feminism or transphobia?

[giraffezoo]

Long time lurker of this forum, first time poster.

I have read through many of the threads on here and I have to say there are lots of views that I find quite shocking.

There almost seems to be two sides of the ‘gender critical’ movement on here that I can see.

The first seems quite reasonable. They wish to have protections in place for women and their rights. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree (e.g. trans folk in toilets, transgender prisoners etc) they are stating a view based on safety and women’s rights.

The second bunch are the ones who I find myself disagreeing with, and who post things that I personally consider as transphobic. Some examples of this would be: refusing to use someone’s pronouns or citing being transgender as a mental illness which needs to be cured.

I feel that the first group are genuinely feminists who are concerned with women’s rights, and feel as though they need to speak out on their own concerns. The second group are masquerading under the pretence of feminism to say hateful or controversial things.

I am interested to hear other views on this point (and I’m sure there will be a lot here who don’t agree with me!)

I'll call people by whatever name they like, at least when addressing them, but I won't do incorrect sex pronouns anymore. It would suggest that I think that a man can meaningfully become female, which is not something I believe in.

It's not like a new name, it's more like someone declaring himself to be the second coming and asking for capitalised He/Him pronouns and to be addressed as the "Holy One" or similar because they want everyone to recognise that they are God. It's not neutral. It requires the speaker to participate in the fantasy even if it goes against their deeply held beliefs.

I'll just refer to someone by their name in their presence and avoid pronouns altogether (even if awkward to phrase that way) but I won't play along with the delusion that men can become women anymore. I don't think it helps the trans person as they would incorrectly think that I perceive them as a woman and won't mind them being in women's spaces, and it goes against my beliefs.

As well as the great 'Pronouns are Rohypnol' already posted, if you want to see one example of how usage of demanded female pronouns and language by a male person harms female people collectively look no further than Ivy / McKinnon.

"So the first is, the very language of "you were born and I’m not biological somehow. I don't think I’m a cyborg, so the idea you're not a biological woman. I am a woman, that's a fact. I am female. so all my identity records, my racing license, my medical records all say "female." and I’m pretty sure I’m made of biological stuff. So I’m a biological female as well."

(VPN needed.) But a transcript was kindly posted on this thread linked below.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4580136-veronica-ivyrachel-mckinnon-on-daily-show-tonight?page=2

I become very aware of how the use of female language was being used against women in listening to McKinnon / Ivy. Here are parts of the video transcript.

Trans cyclist Rachel McKinnon defends her right to race in women's competitions By Martha Kelner (Sunday 20 October 2019)

Trans athlete McKinnon will race to defend her sprint title at the Masters track cycling championships in Manchester on Saturday.

And then

"All my medical records say female," she said. "My doctor treats me as a female person, my racing licence says female, but people who oppose my existence still want to think of me as male."

"There's a stereotype that men are always stronger than women, so people think there is an unfair advantage. By preventing trans women from competing or requiring them to take medication, you're denying their human rights."

Asked if she accepted it is possible that transgender women retained a physical advantage over cis female competitors (the term used to describe someone who identifies as the same gender they were assigned at birth),McKinnon replied: "Is it possible? Yes it is possible. But there are elite track cyclists who are bigger than me."

"There is a range of body sizes and strength, you can be successful with massively different body shapes. To take a British example, look at Victoria Pendleton, an Olympic champion with teeny tiny legs."

"In many Olympic disciplines the gap in performance is bigger between first and eighth in a single sex event than it is between the first man and the first woman."

and then

It is one of the most politically charged and sensitive issues around - but asked whether trans inclusion was more important than retaining a category for women in sport, McKinnon replied: "I think what your asking me is, 'Is it more important that trans people are included, than it is to retain fairness in sport?'

"My point is that trans inclusion is fairness, it is unfair to exclude trans women. This is much bigger than sport, it's a proxy for all of trans inclusion in society. Talk of bathrooms has switched into sport by people who don't care about sport."

In the video, McKinnon says "if you think that transwomen are men are men, then you think that there is an unfair advantage."

and my point about the pronouns comes from this quote:

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."

In this video and article, McKinnon uses these arguments:

-Unfair to not think of us as female since people 'accept us as female elsewhere'.
-The 'I don't always win, therefore I don't have a competitive advantage fallacy'
-The 'Phelps Gambit' fallacy - range of body sizes, and shape etc
-Elite male's advantage should not be used for all levels to exclude male people
-Questions sex categorisation anyway
-The 'not many transwomen in the Olympics anyway' fallacy

When you look at that from this distance, it's remarkable what absolute drivel it really is.

