Is it possible to be a feminist and also have some empathy for transgender people today?

[HoundOfTheBasketballs]

I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert here but everything feels incredibly polarised. Like, either you’re with us or you’re against us.
Is there no middle ground in this debate?
I am, and always have been a feminist, but I know and like people who are trans and non-binary. I can’t be the only person feeling confused and conflicted, can I?

It was the rhetoric and this was intensified by short sm comments - the word TRANSPHOBIC was used from the start by misogynists -so any comment that suggested misgivings about eg male born transgender women competing against women in female sport was TRANSPHOBIC anything that wasn’t ‘kind’ and inclusive but instead used actual facts was TRANSPHOBIC.
When in fact many were just discussion and queries.
Arachnophobic means scared of and hating spiders. Transphobic means scared and hating Transgenders -no one is scared and hates transgenders.

edit -also this meant it shut down reasoned debate from the start. I’m not sure it was even humans who started with the Transphobic term. Could have been bots.

100% this ^^

And to think of all the public money that’s been taken but not spent on this is truly shocking.

Instead a fortune has been spent on getting organisations and public bodies to unlawfully admit males to single sex spaces. All of this done by stealth in policies hidden from public view.

It was cruel of Stonewall to let trans people think they had rights to which they are not entitled.

Why am I not seeing that in the headlines?
Because MSM have also been duped by Stonewall

Why are you a feminist OP?

I was speaking to a teen about this today. Feminism is ensuring that women have basic rights and are protected. Not discriminated against. The need for feminism is more apparent when women have significant disadvantages, for instance countries where women arnt taken seriously unless they are walking with a male; countries where females aren’t educated because they are raped, fall pregnant etc; places where it’s hard to access sexual health as a woman.

In the west, we’ve added so many layers to what feminism is and isn’t, but in reality if is all about protecting females. And how can we protect our girls at all if we can’t even define what a female/woman is without a massive debate? Yesterdays ruling is a sigh of relief for those of us that are female and can feel our voices being stripped away when another man can walk into our safe spaces; when we get an unfair disadvantage in sport because someone born male has an unfair advantage.

I know trans people, and I feel for them, because they are fighting to be women. But this need should not interfere the law to the point where our daughters and young girls are no longer safe. Imagine a dangerous man walking into a female cubical and we can say “well the law doesn’t have a definition for women, so I can be here” - we have to think about what things mean long term.

You can fight for protection for females whilst still being allies for trans people. But we are not trans, and will never understand the complexities of their needs; as is the other way around, being a “cis” woman is a unique experience with a different set of needs. We can coexist with eachother without diminishing the existence of one another.

People who identify as non binary define themselves against a binary they project onto everyone else.

I find that insulting, reductive and solipsitic. I really don't understand why people who claim to be feminist are happy to endorse such a sexist way of seeing other people.

Hiya OP. I feel a bit like you. By virtue of other things in my life I'm in various groups and forums with quite a few trans/non binary people. When I read the discussions there about this judgement and here it just feels like being on two separate planets.

@Keha
I imagine there’s a great deal of unhappiness which is a great shame. It must be a very difficult and worrying time for many.

Personally I think it was cruel of Stonewall to promise things that weren’t legal and to encourage people down a path on false pretences.

Do the trans and non-binary people feel upset about that? Or is their upset directed at women?

afai can see, non-binary is a near inevitable outcome of believing that there is a thing called 'gender' that obliges anyone who has one to conform to tightly defined presentation standards and activities. So most of the human race, needing to just get on with the messy stuff of daily living, has to be non-binary' in order to survive. The lovely thing for those of us who don't believe in gender is we can do all that stuff without having to adopt a definition in order to do so.

Thank goodness, people who stick labels on themselves are so DULL.

Maybe if you know someone over the age of 17 who still thinks 'non-binary' is their best definition you could try to distract them with a Myers-Briggs test, or astrology - particularly a system that combines Chinese signs with those mostly used in the west. It's still over-reductive, but at least it increases the range of possibilities.

Have only read till page 8 but what is clear to me is that this whole conversation would have been much easier to read and follow if we used clearer terminology.

A man who wishes he was born a female = trans identifying male. (1)
A woman who wishes she was born male = trans identifying female. (2)

Of course there could be new words invented for those groups but in my view the moment group (1) asked to be called "trans-women" and group (2) asked to be called "trans-men", and society obliged, the whole English speaking world confused itself.

It is two separate planets, one is based in reality and the other isn’t. Facts matter, sex matters, and those who sold vulnerable young people the fantasy that sex can be changed should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
No one’s best interests are served by this insidious ideology, that this judgement was even necessary is testament to that.

