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

Knowing how articulate your answers and many other's answers were, I don't think we believe you are just saying 'no'.....

Mind you, 'no' is a very powerful word and should be acceptable just as it is.

yes.

This is exactly what is happening here.

So you should know all about the campaigns women are involved in. I'm posting some links for you, because despite your assertions you don't seem very well informed.

sex-matters.org/

fairplayforwomen.com/

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4722618-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-2

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4688427-repeal-the-gra

Thank cripes for The Big Bigot Bench.

All this saying no could get tiring standing up.

It would be helpful to get a serious answer to this question if you can give one?

This was me in Spring 2018.

And that made me cryptofascist, apparently!

My bum went all funny when I read the thread where Debbie Hayton’s massive hypocrisy was laid bare while he posted

I practically cringed myself inside out. The women on that thread were so mean!

he’s still a massive hypocrite though, regardless of how embarrassed women telling him that makes me feel

it’s a branch of victim blaming: ‘nice girls don’t talk about that kind of thing.’

@CryptoFascistMadameCholet

Do you remember whose handy husband had been tasked to build the Big Bigot Bench? And who was crocheting blankets for all sat on it?

Turns out in spite of all that, I'm really not welcome on it at all.

Nah, you can still sit here!

You just need to listen to us drone on about the last 5-10 years in the gender wars or stick your headphones in for a bit.

(If anyone fancies something productive to do we are trying to put together a timeline of Scottish paedos in influential positions over on another thread - I’m multi tasking while filing a floor 🙂)

How utterly ridiculous Scratched you are welcome on it. You always were welcome on it.

And yes, me and others will push back on language that we see as inflammatory next time someone posts in that fashion.

You have said you don't see it as that way, would you have posted it knowing that it would be perceived that way?

Strewth. My question was completely genuine, not sarcasm.

I would genuinely like to know what you personally think is the 'right' way to get this solution. Because you appear to think there is a right way to you

I have no idea what that is.

Women campaigned vehemently, relentlessly and to the point of exhaustion to get self ID taken off the table at Westminster. And we succeeded.

Self ID was taken off the table in Scotland, because of a man in a pair of leggings.

At no point, has a compromise been considered. At no point was the solution felt to be anything other than women saying absolutely not, no how, no way, never.

I have no idea what a solution would look like that involves any kind of compromise.

you have been asked half a dozen times or so to show what you think is an effective solution that involves cooperation and diplomacy, and you have failed to do so.

Do not think it's possible that it's because it sounds positive in your head but when you see it in real life, you realise it doesn't work?

LeafStamp just posted this on another thread so I figured it could have another airing over here:

Seriously, I cannot recommend the mantra ‘you do you’ enough

some people want to play some sort of long game where they demonstrate their humanity to men while campaigning to remove them from women’s spaces? Fine

some people want to go straight to ‘no’? Also fine

just be able to explain why you do what you do. Particularly if you’re trying to persuade others to do it your way

Maybe "suspecting" is another place you've been going wrong. @DameMaud had an interesting post about hearing "tones".

If it helps, unless I am obviously making jokes, or using other linguistic tools to soften my tone, please imagine that a cyborg is typing to you. Or maybe Amazon Alexa.

I am asking because I want to know. Your posts have come across to multiple people as advocating that women compromise and accept some males.
You say you did not mean this. Either we have misunderstood and you did not suggest any compromise, or we have misunderstood the nature of the compromise, and you have another idea in mind. On the subject of minds, I cannot read yours. I am.relying on what you type to understand you.

Your latest posts have focused on a need to understand gender identity theory. I already think we do understand, and very well indeed; in fact, I could do a better job arguing for male inclusion in women's spaces now than most activists.

But if the issue is lack of understanding of the different motivations (if I'm using that word correctly) that drive gender identity adherents, then what do you think we will do differently once we understand?

If we're being honest (and this is the genuinely the first time I've said anything that I would consider inflammatory in this thread, and again, normally I'd not say this) - I think people who level casual accusations of abuse at others are utterly vile.

Ah, now this is interesting, because this is the exact issue we've been having all along, and here we are going to have a quick detour to one of my soapboxes. You unthinkingly presume that only your perception counts, and you don't think it's the writer's/speaker's responsibility to ever taake responsibility for ensuring clarity. You think the burden of comprehension is all on the audience, and that carries over. I would (perhaps arrogantly) posit that this because you do not have a disability that has forced you to think about any of this consciously. I, on the other hand, had huge childhood speech issues, and had to realise that I couldn't spend my life blaming other people for not being able.to understand me. I also had huge issues with English- worst subject as mentioned. I dragged that GCSE subject up to an A with sweat and tears, because I realised that I could not spend my life blaming other people for not understanding me. I had to work to compensate for my issues. I have not conquered them, but I have massively improved them. I was a 16 year old with a disability affecting spoken and written communication. What is your excuse, Dr Scratched?

