Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Stonewall has expelled crossdressers from the trans umbrella - Sex Matters

58 replies

IwantToRetire · 01/07/2024 01:49

Stonewall’s long-standing definition of “trans” changed on 27th June 2024 to drop “crossdresser” from the list. Before then, it said:

“Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.”

The so-called “trans community” is not a homogenous group but a list of identity options, some of which, like “neutrois”, no one can define. Crossdressers are familiar to many of us, though, and in the past would not have been described as trans. It always seemed odd that Stonewall’s definition included them. It has worked well for crossdressers, though, normalising their behaviour and giving them protection. Calling a man a part-time crossdresser could see you branded transphobic and even cost you your job – even if the man in question did not claim to be a woman.

Article continues at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/stonewall-redefines-trans-to-exclude-crossdressers/

Stonewall redefines trans to exclude crossdressers - Sex Matters

Stonewall has expelled crossdressers from the trans umbrella Why do some men crossdress? Are crossdressers no longer trans? Stonewall has expelled crossdressers from the trans umbrella Stonewall’s long-standing definition of “trans” changed on 27th Jun...

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/stonewall-redefines-trans-to-exclude-crossdressers

OP posts:
RoyalCorgi · 01/07/2024 14:30

Sadly, it's too late to remove "cross-dressers" from the definition of "trans" used in Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act.

Hyperions · 01/07/2024 14:44

Whatever, it won't benefit women.

IwantToRetire · 01/07/2024 16:58

It was too late and I was too tired when I posted this to try and work out why they have done this (and why now)

Both this seem to be more than plausible

  1. more about dodging the Cass Review to re-establish puberty blockers
  2. part of the ploy to get Self ID enacted

And with the info (posted on other threads) about ex Stonewall member of staff now employed as advisor to Labour extremely worrying

OP posts:
LonginesPrime · 01/07/2024 18:06

I suspect there are two reasons for this change:

  1. to distance trans people from AGP and to more plausibly pretend that AGP is a completely separate condition that's nothing to do with trans people; and

  2. so that the current questions to politicians along the lines of "so any man who puts on a dress is allowed in the women's toilets, then?" can be refuted by saying that trans people are different and that there is something very special, magical and genuinely transformative about a transwoman putting on a dress that makes it completely different from those pesky cross-dressers and men with AGP.

IwantToRetire · 01/07/2024 18:13

Its also concerning that they seem to have just slipped this out, and only because Sex Matters picked up on it that it is now public.

Would have been nice is the offered an explantion and included an apology for being so over the top about their trans rainbow without considering the negative consequences on others.

Also makes you wonder, whether they are trimming down their position to in fact regain funders and organisations to align with them.

But suspect as said up thread this is about preparing the ground for changing the law re gaining a GRA.

OP posts:
MsFogi · 01/07/2024 18:18

So does this mean that when Labour gets in blokes won’t even need to play dress up to persuade anyone they ´are’ a woman. They can just say they feel like a woman, carry on wearing their suit to work and their shorts to rugby but be given a GRC so no one can challenge them?

Signalbox · 01/07/2024 19:13

I guarantee that anyone using this term in relation to any cross dressing man in future will be accused of being transphobic.

borntobequiet · 01/07/2024 19:44

FictionalCharacter · 01/07/2024 14:26

I see they’ve kept “transsexual” despite the activists saying it’s an offensive term.

Maybe they want to reclaim it and make transsexual the new transgender, and claim they want to clarify things while actually muddying the waters far more.

The weird thing is that everybody knew (back in the olden days) that transsexuals hadn’t actually changed their sex, whereas many people (who should know better) nowadays think that transgender people have.

AlisonDonut · 01/07/2024 19:47

Interestingly, Twix seems to put auto limits on posts that mention Cross Dressing, Transvestitism or Transvestites.

IwantToRetire · 01/07/2024 19:58

You mean it isn't even a Stonewall policy.

It is a twiX AI policy

Heaven help us when twiX AI gets to decide women's sex based rights policie.

Hmm
OP posts:
Morwenscapacioussleeves · 01/07/2024 20:11

Oh it's got nothing to do with stereotypes or clothes anymore (remember when they were born in the wrong body?) it's all about knowing your inner laydee/teen girl now 🙄

I'd put my money on Labour knowing exactly what's going on 🤬

AlisonDonut · 01/07/2024 20:15

IwantToRetire · 01/07/2024 19:58

You mean it isn't even a Stonewall policy.

