First time poster - question about GC beliefs

[lovelycosyslippers]

This is my first time posting on this board. I am trying to work out what my position is in the trans/gender debate.

If you hold gender critical beliefs, do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body, and have a right to live as the other sex (up to but not including the point where it would impinge on the rights of that other sex), possibly taking hormones and undergoing surgery? Is this a coherent position to hold?

Or do you believe these people should not ever be supported to live as the opposite sex? That doing so is always wrong?

Hope this question makes sense!

Who was it again who took Miranda, a TW, to court, putting Miranda through months if not years of stress before it got thrown out?

Can't quite remember.

Oh yes, it was Helen Islan, a senior member of staff at Mermaids.

Something I think needs more emphasis is: because there is no right not to be offended, there's lots of scope for men who identify as women to do things I find offensive, but which I nevertheless think shouldn't be forbidden. Dressing in a way reminiscent of an objectifying cartoon of a woman, with false breasts, garish makeup etc. is a good example. I don't have to be ok with it, even though I also don't think it would be right to ban it. I can, for example, allow it to lower my opinion of the person who does it. (Where things get a little delicate is, e.g., if this person is applying to me for a job - but that's why we have careful lists of essential and desirable criteria for jobs, etc.; there are lots of cases when we have to acknowledge that we dislike or disapprove of some aspect of an applicant but for a reason that isn't relevant to the application and therefore needs to be set aside.)

Thanks everyone. There's so much here it's difficult to take it all in at the first reading, but you have already clarified a lot for me.

@lovelycosyslippers as a recent GC person all i can say it was not an easy journey for me. Because all of the lovely women here are not out to indoctrinate, which means i had to track down the things they referenced. And learn and understand what all the arguments are for being critical. i still am learning (and laughing) through all the debates.

Also some of the threads use code words and phrases some of which i still have not worked out but am getting there.

stick around make the effort to self teach, this is a great community very diverse `age, wealth, profession, sexuality, race, party politics, and also very clever and witty.

We are even polite to trans activists (but only because mumsnet HQ puts us on the naughty step if we do not)

Women are disadvantaged because of the material reality of their sex, not because they ‘live like’ women. Living like women implies conforming to gender stereotypes, and if that was what held women back we’d expect to see far more butch lesbians on company boards, in parliament etc etc.

The disadvantages faced by women by virtue of their sex are systemic, global and longstanding. That’s why I place sex as central to my feminism. If a male person wants to pop on a frock and call himself Marjorie then on a very basic level I don’t personally have an objection. However, this increasingly doesn’t happen in isolation. It comes with demands, and often with claims of being as oppressed as ‘any other woman’. Such claims damage the foundations of any feminism centred around sex.

A bit rambly but it’s late. And I’m tired.

A really interesting thread. Agree with many of the points made.

Another rambly thought, about third spaces…

There seem to be two simultaneous but potentially contradictory arguments often used against them: 1) that they’d be outing for trans people, & 2) that most women are happy sharing their single-sex spaces with trans women anyway, to the the extent that those who express concern are bigots.

I recognise it’s more complex than this, but, in a sense, if 2) is the case…

…then, theoretically, a majority of women would be perfectly happy to forgo using any single-sex space retained for those who need it, in favour of the additional third space - to make a moral stand against „segregation“, in support of their „trans sisters“, or out of sheer indifference.

Which would make 1) a moot point.

It’s a simplistic way of looking at it - there are so many other issues at play (eg. third spaces‘ size, whether they’d be ring-fenced for trans people to the extent the disabled loos are for those who need them) - but it does show there’s scope for discussion even here.

And that such discussion is eschewed in favour of 1) & 2) above is a pity, if the key arguments against third spaces in favour of mixed-sex ones actually rely on an unspoken assumption about - recognition of - that what a majority of women themselves really want is the opposite of this: single-sex provision.

I agree with others that the idea of "living as a woman" is fraught. However, I do think it can be understood in a way that is coherent. We are social beings and in some ways who we are as social beings comes from how we are reflected on others. If we are an important elder in the community, we are treated differently than a child, and there are a number of things wrapped up in that - our age and generation (which is objective,) but also how other perceive and relate to us, and then also how we internalize that recognition and reflect it back.

