What's the deal guys?

[shadesOfTeal]

I don't think this post is going to last long but what's the deal with hating trans women so much? I've been a women for 13 years of my life since 18 and it's never been a problem. Suddenly I'm not only talk of the town but also an evil man stealing everyone's rights away from them? I wasn't much of a boy as a kid anyway but. I just wanted to ask like what's the deal? Why do you hate the idea of me existing so much? What have I personally done to you that's been so bad? I feel like I need to be careful with my words because it'll be easy to accuse me of all sorts but I've done no harm to anyone. If you want to ask a trans woman some honest questions then please do, I don't usually talk about it in my day to day life and that, I'm pretty down to earth and will help you understand as much as possible. But I'd like to ask the people that hate me so much, can we ever get along? Please don't assume I'm what the internet and the media says I am though, I'm not like that at all! I just want us all to get on and I'm sick of having my life debated every 5 minutes.

So much of what you’ve said here is just patently untrue.

People discuss the way trans rights activists have eroded women and girls’ rights by taking away single sex spaces (and demanding that we alter our language) on MN because it’s a site predominantly used by women and so naturally they discuss issues that affect women, and because such has been the group-think capture in this country / day and age, that MN is one of the few places we can openly discuss this issue. Personally I don’t discuss it at work, as I am afraid I will be hauled in front of HR. Note the emphasis - we are invested in and focused on women and girls’ rights, NOT trans identifying men - they only come into it to the extent they are impeding women and girls’ rights.

Sex realists don’t believe in social or cultural gender - broadly correct, albeit a generalisation. Personally yes. I believe gender is a cultural construct born out of stereotypes which are harmful to both sexes. But to go on to say “They’re essentially the same people who in the 80s believed gays and lesbians just hadn’t met the perfect opposite sex partner” - total and utter rubbish. BECAUSE I’m a sex realist (or gender critical), I understand that sexuality is categorically not the same as “gender identity”. The vast vast majority of gender critical people have never ever had any issue whatsoever with homosexuality, or tried to deny its reality. And for the hundredth time - we don’t have an ‘issue’ with trans people existing, we just don’t want trans identifying men in single sex spaces and sports (or to have our language appropriated or to be forced to validate trans identifying men’s belief that they have magically changed sex).

Yes, me too. And I believe it is enough just to want to be in the company of women.

We don't have to justify ourselves (why we don't want men there) by talking about our trauma. We don't even need to have had any trauma. Just wanting a single sex space is enough.

I think that's why it is difficult for certain males to get their head around. "What, you don't want meeee there?"
No. We just want women there. To want that, is enough.

Service humans arent supposed to have agency. It makes some men very cross.

I've seen it said (by a TRA) in connection with the WI situation, "what do these terfs think is going to happen at the WI? Do they think they're going to get raped at the WI?"

Firstly, it's utterly disturbing where their mind goes. Straight to sexual violence. Does there have to be an element of sexual violence to justify why we don't want men in our spaces?

Secondly, no. We probably don't think we're going to get raped at the WI. But we probably did think that we were going to get a space without men. That's what we wanted. And that's enough, just to want that.

Sorry, forgot to add: by suggesting women think they might "get raped", are they therefore admitting they are men? Haven't they just massively given themselves away?
The whole viewpoint is just grim.

There are lots of reasons other than the threat of sexual violence not to want to be in company with men. Some of them (as amply demonstrated on this thread) wang on tiresomely about breasts for example. I could live without that happening at my WI meetings

I question which country was giving 15 year old male people estrogen as part of a treatment for a gender identity back in the 80s. That sounds to me like it is cowboy medicine territory.

Sex realists don't believe in social or cultural gender.

it's less than 100 years since women gained the right to vote on equal terms with men.

Millions of women are still denied basic human rights - not the fluffy self realisation 'I just want to be my authentic self' kind, but the basics like freedom from slavery.

People can stick their desire to classify humans according to 'social or cultural gender' where the sun doesn't shine.

This has been fascinating.
If I have the details right then this person claims to be fifty and did not go through male puberty. Which takes us back to the early 90s when puberty blockers were first being used. Possible then if sad.
I can also believe that if all the above is true then he is short and slight, has breasts that look and feel like a woman's and even has developed a female like pelvic tilt (which apparently can happen due to hormonal effects on ligaments etc.) So I am prepared to believe that he does pass and many people accept him as a woman. (Although I do wonder if he maybe has a faint uncanny valley aura that he wouldn't be aware of.) But obviously that is not the same as actually being a woman.
Moreover I don't see the claim "I have so extremely distorted my body and behaviour that I now am very good at deceiving those around me" as anything to be proud of.
And the behaviours displayed here are awful. I know it is easy and fun to be a dick on the Internet but even so!
We are accused of being sadist for saying he is male but it is at least as sadistic on his part to keep asserting femaleness despite many eloquent and clear explanations as to why we object.

Clue's in the very name you use yourself "sex realists"

What do you THINK that means?

All we are saying is that the men who call themselves transwomen are still men because humans cannot change sex.
No sadism. No dopamine hit. Just a weary frustration sliding into despair that we are STILL having to explain this - mainly to people who know it fine well but argue anyway.

I can't imagine the mental agony of a child discovering that who they thought was their mother is really a man.

