can we discuss feminism please

Gaga, I do see your point, but the motives behind having cosmetic surgery to make you look 'better' are different from those surrounding gender transitioning. Also, I don't think that very young people should be allowed to make cosmetic decisions that have far-reaching consequences (you have to be 18 to have a tattoo, for instance).

It might be fairer if everyone had to satisfy a doctor/psychologist that they fully understand the implications before having radical appearance-changing surgery, but this simply won't happen on the NHS because of lack of resources, and if it has to be done privately the cost would be prohibitive for many people.

I don't know anything about genital surgery on babies, other than on so-called 'intersex' people - is that what you mean? Either way, that is well beyond my understanding, so I can't really comment.

If you are saying that people should see genitals and breasts as things that should be alterable in the same way as noses and, indeed, breasts already are, then I can see the logic in what you are saying. Each to their own, as far as I'm concerned.

But this is not relevant to the debate about men being able to self-identify as female, and insist on being able to shower next to a teenage girl, or take a place on an all-female shortlist, which is where I, and others like me, have concerns.

If people want to alter their bodies in any way they wish, then as far as I am concerned it's up to them, although I don't think I would extend that to under eighteens. That is not my concern, and I am not anti-trans. If someone feels that they are misgendered and wants to transition, then again I fully support their right to do so.

It is only when the right to self-identify allows men to ride roughshod over the rights of women (to privacy, dignity and to decide who touches them) that I object. The idea that this objection makes me right wing is laughable.

I'm an old leftie feminist Iam64. No, I wasn't referring to GN members. More to a lot of the hate that is put out there in the MSM. There is a nasty hardcore group on MN too. I think we are very mild in comparison.

And if you think that the trans issue is seperated from others in the very real right wing agenda read this. The movement is worldwide, it will attack rights one or two at a time and it has substantial funding. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/20/alliance-defending-freedom-multimillion-dollar-conservative-christian-group-attacking-lgbtq-rights

GagaJo

This is an onward movement. All the anti trans campaigning isn't going to stop it.

Are you suggesting that posters here, who raise concerns they believe to be relevant to the debate are ‘ant trans” gaga?
You say you’ve had trans students, some of have trans family members. Many have experience of working therapeutically or medically and so bring our own experiences to our views.

Accusing us old leftie feminists of being anti trans or right wing is inaccurate and some may say, offensive

Galaxy

The accusation of it being right wing in this country is just another way of telling women to shut up. Most of the women involved are old school lefties, and right wing women are entitled to express their views on single sex provision strangely enough.

To imagine we live in some sort of a bubble where we exist without influence or pressures from other organisations or countries is in my view naive and dangerous. The libertarian view that people should be allowed to live as they wish has been challenged and compared to Gilead on threads about the subject. In my opinion it is a much smaller step, from denying trans rights and insisting such people are different, and women must be protected from them, in special places, to insisting women are also different and must be seperated and kept to special places, than it is from permitting everyone to exist and live their lives as they wish. To deny that the right wing have a vested interest in establishing women as different is to ignore the elephant in the room. And yes you may be a leftie feminist and you may have the very best of intentions it doesn't mean that everyone involved has.
There are right wing Christian organisations involved in this argument and they are not limited by any national borders.

Doodledog, but you see, I feel that these are artificial distinctions. I am not talking, by the way, about state healthcare, but privately funded surgery.

I see no difference at all between a woman wanting silicone boobs and a F2M individual wanting a mastectomy. Why is one policed by the state, and the other not? If anything, putting something as dangerous as silicone into the body is on a par with hormones or hormone blockers. Artificial and therefore with risk.

And if our society deems it acceptable to do surgery on the genitalia of babies to make them appear more 'normal' (I use that word ironically, of course) then why do we police what consenting adults do to their genitalia? I don't recall the woman having a labia plasty at my private hospital having to have meetings with a psychologist before her surgery.

I appreciate there is a LOT more to the argument than this. But on this one small area, for me, it is soley about maintaining gender normativity.

IF these surgeries are psychologically risky and needs sound assessment by a trained individual, then ALL plastic surgery is risky. If a F2M individual has to undergo psychiatric assessment before having top surgery (mastectomy) then so should a woman wanting silicone boobs.

Lets face it. It is possible to have a mastectomy and then have reconstruction later. I should know. I have had it done. So top surgery isn't exactly irrevocable.

Galaxy

The accusation of it being right wing in this country is just another way of telling women to shut up. Most of the women involved are old school lefties, and right wing women are entitled to express their views on single sex provision strangely enough.

Galaxy I agree with you that those who express concerns about the obliteration of women as a sex tend to be older (and old school) lefties, although Thatcherites with similar views on the subject no doubt exist as well, but left/right differences are entirely irrelevant to the debate.

