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

A poster uses polarising words and let’s face it, inflammatory words, yet you are here talking about ‘both sides’ using polarising words, when women have said ‘no’ and then had to bolster that when that boundary was ignored. A poster then chides those woman for not responding in the way they are comfortable with using inflammatory words.

@Helleofabore I refer you back to the dictionary definitions I posted earlier. YOU are the one who is policing tone here, and you're doing it using very unpleasant tactics. You are picking at a nit (that doesn't exist), until it begs for euthanasia.

<screams into pillow>

<strains vocal cords>

<loses voice>

This isn't particularly a linguistic discussion I wanted to get into, but why would "rip into" mean "criticize someone very severely"? Why does it mean that, and not connote, say, strong agreement?

Because "ripping" is a verb that means to tear something apart, in a way that causes it physical damage in the process. Envelopes, packets, muscles after sports injuries. When people use it in a figurative context, they are drawing on that. It's creative language.

I'm not adverse to people using creative language, even if it's a skill I've never developed (English was my worst subject; in the end, I resorted to strategically employing semi-colons in my dull compositions, purely so the examiner would be forced to give my work higher grades) but it's a bit odd to deny its nature.

Yes, I am tone policing. I own that I am doing so.

So you don't feel using those words are inflammatory? Ok. Great. I recommend then that next time you use them on FWR that you take note of the reaction it creates on other threads. I would be surprised if you got any positive reaction at all, but I am very happy to be proved wrong.

I found your posts confusing, and others did too. Hence you received the reaction you did. I found your words inflammatory and from the reaction before I asked question, so did others.

And I found your posts used 'unpleasant tactics' which is why we are having this conversation.

yep - thanks neighbourhood you have nailed it.

"Because "ripping" is a verb that means to tear something apart, in a way that causes it physical damage in the process"

it's a bit odd to deny its nature.

Oh good grief.

Yes. She's read the thread. We seem to be at an impasse. You think you are not telling women to be kind, yet multiple women (including me) read your posts as saying that we need to be kind and offer a compromise.

You say this is not what you mean when pressed. Could you clarify your actual meaning, in less than two paragraphs?

Set the agenda for negotiations, if you were moderating.

And you don’t think those terms are inflammatory to use on this board at all?

No, I categorically do not think those words are inflammatory. They are dictionary definition appropriate. I do however wonder if you speak English as a second language?

can you please answer the question, if you use those terms and your posts seem to come across as censuring a group for their views, what did you expect the reaction to be?

I am not censuring the group for its views. I agree with its views. My posts were NEVER about the groups views.

What did I expect the reaction to be? Not this - copied below again. Not in this forum, on this topic, not to another GC feminist:

In response, posters have accused me of appeasement, patronisingly of naïveté and less experience than posters who disagree, that I'm advocating for fawning obeisance, that I am defending these men, that I'm being "just be kind", that I can't say 'no' to men, DARVO, that I am expecting women to give energy to helping men with their feelings, that I am emotionally manipulative and trying to silence women, cruelly defending the rights of men to use female spaces, starting a conversation that upsets women requiring flowers to be passed, that I think we should invite men into womens toilets, implying I'll hand wave away a story about an experience of sexual assault in a toilet, that I am envisaging a solution where women agree to be kind and protective, supporting the OP in violating boundaries, attempting to shame posters,

Did my saying pages back that the term was emotionally manipulative even cause you to think about it?

No. It really really really didn't. I know what both phrases mean. I genuinely think you're a bit odd.

What I did think though, is somewhere in the back of my mind, I think I've seen you do this to other posters before. I'm making a mental note to watch out for it in future so if I see it, I can jump in and tell them not to waste the time I have.

@NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision Thankyou. I have indeed read the whole thread, and even gone back to reread parts. I only got an A in English A level so may not be clear but it seems obvious to me that @scratchedbymycat is exhorting women to be kind and centre males whilst allowing those males to trample all over their rights, insulting them whilst they do so. My days of being kind are long gone.

"Like you, I fear a damaging compromise being imposed on us - ie single sex spaces in name only - but we just have to keep battling. The important thing to remember is that the general public are on our side. And also, reality always wins in the end."

A damaging compromise being imposed on us also happens through people (general 'people', ie not aimed at any posters) discussing that women compromise and much use of that word, yet not one new and workable compromise being suggested.

A compromise was suggested and was suggested many years ago. And was rejected. Third spaces and creative naming of those spaces. Rejected.

What we have now is the growth of gender neutral spaces which don't suit many people at all. That was the 'compromise' to the 'compromise'.

