Trans-identifying people seeking extra rights

[SimpleName83]

Just that, really, Most people accept their sex, date of birth, place of birth. It is an historical, factual document of their birth.

Trans-identifying people seek to change a factual documentation of their birth.

That's not equality. That is transpeople being given extra rights to rewrite history.

And they are they ones saying they're oppressed??!!

Yes. Men can 'expand the bandwidth of what it means to be male' and deal with the issue of male violence instead of women being expected to put themselves at a higher risk of danger or having to choose to self exclude from services and spaces they need because they cannot access mixed sex spaces.

And third spaces are supported by many, many posters on here. But we've been told many, many times by TRA's that third spaces are 'transphobic and othering'. TRA's aren't interested in compromise or discussion. Women are being expected to capitulate entirely.

But where it isn't an option, are passing transwomen that have had all the surgery, hormone treatment etc supposed to use the mens loos and changing rooms under all circumstances?

Still male. Regardless of surgery. Still retain male pubertal advantages and male expectations.

Let’s flip it.

Why should any female be put at risk for a male who has chosen to make extreme modifications to their body to cosmetically get as close to resembling their desirable presentation?

Can you answer then how many females are considered acceptable collateral for that male’s choices?

We know there are fully surgically modified males still using male toilets, without incidence. It should not be controversial that males use male toilets. That males of all gender presentations respect the needs of female people and use the male single sex spaces.

Why is this controversial?

Why do people continue to infantilise transitioned males by saying they cannot respect other’s needs so they need special accommodations?

If males asked females before giving themselves permission to use our spaces, by now they would have had the spaces they needed. Instead, we have the constant pleas that some males who decided to make modifications to their bodies need special treatment.

What other vulnerable males over the age of about 8 yrs old, should use female single sex spaces?

Let’s flip it.

Great idea.

Are females who cannot access mixed sex spaces supposed to go without loos, changing rooms, health care, rape crisis etc at all until male people have all their needs met?

But where it isn't an option, are passing transwomen that have had all the surgery, hormone treatment etc supposed to use the mens loos and changing rooms under all circumstances?

Do you have any statistics for how many transitioned males have been harmed physically using male single sex spaces?

Why would any transitioned male be safer in female single sex spaces if all males are welcome, because ‘inclusion’?

Why haven’t males done a massive PR campaign on acceptance of their GNC brothers over the past decades instead of forceably changing society to accept them as females?

Why should males who have participated in these forced changes, even through not actively saying ‘no, this isn’t right!’ be rewarded with access to female single sex spaces?

Should males be forced to have extreme modifications so that they can claim that desirable prize of access? Isn’t that transphobic?

No. Grown arsed males made the assumption decades ago that female people’s needs shouldn’t be prioritised and told other males that the female single sex spaces were these to take. They didn’t do the work. They didn’t ask permission. They didn’t even discuss it. Then when women woke up and said ‘no’, women have been monstered and silenced.

Yes, there are males out there who do the right thing. But by allowing ‘passing’ males to be used to sort males into good or bad is transphobic. ALL males retain their propensity to commit sex crimes for safeguarding purposes. ANY male could still be perceived by a female as male still. This was never a solution, this was male people telling female people what to do from the start.

To continue the ‘what about the passing males’ is still emotional manipulation to prioritise males. And takes away those male’s need to take ownership for their decisions and show respect for others.

No Thank you!

And the rules were even stricter previously where any participant of questionable gender was required to have a genetic test.
And that didn't stop them allowing male athletes to compete in women's events.

to go back to the short discussion on sports, IIRC there was a Trivial Persuit question about who was the only athlete at the 1976 Olympics who didn't have to undergo a test to determine their sex. (answer: Princess Anne). I never did check what the actual test was, i assumed as a kid they had to show what was in their pants. Soviet Bloc countries had a habit of putting men in women's competitions back then, which made it necessary.

Yes. Why shouldn't they?

All those men who proudly shout about being trans inclusive and fly their trans ally banner should actually put their money where their mouth is and promote, accept and welcome transwomen into their spaces, services etc., and treat them as part of the rich and varied tapestry of males. That is inclusion, now why won't they do that?

This Buck Angel thing is so silly. I’ve never seen a transman where I can’t see it once I’m told. all anyone would need to do if a trans man is scaring someone in a female space is say “This person is actually female.”

Trans people are a lot more common than they used to be. This means they don’t pass as well as they used to back when being trans was a rarity. People know the look now. Even Buck would likely get clocked fairly often these days. This is a fake problem which is becoming increasingly irrelevant. People know trans people exist, and don’t have any trouble accepting transmen are female.

I encountered a small man with a beard, alone, in a car park in a strange place early in the morning and responded warily as you do as a lone female in those circumstances from bitter bloody experience. The bearded person smiled, said hello - and it was immediately apparent they were a TM and my whole body relaxed. It was instinctive, it happened before any conscious thought took place. As soon as I saw them walking away I would also have known; the hip shape and movement was unmistakable, but they only needed to smile and speak. It wasn't relevant to know that they were trans apart from that their sex did make a difference in certain circumstances, such as being alone with them as a stranger in an isolated place.

