I think I'm becoming transphobic

[MyGhastIsFlabbered]

I feel unpleasant writing this but I need to put it down somewhere. I know trans people, I have no problem with them and I've always said TWAW. But recently, especially in light of the Sandie Pegge, Beth Upton case my views are changing. I don't have a problem with people wearing what they want, I'm even fine with pronouns.

But I'm starting to believe that you cannot change sex. All the surgery and hormones in the world will not make you a woman. Saying 'I'm a woman' doesn't make it so.

What's worse is that my 15 year old stepdaughter is identifying as male and I just find myself getting so frustrated whenever they refer to themselves as 'a dude'.

Am I transphobic or just realistic? How can I come to terms with my feelings as they are evolving?

OP you’re just basing yourself in reality instead of fantasy

As sometimes happens on some threads, first reply nails it! You're not transphobic @MyGhastIsFlabbered

I am done with it all. Pronouns, stubble on women, men in clown face. I've just completed scout Diversity training - it's full of Pride and pronouns. I've tried to direct my energies into things more positive than X doom scrolling - I joined a women's group. But all it did was bring it all up constantly. I am DONE. I no longer care: if mispronouning is transphobic, I am a transphobe. Pride should not be part of secular organisation like scouts. It should not be in hospitals, anywhere.

To be fair to Fiona Bruce, I should imagine Professor Winston would also say that it's impossible for a human child to be conceived without sperm and then born to a virgin mother. However, approximately 2.3 billion people would likely disagree with that (if you ask Google how many Christians there are in the world).

My view is similar to the PPs who have commented above about belief: I accept that people believe different things to me and that's OK. What's not OK is it being imposed on me as if it's true. Sure, some people might call it blasphemy (me not agreeing that Jesus is the son of god) or transphobia (me not agreeing that (transwo)men are women if they say they are) but if that's supposed to make me feel bad, it won't because I do hold either of these beliefs. What it would make me feel is sad, if it was someone I cared about whose reciprocal respect/friendship/care/love was predicated on me accepting their belief as if it were true.

OP, I think this is a great thread. I should imagine there are many people who are feeling similarly discombobulated by what the Peggie case is highlighting in the public discourse and for whom your posts resonate. I hope your step-daughter and you can navigate a path through it.

As a mum of a previously (I hope**) gender questioning adolescent daughter, I wanted to send a 💪 and some 💐 too. Hopefully your husband will start to recognise the issues that you're now seeing and can apply these to how he supports his daughter.

** Unfortunately this isn't guaranteed. There are tons of influences online, in school and in all sorts of other places telling her that it's possible/liberating to be the opposite sex/gender and that anyone saying otherwise might be harmful to her.

I was told by a trans activist that I was transphobic because even if I used the (in)correct pronouns, if I didn’t believe it in my heart, I was still transphobic.

These extremists are very dangerous. And they don't even realise it themselves. Once you get to the stage of trying to control people's thoughts and mind control, you've really gone off the deep end, and are very deeply unwell. These people really need to be committed to an asylum. And I don't say that lightly. They are deeply, deeply ill. And they wonder why they are losing the war. Normal run of the mill fair-minded trans activists must cringe when they hear or read these unstable nutjobs speak. It sets their cause back enormously.

I don't understand it. I am a girl and can't change that or want to.

We've just heard an actual doctor in a tribunal describe how he is biologically female.

There are only two possibilities, here.

Either he is deluded, and grossly ignorant of very basic reality, or he is lying and using sophistry to try to pretend that he has the right to insist that women in a state of undress in a changing room do not leave the room when he enters.

I believe he’s a deluded liar, and I’m hoping that he will bring about the end of this utter nonsense.

One problem is that we've had a generation raised with outrageous disinformation.

The BBC taught children there are 100 gender identities:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/parents-condemn-bbc-educational-film-describing-100-gender-identities-396092vl8

In theory, this is fine, given that 'gender identity' doesn't really have a stable meaning, other than 'an affinity with or aversion to gender stereotypes'. However, this is presented in a way that impressionable, young children are likely to believe means 'sex'.

Formerly reputable publications have suggested there are more than two sexes. Scientific American, take a bow:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

'new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body.'

