Trans and losing my mind...

[bluepetergeneration]

Posting here in good faith. And I'll leave that at that.

I'm a TS. I was born male. I don't normally post on mumsnet but I started using it as I have a 1 year old DD. I won't tell my whole life story, that would be self indulgent, so I'll just say what I came here to say.

I'm sick to death of my community. I'm sick of the misogyny. I'm under no illusion that I'm a woman or ever will be. I transitioned when I was very young so I pass, but I still now only use female bathrooms when there's no other option (such as a disabled bathroom- I would feel unsafe in the mens). What I have is a disorder- it was crippling- and now I live my life so that I can actually enjoy it and not feel 'wrong'.

The idea of self-ID sickens me, and I'm tired of having to have the same conversations over and over again with other trans people who accuse me of being some kind of self hating transsexual just because I care about the safety of women. I also care about the safety of my kid. Partly because I'm worried she'll be in danger because I'm trans, and also because I don't want her to get caught up in all these weird messages that being trans isn't a disorder around dysphoria (which it is).

I guess I'm posting this to say that in this fight, trans people with genuine dysphoria who aren't delusional will be standing right beside you.

Also a plea to not paint all of us with the same brush. You can fight for the rights of trans people (like me, I should be able to present female and not get attacked, and when I was in my late teens and still looked a bit male I did get attacked) and also be gender critical

Actually the last time I checked the research, children born to lesbian couples did better on all measurements than those of straight or gay couples. But when did facts and research matter, eh?

I'll be honest, OP. I'm not actually interested in fighting for trans rights. I'm interested in women and childrens rights. I don't want men in women's bathrooms. I don't really care where you go, men's, unisex, or disabled if you really must.

The OP said, since presenting as though they are a woman “now I live my life so that I can actually enjoy it and not feel 'wrong'.”

Shame that enjoyment means OP has taken some radical surgical/medical steps, snookered themselves, leading to some potentially awkward social situations - which women are expected to compromise our rights to solve.

I am sure OP is able to enjoy life just fine now, with that male entitled, breezy, “yeah I did all this shit to myself and now I need to use your stuff, I know you are mugs women so you’ll get it if I explain how I would be inconvenienced by taking responsibility for the consequences for my own actions, you’ll be cool with that, yeah”.

Since women are so gullible, all a bloke has to do is say “yeah, yeah, I support you bruv” and we won’t notice we’re actually being undermined.

Er no, as @GailBlancheViola says

Those who have disregarded women's consent and abused women's boundaries are absolutely going to be angry now having to hear the word NO - tough shit they should never have crossed that line in the first place and nor should those who enabled it.

Subtext: 'women who say no are just awful'.

Funny thing about raising kids - you'd never believe how often you have to say 'no'.

And believe it or not the response is often similar!

Yes, we are awful. No wonder people are scared to come into our loos.

Oh, hang on a minute...

No children are 'born to lesbian couples'. They are raised by a lesbian couple who have legal parental responsibility but biological is a bastard I'm afraid and there is an issue that remains with it.

It is good to hear that a) there is research ongoing in this area b) children do well with lesbian parents.

What I'd be interested in, is a few further details on that in terms of what that data is showing. How do the lesbian couples compare in terms of economics and class firstly - my suspicion is that lesbian couples are better off than hetro couples financially and in terms of stability. And whether there is ongoing research which looks at identity and how much the child is able to contact father, wants to contact father or has a sense of 'missing' identity. The latter I think has relevance to all situations of parental separation and probably removes a lot of possible concerns because the risk of trauma from elsewhere is less - as a group they make an interesting alternative control for studies.

I think we need to keep studying this area to see what happens and how you can lessen potential harm to the children involved. It may show certain groups more favourably than others which is worth knowing and understanding. But we also need to be mindful of omissions of data whilst doing this (as in for couples where child is removed from birth mother, where there are also concerns over the impact on this mother - if the removal isn't for the welfare of the child - as is the case in surrogacy. Or issues arising from men who father large numbers of children and the subsequent issues over huge groups of half siblings).

Basically I'd like to see things being firmly centred on kids, not the desires of parents or potential legal parents and being aware of the impact on women generally.

There's a lot of research out there and some of it goes back quite a long way. Google is your friend. Whenever a study has indicated that the children of lesbian couples (the non-biological parent often adopts the child and becomes the child's legal parent) fare better on all measures (educational, behavioural, psychological) the Christian Right and conservatives all jump up and say families need fathers as a cover for their homophobia.

As a lesbian who knows lesbian couples who've been wonderful parents to children, whether those children are biologically connected or adopted, I find your choice of language you use (you didn't have to use the word bastard but you did) and your underlying scepticism extremely unpleasant.

Look through the parenting and relationships boards here and the recurring theme is of mothers in heterosexual relationships struggling to cope with parenting on their own because their male partners have opted out of involvement with their children from very early on. So many of us were raised by heterosexual couples where one worked on the assumption that parenting was the woman's job. I certainly did.

