Always been GC, but now afraid I'm becoming transphobic

[HouseOfGuineaPigs]

I've always been gender critical and 100% in support of safe spaces for natal women only. I'm completely comfortable with being gender critical. But I'm concerned I've crossed a line into becoming a full on bigot, which is something I don't want to be. Due to my own background of mental health and trauma issues I follow pages on this issue on Facebook. I just saw one with a graphic post saying Using Preferred Pronouns Is Suicide Prevention and it made me want to scream and throw things.

I've been suicidal, I've attempted. I've battled see harm and self destructive behaviours since childhood. I should be sympathetic about the struggles people are having . But I feel manipulated seeing posts like that one. I use preferred names when I'm addressing trans persons. I am kind to them, I don't mention their issues. I treat them the same as anyone else. I will call a bloke Sue even if his real name is Bob, it feels odd, but I will do it to be respectful . But calling a he a she is a step too far. I would either use their name or use they.

Why do I feel so strongly that I'm being manipulated ? None of the trans people I know have abused me in any way. They haven't infringed on my boundaries . I have 2 trans friends, another who is non binary and 2 acquaintances. They have all been decent .

I just feel resentful that I'm being made to feel responsible for someone not taking their life because I don't affirm their identity ?

I'm horrible aren't I ? Please sort my head out !

Whilst the article mentions victimisation, it's primarily about offending & what the research shows which is the context of my point.

When all trans women are doing is identifying more with the inclinations socially associated with women than men. No one is suggesting this makes them 'biological' women

It's reassuring that you know they are men

Well, in fact a lot of trans-identifying males do claim to be biological women - Beth Uption ring a bell? Claimed this in a tribunal, as a qualified doctor, no less. And India Willoughby is another. Claims to be a biological woman and have a cervix.

There's this thing called 'nut picking'….

"But anyway, if the above is true, hoorah, that would suit me very well. TW aren't LITERALLY women, they're just enacting an outdated misogynistic stereotype to be "socially" women in a way that suggests they don't actually know any women, but whatever. Knock yourself out with your sexist delusions, but if you are not LITERALLY a woman, why do you want in female spaces, sports etc?"

The overwhelming consumerist, special interest, employment, sartorial, life choices of women kinda beg to differ…

"If we could all agree, as per UK law, that TW are not actually women, and agree you can have whatever gender expression you like (within laws and requirements of basic decency), but sex exists and for safeguarding and fairness reasons the sexes need separate categories in some situations, then IMO "transgender" would make sense and be an accurate description. Deal?"

Ive said all along competing rights can be managed.

Mate...

I 100% agree with you.

Trans women are of course not women in any literal sense.

As you say, they are simply men who identify more with the inclinations socially associated with women than men.

And this is a meaningful thing to be. As long as those associations exist, whether women like them being imposed on us or not they have social meaning.

So trans women can, very much, have an authentic voice as men who feel that because of their experience of identifying with and socially aligning with some of the sterotypes of womanhood they have more insight and sympathy into what actual women feel and experience than the average man on the street. Lord knows genuine male allies are always appreciated.

But since as you agree they are not actually women, not in any literal, real sense, they have no moral or legal right to speak as if they actually were women about what women may or may not experience or may or may not need. Their experiences potentially give them more insight but they are still not equivalence.

There is simply no reason that their identification with some of social expectations of women leads to the conclusion that they should be considered interchangeable with women. There is no reason to make these men an exception when it comes to accessing women-only spaces, protections and opportunities, or to rewrite our cultural, political and historical understanding of women and what the needs and challenges of women are to include, because they are not women. And people who are women do also exist, and this needs to be respected.

The greatest thing trans women can do as allies to women is to stop saying "I am these things therefore I am a woman" and start saying "I am these things and I am a man, because women are not defined by these things".

This article is based solely on the USA. There is nothing in this article that argues that male people with transgender identities do not continue to commit sex crimes and violent crimes at the same rate of the general male population. It talks about there not being evidence that it is HIGHER than male people in the USA with "No reliable data supports the argument that transgender people commit violent crimes at higher rates than cisgender men and women."

Either way, whether there is a higher or the same risk a male with a transgender identity committing sex crimes, there is certainly none that shows that they have the same or less risk than female people in general.

@Howseitgoin Ive said all along competing rights can be managed.

There are no "competing rights" for men to be allowed in women's spaces, services and facilities.
None.

And as we are agreeing that when these male people say they are not actually women, there is then no reason to allow them to access female single sex provisions.

Job done.

"Ive said all along competing rights can be managed."

You have just admitted that male people with transgender identities are not female people. Therefore there are not 'competing' rights.

The right to access female single sex provisions is dependent solely on the sex of a person.

There is no way to wheedle this to make it logical that some male people should be accessing female single sex provisions. And if a male person has been excluded for any purpose, they most certainly cannot qualify for any other purpose either.

After all, Female people do not have to qualify for any special consideration at all to access female single sex provisions.

No you're not unreasonable or transphobic. But I know what you mean.

