Do you support transitioning at all?

[UnlockedXCX]

I somewhat do, I will admit. I think it's okay if an adult wants to take hormones, dress as they'd like to, be treated as M or F, or even change their name. I'll respect it all. However I don't agree with them being allowed into single sex spaces or conversations (a gay trans person is functionally a straight person, despite what they say, and a gay FtM shouldn't try to date gay guys for example).

I question if this is a common view or is it niche in these more gender critical spaces.

I would like @BeeSouriante to name any of these basic rights that everyone has and which gender critical feminists are trying to take away from trans people.

Just one will do.

Bees and butterflies.

The trouble is that what trans people want is for society to change everything to suit them. Everyone else is supposed to agree with saying "pregnant people" and having a trans woman turn up to provide intimate care for your grandmother etc. And surprise, surprise, but most people dont want this. It isn't so much wanting to eliminate trans people but rather to eliminate the absolutely outrageous demands they are making.

Nobody is trying to remove you from society, we're just saying use your assigned bathroom and don't try to insert yourself where you don't belong.

One has to wonder how asking male people to use services, spaces, sports, committee places, prizes etc etc specific to their sex, is eliminating those men who are trans identified from existing. Merely asking them to use those things designated for men does not eliminate any man.

Indeed it isn't like the USA. We aren't suggesting i.e. kicking everyone who is transgender out of the armed forces like Trump is doing. Any employer trans discrimination is illegal here and hopefully will remain so. This is a feminist forum not an anti trans ones.

Some TRAs are refusing any sort of reasonable compromise, such using gender neutral facilities, and instead insist on trampling over biological womens' needs. Seeing this as anti trans raises the risk for a far right party the same way seeing any opposition to mass immigration as racist does.

TRA Extremists are your own worst enemy not us.

No!

I can't edit my post, but if your biggest concerns are that someone might look at you and not see what you desire them to or that you might not be able to enter a certain space (despite having a space that better accommodates you and your anatomy) then you are very privileged. If the oppression you face is entirely due to your own decisions, you are privileged.

You can remove the makeup and skirt at any time.

"Indeed it isn't like the USA. We aren't suggesting i.e. kicking everyone who is transgender out of the armed forces like Trump is doing."

As a side note - you're correct to point this out, and the aggressive wording of Trump's EOs (executive orders) I think is clearly objectionable. But it's worth noting that this is not clear cut. Exogenous oestrogen for men is debilitating. It has well known, serious side-effects on mental health and has a massive, negative impact on physical performance - that fact underlies the argument that TIMs should be allowed in women's sports. Any physical exam taken to be accepted into the services would be rendered meaningless by subsequently going on cross sex hormones - keeping in mind even having a history of taking SSRIs without a diagnosis of depression is grounds for not being admitted into the armed forces, let alone having major depression or other psychiatric diseases. And of course gender dysphoria is still a requirement for receiving medical affirmative care, which means that practically everyone undergoing 'transition' has that diagnosis. Additionally, official trans ideology is that once you identify as trans, you've always been trans. So, the question is: why didn't you make this soul searching, self exploration before joining the military or alternately why didn't you disclose it before joining, answering the unstated question of why should trans identity be treated differently from homosexuality: because the former declares an urgent need to engage in extreme life long medical intervention.

In combat roles even small deficiencies in combat effectiveness can cost lives and put national security at risk. Also, for most non-combat roles individuals still need to be deployable where you'll face elevated physical and mental demands. Chronic conditions requiring drugs make deployment logistically more complex for the individual and for the the units they're in.

In addition, for deployment there is an elevated need for team cohesion and for protection of women in shared spaces. Men suddenly deciding they're women dramatically complicate a situation where the army is already struggling to re-configuring itself to allow women to occupy more roles while simultaneously facing a crisis of sexual harassment claims.

The above are just a few factors that complicate this issue. The US military is far larger, far more costly, and far more engaged in deadly situations than the UK military (which currently has its own problems with ideological capture). Again my argument isn't that I agree with Trump's EOs, it's that they are not an open-and-shut case of bigotry with no mitigating considerations.

@GallantKumquat I don't disagree with the substance of your descriptions of the impact that gender-related medication would have for members of the armed forces. However, the vast majority of people who identify as trans undergo no such medical interventions. There's a huge difference between saying that all trans people must be kicked out of the armed forces regardless of what treatments they may be having (Trump's EO states adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.) vs having a policy that has no discrimination on the grounds of trans status, treating that the same as any other believe or religion, but will still prevent anyone whose medical status (including taking cross-sex hormones or opting for body-modification surgery) from being in any unsuitable role - with plenty of non-front-line roles in the military which are fine for people who aren't at peak fitness and capability. There's a huge difference between what is happening in the UK - where genuine transphobia remains illegal and trans people have all human rights secure - vs what is happening in the USA.

So, just to be clear, you are saying ‘gender affirming treatments’ are not necessary for trans individuals? And they would not suffer mental stress being referred to by their sex?

