Is this a safe place to ask a question without being flamed?

[StrumpersPlunkett]

I have a question relating to transgender issues and working through my thoughts on things but it feels like a conversation I am only allowed to have in my head.
Is this a safe place to talk it through?

YES! Absolutely this.

"Validation as a woman" is everything. You even have men who id as women turning up in infertility forums, womens' groups, menopause groups... you name it. Anything which is women only. Entirely for this purpose.

And I'm afraid some very stupid and naive women fall for it and pander, turning the focus onto this man's validation, at the expense of the actual women the groups are there for. Even one of the trustees of the Fawcett Society was at it. She was going on and on about how this "trans woman" who was in her menopause group had great dress sense and lipstick.

Er. What is that "trans women" DOING in your menopause group, love? He hasn't had a menopause. He can't. He's male. He is there for your validation as female. Why are you giving it to him? You have therefore diverted attention from the women who need the group. It's misogyny. Millicent would be appalled.

And let's not even go there with Edinburgh Rape Crisis, where all the (very young trustees) were prioritising the validation wishes of Mridul Wadhwa (who doesn't even have a GRC) at the expense of ACTUAL RAPE VICTIMS who were booted out or told they should be "re-educated" with supposed feminists like the Guilty Feminist woman fawning over him. It's beyond disgusting.

Another question, why should a person with Body dysmorphic disorder (if that is what we are talking about) be treated differently from a person with Anorexia nervosa? Why should one mental health disorder be treated (not always successfully) in the hope of recovery, and the other be permitted to take over and dominate not only the sufferer's life but that of all those around him or her?

Women will not be forced into compliance or collusion because a man thinks his delusion somehow is more important than the right of women to feel safe in single sex spaces. I have every sympathy for those who experience gender dysphoria but their dysphoria does not trump my right to be safe nor does it mean that men should be using female pronouns because they are not and will never be women. Men and women can refer to themselves using whatever name they wish and "identify" however they like but it doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with them or play along. In sone cases and I stress the word some we have seen that predators will use any means necessary to access women's spaces in order to prey on them. These predators would use the dysphoria of others as a pretense for continuing their predatory behaviour and putting women and girls at risk. These have to be the boundaries that women hold and must not accede any aspect of.

Over 99% of sex offenders are male, and over 80% of their victims female. The 99% figure includes men who identify as women.

Even the 1% of 'female' will include males due to the Gender Recognition Act. We don't know how many, due to the Gender Recognition Act.

I think most people on here would agree with you on most points you raise.

I think the problem arises when it comes to single sex spaces, while you are quite happy for transwomen to use womens spaces, a lot of women aren’t, either because they think they should be just that , ie single sex spaces protecting womens legal rights to privacy and dignity, or because for personal , religious or social reasons they, as women would be unable to use women’s spaces if they were told that transwomen also wanted to use them.

People can’t change sex, so as soon as a male bodied person enters a women’s space it ceases to be a single sex space. I am sorry if this inconveniences your friend, but to be honest, I don’t think this is an issue which it is the responsibility of women to solve and accommodate.

Yes, very true.

You say that you don't care if the person next to you in the toilets has a penis. I assume this is because it's a locked cubicle. Why can't a transwoman use a locked cubicle in the gents in that case?

I do care if the person in the next cubicle has a penis. Transwomen talk quite happily on places such as reddit about how they enjoy rooting through the sani bins in toilets to fish out used tampons. It's apparently very arousing to stick them up their arses and especially so if it's still warm. We've also seen prominent trans people post about how they enjoy listening to women piss.

Letting males into women's spaces is effectively saying that we're happy for them to get their sexual kicks from it. It excludes many women who have no alternative and let's men have their choice.

If you ask questions like that, who knows. I'm irritated already.

Me to. My response is that it appears that many transpeople really don’t want to seen as “different”. They want to be seen as women, or men, ie the gender that they identify with, rather than the sex that they are, and for some transwomen it appears that this identity comes complete with period pains, menopause, and a cervix. Which is ridiculous and only goes to underline that this is as much about a state of mind as much as a state of body. A case in point is the sports bodies who have offered specific categories for trans people to compete in, but have found that they have no takers.

Talk away and you'll be OK!

I feel that I am being pushed to be pro or anti trans rights.