And it's a testament to how far we've come that anybody now reading that would think it was unhinged.

It's the arrogance, that gets me. McKinnon really did exemplify how much of a men's rights movement this is, and what sense of entitlement they have to not only ride rough shod over women everywhere, but to be so fucking smug while they're at it.

The misuse of language is the crucial element that made it all possible.
No debate.

We saw this with Upton's testimony too where he used the same rhetorical tactic to justify his access into the female single sex communal changing room at the NHS hospital he worked at. There is a rough transcript of his testimony on the threads about that case.

Using female language for a male person's subjective personal reality that is not reflective of material reality is not 'kind' or 'harmless' to female people either collectively and quite often not individually either.

Very well put.

I like to use the correct word for things. My brain feels uncomfortable with using the wrong word.

It is not in my interests or the interests of humanity to pretend that I think someone has changed sex. So I use the correct words to refer to people as I do everything else.

citing being transgender as a mental illness which needs to be cured.

It’s existence as a condition is a contested theory but when you say ‘transgender’ I think you mean ‘gender dysphoria’. This controversial concept cannot exist without sex based stereotypes and is inconsistent in many contexts so is therefore questionable as a standalone mental health condition.

It is certainly not a medical condition though so if it exists it would be mental health which people should be offered help for. I think it is better to help people feel comfortable in their body rather than attempting to drastically cosmetically alter it to resemble something it isn’t.

What ‘hateful things’ are you referring to? Is it hateful to call a man a man?

I think it is because some people (including the OP) see the term “mental illness” as something to be ashamed of.

Whereas if it can be presented as something sort of “physical” disorder, it is more palatable to people who think in that way.

I disagree that mental illness should have such a stigma; it is something many people will suffer during their lifetime, and no one should be ashamed of it.

I do not know how believing that you are “really” female despite being a perfectly normal biologically male person can be anything other than a mental rather than a physical illness. It is a belief that is in opposition to material reality; it is no wonder that trans people suffer from poor mental health; maintaining something so fundamentally untrue is an immense psychiatric load.

I agree, if it’s possible to reduce someone’s distress and depression etc without putting them on a lifetime of medication, blood tests, fertility issues and urology appointments, is that not better in every case?
I don’t know why trans people don’t argue for a safer life long solution to gender distress? What other mental illness has the patients arguing for more interventions with more physical damage and more side effects.

There does seem to be a lot of these posts lately.

OP, I'm trans. Biological female. I've been on Mumsnet for years, mostly lurking but occasionally commenting - sometimes about trans related discussions.
I have never had a transphobic comment directed at me. Disagreeing, and not wanting to go along with what another person would prefer really isn't transphobic.

Sometimes I wonder if all the trans people who are shouting the loudest are genuinely trans. Because dysphoria is horrific. I don't enjoy being like this. I prefer to live my life without forcing others to live it my way, too.
Saying being trans is a mental illness might hurt, and I understand that - but I for one believe that. Depression is a mental illness, but nobody seems to mind that fact. Yet as soon as being trans is said to be a mental illness, people are up in arms? Why?

If there was suddenly a cure, would I take it? 100%. To be able to get up and not instantly hate my own body? To not feel wrong most of my life? But you won't find many trans people who would agree there. And it makes you wonder why, doesn't it?

How is treating a male person as if he was a female person in anyway being truthful?

You might not wish to use accurate and precise language in your life, but that is your choice. I choose to be accurate.

Here is an example of how it can cause a safeguarding failure. Note the difference:

'she uses female single sex toilets'

versus

'he uses female single sex toilets'.

If someone says the first one to you, do you have any immediate reaction? And the second?

Lowering the intuitive reaction that people have when receiving verbal communication is a massive safeguarding issue. Teaching children that any male person can be a female person lowers their natural ability to distinguish the correct sex of a person and it also teaches them to accept people in situations where a person should not be.

You might not view it as 'lying', but I don't consider it in any way accurate or truthful to use female language for a male person particularly when that leads to them accessing female single sex provisions because 'everyone treats me like I am the woman I believe I am."

Ok, so what evidence that it DOES cause harm would change your mind?

If you can't identify what facts would change your mind, then you must accept you are in thrall to an ideology.

When you call the male neighbour "he" as is accurate, the answer becomes clear.

There was an article the other day when a father referred to his child’s anatomy as ‘her penis’. Do you not think that most people think that’s a bit odd? If he calls his child she then I guess that’s where it leads. I also remember Nicola Sturgeon had real problems in calling Isla Bryson she. It’s another oddity that some one can be selective of pronoun use depending on who that person is. You either do it for everyone or no one and that’s a problem to me.

