TW who supports the SC ruling - AMA

[VanishingVision]

Hello! I was thinking of doing this post for a little while now as the previous posts doing this by the rather wonderful trans men here were really interesting but I didnt want to take up too much space here or take any attention away from much more important things here than what I have to say.

But I figured to just go for it before I have a big old break from the Internet for a while.

So like the title says, I'm a transwoman who accepts the SC ruling: ask me anything if you'd like to and I'll do my best to answer.

No one thinks that fertility is the definition of sex. Otherwise children and women past the menopause would be sexless.

What this conversation shows is how often the trans argument is linguistic. They are changing the definition of words to fit their world view, not using language to clearly articulate their position.

They claim we can't say women are of the sex that becomes pregnant because some women cannot become pregnant. But they are changing 'can become' from potentially to definitely.

Similarly the discussions around trans in general is hard because they refuse to define and jump to different groups when it suits. Trans is an identity, a diagnosis of GD, a GRC or surgery and hormonal treatment at any given time.

Respectfully, you are wrong.

I had no influence from the trans community and I had no trans friends growing up. No influence from the media as it wasn't a topic when GD became prevalent in my life and I've typically always been someone who doesn't pay much attention to the media, much preferring to stick to my more niche musical and artistic topics. So no social contagion for myself. I also had limited access to the Internet in fact until I was 18.

GD showed itself truly as I going through puberty, after 'working it out' I tried to transition twice but failed out of fear (my experiences of SA was the cause of being scared to do so). All that happened was my GD just got worse and worse throughout my life until I eventually made the steps, I transitioned AFTER puberty. Also, psychiatrists in multiple sessions concluded that SA was not the course of my dysphoria and I believe and agree with them. I respect your position but I'm afraid you are wrong on this one.

Awh thanks!

I suspect they felt like it would make my life easier and safer, primarily it was the group of women that I worked with whom I was close to. They started taking me out with them alot and pretty much dragged me in with him 'no this is where you go now'.
I had no real intention or plan to change spaces, I wasn't using either at the time so it wasn't something that even crossed my mind. I was aware they didn't speak for all women, but they convinced me most women wouldn't have a problem or even notice me in there and I believed them at the time. Unfortunately, I have a tendency to be a little naive.

I agree, as much as I feel like I would love to see something like that happen 'not our crimes' I also can't imagine it will considering it would likely involve some of witch-hunt to determine who and who isn't genuine. The trans community's attitude is typically 'believe everyone who tells you who they are'.

Maybe in time, a result of the ruling I want to see is that the opportunist men's ability to access single sex spaces being something that dissuades these kinds to persue transition. So, maybe if that happens it could maybe become a possibility 🤷‍♀️

Unfortunately the moderate voices always get shouted down.

Respectfully, I do not believe that either of us know for sure. You have the advantage of closeness to the issue, but given the issue is you, you are maybe too close.

Mental health practitioners of all sorts appear to me to be deeply flawed due to bias, and they are practicing something which seems to be art s much as science.

And that is before we get to my issue which is that aside from things like pinning back ears or reducing the size of a very large nose or skin grafts to hide a facial scar, all surgery should be for medical issues. I do not accept that there is evidence that BIID should be treated with amputation, and no evidence that GD that leads to surgery or hormones is anything other than Sex Specific BIID under a different name.

And even if surgeries were categorically statistically seen to benefit the mental health of an individual we still need to consider whether the financial and other costs to society are worth the price.

As far as I am concerned truth will always matter and truth must always win. I simply do not believe that individuals or society benefits in the mid to long term by lies.

Exactly.

I'm also an infertile woman, but still very much a woman. So it's a resounding fuck off from me too.

Infertile and post menopausal here so it's a double get ta fuck from me. I was born female and will die female.

This is a feminist board, on a site called 'Mumsnet', created by and for women.

So where do you get off telling a woman that 'the men are having a conversation' and using a patronising term to do so? Absolutely risible.

Because Arabella, as you know, male people like to make sure that female people know that they can ignore female people's boundaries and access the spaces set up for female people. I am sure that most of those reading that post understood the dynamic they just witnessed.