Telling women to compromise leads to solutions that are adopted that are not a workable solution.

But what seems to be the disconnect, is that there are pleas to compromise yet when this is actively explored on a thread, the result is the use of the word 'compromise' for an as yet unexplored option, which seems fucking unbelievable after all this time that no workable option has not yet been tabled and explored, but that the posters are still supporting 'no males in the female spaces'.

It is like a sleight of hand move and is dishonest because it positions a group of women as 'hardline' when the reality is those using the word 'compromise' have the same 'hardline'.

It is what we have always seen, 'I don't want to be seen as x even in nearly all my motivations are the same but they are loud and rude, so I will distance myself from x, yet what I want in this particular instance is the same as x'.

@Sugarfree23 I agree re the hospital ward issue and also men "owning" standing up for themselves that wearing a dress and being a man should be acceptable. It comes down to personal taste and preference. As women we have so much freedom in what we can wear (in the UK, less so in some countries e.g. where there are strict religious rules).

I wonder if the solution to help trans women (men who want to dress in a "female way") feel more safe in male hospital wards is that they should be considered for a side room. This is similar to the hidden disabilities support for someone with autism if that person can't cope with the noise on the ward (not all autistic people need this reasonable adjustment). Obviously the reasons behind the need for the reasonable adjustment are completely different but I would happily support it. I'm a mum of an autistic child and I've seen the difference that reasonable adjustments can make.

This way, everyone is in a ward for their biological sex and any trans woman who feels vulnerable on the men's ward (or trans man who feels vulnerable on the women's ward) can be supported. In the mean time trans women can campaign for acceptance in wearing whatever they choose.

If this is combined with proper mental health support for gender dysphoria, which should either help people understand and accept their own body as is (or as a last resort choosing surgery) it would be a huge help I believe.

Above all it would achieve the outcome of safe access to single sex spaces for women (while also supporting a minority population to feel safe).

Screaming suggests irrational and dare I say it 'hysterical'. That's why it's used.

'Ripping into' is the way of trying to discredit rational well thought out counter arguments through an appeal to emotion. It's a guilt trip for anyone who disagrees firmly.

Both are ways to say 'we should not be talking about this because it hurts my feelings'.

There is no thought about how failure to discuss this has caused distress to women. It has had practical impacts leading to loss of facilities and loss of employment. It has forced some from public life. It has removed the dignity and privacy of others. And at its most extreme has resulted in sexual assaults.

And women are told they are being unreasonable for pointing this out because the male has hurt feelings.

Why do you think women have become incredulous at this total lack of respect and dismissive attitude?

All because a male thinks they deserve special treatment despite all this. That's a staggering amount of entitlement which wouldnt be tolerated by males on other subjects.

We know all this. We know the language and guilt is about trying to control women.

The ultimate point here is that women want to control their own lives and define themselves on their own terms. They don't want to be second class and this is where the problem is. Trans women want to be women only in terms of appearance. They want a class of their own which hierarchically is below men, but above women.

This is not acceptable in the UK in 2023.

Excuse me, I need to quake behind the settee at even the thought of taking English at A-level.

Seriously, scratched, there is no use typing out multiple paragraphs across the multiple posts, using the same sort of vague language each time, and then complaining you are no further forward in making yourself understood.

Jibes at other people for being "odd", or implications that their literacy is poor, are not sterling examples of productive communication or consensus building, either.

No, I categorically do not think those words are inflammatory. They are dictionary definition appropriate. I do however wonder if you speak English as a second language?

I have English as a first language. I can't speak for anyone else, but my two-penn'orth: saying 'ripping into' someone has a clearly different, and much stronger/more aggressive connotation and mood, from something like 'strongly disagreeing with'.

Synonyms for 'rip into' in the thesaurus include: attack, damn, savage, harangue, tear apart, tell off, castigate. All again have the same mood and connotation.

Dictionary definitions are written deliberately 'flatly', with no value judgement (for want of a better phrase). Thesauruses are much more instructive about the sense/mood with which words and phrases are imbued.

My posts were NEVER about the groups views.

And yet, I am not the only poster to have interpreted them that way.

I read your response last night.

And you think I am a 'bit odd'? Yet, you wrote all of that and never once thought genuinely 'why'? When people are telling you why they are writing the things they are writing? You just assumed a stance of what? victimhood? Because people didn't respond to your post as you wished they would?

Oh, I know my faults. And yes, I have done this before. I am pretty clear about analysing people's posts because I seek to find what motivates them.

I also have asked people who jump into threads and use 'echo chamber' and other inflammatory language why they expect a positive response. You are the first to reply.

