Let's have a poll!

[AdamRyan]

Thought it would be interesting to see the majority view on this board for what the consensus is on how trans people should be accommodated in society. I want to see what less vocal posters think

Options:

1. as they identify. Exactly the same as the sex they identify with. Access to womens spaces at all times, protected in law.
2. Third spaces: Treated as their acquired sex in most social and work contexts, use third spaces or treated as birth sex for times where biology is important for safety or dignity (i.e. hospitals, prisons, sports, changing rooms, providing or receiving intimate services like waxing, smear tests)
3. As their birth sex. People can choose to refer to them in their acquired gender but there is no expectation of this; all official documentation and interactions with services remains as birth sex.
4. Other - please explain

Let's see!

The truth, as usual.

It doesn't seem fair, they are just trying to do their job and engage in society. I do think those people need some recognition and support to feel included.

who's supposed to be doing the recognising?
Who is giving the support?

If you mean those who want to, then fine, dandy, crack on. I dont care what others want to do with their time.
Do you mean me and others like me? I wont be straight up rude to a man (few of us would be rude to a man for obvious reasons) but no, I dont want to recognise or support some people for many many reasons. Those people dont have to be trans either.

And the other side of that is that no one recognised or supported me to feel included by society. Thats not how life works.

I wonder if Pips Bunce only threatens the patriarchy by being gender non-conforming on some days of the week, or do the gender non-conforming days threaten the patriarchy on the other days🤔?

Feminists can worry about any demographic they like, but why should trans people be particularly prominent? I think OP has been bamboozled by the forced teaming implied when men identify as women.

Not getting at you. Language is rohypnol and all that.

Limiting your definition of patriarchy to straight white men suggests deep detachment from reality. Are you suggesting that Iran (very pro-trans) is not a patriarchal society?

men is men is men

I haven’t read the more recent posts. Has anyone pointed out that option 3 is compatible with there being third space provision by those service providers who can reasonably supply it?

This.

I asked the OP a few questions following on from their definition of 'trans' and what the third spaces might look like.

Except that isn't what I've done 🙄

Honestly the straw manning is very tedious. I'm going back to a "non response" strategy

Pips Bunce is a classic demonstration of the patriarchy as he shows the power men have to be able to define themselves absolutely as they want.

If we had a situation where space was given for people to be proud of their trans identity, separate to sex based spaces, that would help a lot as then Pips and what he symbolises becomes a trans problem, not a woman's problem

But that would be a third space in all situations. Not ‘sometimes with the women, sometimes in the third (trans) space’ which is how I read option 2

I would think that DeanElderberry's interpretation of your definition of "the patriarchy" is more of a genuine misunderstanding of your position than a straw man.

If your definition of the patriarchy is "systems and structures that uphold our society where straight white males hold a disproportionate amount of power", does that mean the patriarchy only exists in societies / countries where straight white males hold a disproportionate amount of power?

If we had a situation where space was given for people to be proud of their trans identity, separate to sex based spaces, that would help a lot as then Pips and what he symbolises becomes a trans problem, not a woman's problem

Have you asked him? I don't think Pip would want a third space!

It doesn't validate him enough. He accepted a woman in business award FFS!

You said:

AdamRyan · Today 10:54

I've defined the patriarchy - systems and structures that uphold our society where
straight white males

hold a disproportionate amount of power.
Trans people, do I really need to define it, fine. People who feel they are the opposite sex to what they actually are, and in this context are threatening patriarchal norms by being extremely non conforming.
Feminists- people who want to achieve equality for women (or for me, get rid of patriarchal oppression).

These are all quite common ideas so I didn't think I'd need a glossary on the feminist board. How do you participate in feminist discussion if you think the basic concepts are "meaningless" and "nonsensical"?

own your own words and don't try to gaslight me.

Trans people, many of them gay men under compulsion of transition or die , are a feature of the Iranian patriarchy. They still have it better than Iranian women.

