Woman

Thought so. Neither of you ever engage with a discussion - you just make massive assumptions about other posters’ lives, divert the conversation (or try to), and contribute the square root of naff all.

For someone with an MA in trans issues I have to say that you have scant regard for theory, but the questions are all straightforward ‘life experience’ ones that can be answered yes or no. I’m sure you could answer them if you tried.

Better patronising to theoretical feminists than actively working to make life worse for a very vulnerable group.

Not interested in engaging with your questions thank you. Mired in abstraction. Not based in reality.

I'll leave you to go round in every decreasing circles.

Talk about patronising ?

Can you please, just for once, engage with the questions you have been asked? Any set will do.

Rosie51 Thu 05-Aug-21 23:11:05
lie through your teeth

Seriously? WHY would an anonymous individual lie about that?

And as you can easily see, it was in response to the implication that those that support trans rights work against womens interests.

From those who have probably done no more to support women than sit in front of a screen, to insult some of us who have been active feminists and given time, energy and care to actually make life better for women...

Feminism is about being ACTIVE. Getting out of your comfort zone and trying to make change happen. Not about sitting arguing about the width of the head of a pin. Or casting judgement on individuals who have gone through a terrible and very difficult transition.

From women (if those posting on here are women, because this looks very like misogyny to me) who get upset if their husband is called their partner... Well. Words fail me.

Try doing some real good in the world and stop contemplating your navels.

I’m well impressed, Doodledog. No wonder your posts are so well presented and knowledgeable.

I’m less impressed that trisher and/or Gaga feel competent to decide how I am allowed to feel.
So husbands and wives must not be ‘distressed’ because they prefer to be called by that title rather than ‘partner’ because partner is more inclusive.
Really you talk such rubbish. I should have known better than to enter into your mind games.
Sorry to disagree with you as well Gaga but I actually have quite a lot of experience with Lesbian support which is why I feel able to post different points of view from yours, gained from the people I work with.

Just as a general question

I’m waiting for trisher’s straightforward responses to my questions, without any attempts at diverting the post. While I wait, perhaps Gaga could answer the questions in my post at 22:44 tonight?

Why thank you! My female socialisation taught me not to boast about my achievements, though. They might make men feel inferior.

I stand, no I lie, I sit in awesome admiration for your many and varied achievements Doodledog

Ok, I'll come clean. I was voted Feminist of the Year in 1997 by the Society of Great Women of the World. I don't boast about it, as it has no bearing whatever on my posts on a discussion board which are expressions of my opinion - no more, no less.

Oh, and did I mention that 8 days a week I work 25 hour shifts in the GoodWorks department of the Merseyside Women's Club? And that I have a PhD in Feminism and an MA in Keyboard Warrior Studies (I got a Distinction in the 'no life experience' option)?

Now that my credentials are established, how about answering some of the questions that I have been asking on this and other threads since what feels like the dawn of time?

And so it continues...... ignore the probing questions....make assumptions about every other poster......trumpet how absolutely fabulous and superior you personally are...... lie through your teeth, nobody can prove otherwise...denigrate anybody who disagrees....... I feel such pity for individuals whose self worth is so limited. Fantasy has never been my preferred genre in literature, film or indeed Gransnet postings.

Mollygo Thu 05-Aug-21 22:14:06

The use of partner for my married state would cause me distress.

Seriously? Such a huge overreaction due to the use of a synonym. Partner is the modern word for one's partner in life. It includes husbands / wives / girlfriends / boyfriends / lovers / non-sexual life partners.

Some of your points, I disagree with but acknowledge your argument has some logic. But you get actively distressed at being called the partner to a person you have spent your life with? I really think prioritising is due if a relationship or sense of self is so fragile. ?

trisher Thu 05-Aug-21 18:34:02

I do resent the way some posters accuse me and any trans supporter of acting against women's interests.

Exactly trisher. I have worked in a gay/lesbian support group, worked on the phone lines for a rape support group. I wonder how many of the keyboard warriors on here have worked voluntarily in the feminist community, at a grassroots level?

It's all a lot of hot air about something most, if not all, of them have no experience of.