"Moreover I don't see the claim "I have so extremely distorted my body and behaviour that I now am very good at deceiving those around me" as anything to be proud of."

I don't see it as something to be proud of either. Yet, it is a feature not a bug for a specific group of male people. The list of justifying statements is very long.

However, I also notice how often statements are then attempted to be said to not have been stated and other things such as complete and utter confidence in a statement that is so clearly incorrect and I think that there is something actually disconnected in the posting (I am not saying the person is 'disconnected').

Probably been answered by now but this seems to be just a long winded way of saying "not all women agree with you lot"
To which I say: "what's your point?"

I suspect that will be something that a child will have to unpick and process as an adult. I don't believe a child would probably be able to do it as a child or even a young adult.

The interesting bit to me is using sex realist as a slur - it only works as a slur if you mean that realism doesn’t exist for sex - that there is no difference between sexes in the same way as race realism is meaningless

but if you insist sexes don’t exist as distinct entities then why are you making out that you are the other one ?

like sex doesn’t exist … know what sex I am …

Sex realists don't believe in social or cultural gender.

If you mean 'believe in' as in 'approve of' rather than 'believe in' as 'acknowledge exists'.

I agree.
There seems to be an inability to discuss anything on the level of principle - it is an accepted principle that in certain limited circumstances, men and women are entitled to the privacy of separate spaces - as the judge in the GLP vEHRC case put it
The obvious albeit unspoken premise of regulation 20 is the provision of private space for each sex for reasons of conventional decency. [my emphasis]

Why that conventional decency has come into existence is a long and interesting story, but it exists, and the more pressing question is: why is a tiny, noisy and sometimes violent group of men so keen to disrepect it?

Any discussion of single spaces for women - e.g. rape crisis centres, hospital wards etc. immediately becomes toilets! toilets! toilets! from the TRAs, who seem to be obsessed with toilets - is that what the 'T' in LGBT really stands for?

And any discussion of women's spaces being women only immediate becomes about violence against women, as if the only reason for sex-segregated facilities was that men will attack women - well, 'cis' men will attack women, because of course, according to this discourse, trans IDing men would never attack a woman...🙄

The 'conventional decency' of men respecting women's privacy for no reason other than respecting the principle obviously eludes TRAs.

The 'conventional decency' of men respecting women's privacy for no reason other than respecting the principle obviously eludes TRAs.

Yes, this really nails what I meant, thanks @MarieDeGournay !

Lots of men are able to respect this principle without acting like it's an insult to their existence. TRAs, not so much.

Made me laugh ...
but it's still absolutely horrific.
Post truth is long gone. We just live in a world where everybody makes things up. Want to have it both ways? No problem. Yesterday is gone, and tomorrow never comes. Women don't exist, so anybody men can pretend to be one? Logical impossibility? Ha ha ha

Poor child ☹️

I thought he claimed to have transitioned over 40 years ago and had hormones and surgery 40 years ago. So 1986?

The 'gay youth program' would suggest USA, and the detail of it been picketed daily offer a strange idea of the area being progressive enough to fund gay youth meets in the early 80s and bonkers enough to picket a youth club daily? No one moving them along?

It'd be extremely rare for a teen to transition then, even rarer for surgery.

I think TRA need the idea that trans youth have always existed, surgery and hormones can make a man a women, and if more people transition young, they can live happily as women.

But this is a theory because teens werent having surgery in the 80s. Otherwise, why was such a song and dance made of Jazz? Why would they have made such a mess of his surgery if they have been prefected it since the 80s? Its retconning.

That was why I was wondering was the poster ID being passed back and over between several people - with a partly defined main character but soft on detail, eg the nationality tells of 'change room' and 'sport team' which no-one from the UK would use.

Here we go.

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/gender-affirming-care-has-a-long-history-and-has-a

It seems that potentially the US may have given a 15 year old boy cross sex hormones in the 1980s. It does seem like allowing a group of medical experimenters access to vulnerable children... cowboy medicine territory indeed.

I keep coming back to the story of Archibald Stansfeld Belaney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Owl

Under his Native American persona he succesfully brought conservation of Canada's natural environment into the public eye. He seems to have adopted the persona out of genuine respect for and sense of identify with Native American cultures, and had close Native American friends and relatives by marriage who welcomed him and supported the deception.

Does that make his lie ok? Should actual First Nation Americans who grew up in the confines imposed on their culture and lifestyle, with the racism and generational trauma of being the conquered other, be expected to welcome him unconditionally as a brother, as a representative even?

Would he even have been able to have the same impact if he had grown up as they did, or was it the very fact that he wasn't held back by an actual First Nation heritage that allowed him to present a sanitised fantasy of the Noble Savage that was acceptable to European-cultured sensibilities rather than being defined by the reality and history of the people he claimed to belong to?

Oh! I knew about him but hadn't realised the classic photo was by Karsh. The Empire podcast had a good Karsh-themed episode a few weeks back.

They’ve fallen into the classic trap of the bad bullshitter, to keep their narrative going they’ve delved ever deeper into the realms of the unlikely and fantastical.
To be a good liar you have to keep your story simple and consistent. Turning yourself, over the course of many pages, into a unicorn is not that.