Woman

Here you go again, making things up again. I did not say M0nica wants toilets and changing roms in shops to check genitalia Evidence please.

An unreconstructed male is, usually quite identifiable as such, even when wearing women's clothing and make-up, but I think most biological men told that a certain facility was for biological women only, or reading a notice to that effect, would have the courtesy to respect it.

trisher if you post one more post that attributes to me things that I did not say. I will report you. I have tolerated a lot of deliberate misinformation about me, to allow this discussion to go on, but there are limits and you are pushing hard against them.

They both apprently don't insist transwomen have surgery but won't let them use women's facilities until they do. and that apparently isn't being transphobic.

The 'apparently' here is snide and unnecessary, trisher. Both M0nica and I have said categorically that we would not insist on anyone having surgery (the idea is preposterous) and your persistent misreading of one post and returning to it in spite of this is unedifying.

You accidentally said something you didn't mean as you were leaving the house recently, and the matter was never mentioned again (or should I say, you 'apparently' meant to say that people didn't want to see people naked when you said that it was women who don't want to see it?)

You repeatedly ignore our questions and swerve them by asking us to clarify posts that are already clearly expressed, and pick up on minor points in our posts and worry them like a dog with a bone.

I did not say, suggest or imply that it should never be considered that a rape victim should have other counselling besides trauma counselling. What I do think is that no counselling should ever be compulsory, and to suggest that a female rape victim not wanting to be counselled by a man is 'bigoted' and should 'reframe her trauma' is a dreadful thing to say.

Mollygo perhaps that's because what is being asked for is neither as unified nor as comprehensive as you seem to imagine. It's difficult to understand something when people who seem to agree on the surface have some deep seated differences.
M0nica wants toilets and changing roms in shops to check genitalia. Doodledog realises it's impossible.
That includes toilets, changing rooms, whether in sports facilties or shops,
Checks could not easily be made in changing rooms and toilets, and would be counter-productive to an attempt to preserve dignity anyway, but so long as it is not obvious (and if it's not, no checks would be necessary)

They both apprently don't insist transwomen have surgery but won't let them use women's facilities until they do. and that apparently isn't being transphobic.

Doodledog If someone has been bitten by a dog, are you suggesting that they should be counselled in a kennel as some sort of aversion therapy? That would almost certainly do more harm than good, and if the client did not give full informed consent the therapist would be lucky to be able to continue practising.

A woman can live her life without having to come into contact with any dogs, it is unlikely that she can do so without seeing any men. Should it never be considered that besides dealing with her trauma, counselling should prepare the woman for life in the real world where she will have to interact with men?

Doodledog that is fine, I missed that sentence - and. yes, - women athletes do have to take testosterone tests and have to be below a certain count, which has caused real problems for some women with, I think, a genetic problem that means they have very high testosterone and acquire many male characteristics, especially strength and speed, which means they can outperform all other female runners. There is a South African female runner sadly, in this unfortunate position, but this is a medical matter not a transgender issue.

Perhaps an incident this afternoon is germane to this conversation. A delivery van arrived at the door. The driver was over six foot tall, one of those big burly men, must have weighed over 25 stone, legs like tree trunks burly arms covered with tatoos. When I answered the door I saw that despite the body, the head and face, plus voice were entirely female. They were friendly and helpful and beween us the two of us got all the MDF into the house, DH cannot lift things, we had a chat and then they went on their way.

What I remember was what a nice delivery driver this company had, and that is what you want and expect in a delivery driver, We had another delivery, that driver was equally nice and he took a photograph of my knees behind my parcel to prove delivery. I could of course say at some later time that they are not my knees or trousers.

Do you know trisher, it doesn’t really matter what any of the rest of us post, except perhaps GJ, because if you don’t like it, you arrange a diversion, or you twist whatever has been said to represent something that wasn’t said in the first place or you accuse other posters of feelings, thoughts or opinions that they have not expressed.

When you reiterated at 13:04 “I sometimes think I really don’t understand any of you.”
You finally spoke a truth that I can understand.

trisher

Can I ask just in case Gagajo doesn't who is going to check?

For Frogs' Sake!

If I may, M0nica?

On entry to hospital, I would think that there would be a need to check records and bodies for other reasons, so we can rule that one out as contentious.

Prisoners are strip-searched on arrival at prison, or so TV would have us believe. So that's that one sorted.