None binary assumes that they believe others accept binary nature of gender

m because sex is just an observable fact like having 2 legs and 2 arms

so gender is something else that isn’t the sex

and it’s something that many women don’t actually have , or agree with , or conform to

and we none conforming women have a long history of existence - challenging stereotypes and restrictions in the small or large scale - Boudicca , Mary seacole, Rosalind Franklin , caroline Hershel , the lady who drives the tractor at the local farm , the lady who never wears make up even at funerals - crucially at the same time recognising that our sex still matters and shouldn’t be ignored , and recognising that all women are unique and that the stereotypes should not be applied to women even those who fit them quite well

but I can understand how the bullying that none conforming girls receive at the hands of other girls does push them out and make them feel unwanted and different - but at the end of the day many other women have lived through this and dont feel the need to box in the bullies into a stereotype. And they can see that their sex matters in many ways that must not continue to be overlooked - pain management , heart attack symptoms , safety equipment - these are things that affect all women and have been overlooked because of gender assumptions , gender assumptions that none binary reinforces. It weakens the ability of women to discuss rationally what it means to be a women and how women are not yet equal in society.

but by calling themselves none binary they are saying that all other women are gender compliant which is bloody rude. And they are emphasising gender (individual personality ) over sex when the sex based problems are the underlyin problems. They would never have been treated in the way they were if they were not female in the first place . If gender hadn’t been imposed they wouldn’t need to say “that isn’t me “

You completely miss the point then and one of the bonkers effects of trying to replace sex with gender in law.

I'll give you an example so it makes sense:

In law, the equality act is about treating people equally and to protect them from harms. It is not about thoughts and feelings.

A doctor NEEDS to treat a patient on the basis of sex not gender. If a doctor is forced to treat a patient on the basis of gender it creates an issue.

If gender replaces sex, legally if someone has changed gender, if the doctor recognises this, they would not be able to say anything. They would legally have to treat them equally with someone of the same gender. If they don't they are legally vulnerable to acting unlawfully under existing legislation. This creates a problem because if they do that they may do harm or simply be unable to treat them. This legally opens them up to a potential negligence claim.

Therefore as it stands doctors are in a damned if they do and damned if they don't scenario if the court had ruled differently. And this would have put trans people (not women) at risk of harm. This is because sex remains relevant at all times to those who have transitioned whether they want to admit it or not.

The ruling was about clarifying the law and what the intentions of the law were when it was written. It's plainly absurd to suggest that biological sex wasn't observed and recognised as being biological sex and separate from gender at the time the Act was written. This was 2010. It wasn't written by a far right government. It was written by a progressive government wanting equal and fair treatment for everyone.

The Act wrote exemptions in because it recognised that women had human rights to privacy and dignity (as written in law under the human rights act). This also protected women's sport. These rights were recognised and established.

However the law also still protected trans people - it is just not been properly understood and properly carried out. There is still a requirement for trans peoples privacy and dignity to be respected and upheld but how this is done must be through other solutions and not at the expense of the privacy and dignity of women.

The other telling exemption within the act was the recognition that sex could always be seen in transmen - this prevented them from inheritance titles if they transitioned. The reverse was not true for transwomen - they would not lose a title if they transitioned.

If sex had been replaced by gender, it would also mean that lesbians and gay men would have lost their same sex protections under law. Worse still in certain scenarios they would have risked been criminalised if they rejected someone on the basis of being of the opposite sex. This would have been a massive regression of homosexual rights.

What we have seen in the last 15 years is an erosion of this and a neglect for upholding women's rights in this area. And women smeared and attacked for trying to uphold their existing legal rights.

There is nothing Trumpian here in this ruling. This is pure old fashioned liberalism which has been poorly understood by people who don't understand that legal definitions are hugely important and the ruling is neutral politically.

Trans people in various ways, actually have their rights solidified and protected better due to this ruling. The area they have 'lost' in (they haven't - they've never had this right and have been acting unlawfully) is in access to single spaces. This highlights another problem. One of over reach and how they didn't want equality but they wanted the use of women (with or without consent) to validate their identity. This is not ok because it came at the expense of women in many ways and made them second class.

This ruling does not make trans people second class. It protects them and it means others solutions need to be found but it doesn't make them less equal.

This has been misrepresented hugely by the media for a number of years and this is appalling. At best it's legal illiteracy but at worse it's the deliberate attempt to undermine the law, remove the existing legal protections women have and to misrepresent this all whilst blaming women for being not accepting enough. This is no ok. It is sexist, it harms women, it harms gay people, it harms certain religious groups and ironically it harms transpeople.

But gender binary is the issue, not wrong bodies. Wear suits and boots, overalls and tool belts, crop your hair, operate cranes. As a woman. Wear dresses, heels, full make up, long hair. As a man. These things should be entirely flexible. Have relationships with whoever you want as long as they are over the age of consent and consensual.

