Could we ban "transvestigating" threads on here?

[Christinapple]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5225715-ilona-maher

This one for example. Transvestigating is an informal term given to when people play detective and try to determine if a given person (usually a woman) is transgender or not from how they look e.g. photos.

I've seen it more than a few times on Twitter anytime a woman who is tall or muscular or "masculine looking" appears. Quite often, women are wrongly mistaken for being trans.

As well as being transphobic, IMO this harms all women and reinforces stereotypes of what men/women should look like. And the idea of obsessing over people's appearances like this just doesn't sit well with me.

What an incredible victory that would be for the far right.

Edit: Ah, you edited it. Still, the point stands.

I mean, I bust boobily everywhere, but that's not something I opted into, just a fact of my body having its own ideas about what size breasts I get to have. And not something I can opt out of without paying silly money 💸💸💸 for surgery and living with even more scar tissue, which I'm not keen on given how painful the scars I already have are.

Like I said, womanhood isn't a choice.

Crikey, there's another one!

I'll add it to the list.

What an incredible victory that would be for the far right.

Nazis salute openly and turn up to your rallies while repeating your slogans. Well fucking done.

You don't have to spread rhetoric that encourages the marginalisation and abuse of trans people in order to enable the rise of the far right, but it certainly helps!

I would ask that you please not do the far right's work for them.

You're quite right. Let's defeat the far right by achieving their goals.

who have known links to and funding from shadowy far-right organisations with a well known hate-filled agenda.

Wasn't for me either. Really tried not to be (well, I was a child at the time admittedly) but ultimately it wasn't something I could change about myself no matter how many times we went over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over it in talking therapy sessions.

@ButterflyHatched Having established you couldn’t quote any relevant posts from me as proof of your accusations you need to address @Greyskybluesky you directly targeted her as well

I've never heard of the social contract for a woman. Must be a made up man's thing.

Under a Labour Govt? Unlikely.

Trans people were not targeted by the Nazis.
Just to make that point again.

Saying that they were is just yet another attempt to insert yourself into the trauma of others.

It's an old reference.
Used to describe the relationship between the individual and the State.

Datun, you seem very uncomfortable with this. Me too! Shall we work together to make sure it doesn't get any worse?

If alternatively you'd prefer for it to not be mentioned at all then I'll try to leave you to pretend in peace. It's quite difficult when the evidence is leaping out at me every day from newspaper headlines, reports from international human rights watchdogs and the rhetoric all over social media thinkpieces and political policies, but I'll try and pretend just for you.

trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis

Men(1) who might today identify as women(2) (because who knows how a dead person might have classified themselves under a belief system that arose 40+ years after they died?) were targeted by the Nazis to the degree they were perceived as gay men(1).

Men(1) who might today identify as women(2) were accepted by the Nazis to the degree they were perceived as straight transvestites.

Some men(1) who might today identify as women(2) would have been targeted not because of anything to do with cross dressing or adopting a "woman(2)" persona, but because they were also Jewish, or Gypsies, or another group targeted by the Nazis for reasons other than their (at that point in time non-existent) social gender.

In short, men(1) who might today identify as women(2) may well have been targetted by the Nazis for various reasons, but the possibilty that today they might identify as women(2) was not one of them, and not all men(1) who might today identify as women(2) were targetted.

Please do not disrespect the groups who genuinely were targeted by the Nazis to promote your very personal concept of gender.

(1) Original sex based meaning
(2) meaning under contested genderist concepts

Ok. @Greyskybluesky you haven't claimed the Nazis didn't target trans people in this thread, have you? Then you haven't done a holocaust denial in this thread. Thankyou!

Reset the clock!

Oh god there it goes again

So why did you imply that I had? "Ooops sorry" doesn't cut it.

As a descendant of a Holocaust survivor, I find your posts referencing this subject truly abhorrent.

There is a huge difference between discussing the extent to which trans people were involved in the Holocaust and actual Holocaust DENIAL. You are accusing posters of the latter and you are very wrong.

