'Trans' a book about transactivism

Trans have been in existence for a long time, but it was not publicised in the way that is possible with the WWW.
Most of the history relates to their interaction with authorities who had power over them. In those circumstances, Emily Skidmore wrote, ‘the trans person probably curated responses they hoped would allow them to continue to live.’
Even today, it would appear that most trans prefer to enjoy the life they have opted for in peace and privacy, rather than creating a furore that would affect their lives and those of their families.
What doesn’t help their cause is the insistence by some, even on GN that simply claiming to be a woman, really makes you a woman. It doesn’t and it never will.
The other unhelpful thing is the insistence of some-and it is only some trans, that saying they are a woman gives them the right to cheat in sport and the right to use their claim to give them access to real women’s spaces-even those designed to provide safety for women abused by men-(whether they claim to be women or not).
Trans without those intents would not be flaunting their male genitalia or using their male abilities to cheat. If they speak out for the trans who don’t wish to do either of those things, would anyone actually believe them, or would they have sacrificed their right to a private personal life?

I'm just wondering where the voices of the transgender people who just get on with their lives are?
Surely these people have a lot to offer the discussion.
If, as has been mentioned, they choose non confrontation ways to live (and I'm not for a moment suggesting by tone that they dont exist), we need to hear their POV on the fraction of their community that act differently.
Do they feel unable to speak out for any reason?

I've asked twice, in this thread, why we have separate prisons for females and males at all.
No answer, so far, from those who support the idea of males self-identifying into female prisons.

Alex Drummond, in his book, says that he receives a lot of positive attention from women, as a "transgrrl" - much more than when he presented in a stereotypically male way.
It seems obvious to me that those women see him as a gender-non-conforming man, not a woman.
He claims to be widening the bandwidth of what it is to be a woman when, in fact, he's widening the bandwidth of what it is to be a man.

Why do we segregate by sex at all? If a man declaring he is now a woman is enough to override all safety and fairness rules then it discriminates against those men who don't want to make that declaration.
How can insisting that others have to abandon science and go with a belief system be right? Would anyone agree with compulsion to believe a religious belief? Respect that people hold that belief, yes, but to adjust laws and insist that there can be no dissent from it is wrong. Why will TRAs not acknowledge the very real risks associated with self ID for example, how open to abuse it is by men with nefarious intent?
I posted a photo of Alex Drummond, a transwoman whose only tilt to being a woman is to wear stereotypical female clothing, does not take hormones and retains full male genitalia, but states they are broadening the bandwidth of what it is to be a woman. And I notice no comments on Pip/Philip Bunce who is a part time woman. How does that work with being trapped in the wrong body? True gender dysphoria is an awful thing and sufferers deserve every help and understanding to make their lives happier.

trisher

I'm trying to think of any other instance where the actions of a few individuals have resulted in restrictions being put on a whole group of people and the only times I can see that this has happened is in societies which were on the route to restrictive and fascist regimes where many people suffered. If anyone can post me an example of a law in a democratic country which has legislated against the many because of the actions of a few I would like to see it.
If you are thinking of posting about terrorism and controls don't bother. These laws do not distinguish between groups or individuals, everyone is subjected to the same searches and no one is prevented from living their lives as they wish. If for example all Muslims were the only people to be searched then it might, but they aren't.
Some seem to think that the law for transpeople should be made on the basis of the actions of a few people is that really fair?

The law for women is being changed because of a (relatively) few individuals.

If women can no longer be sure of a same-sex doctor if they want one, or same-sex swimming pools and other facilities, that immediately excludes women from religious groups that proscribe that level of mixing with the opposite sex, so restrictions are imposed on them. The same applies to women with PTSD after sexual assaults, who do not want to be examined by a male. A group of women are suffering from restrictions because of the actions of a few. Does that not matter?

If women have to agree that the man who raped her was female because he says he is, and have to refer to attackers as 'she' in court, then the majority are being 'inconvenienced' for the sake of a few, if only by having to accept that this could happen to them. Does that not matter?