It is a twiX AI policy

Heaven help us when twiX AI gets to decide women's sex based rights policie.

Hmm

Well, Stonewall seem to have removed it for a reason.

BobbyBiscuits · 01/07/2024 20:19

For me cross dresser is a bit outdated as a concept. Surely in this day and age clothing is warn by people and it just means they are dressed or clothed? A man in a dress or a woman in overalls and high Vis? They are just clothes. Clothes don't have a gender?

AlisonDonut · 01/07/2024 20:28

Erm yes we know. It's not our definition.

PoppySeedBagelRedux · 01/07/2024 20:45

And today Judi Dench became a member of the Garrick Club! I don't know what you women are complaining about. Honestly, never satisfied...

LonginesPrime · 01/07/2024 21:30

FictionalCharacter · 01/07/2024 14:26

I see they’ve kept “transsexual” despite the activists saying it’s an offensive term.

I think if they removed transsexual, it would piss off quite a few "old school transexuals" as they often call themselves, and you'd end up with another breakaway group for GC transsexuals who reject gender ideology, akin to what happened with the splitting of the LGBT+ community into Stonewall and the LGB alliance.

I suspect even Stonewall realises that another huge and very visible rift like that would be unhelpful to them and would make it harder for Stonewall to claim that everyone else is out of step if there are even more subgroups of LGBT people who disagree with them.

JanesLittleGirl · 01/07/2024 22:00

Christ I'm getting a headache. It's like some post-existential joke:

A man in a dress walks into the Ladies. Is he:

A) A transwoman with a GRC who has every right to be there.

B) A transwoman without a GRC who could be excluded if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

C) A cross-dresser who can just fuck off.

I really would like to laugh but this is just making shit worse.

TempestTost · 02/07/2024 01:54

It's not about saying crossdressers are something different, it's saying there is no such thing.

UtopiaPlanitia · 02/07/2024 02:07

JanesLittleGirl · 01/07/2024 22:00

Christ I'm getting a headache. It's like some post-existential joke:

A man in a dress walks into the Ladies. Is he:

A) A transwoman with a GRC who has every right to be there.

B) A transwoman without a GRC who could be excluded if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

C) A cross-dresser who can just fuck off.

I really would like to laugh but this is just making shit worse.

👏👏

UpThePankhurst · 02/07/2024 07:51

JanesLittleGirl · 01/07/2024 22:00

Christ I'm getting a headache. It's like some post-existential joke:

A man in a dress walks into the Ladies. Is he:

A) A transwoman with a GRC who has every right to be there.

B) A transwoman without a GRC who could be excluded if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

C) A cross-dresser who can just fuck off.

I really would like to laugh but this is just making shit worse.

And considering that most women are not going to risk drawing the ire of an unknown man in case of getting hurt, it's irrelevant whether or not he belongs to any of those groups at all.

Men own all the spaces. If you're a good girl, always put men before yourself and are prepared to take the risk in the hope that today all those men will choose not tot take advantage then you get to go in there too.

Shortshriftandlethal · 02/07/2024 08:22

BobbyBiscuits · 01/07/2024 20:19

For me cross dresser is a bit outdated as a concept. Surely in this day and age clothing is warn by people and it just means they are dressed or clothed? A man in a dress or a woman in overalls and high Vis? They are just clothes. Clothes don't have a gender?

That would be true if men were just choosing to wear dresses and skirts; but for many men 'cross dressing' is an illicit pleasure which really is predicated on pushing the boundaries and getting a thrill from that; from engaging in something which is not socially acceptable. If it were socially acceptable it would lose its allure.

Grayson Perry says he lost his desire to cross dress when everyone came to expect if from him.

Shortshriftandlethal · 02/07/2024 08:24

TempestTost · 02/07/2024 01:54

It's not about saying crossdressers are something different, it's saying there is no such thing.

Good point......but there does also seems to be an attempt to rebrand transvestitism/AGP as a sexual orientation rather than a fetish.

Shortshriftandlethal · 02/07/2024 08:28

LonginesPrime · 01/07/2024 21:30

I think if they removed transsexual, it would piss off quite a few "old school transexuals" as they often call themselves, and you'd end up with another breakaway group for GC transsexuals who reject gender ideology, akin to what happened with the splitting of the LGBT+ community into Stonewall and the LGB alliance.