When I say "not a choice", I mean that my body dictates that I am a woman, not that my body dictates that I am a man and my mind is sure that my body is wrong.

I'm autistic and have first-hand experience of puberty being traumatic and experiencing a form of gender dysphoria myself, one apparently shared by the autistic girls referred to the Tavi. By "a form of gender dysphoria", I mean that I didn't ask to be female and be preyed on by men once I grew breasts, I didn't and still don't want it, and I don't "feel" female. Many autistic girls referred to Tavi described themselves as "non-binary" and that's probably the best description for my mind.

This is why I find your concept of a "social contract we hold ourselves to as women" so laughable: I don't feel like a woman and frequently violate the behavioural and sartorial standards expected of women because I don't understand them or do understand them but think they are pointless. Yet, when I took my car to the mechanic and the mechanic kept talking to my then-boyfriend, who not only didn't own the car but doesn't even have a driving licence, I knew I was a woman because the mechanic was being sexist and I didn't get to opt out of that treatment because I was born female. "Womanhood" is imposed on female people based on sex, not something we feel.

Yes, TRAs do indeed reset the clock when they claim modren concepts of transness were extant in Nazi Germany. I consider it an abhorent act of Holocaust denialism to overwrite the real reaons people were targetted to advance modern concepts of transgender identies.

I really wish TRAs would cease this awful revisionism so we could have a sensible conversation about the impact of Patriachy's sexist and homophobic constructions of the Other and how that still affects us today. But we cannot have that conversation until TRAs understand that their belief framework is still part of that sexist and homophobic framework, and in attempting to escape it all they have done is inverted it.

Absolutely Butters you must not be treated differently from other men. Not one woman here is suggesting you should be banned from men’s sports or men’s spaces.

No one said that transvestites ( as then termed) were not killed in the Holocaust.
The key word is "targeted" . Jews were targeted. Gay men were targeted.

From the Holocaust Musuem.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/gay-men-under-the-nazi-regime

Yep

I know what you're both referring to (I think) but I'm not quite getting it myself, maybe I'm being dim.

Absolutely Butters you must not be treated differently from other men. Not one woman here is suggesting you should be banned from men’s sports or men’s spaces.

Indeed.

Also men can welcome men in dresses into their spaces. That is real and fair inclusion.

@ButterflyHatched an appeal to authority in the form of current laws does not land well with women(1) who remember when the law considered it legal for a man(1) to rape his wife(1), or that a married woman(1) could not own assets in her own right.

Becasue we know full well laws are wriiten by those with power not those without. Laws can be morally wrong, and laws can and have marginalised and disempowered women(1) to the advantage of men (1).

I understand that your position is that pysical sex has no impact on any human's outcomes or lived experience, and therefore single sex provisions are unwarranted, but inner ineffable gender essance is fundamental to all humans and therefore humans must have provisions that segregate by gender essence, yes?

Please argue that point from first principles without refereence to current law (which is merely a reflection of society not the judge of it) and without refefrences to any pre-existing artefacts of the sex-based framework that your position explicity rejects.

(1) Original sex-based meaning

So in conclusion @ButterflyHatched targeted two posters directly insinuating we had made holocaust denial posts and has had to backtrack and admit we hadn’t.

BH has also called women on FWR Nazi’s and had to backtrack and retract that claim.

BH has accused women on FWR of working for the far right and has had to backtrack and admit we weren’t.

BH has made claims about the Holocaust on this thread that they have been unable to back with evidence.

BH has co-opted a victims post about being raped and made it about BH and made claims about why the rape survivor made that post that were lies.

I’ve probably missed some others but @ButterflyHatched has thrown around false accusations and lied and lied and lied some more throughout this thread.

I’ve found their accusation of me personally distressing as has Greyskybluesky and I agree with Greyskybluesky an almost hidden ‘sorry’ in a longer post that makes further insinuations doesn’t cut it for such serious and unfounded accusations.

With the greatest of respect, this is your chance to not double down. Please take it. I beg you.