Let’s run with your example:

If a black man asked you to address him as ‘n — a’ (the word you just referenced), and told you it was a matter of respect, would you?

And what if I, a white man, asked you to?

If your answers are no / no, then you recognise that the words you use are importantly yours to choose. That an expectation of compliance isn’t always reasonable.

If your answers are yes / no, then you recognise that how you see me (not just how I may claim to see myself) matters too.

@giraffezoo Please come over to this thread to post your thoughts on this study.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5513703-finnish-study-on-transition-and-psychiatric-outcomes-in-sex-and-gender-shows-increased-psychiatric-morbidity

If one group is asserting something forcefully; making claims and demands on other groups of people; then those other groups, especially ones most directly impacted by those claims, have a right of response.

Just because someone says they are something it does not follow that everyone else has to affirm that thing as being valid or true. -especially when that thing has implications for them.

Nobody is the opposite sex to that which they are, and i don't know why you think that everyone should pretend that is true?

TBH, if someone honestly expected me to use that name ( "Turd"), I'd be offended. I certainly wouldn't smile sweetly and acquiesce. Just because someone requests something it doesn't mean you must automatically consent.

“The second bunch are the ones who I find myself disagreeing with, and who post things that I personally consider as transphobic. Some examples of this would be: refusing to use someone’s pronouns or citing being transgender as a mental illness which needs to be cured.”

There’s nothing hateful or ‘transphobic’ about not using she/her pronouns for men, and dysphoria is a mental illness, a man who believes he’s really a woman is delusional, just like an anorexic underweight person who thinks they are fat is delusional. I will use they/them for people with dysphoria, but not the ‘wrong’ sex pronouns. Sex is biology, gender is a social construct, and being a woman is not a ‘feeling’.

Your personal view is bollocks.

Why?

Because whatever your personal view is it can't change reality.

Why does this matter?

Because sex does. Like every time you go to the doctor. Every time you go into a toilet or changing room. Every time you do sport.

You can't change this because personal views. It's utterly ridiculous.

Not only this but it's homophobic as well as sexist.

ANDDD pronouns?

That just about coercive control.

This is not transphobia.

There's this weird idea that reality is phobic. Like wtf? Observing reality is just observing reality.

Is it hateful to

use sex based pronouns?
criticise inaccurate reporting of sex offenders' sex?
point out higher representation of trans identified males in sex offences or that crossdressing used to be a clear indicator of sexual offending (which mostly kept it behind closed doors)?

The mental illness point is spot on, my brother was shockingly disturbed when he was convinced that becoming a woman would solve his problems.

It didn't. Now he is mentally ill minus a penis. Not a win I think.

Great. Then we shouldn't use: cis, chestfeeders, birthing bodies, as women have described these as offensive.

@giraffezoo - To me personally it makes no bearing on my life to respect other people and use language that makes them comfortable.

That's your choice and that's not a problem, people are allow to make their own choices, even bad ones. If you were, however, to demand others also do so then that is a problem, a big problem.
If you try to shame, bully, threaten or use emotional blackmail to coercive people into doing something they don't want to do, you're not respecting other people at all, your being very selective about who you respect, so your 'respect' is bias and meaningless.
Personal antidotes are missing the big picture, you're just flaunting your self-righteousness, and attempting to lord it up over others who have a different opinion than you. Not very respectful at all.

Well I mean you're correct, in the same way we shouldn't be telling someone they're don't have body dysmorphia or they don't have anorexia. We don't need to tell people they aren't trans but IMO we should still be treating it as a MH issue.

Until recent years being transgender was considered a MH issue by the WHO, this was changed due to the unhappiness of trans people with it being considered a MH issue and the stigma it caused. I don't think that declassification did anyone any favours tbh.

I also don't understand why people are horrified at it being considered a MH issue - is having a MH issue such a terrible thing that we should be horrified by the idea? I also don't understand why those same people are not horrified by the fact that trans people are cutting off healthy parts of their bodies - why on earth does that not horrify you? How can that be the behaviour of someone who is mentally well?

I am not trying to hate on trans people or say they don't exist. I am happy to use preferred name and avoid pronouns. But I do think being trans is a MH issue and that that isn't some terribly horrible or horrifically transphobic thing to say.

If I say someone with body dysmorphia or anorexia has a MH issue is it an awful, horrible, hateful thing to say then? Why not?

No no no… the TRAs and their handmaidens only mean we don’t use words they don’t like… we have to acquiesce to their superiority within anything else…

Another drive by....

All I'll say, is that I don't do compelled speech. You can't make me say she for a man. And it's not the same as using a slur.

Goodbye.