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 do think trans people should have the right to appropriate healthcare, and I do agree that that should include the option to reverse any treatment.

Given that being trans isn't an illness (so we are told - this is the argument for self-ID which doesn't require a medical diagnosis), what do you believe is 'appropriate healthcare' for trans people? Why do healthy people need specific healthcare to treat something which isn't a health condition?

And given that many treatments are irreversible, how can they be given the option to reverse any treatment? For example, a penis can't be reattached once it has been amputated.

@Trying20 stop being so disingenuous and patronising. You've received more patient and considered answers than you've given but that's still not enough. (@Helleofabore et al, I don't know how yous do it. Hats off)

With regards to 'extremism' on the GC side, please give examples? Is it GC women sending extreme death and rape threats? Calling in bomb hoaxes and the like? Campaigning for people to lose their livelihoods? What extremism do you see or think GCs may fall into by discussing things on MN??

Seems to me like you can't argue your points so are falling back to 'well you're not being very nice!' Bore off

Oh yes I remember Trying now.

Exactly!!!! This isn't just some hypothetical debate. The rights of women and girls to safe spaces, fair competition and free speech are very actively being eroded right now. Hence the need for this kind of discussion.

I disagree that you have "engaged", trying. You openly stated that you had not bothered to read posts, you haven't answered the OP except in a flippant manner and you haven't read the thread. It's rude to expect everyone to repeat themselves because you refuse to read a thread in the normal manner, when people have responded to what you've said.

Generally in a civil discussion, people read the words that have been posted, starting with the OP and the linked information, in order to understand the context of each post. It's kind of weird you won't do this.

So, I am not the only one who felt that @Trying20 's posts have not been engaging with the questions or the topics, just adding more layers of obfuscation? That the questions have not been answered from myself and other posters, and that Trying has stated they have 'asked' questions and explained when I have not actually found these at all. I thought I was missing something.

Oh dear.... you are right.

A male is here telling us we are extremists and leading us a merry dance.

I suspect that like those in senior management positions in Maya's employers and with GCC, there was never ANY way that we, as females, could express our opinions without being considered 'extreme'.

You’re not missing anything, it’s paragraphs of meaningless fluff.

On a tangent, On the Style and Beauty board some of our friends are discussing M and S jeans, for those new to dressing like fashionable ladies

I 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, (and the same with trans men gay men) BUT, I think they need to be open about this from the start and nobody should be called transphobic for that being the reason to end the relationship.

So, you think that female homosexual people need to accept males using their unique language, because you, a gay male, are quite ok for your own language to be redefined?

A male who has no idea about the oppression of females, and why lesbians might actually feel that your opinion doesn't reflect their oppression.

So out of:

People who steal puppies from children and drown them

People who threaten to drop puppies from rooftops

and people who say they don't rate dogs as pets

You don't see a clear hierarchy of wrongness?

That's absolutely fair and I think what we'd all want.

If another person makes demands which have a detrimental affect on someone else especially their safety or safeguarding or don't expect to be robustly challenged before taking non health essential medicine or surgery then it's I'd definitely be critical of their choices.

As I imagine they would of me.

Thank you for answering more directly. Pronouns. Ok I use preferred pronouns to be polite but where do we draw the line? Should a teacher be asked to remember all the changing pronouns of their class and be labelled transphobic for forgetting? Should a rape victim be forced to call their attacker 'she' in court?
Changing gender on legal documents will get confusing. How do we record accurate statistics, provide correct health care, separate male and female prisoners if legal documents don't correspond with actual sex? And it's not just male and female, there's non binary and possibly other genders too.
What is appropriate health care? Cutting off a healthy penis or breasts? This can't be reversed!
I'm not a lesbian but I think lesbians probably reserve the right to define who they are attracted to. I'm not sure it's quite as simple as a wonky penis. This is individual and we all have our limits, but if you know you're not attracted to anyone who was born with a penis it must get pretty tiring saying no to each one who approaches you individually. Also, not everyone takes no for an answer very kindly.
I hope none of this sounds too unreasonable or extreme, even if we disagree.

Referring to what trans people go through as "experiments and self medication" I think would probably be considered quite upsetting.

I find it upsetting that people think males can be considered women.

The fact that one of the top two is worse than the other doesn't mean either of them are okay.

Which one is more like trans activists and which one is more like gender critical feminists?

Referring to what trans people go through as "experiments and self medication" I think would probably be considered quite upsetting

But that was in reference to the manifesto, where it was demanded that they have access to all the drugs they liked and be trained to perform whatever surgeries they wanted. Not trans people's current lives experience.

Im sure you knew that however, so pretty disingenuous to use it as an example.

I stand by what I said earlier, which is that I do think you have engaged much more than the typical ploppers that come on to this thread.

However I don't think you have allowed yourself to tackle the central question, which is that you cannot accommodate the desires of TW to access single sex spaces and the need of vulnerable women to maintain these spaces. There is no compromise solution here, or certainly not one that you've put forward. It really is a case of prioritising one position over another,

Or perhaps you have tackled it internally, but while understanding it's pretty abhorrent to advocate taking these away from vulnerable women, cannot being yourself to deny the TW want they are demanding. Despite knowing they don't have a legitimate claim. I don't know.

I don't believe that people generally change their views on an internet thread, in that moment. However views do shift in time and hope you continue to ponder who should be prioritised when rights/desires conflict and question the assumptions behind your impulses.

Gender confirming drugs, surgery and puberty blockers are very much experimental. It's not cruel to point that out. Considering the ramifications I think it's cruel not to.

@Trying20 Apologies if this is too personal a question, but as a gay man, do you view transmen in the same way as men in terms of wanting to date them?

I genuinely wasn't trying to misinterpret you there. Apologies.

No worries

But - and call me an idealist - but I do think there is a compromise solution that doesn't involve prioritising one position over another. (And in saying that, I don't mean giving trans access to single-sex spaces, I mean a solution which doesn't make anyone feel without a place).

Well the obvious way forward here are third spaces for TW/TM. Which I expect you'd find every poster on this thread supportive of. It is worth noting that TW are the group not in favour of this, which is very indicative to me about who is inhibiting compromise.