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!

Your dogmatic rigidity squashes life out of any discussion. You want to determine the exact rules by which others are permitted to engage.

You are looking for the answer you want, and if a response doesn't conform you reject it.

There's no point in discussion if you keep rebuffing people's responses.

The opening post of this thread had the aim of corrallling people into pre-ordained boundaries; and also trying to exclude voices that the poster knew might be problematical. That's the issue when you can only think or conceive of a situation within a narrow ideological framework.

There is an essential insecurity in setting up a discussion in such a way that your own first base positions cannot be challenged.

And we are back to GRCs as being the answer. Which was discussed on pages 7 and 8. I refer to what I posted there:

Smash the patriarchy by protecting vulnerable men! How are they vulnerable? Because they have a certificate! How did they get that certificate to say they’re vulnerable? Because they lived as a woman before they got it! How did they “live as a woman”? Errr….

I genuinely want to understand how anyone can believe a GRC is useful in solving these issues. I’ll grant that it’s better than self ID, but its entire basis is someone solemnly swearing they have “lived as a woman”.

There needs to be an acknowledgement of truth on definitions before any progress can be made on action and legislation being implemented.

Stronger GRC process that people have to declare they've been through. In my utopian society, we want "trans" to be an identity people are proud of and being "stealth" doesn't help with that so not allowed.

Better enforcement of the EA, which should happen now but doesn't.

Dedicated provisions to support trans people

More safeguarding and mental health support so that people don't transition unnecessarily

@AdamRyan I have really appreciated this conversation because you've helped me see what's going on in the thinking of people I disagree with on this topic. I recently had a conversation with a friend of a friend who, as an example of her thinking, when I asked about prisons, said, "Hmmm, yes, that's a tricky one." I came away from the conversation thinking, she must be so consumed with self loathing and shame at her femaleness. But now I think, like you, she somehow corrals the White-Dolatowski-Bunces (for want of a better synecdoche) from what she means when she talks of trans women. So it really is about being nice and inclusive, with no fear of the consequences of changes to laws or social mores.

I am the opposite. Any proposed change has me thinking, what would this allow the White-Dolatowski-Bunces of our world to get away with? I am unrepentantly (cunty-)woman centered in any and all attempts at feminist analysis.

Yes, me too @LilyBartsHatShop

The problems we are seeing now are for most of the politicians who were involved the "unintended consequences" of passing the GRA and drawing the EA 2010 the way they did. I certainly don't want more loopholes created.

Thank you
Yes, I definitely do that! My concern with trans politics has always been about the openings it provides for abusive men, rather than about trans people overall.

I see Dolatowski, White, Burns etc as abusive males exploiting the opportunities the trans agenda provides for their own purposes. Bunce too, in a less extreme way, but I hesitate to connect him with violent offenders.

There are also a group of people who transitioned to relieve their gender dysphoria, not for malign intent and for me I don't think their medical treatment is any of my business. They don't "become" their birth sex though.

So I want a way to protect the second group, that doesn't allow the first group to abuse their power. At the same time I want women to be able to assert their own sex-based needs, so single sex spaces are vital.

I think this was the intent behind the original GRA but it got hijacked - now we need to strengthen it/change it to stop that happening. I'm fully supportive of that.

I second that this is a interesting thread for a variety of reasons/posters.

Going by what I see amongst DCs friends and classmates, the trans ideology is not in any way threatening patriarchal norms because it is wholly regressive in terms of how male and female are portrayed for those trans identifying young people ie they absolutely conform to sexist stereotypes. The trans men have short hair, no makeup and buy clothes from the men’s department, whilst the trans girls grow their hair long, wear makeup and dresses.

I can see the OP wants very much to find that elusive ’third way’ 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 but this sentence jumped out at me.

First, the way it currently works is that men with a GRC are treated legally in accordance with their legal sex (woman), which is why service providers and employers are struggling to apply sex-based exemptions. Second, TRAs absolutely do not want to be treated or known or even spoken about as their birth sex, which is why we’re where we are now: toilets, pronouns, sports, schools, women short lists, prisons, police prosecutions, medical language (chest feeding, cervix havers etc), hospitals etc etc.

