Mumsnet listed as Anti-Trans

[Hoosemover]

there a list of organisations and Mumsnet is on it. Along with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

x.com/twisterfilm/status/1888255119449268674?s=61

I'm not offended, don't concern yourself on my account.

Someone just has put the problem with not admitted it's about biological sex excellently on the Sandie Peggie thread:

"t's very disingenuous isn't it, because the problem SP has with DU isn't that he's trans, it's that he's biologically (and presumably legally if no GRC) male.

Forcing her to use DU's preferred terminology, she would have to say that she's uncomfortable sharing a changing room with a trans woman. To which the obvious retort is that she is bigoted and transphobic."

We're wise to this sleight of hand re "trans status".

As I said, don't create straw men. If you want to leave the thread, that's up to you. It has nothing to do with any "offence" you are inventing in your head for me.

yes.

Which is why I keep asking the question about

Why should one person’s philosophical belief about themselves, one that doesn’t reflect material reality, be prioritised over anyone else’s beliefs?

It absolutely is relevant to points being discussed and highlights the lack of symmetry in the expectation. Particularly since not complying then has led to accusations about being 'anti-trans'.

All this boils down to:

I don't want men in my female only spaces, and males are not female.

"But surely you don't mean "trans women" of course, because they are women?"

No, I don't see any males as women. See my previous answer.

If people don't want to feel deceived does my partner now have to announce to everyone he's trans?
As someone who was socalised as a female the usual social norms apply. Females imo would have the advantage in they will be taught safeguarding from a female perpective so have a more subtle understanding of why something 'small' is important.
I dont need to know the sex of the person in most social context but sometimes I do.
Oddly enough because the physical contact barrier/taboo is based on the male standard prototype doing X&Y your partner would be asking "what should a man not do that yet woman can", so I expect that a lot of social taboo are beneficial for F to M.

If you refer to him as a man is he obligated to correct you?

Why would it matter if my observation led me to an incorrect conclusion (or I am polite)?
Unless the situation led me to do something I would not have done/agreed to had I been aware your partner was female. That is breaking the social contract your partner knows exists.

He uses the men's washrooms because he looks like a large hairy buff man.

That is making a choice and taking on the risks attached. One of which is the men objecting

Should he be entering women's washrooms even though he looks like a man?

Again this the social contract around making the choices and risk transfer. Your partner knew that the visual changes would create an issue and the social contract (for women anyway) is to not transfer that out on to other people.

So can but should not so a third alternative is meeded if men are not willing to share.

Would he still have access to medical care as a trans person who requires testosterone?

Your partner has no medical need to access a drug used in a medical condition context.

That is the direct result of TRA activism and in the US all drugs and proceedures are seen as lifestyle medicine so not covered by public funding and are sold as an addon product (similar to birth control and pregnancy cover)

So its a mental health issue managed by drugs.
Doctors manage it on the same basis that say depression is managed. However as there is no firm science or pharma is off lable doctors should be justifying treatment by regular assessment (looking at the whole of your partners health phyaical and mental)

Or would he be forced to detransition?

Its a question around should the drug be deregulated for a specific group for a specific need. Provided it remains recognised as a mental condition that problem should not arise.

This could be something that might help explain the issue.

"I don’t like when people on here insist everyone can tell he’s a woman and insist on calling him my girlfriend."

Do you expect people to consider you heterosexual or lesbian or bisexual? And I only bring this up because you mentioned this is something you find transphobic.

If your philosophical belief is to be prioritised, and you state that you are not in a lesbian relationship with a 'girlfriend', should people have to agree with your description of that relationship? Is that homophobic if you believe that people should not consider this a same sex relationship and use appropriate words, because your philosophical beliefs demand people change their definition of same sex attracted people to suit you?

Trans identifying women like your partner are a little different to trans identifying men. They're more likely to pass. They're less of a threat to male spaces than tw are to women's spaces.

In all honesty I don't really care what your partner does, it doesn't make any real difference to me. If men had an issue with TI women in their spaces I would defer to them. They don't appear to so what do I care 🤷‍♀️. I think she should probably pay for her own testosterone and any cosmetic treatment aimed at looking male though.

Thank you for answering. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

In all honesty I don't really care what your partner does, it doesn't make any real difference to me. If men had an issue with TI women in their spaces I would defer to them.

Exactly. That's my position too.

That's the key difference between transmen and transwomen occupying spaces based on gender expression rather than sex -

On the whole it's the transman accepting the increased risk to themselve by accessing men's spaces whereas the risk if transwomen use women's spaces is entirely on the women, not the one encroaching.

