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 know who barbie k is without needing to Google thanks, I was using the term barbie-esque to describe over the top stereotypically feminine features that some people receive plastic surgery to obtain which some women find an offensive representation of women.

Could you explain to me where I have prioritised the feeling of men over women please?

Yes but being trans and your own personal kink are seperate- being trans is not a kink. Being a 'little' is as evidenced by all the people of various genders who practice said kink. So they are separate.

Could you explain to me where I have prioritised the feeling of men over women please?

If you believe TW are women then it follows you believe they should be included in all things that are for women, irrespective of the impact on women.

Yes but being trans and your own personal kink are seperate- being trans is not a kink. Being a 'little' is as evidenced by all the people of various genders who practice said kink. So they are separate.

You are really reaching to disavow the influence of this trans person.

I quite liked the Samoan prime minister’s statement about Faʻafafine during the weight lifting Olympic discussion. He reminded the world that Faʻafafine people were male and always recognised as male by Samoans.

Mental health issues escalating and but nobody dare suggest it in case we offend.

Yes but being trans and your own personal kink are seperate- being trans is not a kink

It blatantly is for lots of transwomen. You need to stop with these sweeping generalisations which don’t apply to the whole trans community. “Euphoria boners” are valid and a totally normal experience for women to have when we put on our woman clothes - well, that’s what the MtF subreddit thinks.

The problem I believe is to do with the worship of self.

I would suggest that's because of the level of body dysphoria people experience. I believe that yes gender is separate from biological sex, but I can understand how living as one in your mind and in yourself but seeing the body of the opposite in the mirror would be difficult. Never mind the social aspect where people will repeatedly see you as the opposite of who you feel you are. I think that's where the scale I talked about earlier comes in and where each person feels they fit on that scale. They want their physical body to match their mentality as that's the body they walk through the world in? I would also suggest many women have flat chests so having a flat chest would not necessarily 'out' you as being a transwoman whereas having large breasts as a transman would potentially cause more of an issue for that person which is why many transmen choose to bind. If I'm correct (which I may not be on this) but I think it can also depend on the level of acute distress the individual is experiencing regarding a particular body area.

In fairness that is not what I said when you asked how I felt protected spaces should be managed if that's what you're referring to. You can reread my posts. I said I felt they should fall under the umbrella of and specialist support should be provided.

This website is an echo chamber for unhappy women who want a scapegoat for their feelings, such as trans people.

I thought I would just highlight this.

This is as good as the rebuttals get.

Listening to the excellent investigation and expose of the Lighthouse organisation/ cult, on BBC sounds I was struck by some of the ways this group operated were very familiar to the group that believes you can change sex etc. particularly in isolating members from friends and family , and what sounded like a form of brainwashing. Plus extraction of large sums of money.

Ok I'll give this a go.

I think trans ally's fall into a number of different groups.

1. The super ally's. These are people that are attracted to the ideology because of the "specialness" they perceive (and witness) being trans confers on someone. They can't quite bring themselves to "be" trans, they can't fake being homosexual (though they might flirt with terms like pan sexual) but they generally sail as close as they can to the wind by being NB or identify as Queer and enjoy being part of a group that indulges their own sense of being something other than the "average" person they are.

1. The social justice warriors. They have camped at greenham common, former hunt sabs, marched for gay rights, in support of Palestine, are part of extinction rebellion and just stop oil. In short they are career activists. The topic is less important than the opportunity to "stick it to the man" or in this case woman. The thinking is not deep because they gain satisfaction from being out of step from the views of mainstream society - to the point if/when mainstream society "catches up" they need to move on to the next "big thing" and after gay marriage Stonewall, with its extensive reach and T inclusion managed to reinvigorate and retain this cohort who might have otherwise drifted off elsewhere.

1. The Sheeple. Ally's whose social circle has been infected by this ideology and prefer to let other people do their thinking for them. They don't have to struggle with any cognitive dissonance because they avoid the cognitive in the first place.

1. The Social Fearful. As above re: their social circle but they are prepared to engage their brain. Thing is having done so they make a choice which is to sacrifice logic in favour of fitting in with their tribe. Disquiet is pushed away to the back of the brain in favour of jockeying for position with their peers on their credentials in being "on the right side of history" through social media posts, demonstrating etc

Make of that what you will.

Caring about, or yes, being unhappy and scared about, how the struggles and advances of feminism are facing setbacks and backlashes as a result of the gender essentialism inherent in the reactionary and regressive views of (some, not all) trans people and allies isn't scapegoating.

I'm very much against TWAW and firmly, indisputably believe in women's sex-based rights. However, you are showing ignorance by rubbishing that post, and it's not a good look. There is a lot of good scholarship on the subject - not that any of it could justify the argument that men are entitled to women's sex-based rights (or entitled to undermine them). Nevertheless, ilovetea42's post is basically right.