So I understand "living as a woman" in this context to mean superficially taking on certain social markers conventionally associated with women, having others relate to us as if that were so, and internalizing that social "recognition".

I am tbh on the fence about this in a few ways, even in "legitimate" cases of dysphoria. I do not think it's possible to do this very convincingly while maintaining important sex distinctions, so I am skeptical of how useful it could be. But I also think it may ask too much of others. That being said, it is something that probably could be managed well enough for some, on a very limited basis, if they were carefully vetted people. Not including things like access to sex segregated spaces though.

I also am somewhat skeptical about the idea that everyone can dress how they feel most comfortable because that is ok. Clearly, to me, none of us do that. Even rock stars are out to break the boundaries are limited, they have to think about what they wear all the time! We all have to learn, as adults, that we sometimes have to wear things we don't love, and the thing is, it doesn't really matter, because they are just clothes. There will always be some kinds of "gender" conventions and in some roles breaking convention is not appropriate, and I don't think anyone needs to do so to be who they really are.

But my main issues are around the medical side. I think there is zero evidence that what is called "trans" in adults is much to do with kids, and I think most of what we see in kids is iatrogenic. I think the evidence that transition in adults is ever medically helpful is very poor. And I don't think adults are allowed to do whatever they want to modify their bodies, unless they do it themselves. Doctors are limited to (should be limited to) medical procedures that have a health benefit, it's part of their professional ethics. And IMO many common cosmetic surgeries don't make the grade, they offer only risk with no legitimate medical purpose.

I also don't think men with AGP should be given any help to transition. I have real sympathy for people with weird sexual fixations, more than a lot of people do. But I think indulging them is about the worst thing we can do for those people. It's not kind, at all, we are making their lives worse in the long term in many cases.

Coherent yes.

In a simple sentence, it's sexist bullshit.

You cant live like a woman unless you are a woman.

You cant explain it in any other way that includes males that isn't full of sexism bullshit gender stereotypes which harm both sexes.

We need to stop perpetuating the idea that this concept is anything other than regressive and deeply offensive.

@MargotBamborough has pretty much summed up how I feel.

So I understand "living as a woman" in this context to mean superficially taking on certain social markers conventionally associated with women, having others relate to us as if that were so, and internalizing that social "recognition".

There is a part of this sentence which is problematic: having others relate to us as if that were so. A transwoman has no right to "have someone relate" to them in any particular way. Indeed, none of us has that right. You can relate to me in any way you please; I can’t reasonably tell you or make you relate to me as I would like you to. This applies even in the closest of relationships. I have no right to require my wife or my mother to relate to me as I dictate.

As far as I know, nought is never 1 in maths. I think you are referring to 0! = 1 [nought factorial equals one] which is correct, though perhaps unintuitive.

If an individual did these things, but stopped short of entering single sex only spaces or competing in single sex sports, for example - would that be ok to a GC feminist?

In that they have freedom of expression, yes. But I'm not prepared to lie that I believe they are a woman.

Maybe, I don't suppose that any of us have a "right" to ask others to relate to us as if we are something we are not.

Sometimes people take it to mean something more direct though, as if a dog can live as a cat. Which is obviously impossible.

But I think what's meant when people talk that way is about social relations. We all relate to others in certain ways, and sometimes they can be quite formalized and even artificial. What's being recognized is something that isn't actually inherent to the person's nature. None of that is specifically about sex or gender, it's just the nature of being a social species with self-conciousness. We can imbue a person with all kinds of significances we know aren't really there, usually we do it for some purpose.

There's a tendency for gc people to suggest or imply sometimes that anything like this between males and females is only sexism, and I don't think that's true. We all know the difference between men and women and it changes how we relate them in ways that are socially significant and not always negative.

Is it a sensible, justified, useful, or in any other way a good idea to pretend to see and then treat people as if they were the opposite sex? I am not really convinced, but I don't think that it is impossible in the sense that it would be impossible for a man to "be" a woman..