If women who have trained for years to be the best at their sport find that they have to compete against biological men who are almost certain to win, then they are being restricted in their chances of success in their careers because of the actions of a few individuals. Does that not matter?

If transpeople were in numbers that came close to being more than a minority, then this may seem more reasonable. If the impact of transmen on other men were in any way comparable to the impact of self-identifying transwomen on women then it may seem less like an attack on feminism.

As it is, the numbers of transpeople are relatively low, so this is a case of restrictions on the many being imposed because of the actions of a few.

I'm not at all sure what the answer is, as these are complex issues, but I am sure that silencing debate is not going to get very far very fast. Women are concerned about self-id, and calling them transphobic and threatening them will not reduce that concern - in fact it intensifies it. I think that this matters, and I also think that the refusal of some to do more than trot out stock phrases or shout 'no debate' does a lot to harm the cause of the young people Gagajo mentions, and of transpeople who just want to quietly get on with their lives.

FarNorth isn't it the case that transpeople DO believe that they have become the opposite sex and that they want to change the law to validate that and insist therefore that others agree? I feel coerced by this because it does seem like a minority wanting to change the law to their own agenda.

Oops, I missed where you said that doesn't count.
It happens that non-white people actually do get called aside far more often than white people, at airport security.
I don't know if that's sensible, or not, or whether it yeilds useful results.
It does inconvenience large numbers of non-white people, who are not terrorists.

trisher I expect you are used to the tightened security at airports, because of the actions of a few people.
Is that really fair, when millions of non-terrorists are inconvenienced by it?

I'm really appreciating this debate and that it hasn't descended into mud slinging.
Trisher I think your question is a good one. It isn't quite such a minority group but, having just read about the Republican backlash going on in the US, I wonder about anti abortionists. Underneath the anti abortion movement is a debate about the biological viability of the fetus, medical advances which enable both life and the destruction of the fetus, and moral questions about women, women's bodies and actions which are controversial and morally offensive to some. Just a few thoughts.

That's false equivalence trisher because trans people always remain their original sex.
It's not sensible to think that anyone who declares themself to be the opposite sex, is actually that sex.

I'm trying to think of any other instance where the actions of a few individuals have resulted in restrictions being put on a whole group of people and the only times I can see that this has happened is in societies which were on the route to restrictive and fascist regimes where many people suffered. If anyone can post me an example of a law in a democratic country which has legislated against the many because of the actions of a few I would like to see it.
If you are thinking of posting about terrorism and controls don't bother. These laws do not distinguish between groups or individuals, everyone is subjected to the same searches and no one is prevented from living their lives as they wish. If for example all Muslims were the only people to be searched then it might, but they aren't.
Some seem to think that the law for transpeople should be made on the basis of the actions of a few people is that really fair?

What women not irrationally fear, is the use some men make of this to cheat in sport or to gain access to natal women’s places for the wrong reasons

That is all I ever see too in these discussions. Sure, some reactions are more extreme than others but the vast majority of people/women seem to have hell of a lot of compassion whilst raising concerns about inappropriate use of new laws and guidelines in order to exploit women, women's sports and women's spaces.

“That’s what the transphobic lobby does. Tells others we are wrong.”
That works equally well the other way.
Thats what the pro trans lobby does. Tells others they are wrong.
Incidentally, phobic means ‘having an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something’.
There’s nothing irrational about saying self ID or even using hormones or surgery doesn’t turn a man into a woman. Compassion for their need to change is more likely than aversion.
What women not irrationally fear, is the use some men make of this to cheat in sport or to gain access to natal women’s places for the wrong reasons.

OK, I ONLY responded because someone up thread said that debate was good.

This is not good. I'm not up for an argument. I'm secure in my position because it has stood me and the trans individuals I've had in my life in good stead. Vive la différence.

Where did I tell you that you were wrong Gagajo? I said my experience was different from yours.

Just throws down something as a fact and demands we all accept it.
Oh the irony, when "no debate" has been the tagline for so long.