If you accept that history is written by the powerful and the winners, then you have to accept that white males are writing the history at the moment. Many TW are white males. Women have never had the power to influence historical records much and you continue to deny them opportunities to do so. Does that not bother you?

Are you saying everyone in acute distress should be offered all the plastic surgery they need to address that distress? Whether that's changing the appearance of your genitals or breast enlargement for females? (as examples)

I believe strongly in those social justice causes you list. Most are very much backed up by science and are of vital importance to our future.

I think being against nuclear proliferation, understanding the urgency of acting on global warming, caring about animals killed in bloodsports, or having a view on Palestine are actually more likely to be aligned with feminism. I certainly learned much about feminism at Greenham Common as a small child and I'm now accused of being a "70s feminist" (polite term for terf) by friends who believe in the more 3rd wave, gender-essentialist style feminism (if you can call it feminism if it's gender essentialist?).

Having said that, I know trans allies who also believe in all those listed causes and their perspective seems to be a post-post-post-whatever idea that feminism hasn't worked so the next step is to transcend gender essentialism with gender performativity. So their idea is that once we all choose out of an increasingly absurd number of possible genders, the stereotypes of "masculinity" and "femininity" will be made obsolete or rendered meaningless, thus solving the problem of gender essentialism by doing it to death, as it were.

At least, that's the closest I've got in my understanding of the answer to the OP's question, in ten years now of talking to trans friends, reading blogs and articles, reading feminist theory, etc. etc.. It's very hard because, as others have said, people rarely answer if you ask them.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Why do bodies or appearances need any kind of alteration to go alongside a change in/ recognition of what kind of feeling you have? In fact, isn't it massively transphobic to suggest that a male person with woman-gender would even want to look female, as that reinforces the idea (that TRAs are dead against) that there is something necessarily female-bodied about a woman?

I'm not happy excluding some women from mainstream services for women. If TWAW they should be allowed access to evey single woman's service. You would be called a transphobe by many for your suggestion of separate services. For me, tw are men and to even ask for access to women's services is male privilege in action

I'm not sure of the racial demographic of transwomen as I'm aware of transwomen of all ethnicities. So I'm not wholly convinced that white trans women are the ones in the seats of power rewriting history. I'd have been quicker to suggest it's straight white conservative rich men who would be more likely to criticise transwomen who are in seats of power.

I've already said that the privilege that some trans women have grown up and had ingrained in their socialisation from birth can be problematic. I don't think that means they aren't trans though... denying someone's lived experience doesn't by default make it fiction even if that person may be acting in ways that could be problematic for other groups in society.

For example white women experience misogyny and this is their lived experience. Doesn't mean there's not consistent examples of them being violent towards women of colour and therefore highly problematic. Their violence and racism doesn't cancel out their lived experience as someone who's experienced misogyny though. I'm not sure that's the best example of the point I'm trying to make, I hope it makes sense.

If

• that distress is medically verified and can't be amended in any other way
• the individual is informed and able to adequately consent to the surgery
• the surgery would resolve the distress
• the surgery can be done with what medical professionals feel is an adequate level of safety for the patient

then yes. I have no problem with that. Why would I want anyone to live in acute distress if there's a means to end that distress.

But surely by your definition then transmen are women and you're effectively excluding them from necessary services by insisting they access services opposite to the gender they identify as. I also would suggest (having worked in protected spaces in the past) that having a tall, built, bearded trans man with the smell of aftershave in a female protected space would be distressing in itself. Not all transmen are noticeably trans. I'm not sure in all honestly what the right answer is there. I personally would have no issue receiving support alongside a trans woman so I wouldn't say I'm transphobic. But I do understand and acknowledge that some women would struggle with that as evidenced by those on this thread. The difficulty is that no matter what way its worked out, by your definition there are women (or transmen or non binary individuals) who lose out on essential services and I think we need to have more open dialogue on both sides to find a better solution to that but I acknowledge that's incredibly difficult due to the emotive nature of the topic in general.

I don't follow. Who said they aren't trans? Any TW trying to access women's spaces are problematic but that doesn't mean they aren't trans.

Males write history. TW are male. And often rich. And often straight. And gender ideology is, I believe, highly conservative.

None of this justifies excluding women from positions of power. Which believing that TWAW does.

Services are sex segregated. Not gender segregated. If they were gender segregated we'd need a lot more than 2 options. As an agender female if you sell sayntheyre segregated into woman gender and man gender spaces then you exclude me. And I am for from alone in having no gender der identity. TM are women and can use women's spaces. If we all stopped making out that gender has got anything to do with it, we will stop feeding the idea that your identity matters in the public loos.