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!

You wrote:

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.

Then you were asked to define trans people. And you wrote:

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.

This definition didn’t exclude any of the predatory males, so I am assuming you’re including them.

You then wrote:

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

So Pips Bunce is both a demonstration of the patriarchy but he also fits your definition of trans, who feminists should help protect.

So if you’re now saying that Karen White, Dolatowski et al are NOT who you want to protect, can you re-explain how you define trans people who are extremely gender non-conforming in a way that excludes these predators?

We are talking at cross purposes here.

If we are to continue talking, we need to define what you think words mean. You appear to make words mean different things in different situations.

So please define
Recognise
Support
Include
Society

How do Dolatowski and White not fit into the definition you gave of transpeople? This precisely why clarification of the terms you're using was needed. Or is your definition now "people who feel they are the opposite sex (an entirely subjective metric) unless I say they're not transpeople"

Are Dolatowski and White 'straight white men'?

Do you not see the issue with your oppressor/oppressed narrative?

Britain is a majority ethnic Anglo Saxon - Jute - Celt - Norman nation - what else would you expect? Britain is doing better than most in terms of diverse representation. Name any other country around the world where there is as ethnically diverse a government, for example?

Again, not an answer. I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

No. Your whole post hangs off a bad faith assumption. Why would I bother putting in the effort for you to misrepresent me?

You can’t even represent yourself, there’s no need for me to misrepresent you. You want to do a poll on the rights of “trans people”. You think feminists have a shared interest in protecting “trans people”. It’s right there. You said it. But you can’t define “trans people”. You’re clear you don’t want to protect Karen White et al. So WHO do feminists have a shared interest in protecting then?!

Again, not an answer. I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Don’t fall for this. I answered OP’s question up thread and they still haven’t responded to what a middle position looks like and how it can possibly be implemented when TRAs aren’t campaigning for and don’t want a middle position.

Clearly not straight, as they are trans. That doesn't mean they are women though. As I said upthread, I think if we give people space to be proud of a trans identity then a lot of this goes away. What to do about White and his ilk becomes a "trans" problem and not a "woman" problem.

It's never going to be a "man" problem, because patriarchy. The patriarchy is quite happy for it to be a woman problem.

Clearly not straight, as they are trans

You can be straight and “trans”.

Oh dear. You REALLY don't like women not caving to your demands do you. Stop bullying me. This is exactly the behaviour I was talking about with "vocal" posters.

Pointing out gaping holes in your posting and arguments on a discussion thread is not “bullying”. I think everyone can see your logical failures and as such, your posts are meaningless.

@NotBadConsidering isn't bullying you Adam. These I really reasonable questions that need answering.

If women are responsible to protect trans women on the basis we are all harmed by the patriarchy (which I think you are suggesting), then how do you define a trans woman and how do you exclude certain trans women to protect women from harmful characters like Dolotowski and White?

Your middle option included treating trans people as their acquired sex in most social and work contexts. How does that make what to do about White et al a trans problem?

Just popped back here to see if the confused person with opinions was STILL keyboard warrioring. Yup. Don't know how you all have the patience to respond but hats off to you for showering them with patience and logic.

I do think they need to get outside though and take some air.

It could be that, or it could be a poll that invites discussion outside the group think is somehow threatening and needs to be shut down. I'm going with the former as people have been implying all sorts about this since page 1.

Now excuse me if I don't answer any more of your questions. It's derailing and ultimately fruitless.

You won’t answer questions because you can’t answer questions. I have no interest in shutting the thread or discussion down. I have an interest in people who make such bold and outlandish claims backing them up. You won’t, because you can’t. An acknowledgment of that from you would be progress but clearly you aren’t capable of doing so. I guess it is what it is.

Transpeople but not those transpeople, whatever that means.

OK, last time I'm answering this, with a caveat it's my opinion, I'm not in power and I'm as entitled to an opinion as anyone else.

I think we should do two things: 1) make the GRC a necessary part of recognising someone as trans. Get rid of the spousal veto, make the GRC part of a treatment pathway that's granted only when other treatable mental health conditions have been excluded and sexual motivation/offending isn't present. People would need to declare the GRC - so rather than a binary M/F option there is a third Trans option on official documents. Increase the gatekeeping, basically. 2) increase options to help trans people integrate. Third spaces, making it unacceptable to persecute them, celebrating the trans identity as something separate to birth sex.

Keep the way it works currently (people with a GRC to be treated as birth sex) but support service providers and employers to apply sex based exemptions accurately and effectively. Strengthen the EA to give women more legal options if that wasn't done and they were forced to share a single sex spaces with a TW. I suppose this looks akin to treating transgenderism as a disability and making "reasonable adjustments" so people can contribute and be happy.

I think this would reduce the ability for people to claim to be trans for nefarious motives. I think it would protect women better than currently. And I think it allows trans people to participate in society and be protected from violence.

Of course trans people are going to hate it, and "option 3" people probably will too. I think its fairer than a "you lost, get over it" option that is either totally gender based or totally sex based.

It is much harder to define or defend a middle position than either of the extremes, so of course people disagree and of course there are holes. But if I was in charge, this is what I would do.

You do realise that the "spousal veto" doesn't give a man's wife the right to veto his transition, but just ensures that she doesn't end up as a legal woman married to a legal woman, right? So why do you want to "get rid of the spousal veto"?

Argh I didn't mean that. I think women should have the right to have the marriage annulled on transition, rather than block the transition. Annulment to recognise that the person isn't who they thought they married and they can't stay married.

No way do I think women should be forced to stay married. Its barbaric.

I think we should do two things: 1) make the GRC a necessary part of recognising someone as trans.

Just on this one. How does that work to prevent Katy Dolotowski, Katy assaulted girls in public toilets?

Having a GRC monitor at every public toilet isn't going to work.

I accept it might have prevented Katy from getting into women's prisons/ refuges but once the social contract is broken on allowing some males in toilets, without toilet monitors, more girls are at harm from assault.

So how does your proposal differ from the current situation?