Amnesty International say - 'no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’'

I challenge you to say that there is anything in my posts on this thread that's transphobic and is anything less than "perfectly reasonable and moderate" Amberspyglass and that's not me being "goady" either.

AmberSpyglass thank you for your posts it is good to know there are other people with the same feminist views. I had left this thread because I was so tired of the trans-phobic attitudes being revealed.
As far as the Staniland Question goes I don't think anyone should be made to share a communal changing room or showers. cubicles should be available. I stilll remember being made to strip and use the showers at school- absolutely humiliating.
You can refuse to be medically examined by anyone when ever you choose.

I think that petunia's post above is an example of a reasonable voice, and that someone saying that transexuals should not have the same rights in law as others would be transphobic, as would someone shouting at transexuals in the street, or denying them employment or promotion on the grounds of their sexuality, with the caveats described below. I have not seen (or do not remember seeing) examples of transphobia on this thread.

I do not think that the suggestion that non-transitioned male-born people should not be allowed to be in intimate contact with vulnerable women who choose not to be in such contact is transphobic. I feel that this is a relatively niche situation that could easily be enshrined in law, and that the situations it would cover are relatively few. I don't understand why, if a transwoman sees herself as genuinely female, she won't understand the real fear that someone who has been raped by a man with a penis is going to have of someone else with a penis being assigned to examine her internally.

It is, to me, perfectly obvious why this would be traumatic, and I would go as far as to say that anyone (of any gender) who does not understand this is not an appropriate person to do it.

I expect you to disagree with me, which is fine, but please try not to resort to cheap insults or dismissive phrases, as I struggle to want to engage with people on that level.

Can you give me an example of a “perfectly reasonable and moderate voice” and someone transphobic because I see those set up as contrasts but I’m genuinely not sure I see the difference. That’s not me being goady, I’d appreciate it!

AmberSpyglass it is terms such as 'Loathsome nonsense* that get in the way of sensible and dispassionate discussion.

There is absolutely no need for that sort of language, and on this thread it is all coming from one 'side' of the argument. Is it any wonder that so many people feel unable to speak their minds about this topic? The sad thing is that it is by no means only transphobic people who are silenced - perfectly reasonable and moderate voices are squashed by the knowledge that they will be shouted down or even threatened if they deviate from the views of transactivists. Is this what you want? It's really quite horrible.

But how are we defining “male-sexed”? Does that include trans women who have had gender confirmation surgery? It’s nonsensical to think that my good friend R, who at 76 has been a woman for a hell of a lot longer than I have, would have less rights to a female changing room than I as a cis woman would.

And a lot of lesbians remember when there was a similar outcry against gay women using female changing rooms. To date, I have managed to do so without committing or wanting to commit any offense (unless you count my natural deodorant phase).

If a person has a dangly thing between it's legs it is male, if it has a womb and cushions on the chest it is females!!!

petunia

There is clearly passion and concern on both sides of this argument. All the more reason why this subject needs to move mainstream for a wider public opinion, without fear of accusations. If we allow society to change in such a fundamental way and then realise those concerns are still there or have been realised, we can not turn back the clock. We need to address issues on both sides before we end up with something that neither side wants.

I think that this is all very true, and if there were a mainstream discussion without fear of accusations, cancellations and so on there is no reason why AmberSpyglass's excellent points could not be part of that discussion.

I also think that there are two distinct issues - one is around children and young people, and the other about the Staniland Question - in case people haven't come across this, it asks whether you believe that male-sexed people should have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls. (I would personally add in a clause about having the right to carry out intimate examinations of women who have survived rape or sexual assault, but have quoted the question as it stands.)

And in response to the so-called Staniland Question - transphobic nonsense being peddled by alleged feminists. Well, it doesn’t look like any feminism I practice, which welcomes trans women in all the same spaces that cis women occupy. Loathesome nonsense.

The thing is, society isn’t changing in a fundamental way. Trans people have lived, loved and worked as their real gender for centuries. All anyone is proposing is to make it a safer and more comfortable experience. Young trans people aren’t being forced into surgery - puberty blockers just press pause and are reversible. The consequences of them being banned for under 16s for children who are already living as a different gender to the one on their birth certificate is horrifying - imagine the teenage girl growing facial hair, or the boy getting his period at a sleepover when previously they’ve just been accepted as the gender they identify as. It’s going to cause massive and deeply unnecessary problems.

There is clearly passion and concern on both sides of this argument. All the more reason why this subject needs to move mainstream for a wider public opinion, without fear of accusations. If we allow society to change in such a fundamental way and then realise those concerns are still there or have been realised, we can not turn back the clock. We need to address issues on both sides before we end up with something that neither side wants.