I would have been perfectly happy to share a hospital room with them, complete with beard and any surgical/cosmetic adaptations, and that would not be an exception I made just for them because they were nice and I liked them. Same sex doesn't mean 'gender conforming' or 'feminine', it means female. That's the line other females need. How that female looks isn't relevant. The issues raised about 'well some women are now getting stroppy about butch presenting women' if they happen at all are not about females having boundaries about gendered behaviour from females, it's learned fear of male people trying to deceive them.

But as mentioned above: TM usually get this. There is awareness and reciprocation in care for others as well as requesting it. There is not the need to transgress other people's boundaries, nor the element among them seeking to transgress other people's boundaries for sexual motives. Basically they are female in all ways, nothing to do with how they choose to present or name themselves.

Although I'll add that's me stating my boundaries: I would be perfectly happy to share facilities with a TM. It is not for me to generalise and therefore say that I expect all females from all situations with all their own wide variety of female need to feel as I do, or judge the ones who don't.

Indeed nilsmousehammer.

Wouldn't it be a lovely thing to be able to have full confidence that the person in that space with you could only be a female, because no male would transgress the boundaries?

What a world that would be, eh?

Hmm this thread is food for thought definitely. I dont come on this board much but having read some of the links and had a look at other threads I can see it's not as straight forward as I thought.

I've always considered myself an LGBT ally but I'll admit I dont have answers to some of the concerns raised on here. A shame because I'm fully convinced that most trans women just want to live their lives in peace and unclocked.

Thanks for engaging me in respectful discussion even when I've come across as a bit thick naive.

Many here are LGBT+ people. I'm one.

The thing is whether you're an ally to supporting the diversity of people and the equality of their rights, or an ally to a political position which believes in the supremacy of some people's rights and interests to the detriment of others. The political LGBT+ lobby simply excludes those of us harmed by the pressing for the supremacism of male TQ+ people's interests and freedoms above others.

Fair enough @nilsmousehammer .

I can't remember if this thread has been posted on this thread yet - it really is very useful - www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

You're where many of us started off. You come into this debate thinking 'live and let live, why can't we just be kind?', move onto 'hang on a minute, that doesn't seem fair' and then see how women are being vilified for simply asking questions about the removal of the single sex services and spaces and language to describe themselves.

Thank you @Waitwhat23 . I will have a nosy later once my toddler has gone to bed and I have a g&t in hand, looks like I will need it.

Fair enough. Despite the fact that regular posters are so often accused of 'pile ons' and of being echo chambers etc, the reality is that we are very happy to have these discussions. I can only speak for myself in that having posters that come on with the intention to shame posters for having the discussion, or with the intention of simply goading, have no intention of engaging and therefore mostly we talk around them.

You say you are 'naive' but you still hung in for the discussion. So, I hope that you will stick around and read those discussions now understanding that many of us have been researching this for a long time. Some posters have been engaged from the start (not me, I was late to the discussion myself).

I'm fully convinced that most trans women just want to live their lives in peace and unclocked.

And you may be right, but not necessarily to the degree of 'most'. It might be more 'some'. However, it has become very clear that even by simply using pronouns now seem to have consequences because it continues to prop up the immersion of that gender identity and make the segregation needed for female's to have for their needs harder.

It is a very fine line of discussing individual needs with a sex category's collective needs. Activists need to keep the focus on the individuals because once the needs of female people are mentioned as a whole, that 'sympathy' for the individual seems to highlight many issues.

Datun's post about halfway down the first page on that thread is an excellent summary of many of the terms and issues and I often direct people to read that first as a starting point.

Nicely said, Helle. And your willingness to be open to discussion and persuasion is appreciated TheSmallestOneWasMadeline.

I find it strange that in many threads people discuss the threat of men due to the existence of testosterone, which has obviously masculinising properties and leads to aggression etc, and this only gets worse with men doping and on extreme amounts of the hormone.

Yet people feel completely safe with a woman who is on male levels of testosterone? People are now negating any effect that that substance has on the body.

I listened to that particular Transparency podcast and the women make it clear how their behaviour, feelings and sex drive changed due to testosterone.

But this is what happens when people make blanket statements, it allows no room for the grey areas. And the bathroom debate constantly revolves around each side looking for loopholes.

I thought we looked at risk and there just isn't evidence of 'women who took testosterone rampaging across the land'. So even though it is higher it is still a minute amount compared to men.

people feel completely safe with a woman who is on male levels of testosterone?

Funnily enough there's a complete lack of female people on T rampaging around causing distress or harassment or trying to remove other people's rights and spaces.

Which would suggest it isn't the T at the root of the behaviour. How interesting.

Sorry Alison took too long to post that and you said it better!

But this is what happens when people make blanket statements, it allows no room for the grey areas. And the bathroom debate constantly revolves around each side looking for loopholes.

I don't consider wanting single sex spaces a loophole. Up till very recently single sex spaces were considered normal for obvious reasons.

Great minds and all that.

I don't think you have read this thread.

It has been much more nuanced on the subject of women who identify as men than you are making out.

In any event it is a poor argument for the inclusion of males in women's safe spaces.