Are you?

Or are you being asked to choose whether a man's or woman's rights take priority if there's a clash?

Outside the fringes of fundamentalist religions and the madder end of US politics, hardly anybody is actually against trans rights (if we assume that 'trans rights are human rights' means that trans people should have the same basic rights as everyone else). But being 'pro' trans rights so often actually means allowing trans people - and specifically transwomen - extra rights.

Most people around here are not anti trans. They are pro women.

Take, for example, the Hampstead swimming ponds. There are 3 ponds, which have been there for around a century.

1 men's pond.

1 mixed pond.

1 ladies' pond.

Everyone has at least 1 pond - 2 if they are happy to swim with the opposite sex.

Or they did.

Until transwomen demanded, and were given, access to the ladies' pond. So women who cant or don't want to swim with the opposite sex - because of previous sexual assault, because of religion, or simply because they don't want the hassle - now have no ponds.

Men now have up to 3. Even men who don't want to or can't swim with the opposite sex still have 1 pond all to themselves. Because when transmen asked for access to the men's pond they were turned down. And when they tried to swim, the police were called.

I'm not against trans rights. I don't want to take away their ponds. But I won't stand by while they take mine. I don't want to ban trans people from sport; but I won't let them destroy women's sport. I want all trans people to have access to refuges and rape counselling if they need them - but not by taking away those facilities from the far greater numbers of women who need them.

Does this push to choose a side ever ask if you are you pro or anti* women's *rights?

Y'know, there are another few points I'd like to include, as I think they're really worth thinking about.

• If we've established that pretty much all "trans lesbians" are in fact heterosexual males, I should add here that statistically (see the Cass Review and elsewhere, including the info from trans orgs) most “trans men” have been found to be actually same sex attracted. In other words, they are actual lesbians. So the majority of TW are heterosexual males and the majority of TM lesbian females. Is there anything notable about that? Are these in fact the same demographic?
• What if I tell you there’s an age discrepancy too, as well as a sex-based and sexual orientation based one. You’ll get FAR more middle aged “trans women” (who claim they’ve “always” known they are women, despite in many cases having spent much of their adult lives married to women and fathering children: see, for instance Canadian anti-feminist "trans" politician Morgane Oger ) than “trans men”. Far more “trans men” are in fact younger, same sex attracted females; in their twenties and early thirties, usually. Does this indicate a unified “trans community?” Again, is this the same demographic with the same material needs and pressures?
• Now how would you explain what’s been reported as a common narrative by a number of formerly “trans men” that they found themselves often told that as “males” they had privilege and power over “trans women”? Do people honestly think that young lesbian women really have “power” over middle aged heterosexual men?

See, in my view, this just shows what a massive con the whole ideology is. It's old school patriarchy and misogyny (often violent misogyny: see TRA activity, see what kinds of violently anti woman narratives were enabled in, say, the Gender Studies department of the LSE, or at Goldsmith's) , dressed up in a new outfit, bolstered by gaslighting and the not-actually-that-intelligent witterings of certain 90s academics and their many acolytes within academia and the arts.

Do I feel threatened if there is a penis in the cubicle next to me when I have a wee? - no

Going back to basics, single-sex spaces and women-only groups exist for a reason.

In every single situation that is single sex, whether it is toilets, or sports, or prisons or hobby groups, or music awards, women are disadvantaged by including men in that group. For a start, as we all know, if you say transwomen are welcome there is no way to exclude any man who says he's a woman.

But even if they all genuinely think they are women, they change the space for women. At one extreme this might be by aggressive or predatory behaviour, or threats - transwomen are shown to follow male pattern offending, not female pattern offending; even if they are not violent and threatening, they affect the women-only category in other ways, which might be by social conditioning making the men dominant and not leaving space for women, or might be by removing privacy from the women, who may want to be able to discuss periods or menopause or buying bras without men listening.

If you support women's rights, why would you want this?

Do I feel threatened if there is a penis in the cubicle next to me when I have a wee?

Possibly, if it's erect and the transwoman it's attached to is masturbating because he's excited by the sound of me weeing, and there is no-one else in the loos. Not impossible, not unprecedented. There's a reason women campaigned for women-only lavatory facilities.