Tough shit if you dislike my opinion. I think it needs discussing properly. I don't think it is, for 'fear of offending' rather thought over centring kids. The problems with surrogacy mean I do think lesbians need extra scrutiny - not because of bigotry but because it's about having water tight responses about why two lesbians is less of an issue as the point is always going to be raised by advocates of surrogacy (particularly gay men).

The use of bastard wasnt meant to offend. I pondered over using bitch but decided against it for other reasons and I'm kind sick of the perpetual language mind fields at this point. I'm normally conscious of it and got it wrong on one occasion. I am sorry for that.

Long term studies still aren't into the realm of lesbian parents dying though, and that is where there is a gap in data. Even now. This matters. Google won't tell me things data doesn't know.

On the off chance you may still be looking at this thread, OP, honestly, every day around the world literally millions of smaller, weaker, more vulnerable males than you safely and successfully navigate men's loos without being attacked.

They are called 'boys'.

Don't let fantasy fears derail you. I am sure you are planning to be a good parent for your baby daughter and want to help her to set healthy boundaries. Then show her that the really good, honourable, compassionate, decent blokes, no matter how feminine they might feel or look, respect the single sex spaces of women and girls by staying well out of them.

Because I tell you what, every time I see a trans elder like Roz Kaveney - who I imagine has several decades and almost a foot on you - boast about using women's toilets for the last 40 or more years without incident (apparently some women friends back in the day said they were OK with it, what with Roz being a 'lesbian' too) all I can hear is 'I have been making women feel uncomfortable and scared in their own spaces for decades but that's OK because it's all about meeeeeeeee'.

Ugly male entitlement, eh?! Humans haven't worked out a way to transition that yet....

I keep coming back to this thread feeling more and more sad about how polarised it's become.
Despite some (at times unnecessarily personal) pushback, the OP came back with further clarification which seemed well reasoned.
From what I can tell, we (including the OP) are all in agreement that men do not belong in women's spaces and that this relates to safety.

From here is where the nuances kick in. Faced with using the men's, the OP will also feel unsafe. That sounds hypocritical but for one key difference that underpins and changes everything from my perspective: the OP is describing their own gender dysphoria as a disorder or mental illness. This basic fact opens up nuanced discussion. I for one would happily support a campaign to open more unisex spaces that are directly accessible from corridors for anyone who feels that they can not use large single sex spaces (hidden disabilities and gender dysphoria included). If we can acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, it changes everything. Perhaps the (hidden disabilities) sunflower lanyard scheme could be opened up where there is genuine gender dysphoria? As with any other hidden disability, governance to ensure no misuse of the system would be key.

If gender dysphoria is acknowledged as a mental illness, so much more falls in to place. Except in the rarest of cases, after balancing out all risks and benefits, children will not be prescribed puberty blockers (who would enable a mental illness without question?), men would not be able to play as women in sport and so on.

It opens up so much more nuanced discussion. Here's a great example from another thread on the board:

I know this topic prickles with charge and tension Red and Patti, but it is a very important one to be had.

Statistics are important, but it is also important to talk about principles.

I believe that contact with biological parents/family must always be as close, as stable and as solid as possible, unless it is in the (rare) best interest of the child to break that contact. For this reason, I disagree with minimising biological parents with obfuscating language like calling them ‘donors’ of gametes (or ‘the carrier’ 🤮 in surrogacy). The individuals who consider themselves to be just ‘donating’ need to understand that they are actually becoming parents and will be important in the life of their child, and need to take some responsibility for that and consider how they are going to manage that throughout the child’s life. Anything else is unethical and non-child centred.

Obviously this throws up serious issues for lesbians and gay men (or straight couples with infertility issues) who want to be parents, because they want to enjoy coupledom and parenthood, just like straight people, without the biological opposite-sex parent hanging around like a fifth wheel, but that isn’t child-centred.

Most lesbian and gay parents I know though, have had children in heterosexual relationships, split up and got together with someone of their own sex, so the issues they face about continued contact is no different from any other family break up, so it’s a non-issue in those cases.

An aside, this is not equal between the sexes. Mothers gestate, birth and nurture babies. Mothers can keep fathers secret if they choose, or if they were promiscuous, might not even know who the father is. Or the father might be a rapist. It’s not ideal for a child to have no father in their life, to not know them, but this usually would not be the result of planning. However I believe kids brought up by single mums fair a lot better than being destabilised by shared custody.

As to the thing of lesbian parents having better outcomes for children, I can well believe it.

The reason I think it is important to be able to have frank discussions about these things is because I believe making it taboo in gender critical conversations to avoid offending lesbians or infertile women is the thin end of the wedge.

What I mean is, take this:

“Non-biological parents are just as good parents as biological parents”

”We are both mums, just the same, it’s no one’s business which of us gave birth”

Obviously there is going to be a bit of doubt and insecurity in the adoptive/non-biological parent about the child’s longing for and preference for their biological parent, these things are trotted out to make them feel better.

Yet. They are downplaying the importance of biology, of motherhood.

This makes all further downplaying of the importance of biology and motherhood seem justified and sensitive. Completely fertile men can conspire with one or two women to create a child for sale, and use the same arguments, and be viewed sympathetically. Even calling purchasing a child from the mother ‘fertility treatment’ or ‘reproductive rights’. No one is thinking about the child in it.

