Is it not possible to have "trans rights" and "women's rights" at the same time?

[Artmumcreative]

I suppose I just think debate is too polarised. I think the answer might be to have third spaces (e.g. a separate toilet a bit like a disabled toilet) for trans women, so they're safe and women are safe. I think it would be nice if women supported transpeople and transpeople supported women (e.g at a trans rights demo and a women's rights demo). Not all transwomen are rapists, just as not all men are.

The self view of being a subset of women that needs protections in addition to those of women (womens rights +) is the nub of the issue, and the reason why there will never be a compromise.
Because GC people will only ever support trans rights that start from the premis they are a subset of men and should have the same rights as men, with some recognition of the discrimination a man may face should he decide to present in a stereotypically female way, and some accommodations to protect them, such as gender neutral toilets.
This will never be enough for a group of men who believe they are women.

Its because:

They are male when they want the higher wages and to play the 'get out of chores' card
They are female when they want the earlier retirement and to play the 'get in the ladies' card
They are 'Trans' when they want to just never be questioned or when they need their support cast to rally round their 'poor vulnerable trans friend' or they need a car door opening.

In brief, no, it's not possible.

It just seems like semantics to me a lot of the time. Like, we can change the terms 'dog' and 'cat' around, so we now have cats that bark and dogs that meow. However, the individual animals will be no different to before.

But I'm curious where this will all be in 100 years from now. Whether it will largely have been a passing phase or if trans people will be accepted like gay people are nowadays, having previously been seen as mentally ill. It's an interesting comparison to me because both ultimately hinge on how an individual 'feels'.

Gay people did not seek the destruction of other people's rights or the use of thir bodies.

In the words of a male who identifies as a woman -

Yes and in a way that reassures.

Because no matter what bullshit the TRAs try to pull here, there will always be a need to describe the category of biological females. And that category will always be far, far more important than nonsense around female 'gender identities'.

Lamguage can obfuscate reality and cause all sorts of problems. But it cannot change it.

They will never actually be able to erase the biological female category.

I think this comes down to what ‘trans people’ are understood to be.

If it’s people who are gender non conforming, some of whom are uncomfortable with their sex, I think there will be widespread acceptance.

As long as people want gender identity to override sex categories, where sex matters, there will always be push back.

I am happy to call a transwoman by their chosen name and call them her if I have to use pronouns. But they shouldn't be in places where women are vulnerable as they are still men.

They should be respectful of woman and know that they can't go in women's toilets, changing rooms, prisons or refuges. They can have a third space or share with men.

If this is the case then both women's rights and trans rights are being adhered to. I also think it's fine for trans men to use men's spaces if they wish as men don't seem to have a problem with it.

I suspect that unless they find a biological difference, it will be treated as any other philosophical belief that has not foundations in material reality. I hope it will be considered an identity, and that it doesn’t change biological reality and that when that biological reality is needed to be prioritised, it will be.

I hope it will be well documented and studied.

But I understand that no biological / neurological difference will be wanted to be discovered by the ‘community’. Because that will exclude large portions of those who are claiming to be transgender now and some of those have taken irreversible medical pathways.

I think this is fine in theory, but there are concerns about slippage

If we are going to call men by female pronouns then it makes it makes it more difficult to maintain boundaries.

How do you make it clear to this 'woman' that 'she' is not allowed to take 'her' clothes off in female spaces?

Language will trip you up here and make it much more difficult to get your point across.

It's a hard 'no' to preferred pronouns for me.

Victims of rape or assault having to use female pronouns for their male attacker in court showed that up for the coercive, anti-reality, bullshit it is.

I'm thinking that by then one side will have managed to blow the argument of the other out of the water by the constant supply of scientific data to prove their position beyond all doubt, and the other will be forced to accept they were wrong. So we will no longer have to talk in terms of differing 'beliefs', but of objective correct or incorrect information; and that all laws and norms will be based on scientific facts, with anyone arguing against them dismissed as a flat earther.
I think in the short term we may arrive at a point where there is a set threshold for a man to acquire the right to be considered as if he were a woman and vice versa, which will require full surgeries and hormone therapy. There is some level of willingness to accept this in mainstream society, so I think this will be the 'compromise'. We will be back to 'born in the wrong body/full sex change' days, and those that don't meet this threshold will fall away.

This is really well explained.

In essence it comes down to there is no 'moral disgust' involved. No one cares how men want to dress, or what stereotypes they want to perform, or if they wear make up or what names they want to assume, regardless of whether it's to role play being a woman, a wolf, an elf or a Klingon.

The issue is that anyone's right to swing their arms around as they choose ends at someone else's nose.

If those men did not wish to destroy women's right to resist being used in this performance as props, to force access to lesbian groups and reframe lesbianism as primarily about men and straight sex, to destroy women's spaces and access for those women who cannot centre and revolve around their performance, destroy their language, their sports, basically to be very very male in taking over, dominating and absolutely wrecking the joint to women in their own fantastically selfish interests while being baffled that women are actually human and mind about this - I have listened to a judge this morning asking for empirical studies that women mind about having to undress in front of men -

there would be no issue.

