How did people start to believe in this trans stuff?

[IsThereAnEchoInHere]

I’m talking about the ’allys’, the one’s who believe in all this?
How did it make sense to them that women have penis’ now, that transwomen can compete with women, that men who were so oppressive yesterday can today be the most oppressed transwomen?

How did they get to that point?
How did it make sense to them?

To be complitely honest, I tried/ am trying to ’be nice’ and understand, but the more I read (from trans people, allys) the less it makes sense.
I wanted to understand, but my brain won’t let me.

I find your comparison of trans people being around other adults to any adult trying to enter children's spaces unsavory to be honest. I don't think there's a need for that as its not the question at hand so I think it's unfair to deflect with that.

I think there's room for conversation around ingrained privileges a transwoman might have from earlier in life and how those privileges can be harmful to women. I think at the moment there is a lack of acceptance on both sides from where I'm standing and I'm not sure we are at a place especially at the moment where those conversations could happen in open and honest ways where either side could really connect. They are happening well in small forums and I've seen it work well but it's not at the scale we'd need it to be at to really move things forward. I personally don't accept that the safeguarding that's frequently used as an argument to exclude trans women from female only spaces is needed to the extent its suggested. I find the idea that anyone would pretend to be female to access women's bathrooms to place cameras for example to be a bit far fetched when you consider the other much easier ways any man could access a woman's toilet. I do think there is an element of scaremongering in that respect and the few cases that do exist are talked about as if they're extremely commonplace when in context they aren't really. And I don't think it's appropriate to assume all transwomen have malicious intent just because some individuals have been. I do think twaw and I do think they should be able to receive specialist provision from informed providers under the umbrella of services for women and girls. Just as trans men should be able to access specialist provision under the umbrella of services for men and boys. I do however accept that this might need to it's own specialist provision for example support for trans women experiencing domestic violence who are supported by other trans women under the umbrella of a support agency and the equivalent within services for men and boys.

The thing is, James Barry is pretty much the only case that anyone can lint to that fits anything like the trans narrative. But there has always been a recurrent trope throughout history of women who masquerade as men in order to do things they would otherwise not be able to do. You find it in historical texts and novels - but crucially, this is always seen as a form of masquerade or fraud by women who want to have the freedoms or lifestyle of men — there is NO evidence that anyone, least of all the women concerned, ever thought they were “born in the wrong body” or were “really” men in the way the contemporary gender ideologists think of “transmen”. We know that James Barry was discovered to be a woman masquerading as a man. We know nothing about why, or what kind of “identity” she had (largely also because “identity” is also a contemporary preoccupation of ours that post dates Barry’s era).

Similarly, there are plenty of examples of men “disguising” themselves as women for various reasons of espionage or escape or acting or masquerade (in literature and in history — early modern texts are full of cross dressing as titillation or disguise) - but this is always understood as a masquerade and not as an identity or a genuine belief.

In any case, one or two historical examples is hardly much evidence. We know there is evidence of gay people in the historical record, but even that is actually pretty difficult to draw out into a cohesive history rather than a set of occluded historical practices and cultures. It is, however, demonstrably there. In contrast, there’s almost nothing that is suggestive of a history of “trans” identity in the way that current gender ideology thinks of it. And yet the idea that there were tons of trans people who went totally and completely unrecorded throughout history is not very plausible.

I think you will find James Barry was a women who wanted to be a doctor and a surgeon, which wasnt allowed in the 18th centurtly, who took on the role of a man, because she was capable of being a surgeon, but wasnt allowed to be, based on societal norms of the day. The transing of Joan of Arc is the same. So now any inspirational women of the past who raged against the limits put on women are now called trans men. It is an insult to those women.

I found it interesting reading the posts re historical references.
This is what I read on wiki after androgynous ppl were mentioned on a similar thread. I'm not a historian and have no idea how accurate it is...

"Androgyny is attested from earliest history and across world cultures. In ancient Sumer, androgynous and intersex men were heavily involved in the cult of Inanna.: 157–158  A set of priests known as gala worked in Inanna's temples, where they performed elegies and lamentations.: 285  Gala took female names, spoke in the eme-sall dialect, which was traditionally reserved for women, and appear to have engaged in sexual acts with men. In later Mesopotamian cultures, kurgarrū and assinnu were servants of the goddess Ishtar (Inanna's East Semitic equivalent), who dressed in female clothing and performed war dances in Ishtar's temples. Several Akkadian proverbs seem to suggest that they may have also engaged in sexual activity with men. Gwendolyn Leick, an anthropologist known for her writings on Mesopotamia, has compared these individuals to the contemporary Indian hijraa..."

Would be interesting to hear if anyone has more info.