I’m very much of a belief that individuals should live the life they choose. I also think that if you are making permanent changes to your body that there should be counselling/ safeguards.

However your choices shouldn’t impinge on other peoples lives so should respect single sex spaces / sports.

Sex is immutable. You can't live as the opposite sex because there is no way to change sex.

Gender is a social construct. You can put on stereotypical trappings of the opposite gender (name, clothes, pronouns) if you want to. I have some mixed feelings about this though. While I'm happy for anyone of any sex to wear anything / call themselves anything etc. and fundamentally think we should work towards dismantling ideas around gender, what is happening at the moment is people are reinforcing gender stereotypes by putting on a dress and saying that makes them a woman.

I think my position is I'm more than happy for you to be a man, wearing a dress you like and using whatever name you prefer and having cosmetic surgery if you want (or a woman doing the same) as long as it's clear it has no effect on your sex and doesn't somehow impact your role in society. Alongside this sex based differences remain important and protections for those need to stay in place.

For all those, including OP, who are looking for links to important cases, studies and papers, or guidance / policies etc, don’t forget the Break It Down thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?latest=0

The start of the thread was an interesting discussion but the thread morphed into a reference thread. There is also links to some of the studies/ papers etc that you see referenced by extreme trans activists there too so that people can find them by using the ‘save thread’ or bookmarking function on MN .

“However, I do think it can be understood in a way that is coherent. We are social beings and in some ways who we are as social beings comes from how we are reflected on others. If we are an important elder in the community, we are treated differently than a child, and there are a number of things wrapped up in that - our age and generation (which is objective,) but also how other perceive and relate to us, and then also how we internalize that recognition and reflect it back.”

“So I understand "living as a woman" in this context to mean superficially taking on certain social markers conventionally associated with women, having others relate to us as if that were so, and internalizing that social "recognition".”

Except, Tempest that people relate to these male people as ‘male people who wish to be perceived as a woman’ rather than those people relating to a woman.

Therefore it loses its coherency in my opinion.

We have also seen just how ‘male’ these male people with trans identities remain even after transitioning very young. We see it in their reactions to having their belief that they are a girl or a woman rejected. Those reactions are too often misogynistic, narcissistic, and filled with male entitlement and socialisation.

Living "as a" woman....which woman?

The only things all women have in common are a female body and the experience of living in a female body. Everything else is cultural.

Now, women within one culture may well have further commonalities as they have more shared experiences and are subject to to the same gendered influences. And yes, a man from that culture could ape those women and believe himself to be living "as a woman".

But he is not, he is living as his idea of a woman. Even if he perfectly apes this cultural womanhood to the degree others perceive him as a woman, he is still only mimicking his own superficial, external view of women. Because the path by which the actual women came to those feelings and behaviours and preferences is entirely different to the one he has taken, one he can never experience or understand because for women it's the mostly unconcious internalising of cumulative experiences that started the day they were born female, while for trans women it's a conscious decision to change their presentation and behaviours to follow those of "women".

So I can't say I'm "ok" with men claiming to live "as" women, because they are still reducing womanhood and women's lives to a superficial external performance.

I think of it like any other sexist belief system, of which there are, sadly, a lot. To the degree that it's legal I can't stop someone believing it or acting in line with their beliefs. I can even accept that people with some beliefs I find regressive and harmful can in other ways be lovely, generous, valuable people who give a lot socially to the community. I can respect thoe parts of them and rub along pretty well. But I don't have to validate or be OK beliefs I find actively harmful.

“But he is not, he is living as his idea of a woman. Even if he perfectly apes this cultural womanhood to the degree others perceive him as a woman, he is still only mimicking his own superficial, external view of women. Because the path by which the actual women came to those feelings and behaviours and preferences is entirely different to the one he has taken, one he can never experience or understand because for women it's the mostly unconcious internalising of cumulative experiences that started the day they were born female, while for trans women it's a conscious decision to change their presentation and behaviours to follow those of "women".”

Exactly. It’s women as avatars.

Hi OP, been in the GC trenches for two years now, welcome.

I agree with other pps the phrase 'living as the opposite sex' is playing into the stereotype playbook that this movement hinges on and I would no longer use it.