I'm saying that not all people who claim a trans identity want any treatments. Not all people who claim a trans identity either have or ask for a diagnosis of dysphoria. For a large number of people who claim a trans identity, the only thing that changes is their clothing/hairstyle.

Any significant mental stress they may suffer in coping with the operational requirements of their deployment can be dealt with in the same way as any other soldier having difficulties coping with the mental stress of their deployment. It ought to be possible for a trans individual who is in the category of not needing or wanting any medical treatment and who has a sufficiently robust sense of self to not collapse into a puddle of tears if misgendered, to operate in the military with no trouble.

I am mainly thinking of the various female soldiers I know, several of whom conform to the "butch lesbian" look and some of whom identify as trans without being physically different from the ones who don't, chosing not to take testosterone because they know it can have severe damaging side effects which would reduce their effectiveness.

I don't personally know any mtf trans soldiers but I don't have any reason to believe there might not be some who are similarly more focused on their role and effectiveness than modifying their body, and are very different from the narcissist profile that is more common among vocal TRAs.

So you are saying such treatment is not necessary after all? That it is just down to a trans-identified persons wants and priorities?

Isn't it the case in the US that if you were trans (pre the Trump edict), you could get surgery on the gov medical insurance scheme? I'm pretty sure this was said to be one of the attractions for trans people to join up. Many people in the US also live in small, conservative societies - the armed forces is one of the few ways of escaping. And it's a prestigious career in the US, where being in the forces is seen as a high calling, prestigious. Not quite the same here.

So trans people flocked to the armed services.

Any objective criteria that any particular trans person fails to meet would not be discrimination. Such as medication that reduces concentration.

R.e. mental illness, depression impacts thinking, concentration, physical and mental stamina and memory. As far as I'm aware gender dysphoria does not!

Please remember that ban is also going to impact biological women.

They might have had top surgery say, but if anything I suspect that would just make kits fit better.

If biological women are taking cross sex hormones and demanding others lie about their sex then I am as supportive of banning them as banning trans-identified men from the military

It also doesn’t need to be medication that reduces concentration (which cross sex hormones do), requiring any medication is an issue for deployed military.

Plus we know that trans is highly comorbid with other mental health conditions.

I don't know enough about the impact of hormones or the army medical criteria to know if tfm hormones cause genuine issues. But not all trans take hormones.

I don't equate a request for a particular name or pronouns to "lying" about their biological sex or "demanding" others do so.

It is one thing to disapprove of transition, whether socially or medically. People disagree with others' personal choices all the time.

But it is quite enough step to hold such choices are grounds for sacking someone from their job. And in the USA case in the armed forces, much more than that: identity and friendships.

R.e. mental illness yes some may have mental illness that renders them unfit to serve. But others will not.

I don't equate a request for a particular name or pronouns to "lying" about their biological sex or "demanding" others do so.

Pronouns are used by the speaker in order to identify someone by their sex. Claiming someone is ‘misgendering’ them, often accompanied by threats of punitive action is not a ‘request’. Trans activists do not accept “People disagree with others' personal choices” when it comes to how others use sexed language. Transactivist’s theft of female language is violence against women and has no place in the armed forces.

Intriguing…

as it is known, black and white, immutable, fact, science etc that sex can not be changed…

anyone who claims otherwise has to either:

• have something gone awry with them to believe that (mental health condition)
• or be knowingly lying

there are no other options.

misuse of pronouns / changing or choosing a name to support that is either a part of the delusion or a part of the lie.

Short of using facilties reserved for the opposite sex they can do what they want IMO.

I think a lot of people's views have been influenced by the toilets thing and all the rhetoric saying you're a bigot if you don't want to date a transwoman as a straight man or lesbian.

Nobody really had much issue with old school transexuals.

A lot of people have decided that gender dysphoria is a mental illness rather than a biologically influenced condition but the truth is that we don't know and there are studies which show that TW have brains that are closer to that of the typical female than the average man does. People on here say these studies have been debunked but I think the jury is still out.

For context, homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness a few decades ago and we still don't really have any concrete proof why it exists.

TW have brains that are closer to that of the typical female than the average man does
carefully worded! I don't think there are any studies, are there, in which, even in the most obscure brain measurement, TW have been found to have brains that are closer to that of the typical female than to the typical male? Not that, even if they did, it would outweigh the much less subtle ways in which TW are more similar to typical men than typical women, what with being men, and all...

I've read two studies. One was by the European Council of Endocrinology which claimed to have found concrete evidence that TW had different brains to most men.

I forget where the other one was from but they said that TW had brains that were much closer to typical female brains than most men's are (which isn't the same as being closer to a typical female brain than a male one).

It's been suggested that gay males have brains that have been exposed to less testosterone in utero. Testosterone is a driver for opposite sex attraction apparently.

Although by the beards some TW have I'm not buying a lack of male hormones. 🤣