

I guess it's been absorbed so completely that unquestioning acceptance of the Trans position is the 'right' thing to do. They struggle with the logical arguments and positions coming from those who don't accept that unquestioningly.

What I'd love to know is how this idea of the 'right side' got established so strongly to begin with.

Once again I find Magadalen Berns words echoing in my head: I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar.

So true.

But the expectation of facilitating these fictions is so odd to me. The world didn't used to be like this, did it?

The spousal veto means that the gender recognition certificate can't be given without the agreement of an existing spouse. Ten years ago I had to sign a permission form or it could not go ahead. Which is entirely the right thing as marriage is a legal contract so one party should not be allowed to change the terms of that contract in such a fundamental way without the permission of the other party. This doesn't mean the trans person is barred from getting a GRC just stops them from forcing their spouse into a same sex marriage against their will. The option to divorce is always there, plus importantly there is the right to an annulment which is important to religious spouses as it allows the possibility of a future religious marriage.

For various reasons I decided it was in my interests to carry on with the marriage at the time and was happy to sign, but it worries me how many spouses in abusive relationships are coerced into signing. There is no requirement for them to be given independent legal advice or any other counselling before doing so.

I am just left wondering what is extremist in Tryings point of view? Is it 'no males' at all? Is it keep words as they are, so transwomen arent' women? What extremist position is Trying talking about?

@Trying20 would you mind coming back to explain what it extreme is the position of being very critical of trans ideology?

The spousal exit clause means the transitioning person can get an interim GRC, but not a full one.

If a full GRC was issued then their spouse would be prevented from divorcing and trapped in a contract/marriage that had been retroactively changed without their consent.
AFAIK under current contract law it would be illegal to revoke the spousal exit clause, because it would change a fundamental principle of a contract.

I'd have supported 80% of what was trying to be achieved, but now I've walked away and gone "bunch of lunatic extremists" because of that minority that just take it a little bit too far. I said earlier though - it works both ways.

I would like to know what an 80% measure is for the solution for rape crisis centres and shelters, sports and prisons.

The reality is, you either allow males or you don't.

Is @Trying20 desperately trying to tell us that they think that the current prison policy is not already getting to an '80%' solution where 'some' males are included in a facility where females have absolutely no say in what they need and those who are traumatised are just 20% collateral damage.

Or in rape crisis centres, that 'some' females will be able to have single sex groups, carers and shelters, but 'some' 20% won't. Or is it a solution that those females in very poor areas will have no choice, or what?

Or is it, I agree with the argument, but since you are obviously extreme in your language then I will not support you in working towards that goal. Because you offend me.

The nonsense of that statement is pretty clear. No. That poster does not actually care what females need, it is not something they are going to help to attain until women who are offensive curb their speech to suit other's needs.

The thing is, that is absolutely fine to have that belief but whoever has that belief needs to own that they have that belief.

Back to the topic of who 'they' are.

They are the people who actively campaign for mixed sex spaces, such as the Hampstead Ponds which consists of 3 ponds. One for men, one for women and one for mixed. The issue is that women can do into the mixed and women's pond, but not the male pond or they will call the police. But men can go into whichever one they want, and if women complain about men in women's pond, and they call the police, the women are the ones that will be removed.

Same as the Rape Crisis centres that Sarah is taking to court. Rape support consists for men and for trans groups. But the womens group is no longer female only, so there is nowhere for women who have been raped to access female only rape support.

They are the ones managing this situation.

They are the NHS who are on one hand removing genitals of autistic and non-conforming teens, and prescribing drugs that have previously been used to castrate rapists and gays and denying that males were in the ward where a woman was actually raped [and withheld the video evidence for a full year from the police].

They are the police who whilst supporting and protecting all trans people whenever they want to protest [including protesting womens' rights to speak], whilst being shouted ACAB in the face by these same protesters.

They are the councils, that wrote out the rights of women and substituted the word 'people' thereby removing women and girls from their own policies and took away any female only places. They insisted on all funding proposals to include how they were going to facilitate trans people's access to the single sex programmes they were funding.

They are the schools who made toilets and changing rooms mixed sex whilst they were shut for the holidays.

They are the prison officials who put rapists into female prisons and who are now taking the rights of women to their parole if they object.

They are the brownies and the guides who quietly let boys join and attend residentials without telling any parents that a boy is in the room.

It is endless. 'They' did all this and do all this whilst ensuring that women [and men but mainly women] lose their jobs when they stand up against it. They did all this whilst not doing any risk assessments, impact statements or asking womens groups what they though.

To say that 'wanting parity is extreme' is total nonsense. Yes we want to talk about it, it is not anti trans to want women and girls to be safe. It is not extreme to want women and girls to be safe.

And rather than accept that not everyone will agree with you on everything, you've come up with a smart ass way to make someone who only agrees with you on 80% of things look stupid.

No. Actually. I never expect someone to fully agree with me and nor do I expect to fully agree with them.

What I don't do is come out with crap about 'both sides' having 'extremes' highlighting a post that you seem to agree with except with how it is phrased. As I said. Own it. That is what you are doing and you seek to shame others for not using the arguments in the way you want them to.

Why would I even continue to engage with that?

Because you never engaged with it on this thread to start with. You might like to try to convince people that you did, but you did not. You went into default 'I agree but you are extreme so I won't engage' mode.

Not black and white, male and female.

Because that IS the issue.

YOU are one of the problems here.

ok. Noted.

You've deliberately misinterpreted what I've said, and reframed it, to make me sound like an idiot.

No. I have asked a number of time and a number of different ways for answers. Because you have come across as implying that we are 'extreme' and you keep coming back to some example about abortion and a political party. And not actually engaged with what on here was so problematic.

If I have misinterpreted what you have said, correct me.

Because it ISN'T black and white.

When dealing with the safety of females and their health, what isn't black and white?

here isn't a unanimous agreement on this across the board

We know!

We spend a lot of time discussing the nuances of things on this board. That is why I, and others, have been trying to work out if you are simply lacking knowledge or you are actually just trying to paint posters as extreme because they said things you agree with, but in a manner you find offensive.

It's really sad, when there is a genuine debate to be had about all of these issues (as your own source confirms) that you decide to see it so black and white.

And you don't seem to have taken on board that most posters actually have quite bit in common with you. I even said so up thread. You keep going on with this nonsense of 80% and frankly, I don't think you even understand what the implications of what you mean by that, and you don't seem to be able to convey what it means.

Because we keep coming down to, you seem to agree with the majority of what we are saying, just not the way some posters say it. Therefore, your inclination is to walk away rather than engage with the discussions about protecting women and females in a conducive manner.

WE know that there are many different opinions on this board, WE are not the ones trying to say it is echo chamber and only one way to think. Quite the opposite. But that seems to be how your posts have come across.

"bunch of lunatic extremists"

But, see, that's really bloody rude!

Who is Katie M please? - I dont think Ive encountered that name before.
I find it really telling that when confronted with details/logical facts folk on the other side of the discussion always get in a huff and a strop.