It really is a ‘men’s rights’ movement isn’t it?

[ACatCalledPushka]

Peter Tatchell says “Gender identity is real
We all have a gender identity. Mine is male
Womens' gender identity is female
Trans women have a gender identity that is not the same as their biological sex
Their trans identity is different but equally as valid as the female identity of other women” (copied and pasted, so his typo).

So all women identify as female (no trans men there then). It seems he’s literally only concerned with trans identified males.

Shocker (not).

And no Peter it’s not as valid. It’s like ‘playing woman’ on ‘easy’ mode.

I don't have a gender ID.

Me neither. But his only concern is trams identified males.

Ok, I don’t like Peter Tatchell but this thread and argument feels very disingenuous
surely the reason he (and others) are singling out trans women is because they make up the main target of public discourse, not because he’s discounting trans men??

To be clear, I’m trying to learn more about the GC arguments through reading threads here and the links people share

I just think taking things like this out of their real world context weakens everyone’s valid arguments

When he says "Women's is female" it's merely a circular argument because in his vocabulary "women" means "the set of people who have a female gender identity" - in this world view the enormous set of people who don't have a female gender identity but merely exist in a female body are not part of this category. There isn't a name for us, because "everyone has a gebder identity" therefore logically we must not exist.

Meanwhile nothing PT says in this quote has anything to do with transmen. They obviously aren't women under PTs definitions.

One of the things I have always found about Tatchell is that adult women are generally not of interest to him at all unless he can scold them for something.

Whereas he will discuss children’s sexual boundaries regularly. He will discuss how porn is a wonderful teaching aid for children and teens. He will tell stories of girls who he thinks are great examples watching porn to learn ‘sex’.

He has also been vocal about keeping a girl who married an adult male together because it must be love.

So, at this point I estimate that Tatchell is interested in transitioned males because they are male and worthy of his respect. I have yet to see him shown respect for any female person when you start to analyse what he says.

No, this is very much a theme. If you're new to this, then perhaps its not obvious, but it's pretty much the bedrock.
Trans women aren't singled out because people are randomly talking about them. It's because their wants are prioritised by the trans movement over trans men.
This is why terms like 'menstruaters', 'birthing bodies' and 'front holes' are campaigned for, but 'ejaculators' is beyond the pale.
It's why when they talk about trans women in prison, it's only the TW's feelings that are seen as important and not whether women are safe enough.
Within the trans movement, female people are reduced to a set of body parts and male people's wants are prioritised over female people's needs.
Once you realise that gender identity isn't a real thing - much like gendered souls - and look at who the trans movement puts first and who they ignore even within their own movement, then this is bog standard patriarchy.

Peter tatchell can fuck off, disgusting paedo apologist.

I'm just so sick of men telling me what a woman is.

[Sorry, I'm distracted because I thought I was the only person who'd spent1999 listening to @Littlepinkstarsbyradish! Thanks for that blast from the past]

The genderist definition of woman only works at all if it imposes a gender identity on women against our will. As soon as enough of us say, we are not cis, by your definition of womanhood, you exclude me, it falls down. So real women are forced to accept a gender identity they do not feel in order to include transwomen in their classification.

Men don’t have quite the same need for a male exclusive classification. In a room of naked men with one naked female, the problems are not symmetrical (though certainly not non existent). So yes, this whole belief system is set up to allow men to transgress women’s boundaries.

I don’t have one either. Damn. Maybe the midwife forgot to assign me one at birth? I feel discriminated against. Can the NHS make me one, please, at the taxpayers’ expense?

Possibly if you were looking at this one tweet in isolation, sure.

But it's definitely worth looking at how transmen feature in the transgender sphere, and how that differs from how transwomen feature.

It's also worth having a look at when transmen get airtime. Generally speaking, it's when they are pregnant/giving birth, and that's it.

Sometimes photos of muscular, moustachiod transmen are used to demonstrate how hard it is to tell if someone has transitioned.

The wants and needs and wishes of transmen don't really get the acres of coverage that transwomen do - they are referred to as silent props for the most part, when useful to make a point.

I pay no heed to a single thing Peter Tatchell says.

I have no gender identity.

I have a gender identity, but I don’t like her. It’s my grandmother’s voice in my head telling me to be ladylike. It’s like the Beryl thread many years ago.

Really my grandmother was in some ways quite feminist in that she went to university and worked after she got married. She owned several properties on her own, not jointly with my grandad. But she had string VIEWS about what a lady should do and act. And I feel sometimes I have to fight against that.

Not sure what any of that makes me in the taxonomy of gender as I definitely don’t “align” with my “gender”. I have a female body, so I’ll stick with woman.

males who identify as women do make up the majority of public discourse

but i think its less of a ‘target’ and mainly because many pundits see males who identify as women as more important

as someone mentioned up thread its always uterus havers and rarely (if ever) prostate havers

(i used to say transwomen but a number if visitors to the site have explained that this means I absolutely believe that some males are absolutely women so I have had to change what I say just to make sure I am being clear)

Presumably you have a NonLesbianNana gender identity then Devilinacardigan?

Which I think makes you trans. Unless you tell a police officer. Then it makes you a criminal.

Thanks all, a very clarifying thread.
And yes @Helleofabore , observing someone's comments over time gives a good picture of their predilections and peccadilloes...
It helps to have a good memory in these times.

I'm not sure why PT bothers as neither side seem to like him.

He has had over 2k comments on that post but I can't find a single one that is supportive.

Notice the switch from gender identity being 'woman' to now 'female'

I watched an interview with Peter the other day and he deliberately conflates the words sex and gender in the same sentence multiple times.

Men aren't any type of women. It's pure fantasy.

And Billy Bragg is saying Roisin brought it all on herself

Oh God. Peter doesn't even understand the very basics of the ideology he apparently supports. Gender and sex isn't the same thing. You can't 'identify' as a male for fuck's sake.

Yes. Those pesky women - if only they kept their mouths shut.

It really is a ‘men’s rights’ movement isn’t it?
Women who talk about needing single sex services because of feelings are dismissed as hysterical fantasist misandrists. So yes.