My understanding of left and right wing views are that they sit in an intersection of individualism v state intervention on one axis, and authoritarian v libertarian on the other. There is a lot of scope for people to have views that fall into different quadrants of the resulting 'map', and in any case, being concerned about the eradication of what it is to be female would not indicate a left or right wing persuasion. To suggest otherwise is lazy and reductive.

Gaga, I take your point about plastic (cosmetic) surgery, and the lack of compulsory counselling that surrounds that. This is different though. Having a breast augmentation, or a 'trout pout' is not the same as having genitals redesigned and needing hormones to complete the process. Whether or not everyone who wants to change their bodies should be compelled to have counselling is a different (and interesting) debate, but I don't think that it is the same as this one.

The accusation of it being right wing in this country is just another way of telling women to shut up. Most of the women involved are old school lefties, and right wing women are entitled to express their views on single sex provision strangely enough.

If someone wishes to live as another gender, and in doing so hits a tricky red line such as women's sport or women's safe spaces, to name but two,surely some sign of effort and recognition for that effort should be demanded from the governing bodies.

Also, although President Biden has signed away such trivial details as biological sex in women's sport it is interesting to see that some states are objecting to biological males on women's teams on the grounds of safety and fairness. Is that right wing and reactionary?

I used the examples of other medical charges to show that the ‘human rights’ argument does not hold water. I shouldn’t have let myself be drawn into a deflectionary side issue, however, so won’t go further with a discussion of charges as they are not relevant to this thread, and won’t be unless all charges for medical treatment are dropped except for those relating to trans issues. At that point, or if they were hiked to £14000 they would be relevant.

Gags, phrases like ‘hysteria . . . being whipped up by the media’ are not helpful without some sort of evidence. Dismissing someone’s argument like that is at best disrespectful and at worst can be seen as propaganda.

Doodledog of course there are things you are charged for. Pips and the assessment thereof has been an issue for many activists and campaigns to develop a process that is fair and not discriminatory continue. And some are asking for the DLA to be reinstated you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/mental-health-disability-benefit-assessments
So it isn't an accepted process.

The idea that you should charge anyone for a process which simply enables them to live the life they choose is distasteful to me. That you should compare this to dental treatment (which in fact many cannot afford) is unacceptable to me.
It isn't just a doctor's diagnosis by the way (although should you really have to be considered ill to be allowed to live as the gender you wish?) it involves a medical panel and submitting evidence to that.
Gagajo I think it will be much the same in the future as sexuality is now regarded in young people. Something which varies from individual to individual and which is accepted by the majority of people. There will still be a few reactionary individuals who will abuse people who seem a bit different but hopefully the right wing backlash which threatens all our liberties will be held back.

It's a pity we won't be able to watch the developments.

People have told women that for centuries on various issues. I think personally we will look back at the treatment of those with gender dysphoria with utter despair but not for the reasons we think. The services offered in countries such as Sweden (I think it was) have already shifted to that of watchful waiting.

This is an onward movement. All the anti trans campaigning isn't going to stop it.

You've missed my point. There are thousands of children who identify as trans. The vast majority don't have access to treatment.

And I'm not just talking about the UK. This is a world wide issue. I had a trans (F2M) student in China. Another one (F2M) in Spain. No medical intervention.

It's not being whipped up by the media the tavistock has just been declared inadequate and its governing body replaced. GC feminists have been raising serious concerns about the tavistock for years. There are a number of legal cases ongoing from whistleblowers, particularly around safeguarding.

All of the trans teenagers I've known have been v secure in their gender. None have been on hormones. Given that the oldest was 15, I think this shows a fair cross section.

The hysteria about the amount of teenagers on blockers or hormones is being whipped up by the media. I am desperately sorry for Kiera Bell, but she isn't representative of the average trans teenager in that most of don't have access to the services she did.

Could I slightly deflect the conversation to children and transgender?What adults do or do not do to their bodies is one thing. They are old enough to think through the consequence of their decisions and to give consent to medical treatments. But the under 18's are another thing entirely.

With the Keira Bell case fresh in our minds do you think the current way affirming of a child's gender choice is the best route to take? I suppose my main concern here is the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, mastectomies/binding for girls and all the other damaging procedures, the implications of which last a lifetime. We don't allow under 18's to do a number of things, recognising that they are not mature enough yet it seems that society encourages children and young people to embark on a course of action that is irreversible. Instead of trying to get to the bottom of why a child or young person feels such emotional pain that they feel the need to transition, it seems that parents are encouraged to support that desire. Would we say to a child with anorexia,” hmmmm, I think you could do with loosing another 5 lbs”?

For many of us we must look back to our childhood or teenage years and shudder at the things we believed and how we behaved when we were immature and naive, yet it seems that if a child believes they are trans, it is barely questioned. Which leads me to the question, what does it feel like to be a girl or a boy? How does a four year old “know” that they are in the wrong body(sorry, back to Eddy Izzard).

I think it is a very interesting debate. I also think it is extremely easy for us to say this and discuss it, given that these issues do not personally affect us.