And governments have colluded.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2024/11/05/the-extra-genders/

'The Scottish Government coding framework provides three different suggested groupings, for any free text responses that public bodies gather in response to questions about trans status. The simplest suggests 3 categories [Yes, No, Not stated]. Another has 7 categories, and is similar to that used by the NRS [Not trans and does not have a trans status, Trans man, Trans woman, Non-binary person, Trans status: not specified, Other trans status or history, Not stated]. The final one issued by the Scottish Government, however, has 27 categories [No, Cisgender, No recognised trans status, Trans man, Trans woman, Non-binary, Trans – not otherwise specified, 19 individual genders, Not stated].'

Yes. ‘Diversity’ training seems to be a euphemism for getting men into women’s spaces and silencing women who object.

Thats not diversity, it’s just browbeating women.

In companies who trumpet loudest about ‘diversity’, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent uplift in provision for disabled, or a reduction in age discrimination for example.

When the media, academia, governments and pressure groups are all lining up to confuse and befuddle even adults -

https://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/article/flawed-census-question-leads-to-inaccurate-data-on-gender-identity

-it's highly likely we've raised a generation that genuinely believe there are more than two sexes, and that sex is a sort of pick-n-mix smorgasboard which we can adjust according to our sartorial preference, adding whichever genital arrangement we find most pleasing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/12/nhs-trangender-doctor-jonathan-arcelus-male-female-genitals/

'An NHS transgender clinic doctor endorsed procedures such as enabling patients to have both male and female genitalia'

As seen in Ryan Castelluci:

https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2024-news/nonbinary-us-citizen-to-appeal-high-courts-ruling-over-gender-recognition-certificate/

'Eventually they underwent surgery to construct a new vagina while preserving their penis – a rare but increasingly requested option that they liken to “taking bits of gender from both the M and the F menu”.'

I don't think you are transphobic.

But, and I am sure you already do this, it's important to realise that some people who agree with your headline views, will have more extreme views and will be transphobic. So just be careful. I am

'But I'm starting to believe that you cannot change sex.'

Starting?

I suspect many of us started from this position. I know I did. Then I became gradually alert to the fact that what had touted itself as a movement intended to protect the rights of a minority was in actuality a wholesale assault on the rights of women, as well as representing a very clear and present danger to children. Kathleen Stock was my real wake-up call. Then I watched in horror as the Bell case went through the courts, the wheels fell off Mermaids and the Cass review was published.

Until that point I was of the 'don't care how people want to present themselves, live and let live' type of attitude. The TRAs are a long way from this position, however. Primarily, their aim is to harm women, and some of them are vocally upfront about their desire to do so.

As for the old-school transsexuals you mention, Hayton and Grayson Perry are quite upfront about their (acronym that shall not be spoken). I suppose in that upfrontness they've at least shown who they are, and people can choose to participate or not participate in humouring their personae on that basis. It's not great, and they should not be lauded in any way for doing so. But at least it's honest. I find that approach preferable to the worn-out parrot cry that TWAW, that that the whole of society should be expected to interact with them on the basis of that lie, and that anyone who declines to do so is a hateful bigot who should be cancelled or fired.

Miranda Yardley is worth listening to. Not least, IMO he has the namby-pamby third wave feminists bang to rights. Also, anyone who socks it to Mermaids is doing okay in my book. That is one dangerous organisation; how they're even still in operation is a mystery to me.

*I don't hold either of these beliefs

(Accidentally saying that I do somewhat muddles what I'm trying to say 🤦‍♀️)

@WillIEverBeOk I don't think it's that helpful to talk about people being deeply ill in these situations. Yes there will be some people who are actually mentally ill but I think there are far FAR more who are brainwashed and going along with what they feel is least threatening and most conforming, like Maoist Red Guards or Jehovah's Witnesses who are explicitly told to shun those who leave the faith.

A lot of people are more like the OP's brother - they see the OP starting to think critically, and that is seen as a thought crime. They're not mentally ill, they're brainwashed and afraid of challenge to their articles of faith. Hence, accusations of transphobia if the belief is not shared, drowning out speakers with air horns, refusing to let women meet, etc. These are the actions of people who feel they are combating heresy. It's political, ideological, and faith-based rather than mental illness.