I hope those reading along also understand this is exactly the dynamic we describe as a motivator when any male person now enters a female single sex space after the Supreme Court clarification. To be fair, it was most likely the motivator for a large proportion of male people entering any provision that was designated female single sex.

And I am also thinking that readers will have noticed the strength of the emotional manipulation being used to demand what pronouns people use. Pronouns eh? So harmless and insignificant that no one should have any issue at all with using demanded pronouns, yet such a powerful necessity that it seems to cause families to be split if demands not met. But... so, so, so, harmless.... yet, people don't seem to have any choice but to act in compliance of someone's philosophical belief about themselves.

I remember the thread that that particular poster started. I am not surprised to see the nature of their posts here.

“Some” male people
that should read.

The moderate voice is still one that wants some men to be treated as if they are not men.

The calls for unisex spaces is based on the idea that some people cannot be grouped with their sex.

Is this really a moderate view or an imposed compromise?

Many brave women stood up to the witch-hunters and got us to the point where we have the SC ruling. Maybe trans-identified people could write to their MPs to say that they support the ruling. Explain to them that there are many men using the cover of 'trans' to indulge their fetishes. Have a quiet word with HR to say that they are content to use the facilities provided for their sex. Have a chat with their local leisure centre to find a way to include them without encroaching on women's spaces. I'm wondering if you can think of anything else that trans-identified people could do to help.

My question is, Why do you assume anyone else is interested in how you feel?
The male sense of entitlement is strong.

Agree. Anything 'moderate' still relies upon the acceptance of unacceptable premises. Men are not women and any men who insist on being treated as such are dangerous.

I don't think that is necessarily a moderate view (unisex instead of sex segregated spaces).

Some people suggest this could be a 'compromise' but whenever a compromise is proposed it is essential to accurately identify who and what is being compromised.

The devil is in the detail.

I don't assume anyone would be interested and I don't feel entitled to anybody's time or space as I am very aware that I'm a male person here in a feminist space. Nobody has to interact if they don't wish to.

If itcould add something to the conversation on what is an extremely divisive subject then I felt like it could be worthwhile despite being hesitant to take up more space here than I should but perhaps I was wrong.

@VanishingVision it is difficult to hear the strong reactions from some people on here, but after years of being gaslighted and scolded some of us have drawn a very hard line.

But that is the nature of this board there are very robust arguments and disagreements, that is all it is.

So try not to be upset, your post is important to some of us and has for me shed some light.

Thank you. That's what I was getting at yesterday.

I'm bored of hearing the opinions of male people on a clarification of existing equality law.

Especially on a site for women.

You are very correct here. I think before most trans people could consider doing those sorts of things, they'd have to stop listening to TRAs first because I think we'd see a different narrative forming if that was the case.

I'm personally really new to doing this kind of thing especially as I'm not very political and I don't ever want to try and speak for anyone else but perhaps I should try and find a way to reach out to more trans people to say 'hey, we could perhaps find a different approach here...'
Writing to my MP, that is certainly something I'm going to do to start with though.

Oh, I understand I'm not getting upset. Perhaps disheartened or concerned that I've taken up too much space here.

I was very prepared for some of the reactions i could receive, it's a not a place for molly-coddling anybodys feelings, women on here certainly don't do that to each other in a disagreement so I shouldn't expect that either. I couldn't consider anyone to have been rude to me.

Writing to my MP, that is certainly something I'm going to do to start with though.

That is a great start! That is how we restore the democratic process that has been deliberately circumvented by the TRAs. Think how much ammunition it gives a GC-leaning MP to be able to stand up in Parliament and say that they have trans-identified constituents who support the ruling. Think how it might give the weak, TRA-led MPs food for thought to realise that some of their trans-identified constituents disagree with the TRAs

I agree! The thing is there are more of us who do disagree with the TRAs even if it's not always as full circle as myself with it all but it's absolutely a start when they begin to question the narrative that's peddled out to everyone (including us).
It'd be good to see more of us being empowered enough to speak out.

I've visited active websites that boast about giving anyone at all a diagnosis of GD over the phone in as little as 15 minutes, for a fee, of course.
I can dig up the reference if you're interested, or sceptical.
Anyway, in at least one state in my country, a GP can be sacked if they don't agree with a minor's self-diagnosis. Again, provable.