I don't think Princess's partner need disclose their sex except in a place where it is relevant, and that's not all that many. Day to day it's irrelevant most of the time - I don't need a cheek swab to shop at Lidl, nor to work at my laptop in a cafe.

Examples where it matters:
A healthcare setting in order to access appropriate care or to be teated by an appropriate person; a facility, group or incentive exclusively for the use of a particular demographic (some gay men's saunas and clubs have been unhappy about transmen wishing to join, for example); when hoping to have a relationship with someone (informed consent matters); in sport competitions.

The idea of 'stopping transitions" and what would happen to Princess's partner in that situation is a straw man. There are no such suggestions in this country.

Stopping the experimental and poorly evidenced medical treatment of young people, yes. Pushback against self-ID, absolutely. But those who are gender non-conforming or trans-identifying have full rights and protections in the U.K., and rightly so.

The epistemological world view that various people put forth denies my partner’s existence as a trans person which is inherently a transphobic argument.

To determine that my positionality, which in itself is a presumption that you’re making without actually making a statement, is homophobic starts at the basis of the presumption that a trans identity is invalid, and therefore it must be a same sex couple.

I’m also concerned about the juxtaposition of transphobia and homophobia as if one should be prioritized over the other, rather than accepting that these can exist at the same time. My acceptance of his identity however, renders any attribution of homophobia to this situation as moot. In fact, I’d argue that it’s homophobic to make assertions that this is a same sex relationship as that demeans and invalidates the experiences of same sex couples who have fought for decades to be seen as different and accepted.

So no real clarity at all on

“Why should one person’s philosophical belief about themselves, one that doesn’t reflect material reality, be prioritised over anyone else’s beliefs?”

It seems you really do expect people to just prioritise your beliefs. You don’t seem to be able to acknowledgement of the conflict of priorities unless it is a conflict you, personally, have too. Such as single sex spaces and sport.

I don’t believe it’s a philosophy.

We won’t see eye to eye if that’s our positions.

We are arguing over something that we fundamentally disagree with.

the presumption that a trans identity is invalid, and therefore it must be a same sex couple.

Hold on a second, @Princessconsuelabananahammock9, I think you may have lost me.

Are you saying that your relationship with your partner, who is female, and a transman, is not a same sex relationship? Helle hasn't said that it makes you a lesbian; bisexual people also have same sex relationships. But surely you can see as two natal female people, you are in a same sex relationship, can't you?

I thought we'd established much further back in the tread that having a trans identity couldn't change the sex of person. That surgery and hormones better helped your partner express themself as a transman and move through society masculine-presenting.

It's not invalidating a trans identity - it's explicitly acknowledging that the challenges faced by a couple in which one has a trans identity are different to those faced by heterosexual couples.

I'm not saying this in an accusatory or aggressive way, btw - I know tone is hard to get across online. I'm just very surprised and querying because I thought we'd already established the baseline of what trans was or wasn't, to you.

I think it is very honest for somebody to admit that, yes, their beliefs and desires are more important than those of others.

Georgia Thomas: Ally, what makes your problems so much bigger than everybody else's?
Ally McBeal: They're mine.

Oh dearie me. How dreadful...

How bothered about it is MN however.

This is what I have found very confusing in general, there is a lack of clarity.

And that poster moaned upthread about gender identity advocated being called narcissistic. Go figure...

Ok. Let's try again.

If it is not based on philosophical belief what is gender identity based on? Because it is only your personal belief, and others, that it is based on gender dysphoria. And is gender dysphoria a mental health issue, in your opinion?

There is a way to discuss things without calling me narcissistic.

Honestly I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere.

I believe there is a mental health aspect for sure, and yes I believe medical transition can be the cure for some people.

At the end of the day though if you think it’s a philosophy I can understand why you would be frustrated.

I can absolutely understand your point of view.

It just differs from mine.

Because I think it’s more nuanced.

We present as a heterosexual couple. I’m attracted to his masculinity. Yes he has a vagina.

I wouldn’t define us as lesbians though because that’s not our experience in the world and he has medically transitioned.

I’d argue that it’s homophobic to make assertions that this is a same sex relationship

This is upside down logic. You know your partner hasn't actually changed sex. So unless you are male, it is a same sex relationship.

Because I think it’s more nuanced.

It is not.

At the end of the day though if you think it’s a philosophy I can understand why you would be frustrated.

Of course it is a philosophical belief that many other people dispute. Whether you find that fact inconvenient or not, it is not a settled matter of fact that a group of men should be classed as women, and vice versa.