Yes quite, AmberSpyglass.

But what is your answer to the Staniland Question?
Very relevant to the op imo.

I am firmly on Amnesty’s side for this. I know women who have ‘male’ on their birth certificate and frankly I have no idea what’s in their underwear and I don’t care.

Thanks Doodledog for your posts. I'm joining the gang that thanks you for expressing my feelings so well.

Because to me saying that wearing certain clothes = woman but biological sex doesn't is just mad.

trisher; If you are referencing my post, I am pointing out that saying 'dressing as a woman' makes no sense. Do all women wear dresses/skirts/blouses? I haven't worn such items this side of the millennium. Is that how women are expected to dress then? Surely it is very judgemental and stereotyping to suggest that 'woman' equals 'skirts etc'.

Thank you for replying, but nobody is suggesting that anyone be subjected to anything. In fact, what people on this thread have said is that they are uneasy about young people in particular having 'treatment' forced upon them, or at any rate strongly suggested to them.

If someone feels that they are in the wrong gender and does not want to have medical intervention, that is absolutely their choice. All that I am saying is that in my opinion this means that they are still the sex of their birth, however their gender allegiance may fall, and therefore they should not be in situations with biological women who feel vulnerable as a result.

If someone does want to transition fully, that is also their choice, and I am in complete support of this being an option that should be available on (and paid for by) the NHS. After this transition, I would accept that a trans woman is, indeed, a woman, and would not expect there to be regulations about her being anywhere that is open to all women.

It is only in cases where biological women feel vulnerable that any of this matters. In the majority of situations life will go on as usual for the vast majority of people of whatever gender or sex.

I don't think that any of this is discriminatory or prejudiced. It may be putting the rights of vulnerable women above those of non-transitioned biological males in very specific circumstances, but given the centuries of oppression that women have suffered at the hands of men I think that this is an acceptable compromise.

Doodledog

People can identify however they wish, but when a man (as defined by biological sex) chooses to define as a woman but still has male hormones and genitalia it is not unreasonable -nor discriminatory or prejudiced - for women (as defined by their own biological sex) to be as uneasy about being in positions of vulnerability around that person as they would around someone who was born and still defines as male.

There is no reason why someone can't begin their journey by 'trying on' the role - that seems to me perfectly sensible. What is not sensible (IMO) is that as soon as someone starts to define as female they should be able to access all areas. You appear willing to concede that there is indeed a journey, which is the reason why I feel unhappy about people at one end of it having the same concessions as those at the end. If there were no journey necessary, there would be no controversy, as far as I am concerned.

It is clear that you see yourself as belonging to some sort of free-thinking and non-discriminatory minority, to which the rest of us don't belong, which is offensive and arrogant. Just before you go, though, can you please back up your assertion that anyone on this thread wants to punish transwomen? As you have consistently been rude and offensive to people on this thread with whom you disagree, it would at least be a common courtesy to explain the reason for this accusation, and give us a chance to refute the accusation.

I will reply to this as it seems incomprehensible to me that someone doesn't realise that subjecting anyone whatever their gender to expensive and intrusive medical assessment they do not wish to undergo is in effect punishing them. It was done to women for centuries when their behaviour did not fit the acceptable norm and now it is being done to transpeople who may if they wish to access help, both psychological and medical, but should never be forced to. Any more than any other member of the public is forced to unless they are sectioned.
As for the comment about dress and appearance I really despair.

Thank you for the namechecks. It's good to know that I'm not out on a limb with my own feelings on the matter.

Well said, Doodledog @ 12:54.

Brilliant post @ 12.54 Doodledog. You've summed up precisely how I feel about the subject.

Excellent post @ 12.54 Doodledog.

In answer to trisher.

Sorry; my comment should have quoted trisher.

I'm sorry but I can't allow that last comment to pass unnoticed.
Firstly, my comment was intended to show that a considerable number of people NEED to be assessed because they are unsure whether they are trans or if there is some other psychological issue.
Secondly anyone can change their name by either telling all of their contacts that 'John' now wishes to be 'Jane'. There is no legal requirement to change names by deed poll but some organizations are happier with that route.
Thirdly; what is women's dress. I am wearing men's jeans and a t-shirt, my usual everyday dress. Am I a man therefore? I have met trans women who also habitually dress in that manner. What should we make of that?
Fourthly in this day and age people wear all sorts with hardly a comment.
The whole thread has been about why a huge amount of women don't want the term 'biological sex' to become obsolete. It isn't prejudice on my part and I thought I had made that clear. People can call themselves what they want, dress as they want, have sex with other consenting adults, BUT please don't ignore biological sex.
Lastly in trying to be inclusive many organizations are excluding others who might not be happy with changes. These groups should also think about that.