To understand science and the inability to change sex is not transphobic. I suppose if you are unable to argue with scientific facts then baseless insults are better than nothing sigh

far, far, far from seeing biological sex as immutable, the majority of gay people I've know have NOT felt that way

How do they see it, then?
What is gay/homosexual if not sexual attraction to people of the same biological sex as oneself?

If biological sex is not immutable, what happens to it? In what way does it change?

Women are women. Trans women are exactly that and welcome to be so.
All the first hand experience in the in the world won’t change that.
The acceptance you talk about is not widespread, partly because many people are not really interested and partly because trans who do not wish to impose their views and claim rights over others often pass unnoticed.
I’m working my way through the book at the moment. If you get a copy, my advice is to skip chapter two.

SueDonim

Funny that, Amberspyglass & Gagajo, because my experience is the very opposite of yours. Almost everyone of my acquaintances does not accept that people can change sex. Sex as a biological phenomenon is immutable.

Several friends are parents of young people who say they are trans. In every single case, there has been a background of abuse, some of it sexual, and also MH issues and autism diagnoses. A couple of the young people have now retreated from their belief that they are trans and have come out as gay and found happiness.

Sorry Sue. But yes, most of the gay women I have known were accepting of trans women. You can tell me I'm wrong all you like, you can't alter my lived experience.

The students I've worked with may have had other issues as well. Some came from very working class backgrounds, so poverty at times was an issue, but some were from extremely affluent familes (not that that is an indicator of no abuse). They have been extremely diverse. Spanish (in Spain). Chinese (in China). British, in the north and the south.

So I'm sorry, but the sheer amount of experience that I've had with trans people, for me, is evidence that certainly not all are trans because they've been abused/are autistic/have MH issues. And frankly, it is insulting to assume that there is a 'reason'. That harks back to the bad old days, when mothers were told they'd made their sons into gay cissies because they'd coddled them/shown too much affection or some other such rot.

And far, far, far from seeing biological sex as immutable, the majority of gay people I've know have NOT felt that way. Yes, a couple have. There is conservatism even within the gay community. But they were older, white and quite traditional (nothing wrong with that). The vast majority of the gay community are very accepting of difference.

Ultimately, your response, to just bulldoze and tell me I'm wrong is exactly why I didn't really want to get into this debate. Because that is what the transphobic lobby does. Tells others we are wrong. NOT that it takes all sorts and each to their own. Just throws down something as a fact and demands we all accept it. Sorry. No. I disagree with you.

SueDonim

Then we come against what ‘living as a woman’ and ‘feeling like a woman’ means, Lemongrove. Do all women live in the same way? Do all women feel the same thing?

It’s horrendous stereotyping of women and dangerous to our girls to pigeonhole them into how they should behave and feel.

It’s certainly is Sue but somebody who has always felt trapped in the wrong body, who is willing to have some surgery and take hormones and then dress and live as a woman has my sympathy because it’s a hard road to take ....but anyone who keeps a beard and all his bits and says ‘I am a woman’ is just ( for want of a better word) puzzling.

Common sense would mean a special unit in both men’s and women's prisons for transgender people.This may be problematic though if there are only one or two of them.

Transmen are never housed with men. The women's estate must have made arrangements for them already.

If there are only a few transwomen prisoners, they could all be in one wing at one prison, or in a separate unit.
Prisoners are often moved far from their home, to suit the prison accommodation allocated to them, so that would be no problem.

Then we come against what ‘living as a woman’ and ‘feeling like a woman’ means, Lemongrove. Do all women live in the same way? Do all women feel the same thing?

It’s horrendous stereotyping of women and dangerous to our girls to pigeonhole them into how they should behave and feel.

Yes Sue it would be more accurate to say that trans women are living and feeling as women rather than have become a woman, which of course is impossible.

Funny that, Amberspyglass & Gagajo, because my experience is the very opposite of yours. Almost everyone of my acquaintances does not accept that people can change sex. Sex as a biological phenomenon is immutable.

Several friends are parents of young people who say they are trans. In every single case, there has been a background of abuse, some of it sexual, and also MH issues and autism diagnoses. A couple of the young people have now retreated from their belief that they are trans and have come out as gay and found happiness.