As usual, Orwell got there first with his "4 fingers" torture scene in 1984.

I suppose in that upfrontness they've at least shown who they are, and people can choose to participate or not participate in humouring their personae on that basis.

Unfortunately the paraphilia includes elements of non-consensuality. So the crux of it is boundary transgression. Perry was quite open about this in his interview with Kirsty Young.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5020672-grayson-perry-and-kirsty-young-speaking-sense

KY: ‘When people have a … an uncomfortable or a negative reaction to a man wearing a woman’s clothes, do you think it might be because they understand that they are participative in something that is quasi sexual and they haven’t consented to that?’
GP: ‘Yeah, yeah’
KY: ‘and they haven’t consented to that?”
GP: ‘Yeah, yeah. Yeah.’
…
‘But then again, a couple walking down the street holding hands is sort of charged with sexuality as well, so it’s sort of like, where do you draw the line, you know …
KY: ‘There is I suppose - a person might say a straightforwardness about that, you can just see what it is , which is it’s two people being affectionate towards each other, there’s a straightforwardness to that that’s far from –‘
GP: ‘Yeah, I think it’s got to be faced up to, yeah’
‘yeah’
GP ‘yeah’
KY: ‘And how do you think …’
GP: ‘‘Well, you know, for me, it’s like: ooh, there’s a bit of darkness in the old dog yet. [laughs]’

When, does anyone know, did society change? 30 years ago, a man stating quite baldly in an interview that his boner was based on other's unwilling or unknowing participation in his kink would at least have caused a stir, some uncomfortable seat shifting and perhaps a few raised eyebrows. Now...its almost applauded. Good boy, who's a clever boy, here's a bone(r) for our clever, clever boy.
I genuinely look at men, all men, with a side eye now. I don't know what's worse - being oblivious or knowing.

Could you please tell us how you define transphobic? Being genuine here. @sleepwouldbenice

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/apr/21/donald-trump-transgender-bathroom-bill-north-carolina-video

Here's Trump in 2016 asserting that trans people should use the "bathroom" of their choice.

The point being there's nothing inherently left wing about trans rights ideology. In many ways, with it's preoccupation with individualism, pharmaceuticals and gender stereotypes, it's a better fit for the right. It's no suprise that the hyper capitalist US had been funding it globally with USAID.

The other point is that Trump wants power and sees which way the wind is blowing at any given moment.

TRAs did an amazing job to astroturf trans rights ideology, making ordinary people believe it to be a genuine, grass roots, rights movement. Sure some women have been speaking out a lot longer than I have but we live in a global patriarchy and it's easy for all of us to ignore women's voices. I used to as well.

I think where TRAs went wrong was "acceptance without exception". They ought to have at least pretended to put distance between the idea of "transwoman" and the actions of actual abusive males who claim trans identities. But they don't. They're cheering Dr Upton on as we speak. The Guardian cared more about a transwoman sex offender's lack of beauty products in prison than they did his teenage victim. Normal people of any political persuasion start to query this shit.

TBH I find a PP comparing trans people to parasites pretty transphobic.

Did they actually? Or did they describe trans rights ideology as parasitic?

If it's the latter can you explain why you disagree?

Not all trans people are on board with the fundamentalist strain of this ideology. I think it's transphobic to imply they are.

Parasite is quite a harsh word, but let's not pretend it's not what has happened. TQ+ behaviour patterns attached themself to LGB to get a free ride. The LGB are sexual orientations. The TQ+ are not. Yet by grabbing on, tq+ has benefitted from lgb protections despite not actually qualifying for them. Tq+ has also grabbed a free ride on sex protected rights of women, claiming belonging where it doesn't exist, and benefiting from protections the tq+ is not entitled to.

Cuckooing. That friendlier?

I'm not good at quoting posts. They said: "There is no minority group or struggle that trans won't colonise or appropriate. They really are as many experts have deemed them, parasites. Termites that attach themselves to an established (and vulnerable) group and eat away at that group from the inside out."

Exactly