As to the plastic surgery issue, we only have to look to the media to see individuals who mutilate themselves with it. For breast implants, even labiaplasty, if the patient is self funding, all that is needed is a GP referral. I have had a GP referral for private health care. It is a mere formality. And as I said, I have worked in private healthcare. There is no psychological assessment for those seeking surgery for hyperfemininity/masculinity. I really don't see the distinction between plastic surgery for vanity or to enhance gender norms and SRS such as mastectomy (for example).

I very much regret that I am older and won't be here in 60 years time. I would love to be around to watch how society has developed and changed, without the stranglehold obsession of binary sex and gender.

I agree that so-called 'intersex' people distance themselves from the trans 'debate' as much as possible. I only know two people in this situation, and neither identifies as transexual in any way, and both are upset at the implication that they are.

As for it being a human rights issue that people need a doctor's diagnosis before transitioning and are charged £140 - words fail me. There are so many things that need a medical certificate (PIP claims for a start, or a letter to an employer/insurance company), and nobody sees this as an infringement of human rights.

If someone is planning life-changing surgery it seems to me eminently sensible that they are counselled and assessed as medically suitable to undergo that change. £140 is less than the price of a routine dental treatment, or a cosmetic mole removal, and is unlikely to put the procedure out of the range of many people. In any case, I am sure that there will be organisations who would fund the assessment for anyone unable to raise the money.

Gaga, it looks as though you are suggesting that it is cultural reasons, rather than biological imperatives that drive transitions, which reinforces the argument that gender (culturally determined) and sex (biologically determined) are different.

trisher anyone wanting plastic surgery for a cosmetic reassignment, breast enlargement, rhinoplasty etc needs a medical diagnosis of need before treatment commences. My grandson needed a medical diagnosis before a psychologist appointment was finally granted, let alone the CAHMS appointment. You insist on arguing on the basis of the current practices whilst ignoring the proposed self ID whereby anyone at anytime can declare themselves any of the infinite number of genders so far identified. I have zero problem with anybody's gender declaration, be whatever gender presentation you wish. My concern is the deliberate blurring of gender and sex, to negate the exemptions under the equalities act of 2012. Sex is immutable, gender is whatever you decide it is. I want to keep those meagre sex based rights I have, and don't want them confiscated or compromised on the basis of anyone's self declared identity. I don't identify as any gender, I'm me and don't fit into any stereotypical gender, nor any of the more modern versions. I do identify as female because science confirms my biology. If you fit a gender stereotype then you'll be comfortable being placed in that category. As to "designated when they were born" ask any midwife if they randomly designate the sex of the babies they deliver, I think most would be insulted. They observe the sex of the child, and indeed many parents know the sex from ultrasound scans performed before birth.

GagaJo I'm amazed that your two friends are happy to be referred to as intersex. My friend with a DSD (disorder of sexual development) is revulsed by the term and insists that these days it is totally possible to correctly sex anybody. She considers intersex on the same level as the N or C word for people of colour (which she also is) From what I read people with DSD constantly request that their conditions are not used in the trans debate. There is no third or intersex. You either have the pathway to produce large gametes or small gametes, whether or not your body is actually able to produce either.

Doodledog but transgender people have to have a passport in the gender they were designated when they were born they have no right to legally change their gender unless they submit to medical intervention. They are also charged £140 for the process.

I am not talking about what I was told / learned from others, btw, but what I was trying to put together myself, from a very wide range of sources. From personal experience, to first person accounts, to knowledge of how plastic surgeons work (I was an administrator in a private hospital while doing my MA).

Oh gosh, you are asking me to remember the studies I did many years ago. I guess (and this is a bit of a stab in the dark) that if women are not controlled or naturally restricted by their biology (as in being weaker, less intelligent, maternal etc) then sex is no indicator of anything really, other than a set of genitals.

I read books about other cultures, where genitalia isn't the deciding factor in gender representation. Looking at statistics about intersexed people (I know 2 personally).

Also looking at areas such as how surgery used to be (I am not up to date on this any more) forced on newborn intersexed babies, to make their genitalia appear 'normal' with no thought to adult sexual function. At modern plastic surgery (usually pretty much pay and go) and comparing both to the extremely long and arduous process (example), for F2M trans who wish to have mastectomies & hysterectomies to go through before they are able to access that surgery.

Basically indicating that gender conformity is to be encouraged, even on newborns. While adult humans can't be trusted to undergo self-funded elective surgery if it doesn't hold up the binary gender system.

In a nutshell, sex and gender is the most rigidly controlled of all of our institutions. More so than ethnicity, nationality, age or able bodiedness. If we comply, we are mostly left alone. Any time we do not, we are policed.

That's interesting. Why did you see it as the next step, if it is a natural phenomenon that had presumably been lying dormant for centuries?

Was there a distinction made then between gender and sex, and was there any recognition of the way in which a future generation (if that fits with the timings) of feminists would feel the need to object from a sense of self-preservation?