It sounds like a lot of what you worry about as a trans ally would be solved by:

1. more acceptance that TW are not W, but are in fact TW and should be as protected from discrimination and harrassment by the law as any other group (Good news! They are!)

2. third spaces so that trans people, non-binary identifying people and their allies can all go there to pee in peace etc, without depriving people who want/need/prefer to retain single sex spaces of those spaces.

Unfortunately that's transphobic apparently.

’Living as a man’ or ‘living as a woman’.

This phrase was first used, I believe , by doctors who were going to perform uro-genital surgery as a condition to proceed. Certainly this was the case with a friend of mine who was applying to the NHS for such procedures in the 1980’s.( I am going to use ‘him’ because he hadn’t transitioned, also I don’t remember much demand for pronoun changes) He had to ‘live as a woman’ for two years, although no one really seemed to know what this meant. It seemed to entail wearing a skirt ( although many of his female acquaintance were generally in trousers or jeans) , a bit of badly applied slap (men’s skin is different from women’s , and does not take foundation well, leaving aside the beard issue) and in his case , a wig , because he had male pattern baldness. It didn’t entail any change in his relationship with his girlfriend or their living arrangements or household responsibilities which were oddly traditional compared to many of his circle. I don’t remember about the name change, because everyone had always referred to him and addressed him by his surname and that didn’t change.He was unemployed, though I don’t know any exclusively female jobs anyway (several exclusively male ones at that time, though).

Anyway, it was convincing enough for the médics, so the procedure went ahead. Now a prominent trans activist, although doesn’t seem happier or more contented. I don’t know whether living as a TRA counts as ‘living as a woman’, because the pivot of their existences seems to be the trans part, not the woman part of the definition.

The girlfriend became very unwell, and has been dead for many years.

I feel that I am being pushed to be pro or anti trans rights. For me it is a much more nuanced discussion.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Very few GC feminists are anti-trans rights, if by trans rights we mean that trans people should have the same human rights as everyone else.

The issue is the demands that trans rights activists are making, namely that trans people should have more rights than everyone else, for example the right to decide which toilets and changing rooms they use, and which sports categories they play in. The rights they are demanding clash with women's rights - the right to single-sex spaces where appropriate, and to far, single-sex sports.

Do I feel that people with body dis-morphia should be supported and treated well?

Yes, in the sense that there may be psychological help that will avoid them proceeding down a medical route, with all the problems that brings - this is particularly the case for youngsters, most of whom seem to grow out of their gender distress after puberty.

Do I feel that all people who identify as trans are sexual predators?

No. Many of them, probably the majority, genuinely just want to get on with their lives. But as a group, they seem to commit sexual offences at a higher rate than non-trans people.

Do I feel threatened if there is a penis in the cubicle next to me when I have a wee?

I do. Or at the very least, I feel uncomfortable about it, knowing that he might be a danger to me. Or that he might be doing what other posters have said, eg looking for used tampons in the sanbins, masturbating at the thought of being in a woman's space etc.

Do I feel that someone I know - who has now been living as a woman longer than she ever lived as a man, should be able to use female pronouns and spaces?

I think such a person can request it, but does not have the right to demand it of others. I would comply for someone I knew well, or a colleague at work, or a customer at work - the last two partly because I'd probably get into trouble and possibly lose my job if I didnt.

As regards what "living as a woman" is, since several posters have disputed this is possible... I would say a man who wants to be regarded as a woman, uses a woman's name, and dresses in a way typically considered female.

Terrific post.

I think most of us started out at a similar place to you, I have a trans woman in my family who transitioned 25+ yrs ago, who is clearly a traumatised, gay man rather than an AGP - so was similarly conflicted.

Unfortunately the current movement has used these transexuals as a Trojan horse, casting aside any good will women may have felt around these less threatening men.

I can only feel my relative is safe through knowing them, as I do my DH or you do you colleague. Other women will not be able to differentiate between them and the new wave of trans women, nor should they have to.

Therefore access to any men isn't possible. I would openly support a push for a gender neutral addition (not replacement) or for the male toilets to be reconfigured so the cubicles are gender neutral and come first, with a door to the male only urinal area. There are solutions that don't take from women, we just need to keep the discussion about needs rather than wants.

