Woman

Explaining? How was that disgraceful post explaining anything? It was false equivalence and deliberately incendiary.

To suggest that GagaJo was trying to ‘help’ is patronising and disingenuous. GSM doesn’t need help not to be racist - she wasn’t being racist.

I think that GSM deserves an apology for that post. It is a serious accusation, and like the Godwin’s Law attempt, such an accusation is the last refuge of the desperate who know they are losing an argument.

Of course it’s goading trisher. It’s a repetition of what you said some days ago for the sole purpose of picking a fight. Who are you to tell me what feelings I may and may not confide on GN? I don’t require patronising ‘explanations’ from you or anyone else.

Germanshepherdsmum

Of course it’s goading trisher. It’s a repetition of what you said some days ago for the sole purpose of picking a fight. Who are you to tell me what feelings I may and may not confide on GN? I don’t require patronising ‘explanations’ from you or anyone else.

If either Gagajo or I cared to Gsm we could report your post for being transphobic. We haven't. We believe in free speech even when that speech is discriminatory and biased. We try to help anyone posting such things, but as far as GN is concerned if you think it's acceptable I could report it and we could find out.

trisher

Doodledog M0nica posted and you agreed with her. I actually found it the most shocking thing I have seen posted. Compulsory surgery? Really?
It's incomprehensible and doesn't fit with any sort of democratic beliefs I know and it certainly isn't feminist.

I was agreeing with the last bit M0nica's post, where she talks about give and take, and suggests that the majority should not be dictated to by a small and vocal minority, which are things that I have been saying all along.

The quote facility on here is very primitive, and I didn't cut and paste the relevant bit, but if you have bothered to read my posts you would be aware of my thoughts, and you ignored the post I asked you to comment on, so I can't help thinking that this is another diversionary tactic.

For the record, of course I am not advocating compulsory surgery ?. I don't think that M0nica was either, incidentally, She seemed to me to be making the point that there is a difference between people who have fully transitioned and those who haven't, and is going out of her way to say that those who have should be accepted as women, but I'm sure she can speak for herself.

Would you please now comment on my post - the one you said you didn't understand, or are you retracting that now?

For anyone who hasn't been put off by all the diversionary tactics, bare-faced slurs and so on, and is still reading this thread Here is a story that illustrates how farcical the demands of the TRA lobby can be.

Doodledog

I don't believe that transwomen are men, although I do believe that they will always be male when it comes to biology, health and statistics. I think there should be changes to vocabulary so that we can discuss transwomen in a way that is sensitive to their wish to be seen as women whilst also, without value judgement, recognising that biologically they are male. I do not think that we should do this by eradicating vocabulary that recognises women as a separate sex, however.

I also believe that there are men who will pass themselves off as transwomen if there are not clear rules to ensure that they do not. I am more concerned about men doing this in order to gain access to vulnerable women than I am about men getting onto boards (they dominate those anyway), but I am also very worried about the way in which health and legal statistics are being altered in ways that hide so-called 'natal' women, and I resent having to use terms like 'so-called 'natal' women' to talk about women.

I don't know how many more times I can say those things. I have said them in as many different ways as I can for what must be years now on these threads.

For avoidance of doubt, this is the post you said you did not understand, trisher. Would you please, without using dubious analogies or diversions explain just what you don't understand?

I certainly wasn't advocating compulsory surgery. The thought never entered my mind, until you accused me of it trisher

What is more I have gone back to my 'get back to basics' post and nothing is said there that could possibly be construed as suggesting compulsory surgery.

Your fevered imagination is running away with you.

You are right Doodledog. Distraction is the name of the game. There are serious far reaching decisions we need to discuss as a society that aren't being made. Either on threads such as this where posters gish gallop away from the subject matter until we all leave in confusion. Or in the wider media where a statement that isn't 100% in favour of the TRA's demands invites accusations of transphobia and hate speech. As I'm typing this, an article in our local newspaper on line about a transwoman self medicationing has an army of supporters crushing every posters comment that doesn't follow the expected trans narrative. Comments are being deleted in real time and accusations are flying. Talk of posters being sued. How on earth did we all get here?

There is clearly passion on both sides and genuine concerns need to be expressed. One of my concerns is that, as with Stonewall quietly misleading and changing policies of hundreds of organisations, laws are made that affect women and suddenly its is too late. Women will loose out. Women are loosing out.

Why don't you all state clearly in bullet points what you DON'T want?

Places you think trans women should not be able to go. None of this airy fairy 'women only spaces' mullarkey. Named places.

Things you don't want them to be able to do.

Are you seriously coming back to this thread as though your past post to GSM never happened?

With men and women who are moving from one gender to another, and having surgery and taking hormones the situation is more complex. If they have had the full surgery and men no longer have a penis and testicles and women have also been provided with that apparatus, then they should be able to use the facilities associated with the sex they identify with.
If I say to someone you can't do "A" which is something they feel essential to their well being unless you do "B" I am making that process compulsory. You may feel you are not doing so M0nica but then an awful lot of restrictive and inhumane practices are put into operation because someone thought it was OK to do so.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how I'm losing out, or how a miniscule proportion of transpeople will substantally change anything apart from making the language more inclusive, which to my mind is a good thing.