There should be no need to chop off breasts or genitals or take up lawsuits against others who don't pretend they can't intuit what sex you are, in order to access this range of behaviours. It is gender conformity to go to extremes to deny your sex, just so you can adopt a gender counter to it. Gender should be totally fluid and I'd fight hard for anyone's right to express it. But sex isn't mutable in humans.

Trans lots unfair privileges they never should have had. Women got their rights back. Everyone got the right to speak the truth.

No empathy from me for autogynophiles and misogynists. I'll save it for the people damaged by internalised misogyny or homophobia.

Why do you think there’s less tolerance for trans people than there are for religious people?

No one has ever called me names on the internet for not believing in their God. Nor have I ever seen it happen to anyone else. I’ve been called a TERF for not believing a man can become a woman though, and seen others called much worse for similar views.

(And I’m not a TERF, I include trans men in my feminist beliefs).

Well that was confusing. I was saying how much I agree with you.

@Thegreatestdancer "And sometimes women are violent. What are the percentages of women violent against women vs trans women violent against women. Both very rare I would say."

Here is some indicative insight for you:
"MtF were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violet offence. The group had no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or for violent offending."
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Also very revealing, of course, that the Supreme Court was asked to define ‘woman’. Rather than ‘man’.

Op I’m not sure what you’re after when you say people need support.

Women will hopefully get single sex spaces back. The male sex class can be more supportive.

Not at all. Fourth wave feminism, and in particular eco feminism both look at sex and gender. There is a school of thought that until we get rid of the labels we place on each other, we will never be truly equal.
Personally, I think a bit of common sense has to be applied here. Trans people in sports, prisons, changing rooms should all be regulated to an extent, and women have to be protected. I don't think any trans person who is a good person would disagree with this.
I can see both sides of the discussion though.
You do you. Research both sides and come to your own conclusions.
Debate is always healthy.

It’s not intended to be an argument, it’s just me working out where I stand on this.

And it’s not giving all the men access to the women’s toilets, most men don’t want to be there, so that argument doesn’t make sense.

By saying that trans women can’t use women’s toilets, you’re effectively saying they’re not allowed to exist, because everyone needs to use public toilets sometimes, and it’s not dignified for someone presenting as female to have to use a men’s toilet. Use of any other single sex space is optional and I agree with putting biological sex-based boundaries on those, the trans activists pushing for access to those are trampling on women’s boundaries and I’m grateful to the women who pushed for this to be clarified in law. No reasonable person born male can genuinely believe they deserve to compete in women’s sports. But the toilets issue is different.

Trans people in sports, prisons, changing rooms should all be regulated to an extent, and women have to be protected.

Well that’s easy, isn't it? Transpeople compete in the sport that reflects their biological sex (go the prison that does so, and also changing rooms). Therefore women are protected.

Not sure why you put ‘to an extent’ @whengodwasarabbit1?

By saying that trans women can’t use women’s toilets, you’re effectively saying they’re not allowed to exist, because everyone needs to use public toilets sometimes, and it’s not dignified for someone presenting as female to have to use a men’s toilet.

But why should I worry about someone’s dignity, at the expense of my own safety?

AFAIK, men’s toilets always have cubicles, so a trans woman could use one of those surely?

Trans people can still live as they like, dress how they like, have surgeries and take cross sex hormones and call themselves what they like. I have no issue with any of that provided they are adults making that choice for themselves. I'll even be polite and use their preferred names and pronouns. I have no desire to see these people hurt or "gone after" in anyway and I have found some aspects of the argument against transwomen in particular a little toxic at times.

However a line has to be drawn. Transwomen are not actually women, they are males who desire to be seen as and live as women but they are and remain male and ultimately men regardless of what steps they take to alter their bodies. This is pertinent when it comes to women's rights and spaces which have been hard won by women over generations. There is no reason why males who identify as women should have access to single sex spaces other than their desire to feel seen and accepted as women by women. Therefore their desire to access these spaces is more about their own desire for validation as opposed to actual need. Women on the basis of their sex do require access to single sex spaces, sports and representation and single sex means no males, regardless of how they look or act its irrelevant because males cannot become women in any meaningful way.

Nobody is stopping transwomen doing what they want except for accessing women's spaces.

And it’s not giving all the men access to the women’s toilets, most men don’t want to be there, so that argument doesn’t make sense.

So women’s safety and dignity should be predicated on what men want, ie women don’t need to worry about “all the men” because they don’t want to be there. What about those who do, and who will go to the extent of changing gender to gain access? Or won’t even bother with changing anything, who will simply say they’re a woman?

A clear definition of woman is needed because something that would have gone unquestioned when the EA was written was utterly eroded because some men saw a way in. Womens protections should be based in law, not what men might or might not want.