@icanneverthinkofnc I totally agree !

This isn't trans specific though? This is something that straight men and women do as well. So I see that as separate from overall trans identity.

It is unsavoury but if a man felt it was their lived experience your logic would suggest that would be ok

As for males in female spaces are you ok with any representation? So the Canadian teacher with huge prosthetic breasts or a Barbie Kardashian, or man with a beard who just says he feels like a woman - do you have any lines or does anything go for you?

I still think you’re down playing the feelings of women to prioritise the feelings of men, why is that?

Hubby and I will never get it a man's a man a woman's a woman lol

It's very possible that what you're saying is the case, but then I think we also need to consider how wildly under represented women are in history in general. The same applies to lgb history. How many victorian ladies had 'very good friends' who they lived with. Possible they were unmarried and felt safer living with another woman or very possible they were a couple at a time when it would not have been socially accepted. My point is that we can't rule it out either because I think it's unlikely there were never any trans men and that trans men are somehow a new occurance. In that note I've enjoyed the debate and hearing different points of view is all food for thought.

Do you understand that by allowing transwomen into women's spaces, you're now allowing any male person in there? Surely you can't believe that it would never happen? Every space is now mixed sex because of this.
There are no safeguards, a man can decide he's now a woman in the morning and go straight into changing rooms with you/your child/your mum/sister etc by the afternoon. And if anyone objects, they are the ones with the problem apparently.

I just don't get how people can't see any problems with this. Is it that you assume it won't be you that is harmed by this, so as long as it's some other woman it doesn't matter?

Ok, several points there so I'll take them 1 at a time.

People do sometimes have it about their bodies - for example people who have limbs removed because they feel "wrong".

Body dysmorphia is definitely a thing - the limb one, anorexia etc. However, the vast majority of trans people (as currently defined) don't have it. And in all other cases of dysmorphia the treatment is not to affirm it, but to offer therapy to help people accept their bodies as they are. Surgical removal of limbs for body dysmorphia is banned almost all over the world, and nobody would dream of treating anorexia with gastric surgery.

I don't think people want or need to make sense of it as such.

The average person on the street, for most social purposes, probably doesn't need to. But legislators and regulators do - they can't just wave it away.

Regarding the penis, one could argue that the penis does not maketh the man. A man could lose a penis in a terrible accident and still be a man. Ergo, if penis does not equal man, then penis does not NOT equal woman.

That's a Mad Hatter argument. It looks as if it might mean something at first glance, but not when you actually examine it. If a man who has his penis remains a man (which I agree with), then a man who still has his penis is also very definitely a man.

Now competitive sports, this is a very tricky one IMO but I have seen various studies or medical information / Dr quotes etc that suggest in some cases there is no natural obvious inherent advantage for over sex over another etc.

That is true for a small number of sports - many of which are already not segregated by sex (such as showjumping). But for any sports in which there is a male advantage, that advantage is retained by transwomen. Hormone treatment may - over sufficient time - reduce muscle mass (although still not to women's levels) but it doesn't shrink men's skeletons or lungs, it doesn't change their pelvic angles or skull thickness .... etc. It does not make competition with women fair.

There are also examples of eg intersex sportspeople who've been categorised one way or another and subsequently had a tough time.

Not sure what exactly you mean by 'a tough time', but DSDs are medical conditions entirely unrelated to trans identity.

Finally, there's also the argument it's harmful for trans people to be excluded from sports as it "others" them.

They are not excluded from sports. Transmen can comepete in their sex category (provided - like other women - they don't break doping rules); transwomen can compete in their sex category. Everyone is included!

What they are excluded from is competing in the category for the opposite sex. And it is considerably more harmful for women to be deprived of places, rankings, prize money, scholarships, and to be physically injured in contact sports, than it is for transwomen to feel 'othered'.

I mean there are women who choose to have plastic surgery to look a particular way and 'barbie-esque', there are women with natural beards etc. I feel like it's up to the individual what they choose to look like. I don't find a trans woman who has an overtly stereotypically feminine look offensive because there are other women who choose that look and I support their right to make that choice. I wear makeup, some women would be of the opinion I shouldn't as makeup historically caters to the male gaze. As far as I'm concerned that's my choice to make. And not all trans women dress in that way. I know a number who dress just the way any average woman would. I think there's a particular image of trans women that immediately springs to mind but I don't think that it's fair to think that is representing all trans women.

Gender ideology is just the latest in a long-line of ideologies that seem to come from nowhere, then spread like wildfire.