I suspect even Stonewall realises that another huge and very visible rift like that would be unhelpful to them and would make it harder for Stonewall to claim that everyone else is out of step if there are even more subgroups of LGBT people who disagree with them.

A transsexual persepective:

"The term transsexual was defined as a medical one and was what appeared in all my early medical files when I was sent from doctor to doctor, hospital to hospital and into psychiatric units.

By the time I got to the point of surgery - always the end of the process and after several years of other therapy first back then - something had shifted. As you were asked to sign a waiver before they consented to do the surgery that you understood that it was not changing sex but reassigning gender.

I was told by the psychiatrist about to pass me onto the surgeon that this was a legal requirement because the law would not recognise any change of sex and he was sure never would as he had just gone to court to give evidence to help annul a transsexual's marriage to a man as illegal on those grounds.

So gender was introduced into the nomenclature not for any reason other than to give a separation from sex.

This is probably why transsexuals have always been realistic about this concept of changing sex. We had to get that before we passed that point. If we didn't then you were not taken further.

I would guess based on how many people today seem not to get this biological reality within the transgender community that it is not part of the treatment path nowadays.

After I was signed off by Charring Cross in the early 80s (they only did two or three years follow up after my final surgery) I was basically left alone and never really asked about the subject again, even by GPs, though, of course, I told them all every time I moved to a new area. I did not even see my notes until 2004 when my GP wanted to check them with me during the application for a GRC and I discovered that they wrongly claimed I had had breast enhancement. I had been offered it on the NHS in 1980 but had turned it down.

All the records still used the term transsexual. I never even heard the term transgender until all the stories started appearing on Digital Spy where I had posted regularly on media matters and the subject had suddenly become something everyone was talking about. But calling it transgender.

That's when I first started searching the net to find out what was going on, joined the only non fanatical forum I could find (Angels) and started catching up on what had been going on over the past decades whilst I was getting on with living.

Whenever I used the word transsexual I was reminded not to, just as I was told to use terms like Cis and Terf. I looked into what these meant as I had no idea and quickly decided they were needless or provocative so I was not going to follow that pattern. But transgender or trans for short seemed a harmless enough word and I thought, as transsexual emphasised the misconception of 'sex change' perhaps it was a sensible modification.

The reclamation independently seeming to happen now appears to be happening partly out of distancing to some degree, but also I think because it emphasises that in our case - whilst the biological reality is understood - it always was about changing as far as possible the sex characteristics of the body. And not about expressing a girly gender identity, or indeed any kind of lifestyle preference or interest in clothes or hobbies.

For some gender expression very much seems to be what it is about. I think for transsexuals it is about the body. Probably why there is very little interest in physical transition by those transgender and it is really more about expressing personality in a way they find more comfortable.

So without presuming different causes or origins as we are still guessing on those with any of us - I think there are two very different focal points of what we seem to be doing about it.

Reclaiming transsexual just seems to have occurred to a few people at the same time as a way to point that out"

Signalbox · 02/07/2024 08:40

BobbyBiscuits · 01/07/2024 20:19

For me cross dresser is a bit outdated as a concept. Surely in this day and age clothing is warn by people and it just means they are dressed or clothed? A man in a dress or a woman in overalls and high Vis? They are just clothes. Clothes don't have a gender?

Clothing has always held meaning though hasn’t it and I think it still does. In this scenario the man in the dress will be coding himself as a woman to enable him to gain access to women’s changing rooms (or whatever his thing is). The woman on the other hand will presumably be wearing overalls for work purposes whilst simultaneously having to deal with the sexism in whatever industry she is working in.

Grammarnut · 02/07/2024 08:57

OvaHere · 01/07/2024 05:10

It's a good job feelings are more evidential than clothes are that a man is a woman. 🙄

If that's the case then they are backing the notion that you do not have to change your appearance in any way to be 'trans', so an entire male who dresses like a man can still call himself a woman - this is most likely why they have removed 'cross-dressers' as they muddy the pure trans water that it is not how you look that determines your gender. This has to be a deal with Labour and how the new self-ID requirements will look. We are in for trouble, I think.

Swipe left for the next trending thread