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 think it's questions that are their kryptranite.

Katie Montgomery, TW, I suspect.

I like to hear alternative views - it's great to get people who are willing to come and challenge ideas & discuss them. So I am genuinely interested in engaging, Trying, but a bit baffled still by why you think we are 'insane'.

Polite thanks for trying, er, @Trying20 but as you wouldn't read my posts in full you missed what I was actually asking. I'm giving up now, because it's taken several posts to attempt to get my question across and you either genuinely don't know how to follow a thread on here or are deliberately not doing it properly, so I'm out of time and energy.

Perhaps if you actually feel like engaging at some point you could read the thread in full.

While some activists on either side of the trans rights debate might see the issue in black and white terms, and expect that the public do so as well, it is important to stress that this is not the case. Very few Britons took a blanket view of trans issues across our survey.

Looking at how respondents answered across our battery of 23 transgender questions, just three people gave the ‘less permissive’ answer on trans rights every single time, and only two respondents gave the ‘more permissive’ answer to all 23 questions. In both cases, this represents a statistical 0% of our 1,751-strong sample."

I would not give either the 'more permissive' or 'less permissive' answer to all of those questions.

And have you actually asked the question on this thread about who would agree or disagree to the actual raw questions?

No?

Or did you just assume the worst because things weren't worded the way you would like them to be?

We are quite familiar with the poll. We discuss it from time to time and dissect it. What it shows is that there is a gradual awareness coming through the UK general population. And

83% of the UK population do not think, or don't know whether a transitioned male should compete in female sports.

66% of the UK population do not think, or don't know whether a transitioned male should use a women's changing room.

This changed to 75% without surgery.

62% of the UK population do not think, or don't know whether a transitioned male should have access to female toilets.

This changed to 71% without surgery.

61% of the UK population do not think, or don't know whether a transitioned male should use women's refuges.

68% of the UK population indicated that they believed that Transitioned males using single sex spaces 'does present a genuine risk of harm' or 'don't know'.

67% of the UK population indicated that 'giving increased recognition and rights to transgender people poses a genuine risk to some women's rights' or didn't know.

My point is and was: 'There have been YouGov polls that have shut the MN posters who kept on with the 'you are the minority' up. Because it was shown that an independent pollster came up with the same results as all the MN polls, all the twitter polls, all the Times polls. That the majority of people, and indeed the majority of women, don't want their boundaries lowered to allow males access to single sex spaces and sports.'

How do these figures refute what I have written here? What is it that you are actually trying to say, that I was wrong? That the majority of the UK population think that males should not be in female sporting categories? That the majority of the UK population don't support males who self ID in single sex spaces?

Oh.... I get it!

There have been YouGov polls that have shut the MN posters who kept on with the 'you are the minority' up.

@Trying20 was just resorting to pigeonhole FWR regulars as extremist with their posting of the yougov commentary.

So therefore, we I wrote that other MN posters kept telling us we were the extreme minority, this poster is doing the same thing. Without actually engaging with us, they have assumed their own prejudices about this board is correct, because... language and tone.

I meant, genuinely, that the majority of the UK population did not agree outright with the demands that extreme activists for trans rights. That the majority of the UK population had concerns about these issues. That posters on FWR also have concerns and we will continue to discuss them. In blunt terms if we wish to. But there are many differing views about those concerns here but all views are discussed.

Because we know that the 'minority' is those pushing for extreme rights for males to be considered female when sex matters!

So the practical rule is usually "non-trans people separated by sex, trans people do whatever they want".

We knew that anyway:

So therefore, we I wrote

Sorry, that 'we' is a 'when'.

I am quite confused by just who is the 'we' and who is the 'them' in any case. It seems very important for some posters to be not to be seen talking to 'those people' and have actually not actually engaged to find out what 'those people' believe because 'it was worded extremely' ... bluntly.... rudely.... fact oriented?

By the way, this was posted as an example of "extreme" posting :

women didn’t start this

everytime we tried to have a discussion about e.g. whether it was fair to allow fully grown men to play sport against women & girls because they now identified as women or whether it was safe to allow fully intact men into women a prisons because they identified as women all we got was “no debate/TWAW/fuck off bigot/die in a grease fire

we wanted to find a compromise but that was denied so now we’re not up for compromising

so what do you think? You think it’s ok for 54 year old men to play rugby on a woman’s team? How about rape survivors being denied a single sex space to discuss their trauma? You all good with that too?

Please note that this post of eyeballs refers to sport, prisons and rape crisis centres. And the discussions she refers to are discussions and campaigns that feminists, have taken part in to present their needs in these three matters where sex matters ..... Apparently, there should be compromise for these issues .... considering the compromise position have already been made policy in these instances... not sure what further 'compromises' need to be made.

So ... you're calling us 'lunatics' again. Which again, is rude. And yet not actually pointing directly to what it is that anyone has said that is 'extreme' or 'lunatic'.

As for this being a 'welcoming' space - is it supposed to be? It's a board for discussion, not a support space (unless it's a specific support thread, I suppose).

It's true that people will and do disagree. There is an expectation that people will offer evidence to back up their assertions.

Frankly, I think your post is just setting up a lot of strawmen that I don't see on this thread or on this board.

You're coming here and calling people lunatics and extremists, and berating us for not being polite, kind, and welcoming.

Can you not see the double standard?

Transwomen do not belong in women's prisons. That's not silly, that's a hard no. As to where to put them, build or adapt a prison for them if they're not safe with other men. A third space, something that most of the posters on here would be fine with.

Agree @ArabellaScott !