I've always been a feminist (second waver since I was 12!) I once worked at a place with a colleague who went through the full "reassignment" surgery (really just plastic surgery) and I used to think "Well, X isn't a man, but she's not a woman like me."

Nowadays I'd be a bit less polite. I do worry that the extremism of the transactivists have increased my intolerance.

My general view is that what people do in their private lives, and believe in their heads, is none of my business. But someone else's anti-scientific & irrational beliefs should not influence the direction of the law or public discourse. Words relating to women's bodies are NOT offensive or exclusionary, for example.

The contrast with lesbian & gay rights is instructive. The campaign for same-sex marriage did not attack opposite-sex marriage as "homophobic" or "exclusionary." The campaign simply made the case for the institution of marriage (with its legal advantages) to be extended to life partners of the same sex.

Whilst the article mentions victimisation, it's primarily about offending & what the research shows which is the context of my point.

And the official, government research shows TW are far, FAR more likely to be sex offenders than men in general.

That is NOT saying that all TW are predators. It is a statistic that shows it is more likely and it is not wrong to understand that - in fact anyone who cares about safeguarding and the justice system should be interrogating that carefully.

However, IIRC is is stats for convictions, and we do see a pattern of sex offenders identifying as women once they are arrested, charged or imprisoned. I'd speculate that's not because they really think they are women, but because they know that being "trans" can be used to mitigate a sentence (it shouldn't be, but does happen), forcing their victim to call them "she" in court may be a power trip, and/or they may get to go to a women's prison - attractive either because it's less unpleasant (best case scenario) or because it gives them access and opportunity for continuing to sex-offend against women.

I wonder which you think makes more sense - TW are genuinely more likely to be sex-offenders, or a number of "TW" are opportunist criminal grifters who see "progressive" policies handing them whatever they want on a plate. Or is it both? What do think it is in the case of Isla Bryson? (Look it up)

I haven't read the whole thread and someone has probably already pointed this out, but you're responding negatively to trans activism, not trans people. I don't think anything you're written is transphobic.

The greatest thing trans women can do as allies to women is to stop saying "I am these things therefore I am a woman" and start saying "I am these things and I am a man, because women are not defined by these things".

I love this statement. I have always had a lot of time for men who genuinely expand the boundaries of what it means to be a man.

It's the difference between:

Loving, appreciating and immersing oneself in a different culture; living alongside, wearing the clothes, eating the food and learning the language.

And colonialism.

Here's a link from that article regarding the misrepresentation of UK prison data:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/41-per-cent-trans-transgender-trans-women-prisoners-sex-offenders-false-study-statistic-this-is-why-a8072431.html

How does this "social association" shit work with football; an overwhelmingly female sport in the US, but still male dominated in the UK. Do transwomen have to remember halfway across the Atlantic whether to like it or not?

If I toss 10 coins and get 6 heads, I have no reason to think it's not a fair coin.
If I toss 100 coins and get 60 heads, I have a bit more reason to think it might not be fair.
If I toss 1000 coins and get 600 heads, I can be pretty sure it's not fair.

BUT

If I toss 10 coins and get 9 heads, I'd be mad to put that into the "definitely fair" pile straight away.

Yes, the prison numbers are small. But they are egregious. They clearly warrant further investigation. And in the meantime the precautionary principle (not to mention the UN Bangkok/Mandela rules) clearly applies.

Owl Fisher? From 2017?

Woah. I said trans women aren't the same as CIS women. They are still are 'women' in a social categorical sense & depending on the how the particular jurisdiction feels about spaces it's up to them.

We in Australia don't give 'cause if we did it would be an electoral issue which it isn't & probably because most people's experience is not to consider them threatening. We also don't have a top down full blown moral panic drowning us in agit prop 24/7.

I would read the clarifications under that article if I were you.

Particularly this one:
A comprehensive study report detailing the data source and methodology is published on the Fair Play For Women website. All our claims are verifiable, open for professional peer review and made in good faith.

They are still are 'women' in a social categorical sense

This is just nonsense

have you even bothered to read this?

The MoJ figures now DO show the crimes. At the time, there was a group of researchers who manually searched records and FOI submissions to produce the numbers.

That group also helped to campaign to have the MoJ figures made more accurate.

You didn't read it at all did you?

Written by a..... transwoman ( face palm/head to desk).. You just can't help tripping over yourself, can you. You can never provide any actual unbiased, factual, non-debunked links.

And 2017. When our research is from 2024. Mate seriously, give up. You ain't getting anywhere.

Look at the date Grey... 2017!

Before the MoJ stats started to be desegregated with accuracy and further information available.

None of that changes the fact that men who identify with feminine sterotypes remain men. Nobody takes much of an issue with males expressing femininity. That is what the gay rights movement was about.But expressing femininity does not make a TW a woman; and male people have no place in spaces and facilities designated for the female sex.

It's cis women. Not CIS women. The cis word is not capitalised. Unless you normally go around SHOUTING the word 'cis'.

And 99% of women don't subscribe to gender stereotypes. You're in America. And it's a big issue in America at them moment. Most women consider men threatening, so you clearly have no idea what you're saying.

It's women

The cis word is not required