TERFs are not the problem

[niadainud]

AIBU to think that transwomen's beef should not be with so-called TERFs, but with men who rape women or who have sexual proclivities such as autogynaephilia?

It is not (imo) transphobic to want women-only spaces for a number of reasons, but if (some) men weren't predatory in one way or another then women would have nothing to worry about.

I realise this is a highly utopian way of looking at it, but it riles me enormously that it has somehow become socially unacceptable not to pretend a man in a wig and a dress is actually female. I was introduced to someone's "niece" recently and they had facial hair. It's just ridiculous.

I also think that "real" transwomen (i.e. those who have undergone surgery etc.) make things more difficult for themselves by adopting this very black-and-white stance. People like Blaire White are realists and seem to speak some sense about the issue but they're a tiny minority.

Looking back I think this post is entirely illustrative of what has happened on this thread. It has been bothering me greatly so I have gone back this morning and checked as others have done too. I reread both threads where similar interactions have occurred, this and the ‘too early for a post mortem’ thread.

A poster has come onto this thread and effectively started rolling their eyes at posters and not listening while demanding hypocritically that we all listen and react to their post with compassion and sympathy. There is no reciprocity now and there never has been.

Not unless someone agrees that the poster is a woman. Or ‘seems’ to be amenable to be persuaded through their sympathy. Remember also the various wordings of how the poster reported what they advise to young people. I find that it is all too consistent to think differently about the way this poster interacts now. (And I say ‘seems’ because I don’t expect the poster expressing sympathy will be convinced at all).

Or, someone ever so gently responds to them after literally pages and pages of them writing what amounts to abuse when you read it all back across both threads. But I think this post pretty much indicated what we were to expect. Compassion only to go one way towards that poster, listening is only one direction too.

It is further evidenced by posters repeated asking for clarification on statements only to be heavily personally attacked when pointing out how those statements can be interpreted. If I hadn’t worked out a while ago that some posters write obfuscated posts deliberately to be able to attack those who apparently ‘misinterpret’ a post laden with personalised attacks and insults, but otherwise very unclear messaging, I would have been shocked.

The OP title was about ‘terfs are not the problem’ and three main issues were then disclosed as being the rights or so called ‘protections’ that the poster in the post i have quoted was horrified had been or were being removed.

There should be no laughing about the seriousness of any of those main three issues. To be clear that poster wants
-single sex spaces to be accessible to male people.
-medical treatments with very weak evidence of improving mental health to be available to children and adolescents.
-a group of people to exempt from
the sex by deception laws.

They are very serious issues that protect the intended groups (female people, children and vulnerable people). And yet, when a group of people who want these protections to be even partially removed are told no and receive civil explanations why they should remain, this thread is a demonstration of the currently typical stages of that discussion. While highlighting the lack of symmetry in the styles and reactions.

I agree with the title OP. I think this thread highlights that it is not women who believe that female sex based needs are prioritised when sex matter and that children are robustly safeguarded are the problem.

People who want to be the opposite sex are at war with reality. They are at war with their own bodies and biology. They are at war with anyone who sees them as their real sex.

I am just adding to this, one last thing.

The reaction of pure condescension and emotional manipulation when a sympathetic poster corrected a misconstrued reaction was also very clear in showing the sentiments in that first post that I have quoted in the above.

Where was the seeking of finding common ground in the manipulative reaction that was posted?

It is all very consistent. There is enough in this and the other thread to disprove any statement of compassion and humanity towards female people. Because absolutely no compassion or humanity is shown for any person who doesn't agree with this poster. They are literally telling us with every post who they are and then they react abusively when we acknowledge who they are.

People who want to be the opposite sex are at war with reality. They are at war with their own bodies and biology. They are at war with anyone who sees them as their real sex.

And I think some of them like it that way, it stops them having to deal with reality.