So I want a way to protect the second group, that doesn't allow the first group to abuse their power. At the same time I want women to be able to assert their own sex-based needs, so single sex spaces are vital

With all respect OP, this horse has bolted. TRAs do not want third spaces. Hence the need now for treated as birth sex.

So I want a way to protect the second group, that doesn't allow the first group to abuse their power. At the same time I want women to be able to assert their own sex-based needs, so single sex spaces are vital.

I think this was the intent behind the original GRA but it got hijacked - now we need to strengthen it/change it to stop that happening. I'm fully supportive of that

How can you do that without putting women at risk @AdamRyan . I just don't think it is possible. The toothpaste is out of the tube as it were.

Equally it is ignoring the fact that many women do not want mixed sex spaces even for lovely trans people, this is for a variety of reasons but tends to impact minority women more as you must be aware. Why are trans women more important in your consideration that minority women who can't have any males in their spaces?

You are still putting a subset of males above the needs of vulnerable women even by having a form of purity test.

How can that be a feminist position?

OP seems to be arguing for Option 2., which is essentially, carry on as we are but with mitigations. That would commit us to a never-ending war (about what the mitigations should be) between 'trans' people (by which I mean anyone claiming to be trans), and feminists, as exemplified by this very thread.

So vote Option 3.. No legal status for gnc people. Also has the benefit of being reality adjacent.

We probably won't get Option 3, but if we actually want to fight for it, it would be useful to demonstrate that gnc people needn't suffer if they have no legal status.

So we do have an indirect interest in protecting 'trans' people from bad societal outcomes (but not from the patriarchy- that's just daft).

Has the meaning of straight changed now?

not trying to be funny but I probably need to know what the ‘new’ ‘definition’ is

I meant, concerning the "spousal veto"?

or it could be a poll that invites discussion outside the group think is somehow threatening and needs to be shut down

i don’t think its this at all

but it is a very interesting thread

I guess the definition depends on whether or not you are a gender ideologue or hold a more reality based view of sexual orientation but any way you look at it you can be both trans and straight.

For someone who doesn’t believe you can change sex a TW attracted to a woman is a straight man.

For those who believe in gender ideology a TW attracted to a man is a straight woman.

So however you perceive sex and gender you can be both trans and straight.

Not sure how OP is defining “straight” though.

signal

those were my thoughts

I think quite a lot of people wouldn't define trans or NB or queer people as straight, that's the power of the LGBT+ umbrella.

I was using it in as short hand to denote gender conforming heterosexuals, but I'll make sure I write that in future instead

The whole reason I didn't give my opinion is I'm not "arguing for" anything. I have an opinion and just wanted to know how common it was. I'm not interested in pushing it or defending it particularly.
I am interested in other people's views

adam

gotcha, i understand where you are coming from now. Thank you

Im not putting males identities above women. I'm specifically saying third spaces, exclusion from single sex spaces on grounds of safety or dignity, and that trans people would need to declare their trans identity.

It was in the context of the patriarchy as a system that allows gender conforming, heterosexual men to have a disproportionate amount of power.

Is that better?

so what's the point in a GRC then?

Legal women but not women is absolutely unworkable.

I'm not in anyway an expert on this but my understanding of the "spousal veto" is that the non-trans partner has to consent to the transition, or the marriage has to end through divorce (marriage not civil partnership). Thus leading to a "boo hoo hoo poor me, I cant transition" from the trans partner.

I'd prefer to see a situation where the marriage is immediately annulled on transition unless the non-trans spouse gives permission for it to continue.

By transition I mean granting of GRC

Lol no not really.

To me a person is either gay/lesbian, straight or bisexual depending on their sexual orientation. That is all. Being trans or gender non-conforming (god only knows what you mean by that) is irrelevant.

And I am at a complete loss on how the patriarchy comes into it.

This thread is getting stranger by the minute so I think I’ll depart now and go for some fresh air. 😂

The patriarchy comes into it because that's when I used the term straight

I have no idea why everyone is obsessed with making out I support Karen White, but this is why I don't answer questions because it confuses everyone

Enjoy the fresh air