I recommend Trans by Helen Joyce who explores in-depth the history behind so called medical transition and poses some excellent questions. I believe that adults should be free to make changes to their bodies and I believe gender dysphoria is a real thing. However, like the woman addicted to plastic surgeries who still thinks she looks awful, I'm skeptical that interventions could cure those feelings long term.

To me there's also a difference in dysphoria between a young lesbian woman who has been told repeatedly she's different by idiot peers - to a man so fixated in fetish he wants to get a set of breasts and call himself a lesbian. Both of these people need help for sure.

That's to mention nothing of the health issues with surgeries / opposite sex hormones in healthy bodies. In short it's a mess and I'm at the very least a skeptic and think that these surgeries probably should not be available on the NHS.

What I'm completely sure of though is keeping all this at bay from children.

There are no clothes, names, grooming choices, jobs, hobbies, which are only available to members of one sex. People can do what they want. They can't change sex.

Wrong bodies?

I'm short sighted, I have had to wear glasses from the age of 8 (ish). It made me a focus of bullying, limits my ability to play sports, shapes the way I interact with other people and with the world around me (for good and ill). But it isn't a 'wrong body' It's my body and I just have to live in it the best way I can. Many people have far worse bodily infirmities that limit and shape their lives.

Being the sex one is, is not an infirmity or disability, and should not restrict how one lives. Counties that make it into something that limits lives and potential (classic example at the moment is Afghanistan) are seen as bad. Yet people who want to push the idea of 'gender' as a real thing are all about making sex something that is limiting and prescriptive, so that anyone who want to live outside their prescriptive view of what a man or a woman is has to adopt a 'gender identity' in order to do so.

f that.

Sinead Watson, a detransitioned woman who spent several years "living as a man" is very clear about what it means to "live as" the opposite sex.

She says it means cross dressing, changing your pronouns, and if you are a man, using women's single sex spaces. That's all.

Generally my view is 'you do you, just don't expect me to compromise my own beliefs to validate yours'

By that I mean wear what you like, call yourself what you like but don't expect me to pretend that you are what you aren't

I think that you need to ask Trans "Rights" Activists lots of questions, and if they cannot or refuse to answer then they have nothing, and if they do answer then you can judge their words, which I can assure you will be waffle and ignore any and all reasonable concerns.

(1) What do you mean by "trans" and what do you think others mean by it? I cannot see that there is any definition much better than "a male or female person who makes the claim that they are trans, a claim that cannot be verified as honest let alone verified as meaning anything".

(2) I accept that some people firmly believe they were born in the wrong body, but I believe this is out of date language in transworld. No-one is born in the wrong body, and the very idea is pretty offensive to disabled people. Incidentally why is pretending to be the sex you are not and using women's toilets ok, but pretending your legs don't work and wheeling yourself into the disabled isn't?

(3) How does one "live as the opposite sex" other than by mimicking the opposite sex and by destroying the single sex nature of the facilities that the opposite sex use? I do not believe opposite sex mimickry and single sex space destruction are at all admirable. In fact I think the latter should be punished and the former strongly discouraged. I think one "right" people have is the right to - broadly speaking - be able to accurately judge the age and sex of the people you come into contact with in day to day life, or rather they have a right not to be deceived, as they will potentially completely change how they interact with someone dependent on whether they are male or female, adult or child.

(4) At the very minimum taking hormones without prescription should be illegal, and anyone getting hormones or surgery should be made to sign a public register confirming their understanding that we live in a sex-based world and no-one changes sex.

(5) It is not coherent to think that anyone can live as the opposite sex through mimickry, nor does a man being in a women's toilet make him a woman. But it does destroy women's rights.

(6) I believe that all people who claim to be trans broadly fall into one of the following categories - one was a term that mumsnet didn't like and I won't risk but involves a paraphilia; the second includes those with gender dysphoria (or "sex specific body dysmorphia" as I prefer to refer to it), other mental illness and / or trauma response; the third are simple opportunistic predators who are saying they are trans. I have zero sympathy for the first and third category and the middle category need mental health support, proper support.