I think one could describe this as a colonising mindset. Appropriation, even. Curious how this has been something academics talk about in relation to culture and race, etc, but not sex/gender.

Yes. I have avoided using that term over the past days. But I think it needs saying bluntly in light of the posts on the two threads

@Helleofabore

I'd like to add what I think is a missing point from this:
There should be no laughing about the seriousness of any of those main three issues. To be clear that poster wants
-single sex spaces to be accessible to male people.
-medical treatments with very weak evidence of improving mental health to be available to children and adolescents.
-a group of people to exempt from
the sex by deception laws.

4 - No debate or discussion. You must accept what we say without any challenge.

The most obvious example of the is the dissmission out of hand of The Cass Report. Nowadays you don't have to make an argument, you can just use the word debunked or misinformation, and that's a fallacious shortcut to "I win".
It's also evident in the not listening to the other side in this thread. Me me me.

There's a real problem I have with people who don't want questions asked or answered:
I was asked by a family member a while back who wanted to challenge my gender critical views "What do you think the best course of action for trans people is?" My answer was "In each individual case whatever individual course of action produces the best results for that individual" but I think I managed to use the word individual even more times than I did here. My point was for something complex, new ( on the modern scale ), and not well understood, a one size fits all solution is wrong. That's the reason I'm against both the "affirmative care" model and also legal bans on transition. Both are one size fits all solutions. For people who are suffering from gender dysphoria, we should do as much research and testing as possible to figure out how best to help. It should be an ongoing process, and nothing should be set in stone. We should learn, and learning is a continuous ongoing process.
The Cass Report's "only clinical trials" guidelines means we will learn. Maybe 10 or 20 years down the line when we have learnt a whole lot more we go back to handing out puberty blockers like sweets. I doubt it, but it's possible, and we have to be open to the evidence. Maybe wthey find gender dysphoria is a mental problem often with co-morbidities and treat it as such.

I do not understand people who oppose learning more. If it helps people with gender dysphoria lead happier lives then lets get a move on! And yet it seems it's mainly people purporting to represent people with gender dysphoria who oppose the learning process. The only way I have been able to understand this is by viewing it as a faith based religion. They say it took roughly 300 years for the Church to catch up with any societal issues, the TRAs do not have that luxury.

Colonising seems appropriate given the invasion and claiming of other people's space, planting of flags everywhere to let people know who's in charge now.
I'm not sure how playing a piano with your cock fits in, I guess it's just a modern take of planting a flag?

Also can I just point out colon-ising given how one of the operations goes seems far too inappropriately appropriately funny to be a coincidence. :)

lechiffre 🤣

My standard advice to young trans people intending to go stealth is 'don't fuck bigots or those even faintly vulnerable to bigoted ideologies; they can and will send you to prison and there is legal precedent supporting them doing so' with a side order of 'you can't know if someone is a bigot until they show you. Make sure the first time they show you isn't in court'. Schrodinger's bigot is something we have to factor into our daily lives.

Hey, do you want to know an almost 100% foolproof way to know if the person you are attempting to deceive is a "bigot" and avoid potentially ending up in prison?

You won't believe how simple it is...

Colon-Ising :
verb
Making women's spaces out of colon, both literally and figuratively.

This is the post that I was referring to in my post at 8.18. I am having problems with the quote function, so have cut and pasted.

ButterflyHatched · 01/12/2024 23:24

I speak and listen to many, many people - about half of them are women - every day as part of normal life; with my family, my friends, at social gatherings and in the workplace.

We give the obvious transphobic bores a wide berth where we can and roll our eyes whenever someone gets that thunderous doom in their eyes indicating a brewing rant about wokeness or the regurgitation of Daily Mail / Telegraph talking points. It happens periodically, sometimes in the workplace in ways that can be quite unpleasant to have to deal with, but when it boils over like this it's generally an opportunity to identify deeply unpleasant people to avoid while having a good laugh afterwards. You have to laugh, really - it's the best way of staying healthy, especially when you're catching indirect splash damage from it whenever it happens.