So I think it does need to be teased out.

I'm all in favour of additional third spaces for whoever wants to use them, but only in ADDITION to single sex spaces. Female only and male only, which we are entitled, nay encouraged, to prevent the opposite sex from entering.

That works perfectly for me.

Third spaces. Yes. 100% yes.

I'll happily sign the petitions. I'll ask the theatres and clubs and restaurants and sports centres to take this segment of the population into their consideration when utilising the space.

But not at the expense of women, real women, the kind with vulvas and breasts and who just want to have a goddamned pee, change their tampon, brush their hair and wash their hands without the risk of bumping into a male of any kind (boy children with their female parents excepted).

Also, since men don’t have massive queues, the additional unisex loos can be carved out of the footprint of the men’s, whilst leaving the women’s alone.

If we can acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, it changes everything.

Yes. But I don't think in the way you seem to see it and want to go forward. You'd merely end up with a row about how to classify the condition and treat it.

There's nothing in classifying it as a mental health issue which means that other people would have to uphold the belief there is something wrong with bodies and have to facilitate / accomodate some kind of social transition.

It is not like anxiety, depression, adhd, autism etc even if it is a mental health issue.

We wouldn't support the delusions of someone in the midst of a psychotic episode would we? And therein lies your problem.

Its a type of body dysmorphia which is about being unhappy with a body - something you can't fix with surgery or others somehow 'agreeing' with the sufferers concern - which seems to currently be the approach which is nuts. And many of us disagree with on top of the shared spaces issue.

Its more like a 'cousin' of anorexia. And if you classify it in this way, you only fix it by treating the suffer to accept their body and be happy in it rather than doing the exact opposite of perpetuating the discomfort.

Yes, I don’t see why this mental illness deserves special treatment. We don’t have provision for people with depression or schizophrenia.

I don't want a man in the ladies loo, even if he has a lanyard.

Whilst I appreciate what the OP is saying and I know there are many trans people that agree with us on a lot of the issues with gender ideology, the minute any Male uses a Female single sex space, there is a risk of excluding Females from that space. That's too big a risk for me.

A woman is an adult human female, of course, but men can also be involved in pushing back against gender ideology. In fact we need them to.

I've honestly no idea what you are talking about or what you seem to think my motivation is? I'm not forcing anyone "to team with" or agree with people with whom they don't agree. But you don't have to agree with someone on every single single issue in to come together to advance the causes of that with which you do agree.

Third spaces.
It seems like the best solution. It's also an attempt to find a solution that works for everyone at a time when the culture around the debate has been very vicious.
It seems the best solution to me, I have no better idea.
But.... hypothetically, it's the future, it's happened. There are third spaces everywhere. Trans folk are happily using these third spaces. And a bunch of men walk into the third space. These men aren't trans or non binary, they are male men. They identify as men. The ones trans women are afraid of that stops them going into the men's toilets.
Third spaces are for anyone who identifies or feels confortable that they want to use third spaces. Are the male men allowed in to the third spaces, or asked to use the men's facilities to let the trans people feel safe?
What happens next?

I'm glad to see someone else mention anorexia, which is the closest analogy to 'gender' dysphoria. As ever, I fail to see any justification for public measures to cater to people with either condition by pretending to agree with their misperception of their bodies. I am sorry for anyone suffering illness, mental or physical, but would prefer to see it treated rather than encouraged.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that " I'm happy to give my rights away"? Why do you think people have come together on this issue in the first place? To my mind it is because they sensed a line had been crossed. How we go about achieving our aims and goals may differ, but I suggest most have exactly the same goal - which is to re-assert the primacy of sex when it comes to single sex spaces, services and sports, and to reject the imposition of gender ideology in all its forms, including in schools.

May I point out that many women have PTSD, which may be classified as a mental illness or a disability, as a result of sexual abuse? Over 1 in 10 girls experience sexual abuse as a child. That's at least one girl in every classroom in the country. Rape is so widespread that 1 in 6 women will experience rape or attempted rape by a man in her lifetime.

This means that they are distressed by the presence of strange males when they are partially undressed (like going to the toilet!) or vulnerable.

If you allow any adult human males to have access to women's spaces, you make those spaces mixed sex, and you exclude women and girls who have been subjected to sexual abuse.

Why does the mental health of the males take precedence over the mental health of the females?

You will also remove a tiny refuge for girls currently being subjected to repeated sexual abuse by a male family member. More than one MNer has explained that female-only spaces were somewhere her childhood abuser wasn't allowed to follow her.

Why do males take precedence over females?

What happens next?

I guess that's up to the users of the third spaces.

It certainly isn't MY problem to sort out.

Exactly! I'm of the opinion that number 2 is the best and most realistic way to achieve your desired outcome. I'm not sure why people have jumped to any other conclusionL

I've been posting here for years albeit with a differnt username, and there have always been tensions between different approaches and people. I'm not here to make friends or join cliques so much as to share information and knowledge that may better assist in pushing back gender ideology, as I believe it is regressive and detrimental to the rights of women and girls, primarily. It is also highly authoritarian.