Witchcraft is an example. Most of the countries affected by witchcraft persecutions in the 16/17 centuries had pretty vague witchcraft beliefs prior to that. Most medieval people believed in witches in kind of the way we believe in ghosts: hard to completely rule out, and maybe they sometimes influence us, but you're not expecting to meet one down the market of a Saturday morning. Then suddenly, without any modern communications and with most of the population illiterate, people all across Europe and north America start being terrified that witches are round every corner. How did that happen?

Many other examples out there. It's a weird and fascinating aspect of human society.

That's not what I said if you reread my post.

Well, there is plenty of women’s history, and in fact always was, despite the fact that women demonstrably did not have the same freedoms as men. And the examples you point to are all associated with lesbian history — nearly all the figures or practices trans activists point to as trans were actually about homosexuality or sane sex desire, NOT trans identity in the current sense. It is a co-opting, even a colonising, of gay and lesbian history — which is emphatically NOT a history of “trans” ideology.

As a historian of sexuality who is a lesbian myself, I’ve both researched and taught on this topic, and I can assure you that none of the examples trans activists give are very plausible: but they are very interested indeed in recasting gay men and women, and women who fought for civil rights and freedoms, as “trans”, despite zero evidence for this.

Can you explain why you think males have been excluded from female single sex spaces in the past?

And in what way a male person who is trans is different from any other male person? Including lovely kind male people that we still exclude from female single sex spaces.

Typo in my post above:

"If a man who has lost his penis remains a man ..."

Um thanks for spending all that time unnecessarily rebuffing the points in my post and all, not sure how that's relevant to the OP though? Which specifically asked how "people start to believe trans stuff"?

I'm not whatsoever interested in debating any of those points, or indeed making them from my personal viewpoint.

This isn't trans specific though? This is something that straight men and women do as well. So I see that as separate from overall trans identity.

How is that separate? The person in question is undeniably trans, they helped write trans policies for the Canadian Government fgs.

Show me other men, who still claim to be men and straight and women who still claim to be women and straight who not only do this publicly and proudly but influence Government policy.

ilovetea i agree that if woman/man is solely a feeling, and nothing to do with male or female-sex bodies, as you say, then you would see women (including trans women) with male bodies as well as female bodies.

So what is the rationale for providing, for example, "top surgery" for trans men but not breast enlargements?

Either both are "healthcare", or neither are. Frankly I fail to see how any alteration of bodies - hormones, dress, surgery has anything to do with gender in this case.

As gender is not about bodies, cosmetic surgery should therefore be available in the same way to anyone regardless of whether they are trans or not. Unless they are transsexual, I guess, where it is acknowledged it is the sex of the body that they wish to alter - again, entirely separate from gender transitions, where presumably the "feeling/soul" is what changes.

So a full beard on a man or Barbie K distorted features would not be an issue. It’s not Barbie-esque btw. Maybe you should google who the male is.

No answer on why you prioritise the feelings of men over women though.

We love to read the studies. Can you please link up the evidence that has convinced you that ”that suggest in some cases there is no natural obvious inherent advantage for over sex over another etc”?

Do you understand that people you call intersex, those who have differences in sex development (we have had quite a number come and post that ‘intersex’ is offensive to them), are reliably either male or female. One group has a body that doesn’t respond to testosterone, but other male people do, regardless of their genital configuration.

Importantly, those male athletes have advantages over female people.

I think a combination of covid (lock down), social media, echo chambers, unchallenged views, grotesque funding unto mainstream institutions such as healthcare and education. And most importantly self-governing entitled men.

I wouldn’t use Wikipedia to learn about this: it’s not very reliable on many aspects of this topic. We certainly know that there have always been men and women who were born with what are now called DSDs, and have been variously called hermaphroditism, androgyny or intersex at different times.

There have also been occasional practices of castrating a few men for various reasons, often social, caste-related, because of DSDs, or as part of gay male communities.

We should be very careful not to conflate historical communities of male prostitutes, often lower caste or slaves, with the current idea of “gender identity” — they are really not the same, and communities of marginalised gay men in some cultures — like Hijra — have been co-opted into the trans narrative, when the reality is that these were often very low-caste men, sometimes living from a young age in socially shunned communities of male prostitutes, who dressed partly as women as a way of making a meagre living from forms of sex work, entertainment, and begging.

Pretending that intersex people and various other marginalised people in history were actually “trans” is really historically and culturally inaccurate, but it’s frequently done in gender identity discourse, because it seems to lend some kind of credibility to what is a very different set of ideas.

I find this whole shebang to be a bit Shakespearean overall.

In one sense we are arguing esoterically about the meaning of the text when the reality is there under the language all along.

There is nothing actually complicated about a man wanting to be a woman. He might want it but it will be forever out of his reach. All this overworked drama makes no difference.

His pound of flesh is still his pound of flesh no matter who he convinces it can pay a due, with or without the knife.