OK am back..
Genuine thanks for all these extra responses. Lots to learn about. :-)

I guess your confusion as to my response about a 3rd space is perhaps clarified for me when I read the response about swimming spaces in a park in London (sorry can't remember the name) - this seems to be a solution that keeps women safe and respected.
1 mens only
1 women only
1 mixed
I am personally not uncomfortable with the female spaces situation - however - understand that these spaces should be protected for those who are.

I also feel I need to learn more about feminist views on womanhood. I think so much of my confusion is caught up in the stereotyped view of what it is to be a woman that thoughts on important issues are mixed up.

I would love a reading recommendation if anyone has one to share.

In reply to your final question - there are lots of trans people who agree with you. As with most sectors of society, the vast majority of trans people are sane, nice, normal, rational. It's the very loud, manipulative, misogynistic crowd who get the attention but they do not speak for all trans people. You could look them up on Twitter, follow them, converse with them.

The problem is, you can, as JKR always does, say until you are blue in the face that you are not anti trans rights, but pro women's rights. And that will unleash the misogynistic fury of SM onto you.

Like you, I feel live and let live about trans rights so long as they don't decimate very hard won, fragile rights that women have had for barely a handful of decades (and in many legal instances, far fewer years that that) in the entire history of humankind.

As regards what "living as a woman" is, since several posters have disputed this is possible... I would say a man who wants to be regarded as a woman, uses a woman's name, and dresses in a way typically considered female.

I'm sure he does both of those things. Yet he still lives and breathes as a man. And, to the day he dies, always will.

Material Girls by Kathleen Stock
Trans by Helen Joyce
Time to Think by Hannah Barnes

Thanks Billyballyboo, are these all about trans issues or are they about feminism?
Would you suggest reading them in that order?

For me, it's where women are 'allowed' to have boundaries and equality even when men find this limits their freedoms of gender expression.

As you say, just because one woman is fine to get undressed next to a man doesn't mean that other women want to or even are able to. If men are permitted to identify into female spaces then what do we do re facilities for those women excluded then from any space at all in order to give those men the freedom of self expression and self fulfilment? How is that equality of respect and treatment? Shouldn't those spaces be gate kept for women and additional alternatives provided for those who do not want to use sex based spaces? And if necessary this enforced so that men who do not respect women cannot just forcibly remove their access and equality in society from them on the grounds that they're more oppressed so just matter more?

You say not all men with trans or queer identities are abusers. Well obviously not. But the fact remains that some are, and by the MoJ's own figures, we're not talking about low percentages either. Women and girls have been assaulted and raped through experimenting with putting freedom of men's self expression over women's right to a man-free space. How many women is it ok to see harmed before we consider putting female safety ahead of men's self expression? How many court cases have come up regarding a male with trans identity being assaulted and harmed in the men's single sex space in comparison as to how many men have to be proven to be significantly harmed before women have to be inconvenienced? Because I can't think of one case. This is unequal on a sexed basis, not a gender one.

Another question that I often consider: is it a birth given, sex based requirement upon those born female to be a resource for males of any identity? If a man wishes to be in a female only changing room with females undressing, and is unhappy about tolerating a mixed sex space where the females undressing have consented and instead requires that females have to choose between taking their clothes off with him regardless of their disability, culture, faith, beliefs, trauma, feelings, privacy, dignity, or just being excluded from that provision? How is he not requiring that those women accept and submit to being used by him as the price of having access to society?

How is that just not insane male dominance?

If he wishes to undress with women (with no option of refusing consent to him, or right to be consulted), to pee next door to women with their knickers down, to give a woman a post rape exam because she asked for no men but he has a certificate that gives him special rights over her, to be locked up in a prison with women.... where is an appropriate place to put a line in using women? What's the difference between using a woman's body (because no other part of her is relevant or of interest) for validation, to listen and experience her body in a state of vulnerability and distress, to experience her feelings of possible fear and distress or anger, and to actually use that body by touching and assaulting it?

Where is the line where women get to say to men 'I'm a person, not your walking therapeutic resource'?

I am absolutely for others being able to name themselves as they like, dress as they like, live as they like, but not to enforce and compel non consenting others to participate. And this requires additional inclusive spaces alongside spaces that remain female only, and therefore are actually inclusive of all females. Mixed sex 'women's spaces' only work inclusively for men on a sex class basis.