Another diversion . But just for once I’ll play your game.
The use of mother is inclusive of mothers.
The use of husband and wife is inclusive for those who are husbands and wives. They may be upset by being simply called partners.
The use of parents is a different inclusive word.
The use of partners is inclusive and fine for those who want to be called that.
For me a partner indicates someone I work with, play tennis with.
The use of partner for my married state would cause me distress. The use of parent, when I am my child’s mother would cause me distress. Do my needs and those of millions of others not count in your world of inclusivity?
Now back to the purpose of the post.

Do you think it’s right to deny natal women safe spaces, where the admission of some transwomen make the spaces unsafe, and women feel at risk, whether that be hospital, toilets, prisons or other single sex spaces?

Do you actually believe that transwomen should be allowed into those spaces until, on an individual basis, a transwoman admitted harms a natal woman, girl or child physically or mentally?

Do you think it’s right that even a small but potentially increasing number of women and girls should be denied the right to compete or win at the highest level by having to compete against transwomen who still have the virtue of having reached puberty and the advantages that gives?

I don’t need to ask you about women’s rights to employment not being eroded by ‘the patriarchy’ allowing men or transwomen to take their places as you have already posted that you don’t agree that should happen.

I care much more, and work for much wider and more radical aims, than most of you on GN.

Isn't that an assumption?

Thank you for answering some of the questions. I have a couple more in response to your replies, if I may?

I understand what you are saying about inclusive language, and the examples you give are neutral and highly unlikely to upset anyone. 'Person who menstruates', and 'Ciswoman', on the other hand (amongst other terms) are not neutral. Both terms qualify the state of womanhood purely so that being female can be seen to include men.

Transwomen may have been in women's spaces for years. It is difficult to be sure one way or the other, as by definition they will have been doing so secretly. What there is no precedent for however (until recently at least), is transwomen with beards in female spaces, or beauticians being told that they have to wax a 'female' client's testicles on pain of being sued. Neither has it been the case until recently that owners of shops or workers in refuges have felt obliged to allow men who say they are female into women's spaces. Hospital trusts have not traditionally been expected to have policies that mean that male bodied people sleep in female wards with sick and vulnerable women. These are very important differences, and are the developments that many women find disturbing. Can you understand why that is the case?

Why do you think that it is 'in the interests of women' to allow these things? That question really interests me, as it seems to me that someone who is genuinely interested in women's issues would think the opposite, which clearly you don't, so I would like to know what you think.

Also, do you believe the posters on these threads when we say that we are not transphobic and that it is only when our safe spaces and our own identification are threatened that we are concerned? It often feels as though you think we are all liars or deluded, which is not a great way to feel, and it would be good to know whether this is the case or not.

Pammie1 what an excellent post. I agree with every word you have said. ?

I make no assumptions about anyone. I simply state my own involvement and beliefs and purely because the only way some posters seem to have of coping with the arguments I post is to make personal and even entirely false accusatios about me.

Thanks for the post about the transwoman judge Rosie51 It was interesting to read about all the work she has done on historical abuse. If only there were more like her.

I have posted about transwomen having been present in women's spaces for years. I am sorry if some women feel threatened by them. I wouldn't imagine that constantly highlighting a few cases of serious abuse would make them feel any safer. I also have posted that the law is clear and it cannot possibly be the fault of transpeople if it isn't applied properly. I also don't consider it is a trans issue. As I have said before most transpeople are not involved. So why insist they are the danger?

I want to see a language that is more not less inclusive. The usual words will remain but if there are circumstances which are not covered by certain words or if there are people who would feel damaged or excluded by the use of certain words I see no reason why other terms cannot be used. Personally you can choose to use the words you prefer but you cannot insist on another person using the same words if they find them unacceptable. So the terms mother and father in official documents becomes parents so all are included, and husband and wife may become partner. It is surely best to use inclusive language and not language which causes others distress.

Thanks, Molly and Pammie.

Before I'm pulled up on it, I've just caught up with the past few posts on here and see that my phone has changed transwomen to transmen again. Sorry.

I wish we had an edit facility. . .

trisher if you can show me another lobby group that has as many members from businesses to government departments to health trusts paying it to be a member and displaying the logo then I'll believe that the trans movement is as weak and impotent as you suggest.

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-diversity-champions-programme

And before you come back with gay representation, the lesbians I know say Stonewall doesn't care about them at all.

@Doodedog * Do you understand the fears of women who do not want to be in vulnerable situations with untransitioned transmen, and if so, do you have any sympathy with them?