You are in a group discussion where people keep telling you that they find you inflammatory. Do you simply think we're lying, or do you think our opinions are too irrational to value? It surely has to be one of those two, but maybe there is a third option I'm not seeing. Don't you think that ignoring feedback on your tone is somewhat at odds with your attitude that we need to be more understanding? You're not trying to understand anyone else. What is the actual point of typing anything to anyone if you don't want to try to be understood? You might as well save your internet device's battery.

P.S. I'm never casual about anything, but as far as I'm concerned, I accept it if you find me vile. Better than being called odd.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs I am GENUINELY having difficulty working out what the question is? Is it related to this?

I really think this poster would like us to be able to say no to men, but in a way that those men find acceptable and palatable. And then they'll agree.

This is just a version of 'be kind'. And I'm not advocating that.

But if someone like the OP comes onto a board in good faith, it's an opportunity to get them to understand why we say no. And I think that's important.

I doggedly spent ages talking to a staunch 'trans women are women' friend of mine until a penny dropped and the lights went on and she totally got it. She now frequently says, 'I used to think x until you told me'. She is also massively concerned that other women out there just won't get it because they don't access it the way she thinks I do.

Had I responded with anger irritation or hostility to her belief, she would still be twaw. Possibly even more entrenched. At no point did I soften or compromise my views.

So I am saying 'no' but I am suggesting to do so in a way that doesn't shoot us in the bloody foot.

So it’s the way the women on this thread spoke to the men who started it / joined it and advocated that they should be given special treatment that you object to?

it’s not what was said but how it was said?

Gee thanks. Having been on the receiving end of colossally offensive nastiness, I crack the nod after all. Go back and read carefully the summary of stuff I've been accused of and tell me how that's just "pushing back". It's really shit.

Okay. I can try that:

Women get raped and beaten by men. That's why we don't want men in our spaces.

Also some of us just don't want men in our spaces. Because they're women's spaces.

Is that better?

I'm fairly certain this is to me.

For people fresh to this board, I need to explain something to everyone.

Dear general public: I am, in my own way, an incredibly vile, pedantic person. Part of it is personality, and part of it is resentment of other people's laziness, because I know how hard I had to work to learn to talk clearly, and how to write so people could follow my thoughts at all. You think you don't like Helleofabore? Wait until you annoy me.

And now, for Scratched

Madam, I did not say you were sneering at people for not having PhDs. I said you sneered at people for speaking English as a second language. For the love of sweet furry animals from Alpha Centuri, how can you disparage people as having not read the thread when they have been posting for pages, and then misread one lousy paragraph that badly? What sort of hypocrisy is this?

I'll copy and paste for you.

Instead of sneering at any MNers on the board who speak English as a second language (which was very xenophobic btw), what about making your posts accessible? You could at least tell me if I was on the right track.

But if someone like the OP comes onto a board in good faith, it's an opportunity to get them to understand why we say no. And I think that's important.

I do appreciate that, and theoretically, I agree... but honestly, IME, the vast majority who don’t really care why women say no, they just want a carve out for themselves (eg Debbie Hayton).

The handful of transitioned people who really care about what women are saying don’t want that carve out (eg Miranda Yardley).

I'll own 'pedantic'. I am pedantic.

I dunno about vile, I thought I was quite nice, sometimes. And sometimes horrible. Like most people.

I think that there is another interesting thing about this thread and it is about perception.

I have read and reread the posts before OP left. And I am not talking about the ones that went into surrogacy. I am focused on the ones discussing the use of female spaces. I don't see 'hostile', I see people saying no and often with very well articulated reasons.

There seems to be quite a lot of perception differences.

And I do remember asking questions because I am like others, really confused by the use of 'compromise' etc.

I still don't understand what the point of using 'compromise' on this thread was for. Just like others questioned it to. Because the 'compromise' as described by another poster didn't seem to be a 'compromise' either and was basically telling women to do what they have already done. Whether that poster realised they were doing that or not.

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either but right through every human heart and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Fucksake, Mumsnet, you've fucked up Aleksandr Solzhenitysn. Ignore that strikethrough, it's some kind of formatting glitch.

Also dropping this wonderful quote from JKR article in the BBC today:

''Rowling later said many questions do not necessarily have clear-cut answers.

"There is a huge appeal, and I try to show this in the Potter books, to black and white thinking.

"It's the easiest place to be and in many ways it's the safest place to be. If you take an all-or-nothing position on anything, you will definitely find comrades, you will easily find a community. 'I've sworn allegiance to this one simple idea.'

"What I've tried to show in the Potter books, and what I feel strongly myself, is that we should mistrust ourselves most when we are certain."''