Trying, that's a very long way to say you're annoyed that posters aren't happy to compromise women's rights, dignity and privacy for the sake of penis people. We don't owe anyone a 'safe space' either. For goodness sake, if a forum makes you feel 'unsafe' then please just go - no need to announce your departure!

I haven't deliberately misinterpreted anyone in the way that I've been misinterpreted and haven't tried to deliberately tie anyone in knots. Helleofabore may disagree with that by me choosing to use the source they mentioned in their own post. However, with the greatest respect, I never actually said that you were wrong in what you said in that post. I was using the same data to support my own point.

With the greatest respect, you were the poster that came and accused people of extreme posts, and then would not engage with the substantive points. Maybe I am the only person here on this thread asking what you have meant, and that with each post you don't actually clarify what you meant, but doubled down on how extreme MN posters are.

Despite, even me, saying to you that we probably agree about so much more than you are implying. You cannot let go of the prejudice that you have shown on this thread.

'Lets pick a bit of a silly one; prisons. You could say trans women shouldn't be in female prisons, so I come on and say "but what about.../where do they go.../etc.../etc..." - they're genuine questions.'
'You mocked me up thread with "Ohhh, it's about tone. It's not about the content, it's about the way you say it." '

And with the greatest of respect, you keep saying, it is not black and white but if you have posted anything regards prisons, did I miss it? Because I have gone back and I cannot see where you have asked any questions about prisons? So, is that 'twisting' you accuse me of, projection?

And FFS! Prisons is not 'a bit of a silly one!'.

It is one of the most clear cut.

If you don't think so, why not tell us what you think should be the solution?

Honestly, looking at this thread; do you think this would actually be a comfortable place for someone with questions to engage? Is this actually a safe place to explore those questions?

What questions did you start with? You quickly got to telling us all how extreme we are without engaging. That is what readers are going to see, too. No?

You calling out posters, pretty much straight away. This is from your second post:

'I sort of accidentally stumbled across this thread as it came up in my “active” and only just realised it’s in feminism, so will strategically retreat I think.'

'I would just say though, I think the extremes at both ends of this debate are as bad as each other.'

And then your third post was to post eyeballs post as an example of the extremes.

And you don't think will be noticed by posters? This double standard. This prejudice.

I am sorry that I seem to not be understanding your posts. I did ask quite a few times for clarity, but you just continued to double down. Others have also posted that they don't quite understand your point past, 'this board is extreme', 'you are extreme', and something about us only allowing 'one opinion'. To me, with the greatest respect, this is your own prejudice about this board and yes, every post you make continues with the 'I agree, but I don't agree with how you expressed it.'

Maybe we are expected to give generously of our time and lead people through the arguments? To spoon feed people. Rather than having a robust discussion and allowing readers and new posters to go off and actually research and make their own decisions. Which is what we all did. Well, that was what I remembered doing in any case.

I'm interested to know - you say you disagree with the demands of TRAs in terms of sports and changing rooms. What is the 20% of what we're saying which you disagree with? I think this actually goes back to the original question. My view is, socially trans people should be free to dress and behave as they please ( in the way exactly everyone else can) but where men and women are divided for biological reasons of fairness and safety, trans people should be grouped in their biological sex. I don't want anyone to feel unsafe, but if, for example, transwomen feel unsafe in a male prison, the male prison system should deal with this, not just make female prisons less safe.

@Trying20 sorry, meant to tag my last comment.

My first post on this forum was that I think most trans people just want to live their life without a load of people telling them they're awful people. Whilst I'm not saying anyone specifically on this thread has said that, you must understand how a trans person could look at some of the things in here and find them really upsetting. In the same way that you can look at that extreme TRA stuff and think it's awful.

As you have observed, nobody is saying all trans people are awful people. But what sort of things do you think a trans person would see on here and find upsetting?

This is what TRAs post about women:
terfisaslur.com/

Women stating the scientific fact that people can't change sex is not comparable to these threats of violence.

do also think trans women should be able to refer to themselves as women in most settings, and if they're attracted to women, use the term lesbians

Do you think it's "extreme" for women, particularly lesbians to object to that?

@Trying20 I don't think it's a pile on, just several people asking for answers to the same questions which are never answered!
We are continually told that trans people are fighting for their rights and this post simply asks the question, what are the rights that trans people do not have? I'll give an example: transwomen say their right to play rugby has been taken away when they cannot play in a women's team. It has not. Transwomen have the right to play in male teams. My husband is male, he also has the right to play in a male team, not a female team. All male people have the right to play rugby in male teams however they dress or identify. This keeps women safe in a very physically demanding game. How is this in any way extreme, bigoted, hateful ...? Surely this is just common sense. You've already said you agree with this, so what actual, specific statement about trans people do you think is unreasonable?

I mean this genuinely and truly - I really, really hope, that you find a solution that works for you and doesn't make you feel attacked and afraid.

Deeply patronising. I hope naive people, without awareness of their own prejudices, wake up and stop pandering to absurd, reality defying nonsense because they place male feelings higher than those of women and girls. But there you go.

I actually thought this was yet another projection.

Because we were asking for clarification about what was 'extreme' and got waffle and further sparple and ambiguity.

I'm possibly overstepping the mark here but I think, Trying20 that it would be helpful to clarify whether or not you are male. I wouldn't normally bring it up but whenever I've seen you posting on other boards you've always been upfront about this - is there a reason why you haven't been this time?

Of course we're all anonymous and anyone is free to post on here, but a man isn't personally affected by a lot of the issues we're talking about on this thread so is bound to have a different perspective, and I do think it's a bit when someone rocks up and joins in without first making it clear that they don't really have any skin in the game.