Do you accept that people are telling the truth when we say that it is not transmen in general that are our concern, and that it is only when they insist on using female single-sex spaces that we object?

Do you understand why we think that the hijacking of the language to exclude 'natal women' (that term in itself would have been unthinkable even ten years ago) is a cause for concern?

Finally, why do you think that it is 'in women's interests' to allow untransitioned transmen into their safe spaces, and to allow the language to shift so that we no longer have words that describe us as a sex?*

I’ve been struggling to find the words to express what you have said so succinctly. We seem to be sleepwalking in to this situation - scared to object for fear of offending, what is a minority who seem to be dictating their demands with no regard to anything but their own needs.

That’s fine Doodlebug. Your posts are always well put and you ask some good questions your last post. It would be good to get answers to them.

Trisher it is hardly surprising that no transperson has made it into government. However present they are in the media and some small areas of big cities, the proportion of transpersons in the country as a whole must be a fraction of a per cent. Were every tiny fractional minority were all to be present in high circles all the time, the government and civil service, would have to be much bigger than it is now

If you can post me any evidence of one trans person in a government post, a high level civil service post, a post in the judiciary www.thetimes.co.uk/article/victoria-mccloud-a-transgender-judge-wants-a-more-diverse-judiciary-jc7rqhbc9
there you go trisher first result on a quick google.

Sorry, Mollygo - we crossposted.

I do resent the way some posters accuse me and any trans supporter of acting against women's interests. My concerns, my support for and my involvemnt in women's issues is long standing and strong. The fact that I see much worse and more dangerous long term outcomes for women, through supporting policies which discriminate and restrict individual freedoms, shows I care much more, and work for much wider and more radical aims, than most of you on GN.

You have no idea what 'most of us on GN' do, so please stop that nonsense.

Your logic is seriously flawed, I'm afraid. The fact that you see what to you are much worse outcomes for women does not 'show' anything, apart from that you see much worse outcomes for women. The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it so.

I could just as easily claim that because I see self-id as having a dangerous outcome for women then it shows that I care more than you do - I won't, as care is irrelevant, really, and in any case it can't be measured in any meaningful way, and even if it could the person who cares most wouldn't necessarily be right.

I know that you involve yourself with women's issues - you keep bringing it up. That doesn't mean that you have more insight than anyone else, though. It just means that you involve yourself with other women's issues.
It gets wearing when you keep positioning yourself as the fount of all knowledge on these threads. You talk down to people and make huge assumptions about what we do, what we know and how we know it.
The questions people have been putting to you remain unanswered, or you claim to have answered them by asking other questions, or making observations that divert the conversation to other areas.
Rosie has asked you whether you have any sympathy with women who do not want to share spaces with untransitioned transmen. Without swerving into the realms of 1970s gay affairs in women's prisons, or Nazis persecuting those perceived to be different, can you please answer?

Do you understand the fears of women who do not want to be in vulnerable situations with untransitioned transmen, and if so, do you have any sympathy with them?

Do you accept that people are telling the truth when we say that it is not transmen in general that are our concern, and that it is only when they insist on using female single-sex spaces that we object?

Do you understand why we think that the hijacking of the language to exclude 'natal women' (that term in itself would have been unthinkable even ten years ago) is a cause for concern?

Finally, why do you think that it is 'in women's interests' to allow untransitioned transmen into their safe spaces, and to allow the language to shift so that we no longer have words that describe us as a sex?

Trisher, I don’t accuse you of acting against women’s interests. I have no idea how you act in the real world any more than you know about me.
I can and do say you appear to support transwomen’s rights over natal women’s rights. If I’ve got that wrong, and you show me where you have supported natal women’s over the rights of transwomen, (other than your mention a few posts back about the erosion of women’s rights by the patriarchy which allows transwomen to take women’s places in terms of employment) then I’ll apologise.
Your fluff about your long standing and strong involvement in women’s issues may actually be true in real life. I could say exactly the same about myself.
On GN, on this and other threads, you don’t appear to support women in an area of current and increasing concern. Sometimes you introduce a diversionary tactic, worthy of discussion in its own right but not directly related to the concern expressed here.
On other occasions you appear to immediately jump to the defence of all transwomen, when posters on here are not attacking transwomen, merely opposing the wrongs being done to natal women by those transwomen who use their ID in a way that is harmful and detrimental to natal women and girls.

It is just pandering to a noisy minority.