I was reading one of the accounts on the websites of people who say they are feminists and oppose trans rights. I notice that when they are shouted down or challenged by people at student venues they describe those people as trans activists, with no evidence whatsoever. I think they are probably just young people with trans and non-binary friends and relations, who recognise that this is actually to do with the people they love and care for just living as positive and productive life as possible, so they are just speaking up for, and with, them. They aren't trans activists they re just living in the real world.

Mollygo - I think the point is that transactivists want the term chest to be used...so it is not transphobic. chestfeeders not breastfeeders.

Doodledog

Doodledog

I don't believe that transwomen are men, although I do believe that they will always be male when it comes to biology, health and statistics. I think there should be changes to vocabulary so that we can discuss transwomen in a way that is sensitive to their wish to be seen as women whilst also, without value judgement, recognising that biologically they are male. I do not think that we should do this by eradicating vocabulary that recognises women as a separate sex, however.

I also believe that there are men who will pass themselves off as transwomen if there are not clear rules to ensure that they do not. I am more concerned about men doing this in order to gain access to vulnerable women than I am about men getting onto boards (they dominate those anyway), but I am also very worried about the way in which health and legal statistics are being altered in ways that hide so-called 'natal' women, and I resent having to use terms like 'so-called 'natal' women' to talk about women.

I don't know how many more times I can say those things. I have said them in as many different ways as I can for what must be years now on these threads.

For avoidance of doubt, this is the post you said you did not understand, trisher. Would you please, without using dubious analogies or diversions explain just what you don't understand?

What do you not understand about the above, trisher?

Doodledog

Are you seriously coming back to this thread as though your past post to GSM never happened?

I stand by that post Doodledog.

It is flat out discrimination to say you are scared of a trans person.

Lets face facts. CIS men are a threat. Trans women aren't.

Homophobia isn't a phobia. It is bigotry. Trans fear isn't real. It is bigotry.

So yes. Say CLEARLY what you want. You all like to ask questions and expect an answer so I'm doing the same.

What do you want? Be clear.

Seems clear enough to me Doodledog.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how I'm losing out, or how a miniscule proportion of transpeople will substantally change anything apart from making the language more inclusive, which to my mind is a good thing.

trisher In what other areas do you consider a minuscule proportion of people should be able to dictate a sea-change in language or practices that substantially affect the vast majority? And when a substantial section of that majority objects do they get a say? Some of us object to the withdrawal of the word woman when used to identify our sex and the related health issues. We reject the diminishing of women to our bodily parts, something we note does not happen to men. I've not seen any mentions or publications for "people who produce sperm", "people with a prostate", or indeed "penis owners". Where's the inclusivity on the male side?

GagaJo Lets face facts. CIS men are a threat. Trans women aren't.
What none of them? Not even this one? www.scotsman.com/regions/edinburgh-fife-and-lothians/female-spaces-need-better-protection-after-trans-woman-sex-assault-girl-say-campaigners-140883

I note you still insist on using the offensive CIS label. Wouldn't just men and transwomen have sufficed? Your usage suggests they are both categories of men?

trisher

I sometimes think I really don't understand any of you. If this is believing in transwomen With men and women who are moving from one gender to another, and having surgery and taking hormones the situation is more complex. If they have had the full surgery and men no longer have a penis and testicles and women have also been provided with that apparatus, then they should be able to use the facilities associated with the sex they identify with.

The problem is those in transition, and here a separate category may need to be recognised, but again it should be governed by whether the person concerned still has the external appendages of the sex they were born into.

Then I'm Mary Poppins
Some transpeople will have surgery some won't, the reasons why are complex and difficult. But insisting someone has surgery in order to live as they wish really isn't "believing" in those people. I cannot think of any other situation or any regime which would insist on surgery for anyone. It's inhumane, it's dictatorial and it's unworkable.

If this is the post you are referring to Doodledog I would have thought it was clearly stated.
Firstly it is addressed to everyone
Secondly it specifically asks how you reconcile believing in transwomen whilst saying they must have surgery, because I don't understand that. Are you saying that transwomen who have not had surgery can't be transwomen? That you only believe in them when they are post surgery?

No, as I said earlier today:

I was agreeing with the last bit M0nica's post, where she talks about give and take, and suggests that the majority should not be dictated to by a small and vocal minority, which are things that I have been saying all along.

The quote facility on here is very primitive, and I didn't cut and paste the relevant bit, but if you have bothered to read my posts you would be aware of my thoughts, and you ignored the post I asked you to comment on, so I can't help thinking that this is another diversionary tactic.

For the record, of course I am not advocating compulsory surgery ?. I don't think that M0nica was either, incidentally, She seemed to me to be making the point that there is a difference between people who have fully transitioned and those who haven't, and is going out of her way to say that those who have should be accepted as women, but I'm sure she can speak for herself.

Would you please now comment on my post - the one you said you didn't understand, or are you retracting that now?