It's obvious that there's a lot of hidden 'what you are when nobody is looking' transphobia simmering beneath the surface as well, especially regarding non-binary people, which is a lot more complicated to deal with and I have a lot more sympathy for people who get confused and frustrated with the whole thing. It's important that we strive to align ourselves with compassionate and inclusive principles, however, even if we don't always get everything right.

Indeed.

Firstly, use very clear language. Secondly, don't include prejudiced judgemental language in what is a vitally important message.

'don't fuck bigots or those even faintly vulnerable to bigoted ideologies; they can and will send you to prison and anyone until you have disclosed any information that may cause a person to withdraw consent, including the sex category you belong to, there is legal precedent supporting them doing so'

First rule of safeguarding any person surely must be, be clear, avoid any obfuscating messages and don't bring prejudices such as above into the discussion that means the message can be lost or confused at all.

If we, as adults with a huge amount of experience are confused and asking for clarification, it is a fucking sure sign that a vulnerable person who has very little or even no experience with consent will understand. And women pointing this out should never be abused.

Who knew that this needed fucking saying?

If we look at this through the lens provided by Butters, in that Trans people are the most vulnerable and marginalised demographic....

On what planet is it ever a good idea to deliberately get yourself into a position where someone may react badly to finding out they have been deceived.

I am really shocked that anyone who claims to support and counsel trans youth would ever give that advice TBH.

I am really shocked that anyone who claims to support and counsel trans youth would ever give that advice TBH.

Agreed. This is why I recommended upthread that BH should consult a colleague or member of BH's professional governing body to check that BH's advice is in line with their standards.

NB: there are some doubts as to the veracity of a number of claims, including whether BH aggrandises the nature of BH's role with CYP.

Yes. But apparently we are the bigots who are pointing out that wording the advice the way stated on this thread here numerous times after clarity was sought, is directly opposite what would be considered good safeguarding!

And apparently our pointing this out is horrifying and worthy of the intimidatory ‘there are many people that I have alerted that are reading this now’.

"I am not male.".

No.

You don't get to change what a word means. Male is a biological descriptor.
You are male in every cell of your body, and regardless of how much testosterone you did/did not/ do not have, or what cosmetic enhancements you have had to make yourself look more "female", you are in fact, male.

That's presumably why you are a "trans" woman.
If not, what are you "transing" from? You would just be a woman.

If we both had a genetic test, one of us would be labelled as a male.
Which one of us would that be?

Reality still exists.
You might believe you don't feel like a typical male (whatever that means) but that does not mean that you are a female.
Reality is not transphobic.
Repeating a mantra does not make it true.

Oh and BTW there are many transwomen who readily accept that biological reality exists, meaningful sex change is an impossibility, and happily admit that they are in fact, and remain, male - despite transitioning.

Are they transphobes too?

It's been a few years but it was once very much in vogue for the (all partnered with men) bisexual women I knew to proclaim themselves to "love the wine, not the label" and to say "Hearts Not Parts."

I believe the shorthand for that is bisexual/queer in the streets, terf in the sheets.

I read this today and thought of this thread.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/1865896283950764523?s=46

Salltweets 8/12/24

“The men who claim to be women who are trying to position themselves as the middle ground are actually the most extreme, and in many cases, the most manipulative.

They will keep gender ideology going and allow history to be repeated just to maintain validation of their delusion.”

Just like the male people who insist on them being the special ‘case by case’ group who get to stay in female single sex spaces when all the other male people are excluded.

'terf in the sheets' - That made me smile
But I don't think that queer/bisexual women who are 'all partnered with men' are being terf anywhere, least of all in the sheets.
Wouldn't 'queer in the streets/straight in the sheets' be more accurate? It's
a pretty good description of the people who loudly proclaim themselves 'queer' although they are in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex.