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.

What exactly are these rights trans people supposedly have or should have, over and above the human rights that everybody has?

I agree.

The position I favour is one that affirms that anyone can be, feel, or present as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ because these constructs sit outside of the sex, which is immutable.

I also think we should be careful to totally avoid situations where we incentivise men (or women) to undertake extreme surgeries which they might later regret.

Of course. Choosing to do something yourself for your own reasons is an entirely different thing from trying to persuade other women to do it as well, or reprimand them for not.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I used the term 'social reward' so would like to understand how your comment links to that?

I think that a social reward is a type of gift. Maybe it is one that is earned.

I used the term to reference something we may do to reciprocate a level of friendliness or pleasantry we have recieved from another, and/or when we have a positive feeling towards that person.
We know a TI person will be pleased to be referred to as the sex they wish to be and if we like them may decide to please them by doing so. Or at least avoid upsetting them by referring to them as their actual sex.
I'm not saying this is what people 'should' do, I'm saying it's a reason why people are prepared to pretend in some cases, but not when referencing a rapist.

I understand.

I don't think though that my calling it a gift changes what you say. As we agreed, the reciprocation does not need to include someone using female language at all. (Obviously, there are some situations where people are compelled to) In my mind an adequate reciprocation is to be equally friendly and pleasant and use neutral terms.

I do understand that people have different views on this and I am trying to sort through the reasons why people do it. I think to me, the fact that it is going beyond the reciprocity that makes the term 'gift' fit as well as reward.

To me there is an asymmetry in what you describe in the interaction.

Trans person - be nice and friendly.
other person in the interaction - be nice and friendly while giving the person with a gender identity what they want by way of using wrong sex language for them.

To be very transactional about this interaction, it really seems, to me, to be unequal in that way when a perfectly adequate relational mirroring is simply to be nice and friendly and use neutral language.

The 'reward' is to treat people as they would wish to be treated and varies dependent on what we percieve that might look like.

An alternative saying is treat others how you wish to be treated. If we all think of others, and are kind to one another, society will work better. The man in this scenario isnt considering women when he requests/demands to be called a woman. He's not following the rules that improve society. He's decided what woman means and expects other to agree.

This idea to treat people as they wish to be treated is an imbalance. His needs take priority because he is disadvantaged in some way. Thats why trans ideology persist with the trans/cis distintion.

The trans person is oppressed therefore can demand that the cis oppressor treats him as he wishes.

Yes, I can see that. I suppose whether you consider it a gift will depend to an extent on the cost to you of doing it. If it sits very uneasily with you to do it then it is indeed a gift. I refer to my friends daughter as he when I feel to avoid it would look pointed. I do this because I love my friend, and yes, it costs me. So gift probably is appropriate then.

Yes.

This lovely idea of being the bigger person is all nice nice and primary assembly vibes when you're not doing it for someone who is taking open advantage of you and thinks you're a weak idiot, but great, they can use you how they want.

Higher kind of person (and the social signalling of Better Than You that is often involved)/doormat with boundary and co dependence issues is a fine line.

You've nailed it really.

This would require men who identify as women to accept that actual women are equal to them in terms of rights, feelings, needs and treatment, and to permit that equality.

Rather than demanding subservience and submission.

Having now spoken to many, it's not going to happen. Abusers do not like granting their abuse victims equality of status or consideration: it messes up doing and enjoying the abuse.

The joy of being human is that we can hold inconsistent thoughts at one time, I guess.

You feel pressure to do this because you love your friend and you want to keep the relationship. That is a situation that I have avoided by being very careful in using neutral language and first names. Although, to be fair to those several sets of parents, they also have never pushed the point either. If they did, I expect that I would make the same decision as you.

When there is pressure to do so, such as keeping a long term relationship or work or fear of negative ramifications, then it is a different scenario to voluntarily doing it just because someone feels it is 'polite / respectful / courteous etc'. I guess that is why I am asking the questions to find out whether it is an automatic thing based on someone's perception of etiquette, or whatever else.

Culturally, I grew up in another country so I am interested in the intricacies of the expectations some people place on themselves vs the reality of what is considered correct behaviour.

The issue is that you are making a private gift of a shared good. So the cost to you might be acceptable, but you are then imposing that cost on all women.

You can't give away the words that refer to all of us based on our sex and allow them to mean something else without changing the meaning for the rest of us as well.

Just one person being accepted as "legitimately" entitled to, or even just honoured/indulged by, cross sex pronouns because of their personality is an acceptance of a link between that sex and that person's personality. It creates a "correct" personality for each sex that was never there before. (Or rather was, but understood to be a regressive sexist false belief, not a fundamental quality of their sex). And that redefines every single person who is of that sex.

Yes, I'm neither unfamiliar with or in disagreement with this argument.
However I am able to understand and support a principle and also carry out my own assessment of whether deviating from it in a very specific situation carries more cost to me personally than any wider benefit gained I didn't do it.
My friends child is a woman who has changed her name to a 'male' one and rejected she/her pronouns.
When I am a guest in her home the 'purist' position would be to continue to call her Emma and refer to her as she.
This would cause much upset, with my friend in the middle.
So, do I ensure to call her 'Josh' instead of he? Or they instead of he? She is a woman who's name is Emma, so am I colluding less by using her assumed name and a they pronoun?
As she is a TI woman I'm not 'giving away' female words to a man, and, i care far less about giving male words to a woman if she wants them, as the consequences are less.
And yes, I understand that it's the principle. But sometimes the practical is important too.

I think to answer your question, it's both. Sometimes it's pressure, sometimes it's something given voluntarily as I said in previous posts as a courtesy to reciprocate courtesy given. I think the point made that the reciprocality is not equal is a valid one and does rather underline that women often feel the need to repay positive treatment by bestowing an even greater level in return.

“women often feel the need to repay positive treatment by bestowing an even greater level in return.”

This has been rattling around my mind for a while now.

Yes. This discussion has been really helpful to me in making the link between this and the social behaviour towards TIM ive been describing. Now I've seen it, I can't unsee it. A man is being nice. Best be even nicer back.

I know it's hard. It's the same challenge one has dealing a sexist or racist family member. Do you stand by your principles and trigger a family row you know won't actually resolve anything and probably make them more entrenched, or do you deflect and avoid making definitive statements either way, and try and change the subject to sonething neutral when it comes up?

I do think though (and this is not directed at you specifically) that people playing along with genderists are socially accomodating sexism in ways they rightly would not be comfortable doing if it was racism.

I think we are still in the early days with GI and it takes a long time for people to understand and see where harm is being done. We've had much longer to become aware of racism.

You’re absolutely right @Artmumcreative, the problem is TiMs don’t want that, third spaces acknowledge that they are not actually women.

I know one transwoman (with disabilities) who only uses disabled toilets because she's too scared to use either the men's or the women's toilets, even though I'm sure she'd physically manage in a non-disabled toilet.

Why is he scared to use the men’s toilets? What does he think will happen to him?

And he should be scared to use the womens toilets so it's a good job he doesn't.

Might get beaten up or something I guess