So, I thank you for that. I think I understand now because you did answer and you don't see the denigration in your words. I appreciate the answer.

You are making sensible, practical suggestions....every one of which is rejected by the other side.
It's hard to understand when you are a reasonable, compassionate, empathetic person but your attitude and concern is not reciprocated. Only total capitulation to their demands, total acceptance of colonisation and erasure of women as a class is acceptable to the TRAs.

Sadly, I am just echoing what so many others have already said.

Those suggestions have all been suggested years ago and rejected.

In fact, hospital trusts are now told to NOT other these males by treating them differently. Side rooms can be seen as 'othering'.

After immense cognitive effort to try and understand, I and my poor English skills wonder if what you, scratchedbymycat are trying to communicate is... your personal conviction that women cannot regain our rights to single-sex spaces?

You think that we are going to be forced to accept something that enshrines our status as second-class citizens, and you think that pragmatically, we need to realise that so we can get some input on the details?

Are you trying to communicate that having a negotiated surrender with terms will work out better for women than fighting and losing the battle, because the victor would take all?

@RedToothBrush
Great post, thank you!

Jibes at other people for being "odd", or implications that their literacy is poor, are not sterling examples of productive communication or consensus building, either.

And this is all true too.

I won't use them on FWR again. Because I'm truly done. I am genuinely genuinely gobsmacked. I think I've had a taste of what critics refer to.

Honestly, I do think you need to pause for a bit and think about this.

I've spent over five years intensively researching this issue; I worked as a political activist for 15 years dealing with some seriously intractable issues in contexts far more serious than even the gender issue; I attend the GC protests; I hand out flyers at events; I do my best to mobilise women in my area. I even have a PhD in an appropriate related topic.

But I can't speak here without having my words turned against me in the most bizarre ways, all because I dared to suggest that engaging with someone who said they posted here in good faith might be beneficial long term. I don't believe I said this in a nasty or offensive or unkind way at all. The response was - and still relentlessly is - to cast me as the kind of person this thread can't abide, and to do so in terms ( quoted twice in previous posts) that are offensive to anyone engaged in this topic. I think they are calculatedly offensive, with the intention of silencing and ridiculing. I ignored them for a long time until it just seemed counterproductive to do so.

We have definitely reached an impasse. I don't think this is a space for me. I hope I will find a space because I need one for my own sanity but I think there seriously needs to be one where the 'silent centre' - as Abigail Shriver phrased it - starts speaking. If this was my job in my previous life, my instinct would be telling me we have limited time left, and that worries me desperately.

It's one thing for a trans women like the OP to pop in and feel they can't stay. But nor can I. I honestly do not think that the loss of either of us benefits the goal of trying to achieve change, but you will probably disagree, and that's fine.

Good luck to you all.

I wonder if the solution to help trans women (men who want to dress in a "female way") feel more safe in male hospital wards is that they should be considered for a side room.

Side rooms are in short supply and are used for medical reasons. If a man want to wear 'female' bed clothes in a hospital ward, great. But does it really take priority over someone who needs the space?

All because a male thinks they deserve special treatment despite all this. That's a staggering amount of entitlement which wouldnt be tolerated by males on other subjects.

Thank you Red.

I've spent over five years intensively researching this issue; I worked as a political activist for 15 years dealing with some seriously intractable issues in contexts far more serious than even the gender issue; I attend the GC protests; I hand out flyers at events; I do my best to mobilise women in my area. I even have a PhD in an appropriate related topic.

This is a genuine question, not vexatious:
What do you hand out flyers for?
What do you mobilise women for?

Is it single-sex spaces? Or not? If not, what are you hoping for? What do you think is the compromise that is not single-sex spaces but which will keep trans people and women (women of all stripes inc different religions etc) happy?

OK. Thanks. I will take that on board. As well as your other answers and posts.

And by the way words are just about dictionary definition.

They are also about intent.

When women write: 'human adult female' they are told this is transphobic because of the intent behind the word.
When males say its just a dictionary definition, women are supposed to suck it up.

Words have power not just meaning. The last couple of pages of this thread illustrate it well.

Women don't want to surrender nor give up the power they have, which is less than the power than men possess.

This debate ALWAYS comes back to male power over women. ALWAYS.

Thats what the TRAs AND the 'good' transsexuals can't stand being pointed out.

It gets framed as 'absolutionist' and extreme for women to hold their ground and assert themselves and their existing right to privacy, dignity and public participation. Things they already lack compared to males.

Really its down to males not budging up, and women being conditioned via a million different methods to put up and shut up.

Why should we?

Sorry:

And by the way words aren't just about dictionary definition.