If these men had a capacity to see women as equal humans and to permit them what they needed, there would be no issue.

But they don't. And there's the problem. And as so well explained here, the pronouns just open the door to the game which enables a man to trample all the women in every space he wants to use as a vehicle for his gender expression.

This movement does not seek 'acceptance' for 'transgenderism': (note that the people causing the issue aren't trans people of both sexes, they are exclusively men with trans identities) this is seeking submission to MRAism.

No sign of the OP. Maybe they're digesting the 240 replies 🤔

How does using any female language for a male person work though?

If a male person has people using female language for them, how are they then not to be considered female for all purposes?

We have already seen this in action for nearly a decade now. Here is Ivy/McKinnon using it as leverage. I believe they also used it as leverage when they presented to a sports federation to convince them to allow male people into female sports.

THIS NEEDS A VPN SET TO THE USA TO SEE THE VIDEO

https://news.sky.com/story/trans-cyclist-rachel-mckinnon-defends-her-right-to-race-in-womens-competitions-11838131

at around 37 seconds into the video: "We care about sport, it is central to society. If you want to say, 'well, I believe you're a woman for all of society, except this massive central part that is sport, then, that is not fair. Fairness is the inclusion of transwomen."

I have other examples where other activists have also used this leverage.

I understand that some people have the need to feel they are kind and supporting someone when they use female language for male people. I think if anyone uses any female language for a male person, they need to understand that it is not 'harmless' and it contributes to the collective harm for female people. And I really cannot understand why it is not considered as contributing to the harm for a vulnerable individual as well.

If someone is using female language for a male person, is there then a process that that person goes through to judge whether that particular male person is worthy of that courtesy? What happens if that person that was previously being given that courtesy by the person does something that moves them to the point where the person chooses to not use female language for that person?

Are male rapists to be have female language used for them? If not, why not?

Was Naomi Cunningham wrong to use male language for Dr Upton?

Do those using female language for male people just ignore the inconsistencies? or do they apply their principle without discrimination, ie. that they call Bryson 'she'?

The thing is, when it comes to being gay rather than straight, what the individual "feels" is "I feel the same way as you do about sex and love, except I feel it for the same sex not the opposite sex". And the straight person ( assuming they are reasonable) can just go "huh. Not my thing but totally understand what you mean, I also experience sex and love ad can see this is the same thing".

But when it comes to trans, what the trans person - I'll make them a trans woman for the example because the thread is about women's rights - feels is "I feel the same way as you do about being a woman. I " - [enjoy female interests / behave in a female way / prefer to wear female clothes / have a female mind / make love like a woman] or whatever it is that particular trans woman feels confers womanhood - " just like you."

But for many, probably most, women, their reaction isn't going to be "Oh yeah, that is how I think of myself as well, of course I can understand how you are a woman as well", it's "but that's got nothing to do with being a woman at least how I experience it. It's all secondary stuff that society puts on to me. And frankly some of it I really don't feel happy about at all. I just see myself as a female person and as far as I am concerned that's all being a woman is, this other stuff is something you have invented, it's nothing to do with my actual life"

So that's why I don't think trans can ever be "just like being gay", because for trans to be "real" it requires that other people change how they see themselves to fit into how the trans person sees them, often in frankly some pretty sexist ways.

"I think in the short term we may arrive at a point where there is a set threshold for a man to acquire the right to be considered as if he were a woman and vice versa, which will require full surgeries and hormone therapy. There is some level of willingness to accept this in mainstream society, so I think this will be the 'compromise'."

I don't think that there is as much willingness to accept this as you might think. Because there is not even any logic to support that surgical changes means that a male person changes sex. I think there WAS a willingness about 3- 4 years ago in the UK at least. I think the recent media coverage of Peggy v NHS Fife and of Bryson, has made people think.

I think with more media coverage, the less willingness to accept this there will be. Which would be also why the BBC doesn't report on the issues as it should.

To me I'm calling then she out of politeness, but it's obvious they're a man. I mean if I was telling someone about them before they met I would make sure to say they were a transwoman.
So 'she' isn't a she when it comes to female spaces as you need to be born female.

Who exactly do you think it is that's preventing that? The GRA was is trans rights. That was the compromise. Then some people decided it was a starting point for further 'compromise' that asked nothing of anyone except women. So who do you think is preventing what you want?

Do you use she for all male people who say they are women, or do you have a set criteria that they should meet before you use female language for a male person?

Do you call male rapists 'she' for instance?

No I wouldn't call a rapist she ever. Anyone who does that loses the 'right' to be trans in my view.

I've never actually met a transwoman. I'm just going by what I think I would do. I know couple transmen and call them he.

You're muddying the waters then.

And unfortunately we know that this will be taken advantage of, with women being the losers.

It doesn't make much sense to me anyway. If it's obvious someone is a man, why is it 'polite' to blatantly lie in your use of pronouns?

But why does any man get the 'right' to female pronouns. It's not a moral thing, it's just factual