Is anyone on here trans-inclusive?

[plinkyplonk123]

Hi everyone, this is just a quick post to ask if anybody else on here is trans inclusive? I know I’m definitely in the minority here but I just wanted to see.

Was about to say similar. This is a wind up thread. The faux naivety in the OP is risible.

🥱

OP, your question has to mean ‘Do I accept men’s right to use women’s spaces, services and sports as long as they say they are women?’ That’s what being trans-inclusive is.

I don’t prioritise men’s wishes above women’s rights, so of course the answer is no. That’s even before we look at all the related horrors of children and teenage girls being gaslit and mutilated.

I firmly believe that all teachers should have DBS checks.

Does that mean I'm demonising the teaching community as a whole?

I rather think that you should look at the offending rates of transgender prisoners, to see why women don't want them in women's prisons, let alone any other male, irrespective of how they identify..

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Yeah, who saw that coming 🙄

However, it's provided an opportunity for people to set out their position, which is broadly "live how you want but keep out of women's stuff if you're not female".

So for that it is valuable.

Apologies my reply above should have been to this.

Gay men are/were at increased risk, but they never asked to enter female only spaces.

Males are not women. You don't sound like you understand the implication of sticking a few feathers on proverbial fox, telling the chickens he is being picked on in the fox house, so from now on he is being housed in the henhouse instead. Making fox on fox violence hen's responsibility.

Women have enough problems fielding off men's violence, we shouldn't be made to be HUMAN SHIELDS for these men as well! Male on male violence is an issue for MALES to solve. Females are not human shields for these males.

I'm feeling weird here 😐Like I'm supposed to be some kind of super-person, when really I'm very ordinary... Like I'm failing at being trans somehow... Weird.

My username means transwoman exclusive, transman inclusive rad fem. Transwomen are men so should be looking to their fellow men for support. Transmen are women so naturally I include them in my feminism.

@5128gap I'm not sure any TRA's or "allies" know what any of it means, not truly. It all seems to be points of view rather than having any basis in realism or facts.

Self ID is specifically for men who don’t want to change their bodies, they just want to identify as trans and get into women’s spaces. Therefore by definition, they can’t feel that uncomfortable with their bodies or the campaign for self ID would never have started, because they would be changing their bodies anyway.

If you think an “arduous journey” is a requirement for the trans experience, presumably you are against self ID?

And think trans people are only really trans if they are going through an “arduous journey”, not just saying they’re trans?

i have a friend who is a trans woman. She is a really smart and thoughtful person. She has had the full operation and lives as a woman. She’s a kind person. My son has a trans woman friend who is really kind to him and takes great care of him. I’m really glad that he has her in his life. They are the only trans people I know and they are both great people.

What do you mean by trans inclusive?

Hm. Interesting post from someone who can neither spell America nor distinguish a country from a continent.

Plenty of goady fuckers on MN without being racist.

By this definition, yes, I am wholeheartedly trans-inclusive.

Good for you. Now please tell me what living as a, woman means?
And please read my previous post about my experiences with men who think they are women.

It's a typo. A typo. You realise the i is next to the u on the keyboard, right? I am often making typos and editing my post due to that. Easy to do if you're a fast typist.

Me.

I'm a trans inclusive feminist.

And I'm not interested in explaining or debating my position with trans exclusive feminists. There's enough conflict in the world right now without going out and looking for it on here.

You don’t have to be completely in support of everything

You can't be transphobic (according to the trans community) and trans-inclusive at the same time. Choose one.

Yes, this. Totally happy to have trans men in the women’s spaces, if that is what you mean. But, no, I am not trans woman (ie biological male) inclusive in spaces where women have a right to expect privacy, cultural consideration and the additional safety of a same sexed environment.

And according to the law, I and other women have the right to have these boundaries observed.

You are welcome to use gender neutral facilities and share them with people of both sexes and all genders should you wish to do so, and if there are none in the settings you use, feel free to petition for them. I’d support you.

Thanks. It's very rare on this site to get such as direct and thoughtful a response as that, as opposed to the usual comically strawmanned oversimplification of GC arguments!

I can see all your points above. As regards the "false equivalence", do note I pre-emptively acknowledged that my approach was simplistic/reductive. It has to be, really, as there are no direct equivalences. For example, your stats are focussed on prisons, where a far higher proportion of violence is inevitable, and the US, whose prison system seems to be far more problematic than our own (still troubled) prisons.

The fact is that we're talking about two very different demographics, each of which are vulnerable in different ways.

My argument is, fundamentally, that one of these demographics shouldn't be "sacrificed" to the other through the entirely disingenuous promotion of "inclusion" as self-evidently positive, and selective use of imperfect data to support this.

We know women are physically vulnerable to males in public spaces. I remain interested in seeing evidence that transwomen are to a proportionate degree - I simply haven't seen it anywhere, and, in that sense, your reliance on data from US prisons could be seen to highlight this absence.

Focussing on prisons, I believe that dedicated facilities or fully self-contained wings are needed. This is, in itself, problematic for various obvious reasons, but better than the horrors in the article you provided, or so-called "inclusive" measures leading to the increasingly documented equivalent horrors experienced by women in facilities accommodating transwomen in the US.

We include trans men in our feminism. How are we 'trans exclusive'? Or are we 50% trans inclusive, 50% trans exclusive?

If you paid any attention, you'd realise we are male exclusive. Not 'trans' exclusive. But that does require critical thinking to understand that point.

Last point: if your feminism includes the male sex, you're not a feminist. You're a meninist.

Proving my point. You're ok with the racism but not being snarky about it. Interesting choice.

“America” is not a race🙄

What racism? Did I miss something? I didn't see it.