Oh oh, now we’re moving into the pity the young people. Nice move! Do you think no young people will be interested in whether or not they are allowed to be called men or particularly, ‘women’ or father or mother in the future because a vociferous minority want to deny them that right?
Are you saying that the ‘real world’ you advocate is more important than the ‘real world’ that most of the population live in?
What is this minuscule proportion to which you refer?
If you are happy to be a generic group name that’s fine for you and all those of your persuasion. No one on here would deny you that right, so perhaps you shouldn’t criticise others who prefer a more specific term, thereby insinuating that they are totally wrong.

GagaJo I deeply resent your insulting post. I am not a bigot. Any fear, for whatever reason it is felt, is a fear. The link in Rosie’s post shows that such fears are not groundless.

Rosie51
Gaga uses CIS because she doesn’t like the term woman, which actually refers to her and she likes to be irritating. Let it go.
Diversion alert!!! My primary school DGS uses the same tactic, repeating words or phrases just to be irritating. We ignore that too. The difference is, he’ll grow out of it!

GagaJo, I don't think you have ever answered a single one of my questions, but ok.

Lets face facts. CIS men are a threat. Trans women aren't.
I am not going to use the term CIS. If people are either CIS or TRANS (ie on the near side or the far side) then what is the centre? Near side or far side of what? CIS is not a 'fact'. It is meaningless in this context.

I have said to the point of tedium that it is not transwomen per se that I am concerned about. It is the fact that men with nefarious intent can say they are women and expect that this is taken as gospel (TWAW, no debate etc) and enter spaces where women should be able to expect to be in the company of other women if that is what they want. Crucially, women should not have to explain their reasons for wanting to be in single sex spaces, and have them judged 'right' or 'wrong' by others. The TWAW argument removes that right.

Homophobia isn't a phobia. It is bigotry. Trans fear isn't real. It is bigotry.
No idea how to answer this - it is not a question, it is you deciding to redefine the language.

So yes. Say CLEARLY what you want. You all like to ask questions and expect an answer so I'm doing the same. What do you want? Be clear.
Please don't shout at me. And there is no need to repeat yourself like that - I can understand English.

1 What I 'want' is what I have said over and over but is ignored. I would like the vocabulary to be explicit enough to talk about transpeople in a way that recognises that they are biologically in the sex they were born into, but at the same time preserves their dignity and their right to have their preferences respected.

Until that happens, it is all but impossible to discuss the subject with those who are determined to 'trip up' anyone who doesn't agree with them. We can't even use the word 'woman' and assume that everyone will know (or accept!) what we mean by that.

What you now want me to do is get tied in knots by trying to explain (*CLEARLY*) what I 'want' (as though my concerns can be reduced to 'wants') whilst my hands are tied because I can't use the language I speak.

I will try to continue, though.

2 I would like everyone to live the life that makes them comfortable, so long as doing so does not impinge on the right of others to do the same.

3 I think that women should be able to choose to be around other women at times when they feel vulnerable, such as when they are naked or in a state of undress, when they have been raped or sexually assaulted. The CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (a transwoman) has said that if a raped woman objects to her counsellor being a man she is bigoted and needs to 'reframe her trauma'. This is cruel and utterly and entirely inappropriate.

4 I would like statistics on things like crime, health and pay to reflect sex differences rather than self-declared gender preferences, as to ignore sex means that figures about women (and men) are subsumed into meaningless categories and it will be impossible for feminists to point to inequalities in the systems the figures purport to reflect.

5 I would like to see people (usually women) who speak out against their erasure as in the example I posted earlier being allowed to make their case without being shouted down, accused of bigotry and subjected to threats.

Will that do?

God, this is exhausting!

It's like some sort of endurance test. It's not as though anything is coming back the other way - just a series of 'misunderstandings' of what we are saying, a load of diversions into irrelevant areas, unfounded accusations of racism, homophobia, Nazi sympathies and lying, aggressive questioning and patronising condescension. It really is like a Masterclass in how not to conduct a debate.

Still, I have a deadline looming, and a bit of displacement activity never comes in wrong.

Doodledogquite how I am expected to know that you only agree with one paragraph of M0nica's statement with it's outrageous ideas of trans surgery I don't know. If you post "agree" after a long post I assume it is the post you are agreeing with and not one particular part.

M0nica didn't advocate compulsory surgery, as she's explained, but now that that's been cleared up, would you like to explain what it is about my point of view that you don't understand?

Just because you say you don't advocate something doesn't mean it's true.
As far as that post goes why couldn't you just post I agree with your last paragraph?
So what are non operable transwomen to do? They apparently can't be women. They aren't non-binary. They aren't men. Just sort of non-people then?
I don't understand how you can read something like that post about surgery not be revolted, and then say you believe in transwomen.

I also don't understand the objection to "cis" you seem to want some delineation between trans women and natal women, why won't cis do?

I don't know enough about counselling and trauma to discuss it properly but I thought the CEO of the ERCC had an interesting point. We live in a world where men are everywhere should counselling for trauma shield you completely or should it also be about facing your fears in a supportive atmosphere? Because at some point you will encounter men.