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!

To paraphrase, (most) men who say they’re trans don’t see it as a problem as male violence and intimidation doesn’t impact them and they get the benefits of living in a patriarchy.

Feminists have raised this issue with them and have been ignored. C’est la vie.

Is there any point in keeping on at them?

You are a feminist who wants things to change in relation to male violence but you won’t share your ideas on third spaces because they are irrelevant and there may be some disagreement on how effective this would be.

I’m intrigued how you think change happens?

In my feminist utopia males would need a penis license to show they were responsible and understood basic things, like consent, that other humans have wants and needs etc, before they were allowed out after dark

Fully down with that and have often thought the same!

Sorry, I missed this one.
My option 2 would be: treated as acquired gender for single sex spaces where there is no risk to safety and dignity of people using the space; third spaces for all other circumstances.

I think "good behaviour" aka not exhibiting male pattern violence or sexual offending should be a precondition too. I don't really care that trans people won't like it. I suspect a lot of them won't like any of the options apart from 1.

There are 2 separate, albeit related issues, in relation to prisons. One is the housing of trans prisoners, the other is the unacceptable levels of violence in men’s prisons. Does anyone really think that trans rights activists would stop asking for transwomen to be housed in the female estate even if male prisons became violent-free utopias overnight? Given they ask that males be allowed in other female spaces, I find that highly unlikely.

Men’s prisons need reform. Lots of people are campaigning for that. If you’re concerned about male violence in prison, get involved with those campaigns. Trans women’s safety can be covered by that.

If men don't need feminists to solve their problems what does male-on-male violence in prisons have to do with feminists?

You're contradicting what you said in an earlier post:

I think that poster makes a good point in that one of the points of feminism (in lots of people's mind) is to overturn the patriarchy. This means dealing with male violence, sexual oppression etc. If you follow that branch of feminism, leaving vulnerable people exposed to male violence is an unfeminist act.

Are women responsible for sorting out male-on-male violence or not?

Answer your own questions, I've made my position clear in good faith and have no interest in a bunfight

Good luck with ridding humanity of violence. Violence and wars will always exist - for the reason that no amount of civilisation is ever going to competely over-ride animal instinct. There will always be conflict, there will always be power battles, there will always be territorial dispute. The role of a civilised society is to manage these conflicts of interest and to modify and pacify them as much as possible.

Look at how much violence, hatred and ugliness accompanies many 'progressive' demonstations these days - to see that no matter how 'good' one thinks one is - you cannot escape your own shadow.

interesting you are making violence a humanity problem, when it's clearly and strikingly a problem caused by one flavour of human (males).

I'll continue fighting the patriarchy thanks 👊

The vast majority of male prisoners who identify as women are already in male prisons.

There's no reason why they all can't be.

We’re back to a lack of clarity, and this is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. How do you define ‘single sex spaces where there is no risk to safety or dignity’? I’m still not sure what spaces you mean.

Regarding the second part, adding good behaviour as a precondition changes what a GRC is. So it may be best just to get rid of them

Are you saying that you've started a thread on a discussion forum but are unwilling to have a discussion? That's a bit of an odd thing to do. I was just pointing out an apparent inconsistency in your position. If I've misunderstood your position, I'm happy to be corrected.

Male prisons can have wings for those considered vulnerable.

That's the problem when one wants to assert a fixed positiion, rather than have a discussion. Without dialogue all one has is people squaring up to each other.

How can anyone propose fighting the patriarchy while believing that a GRC holds any validity? There’s no idea more patriarchal than a man gets a piece of paper giving him special privileges because he upheld a man’s view on what it is to “live as a woman” for a period of time.

No, I'm saying I've been around here enough to recognise when a demand for answers is being driven by a desire to understand other people's position, and when it's being driven by a desire to pick holes and signal ideological purity and belonging in the clique. I have no interest in the latter at all. This thread has been very interesting so I don't want to derail it.

'Fighting' certainly seems to be a political cliche. Hence all of the clenched fists.That is what I mean about innate aggresion and violence.

Decent arguments should be able to deal with critical analysis without closing down.

In the animal kingdom females are not infrequently violent or aggressive towards their young. And there are certainly plenty of women who resort to physical aggression more quickly than does their male partner.

We see this fact being used by trans activists to justify why males should be in female spaces......because women can be violent too.

Can you clarify your position then? Because I quoted two of your posts which seemed to contradict each other. I think if you want to understand other people's position it's only reasonable for you to be clear about your own. If you're unsure about your own position, it's fine to just say so.

On rereading those two posts, it seems that you think feminists should feel responsible for protecting vulnerable males from male violence, because that is part of your feminist belief, but also that men don't need us to do so. Is that right?

driven by a desire to pick holes and signal ideological purity and belonging in the clique.

Just to be clear, I have no interest in ideological purity and belonging to a clique, so we agree on that at least.

I do like to have honest discussions and I do ask questions when I think people have not thought something through or their thinking seems to be muddled.

Sometimes when I ask questions and see the replies it turns out that it's me who hasn't thought things through.

If you started a a poll to ask how many people were in favour of prison reform to keep the vulnerable safe and prevent the violent form committing violent acts while incarcerated you'd probably get an agreement rate in the 90%s . The US prison system is appalling - more men locked up that in any other developed country, black people far more likely to be imprisoned than anyone else. That indicates a deeply dodgy if not outright corrupt system.

But that is not something caused by GC women. And only relevant one little subset of the people you're asking about (and afaik only transwomen, I don't think there are any transmen looking to be held in the male estate). I find the health provision issue much more important. And day to day loos and changing rooms. And sports.

No, I think feminists should be raising issues of male oppression and exploitation where ever they see them. It's for male allies to deal with it. A lot of men are very resistant to the idea that male oppression even exists and its only by talking about it and demonstrating it that their eyes will be opened.

To me, the patriarchy is the systems and structures that maintain male power. I think that GNC people are a threat to the patriarchy which is why we see so much embedded homophobia and transphobia. Harassment of lesbians, extending to corrective rape. "Gay bashing". And a massive range of less physically damaging behaviours that still isolate people and keep them down.

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. So we should be raising that and discussing solutions because ultimately it benefits everyone to have a less patriarchal society.

I don't agree the solutions involve women giving up our spaces. That's why I guess I'm a proponent of option 2 (whatever that looks like, I know it is vague but I'm considering it from a principle level, not a detail level)

JK Rowling says everything I feel in a much more articulate was in her essay:

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.
I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.