In the world, straight white males hold a disproportionate amount of power.

In all the countries of the world, straight men hold a disproportionate amount of power.

These are just facts, no?
So either there is some kind of human social and cultural mechanism that favours straight (white) men, or straight (white) men are "naturally" or biologically better equipped to seek and gain power.

In my opinion the former is an explanation favoured by feminists; the latter is an explanation favoured by MRAs (and possibly fundamentalists who follow patriarchal religions).

I haven't misunderstood anything. If by 'patriarchy' the OP means the English exclusively white straight patriarchy, or even the UK exclusively white patriarchy, or the UK and US exclusively white patriarchy, or whatever little geographic cluster is desired to prevent anyone from looking at the history of male's (including transwomen's) abuse of physical strength through social power, then the OP should spell that out. But there's nothing white about patriarchy, nothing Anglo about it, nothing straight about it.

men is men is men.

In all the countries of the world, straight men hold a disproportionate amount of power.

These are just facts, no?

Err no they are not just facts.

How do straight white men hold a disproportionate amount of power in China, in North Korea, in Saudi Arabia, in Iran and in numerous countries around the world?

You need to read it again:

I've defined the patriarchy - systems and structures that uphold our society (the systems and structures are the patriarchy) ^where straight white males
hold a disproportionate amount of power.^ (this is the consequence of the patriarchy).

A basic principle, if you are a patriarchy believing feminist like me, is that all human being live in the patriarchy and act in ways that uphold it. People who don't conform with patriarchal expectations in some way are punished. People who conform are rewarded.

Iranian trans women are disadvantaged compared to Iranian men, but advantaged compared to Iranian women. As a white UK woman I'm probably advantaged compared to the average Iranian man. In general in the UK though white men are advantaged compared to white women.

This definition of the patriarchy is not me limiting the patriarchy to straight white men. To me it's really feminism 101, but feminism is quite a broad church and not all feminists agree with "the patriarchy" so it's just my opinion.

Its pretty irrelevant to the options debate on here and I only bought it up because of the demands I "defined meaningless terms".

I didn't use the term "white" in the bit you quoted. Globally as a whole, straight white men. In individual countries, straight men hold most power, but ethnicity can vary depending on culture.

When people start playing word games it's usually because they're trying to defend an unwinnable position. I don't know what you're trying to defend.

I think therefore when it comes to trans people in particular feminists have a shared interest in protecting them from the harms the patriarchy causes.

and yet

Pips Bunce is a classic demonstration of the patriarchy as he shows the power men have to be able to define themselves absolutely as they want.

So feminists should be protecting Pips from him/herself?

There is everything "straight" about patriarchy.

Why is homosexuality a crime punishable by death in many countries around the world? Why are penalties usually worse for men than for women?

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/death-penalty-homosexualty-illegal/

In the UK, why was sex between gay men made a serious crime and sex between gay women not? Why do so many men want to "turn" gay women?

Why is "gay" and similar phrases used as a pejorative all the time between men? Why are some men so threatened by gay men they beat them up? Why are there terrorists who target venues where gay people go?

In my opinion, because gay people don't conform with patriarchal expectations that everything revolves round straight men.....and the patriarchy rewards those who conform and punishes those who don't

Ha! Right back at you....you started that one, not me.

I hate being misrepresented when I'm posting in good faith and it happens all the time.

Some of us are here on Mumsnet because the owner of another site we had belonged to for decades decided he was not prepared to let women discuss feminist issues. Women were corralled into smaller and smaller and less visible corners of the site, and eventually he threatened to close it down if women kept posting about women's issues. He was a gay man.

Gay men may be disadvantaged in comparison to straight men (though there are MANY other variables around class, wealth, education, networking) but they are still hugely advantaged compared with women.

Adam are you using a lot of words to try to convince women that tw are impacted by the patriarchy and therefore we should lower our boundaries?