Professional sportspeople already have drug tests and so on, so a sex test could form part of that without too much hassle (if it is not done already). I don't know - can a urine test detect hormones in a way that is accurate enough to tell?

Checks could not easily be made in changing rooms and toilets, and would be counter-productive to an attempt to preserve dignity anyway, but so long as it is not obvious (and if it's not, no checks would be necessary) it is unlikely to matter. For the gazillionth time, nobody wants to make life difficult for transpeople. We want to protect women from men impersonating them. I don't care how rarely it happens - once is once too many, and if we have an 'open door' policy for all men to be able to say they are women, we may as well not have female spaces at all.

Refuges are more tricky, as few people arrive there with passports or any form of ID. Again, if a transwoman is in need of protection I would not turn her away, but if the partner of a resident turns up saying he identifies as a women and wants to be allowed in, I feel very strongly that there should be no element of doubt - there should be no question of his being allowed in.

Why do you need every post to be spelt out to you like this? Is it a war of attrition, or are you unable to conceptualise?

If that last post is directed to me tricia, expert as you are on trans matters I’m sure you can provide explanations for those of us who can’t think of a valid reason why a man wishing to become a woman would choose not to have the constant reminders of his maleness removed if he can have surgery performed?

I am not going to be diverted into a defence of what I did not do in a previous post, nor of a discussion about what I did not say.

I have already explained my objection to the term CIS, but I will repeat myself again. It is a prefix that means 'on the near side of'. I am not 'on the near side' of being a woman - I am a woman. This is part of the problem as I see it - we can no longer use words to mean what we want them to mean. Words define concepts, and the very concept of a woman is now under threat. It's become Orwellian.

Yes, there is a distinction between transwomen and women - it's not that I 'seem to want some delineation' - transwomen were born male. That is not to say that they can't identify as having female gender preferences, or that they can't live their lives as they choose, but they are still male as far as their biology goes, and should remain so in sex-based statistics if they are to make any sense.

As for your last comment - it is difficult to believe that a woman could feel as you do. In counselling, the immediate concern is always to make the client as comfortable as possible. If someone has been bitten by a dog, are you suggesting that they should be counselled in a kennel as some sort of aversion therapy? That would almost certainly do more harm than good, and if the client did not give full informed consent the therapist would be lucky to be able to continue practising.

A rape victim is not going to be interested in being an 'interesting' debating point - she will want to be able to discuss her experience in whichever way she feels safe - not to be forced into some sort of 'reframing' process unless or until she is ready. I can't believe I had to type that.

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.

Ahh, the violins are playing, the light is low and there is the sweet scent of roses in the air. Really trish I am sure you can be more original than that.

No-one here has every suggested that trans people should not live as positive and productive life as possible, in fact no one is suggestion that they should ever be discriminated against in anyway in normal work and their social life.

All we have said is that, when it come to that unchangeable item in amost everyone, their biological sex, biological men with their tackle complete, no matter how they dress or what they call themselves, should not enter spaces dedicated to the exclusive use of biological women by reason of their biological needs for privacy, protection (read my post just above this), and vice versa.

I see you have been traducing me again, when did I ever say that surgery should be made compulsory for anyone. I would like the quote, complete with day, time and page, so that I can back check it. I no longer trust you not to edit anything you print, although I think all you have done is put a perverse and peculiar twist to the meaning of what I said. Otherwise you would have quoted it back to me by now anyway.

I completely agree with your last post MOnica (for what the agreement of an alleged bigot is worth). Very clearly and succinctly put.

Can I ask just in case Gagajo doesn't who is going to check?

‘Facing your fears in a supportive atmosphere’. Well there’s a thought….
Do I understand the first sentence of your last post to tricia to accuse MOnica (and Doodledog?) of lying? And can you please explain what you mean by ‘a non operable trans woman’? To me that means a trans woman who is incapable of undergoing surgery or upon whom it is impossible to perform surgery. I suspect however that what you said is not what you meant. Why exactly would a man who genuinely wished to become a woman choose not have surgery to remove his male genitalia?

Gagjo I do not think that any adult person still with the genitals they were born with intact, should go into any space designated as meant for humans with different genitals to theirs. That is basic biology.

That includes toilets, changing rooms, whether in sports facilties or shops, Refuges of all kinds, Hospital wards designated as biology specific - except as staff or visitors, prisons and any other place designated biology specific for reasons of physical privacy or protection.

Will that do? I am sure it could be revised, but I think it is as specifc as you required.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

Seems clear enough to me Doodledog.