'Trans' a book about transactivism

Suggesting on Gransnet that people should get off social media is a bit rich. I'm not even on Twitter, so my understanding of these issues does not come from there.

Can anyone show me where women stand to gain anything from men being able to self-id? There are many ways, as already outlined, where they suffer (and the very idea that women of any sexually should be told that they are 'phobic' if they don't fancy having sex with anyone is just indefensible), but I can't see what any woman stands to gain.

Self-id means that women have less chance of becoming a world champion (or even a Hometown Women's Sport champion), less chance of having discrimination levelled out by all-female shortlists, no right to an all-female swimming pool or changing room, no right to be called a mother, or even a woman without qualification etc etc. Where are the upsides in all this? Is it just that we can bask in the idea that men are getting more rights?

Also, how do transpeople, who have already been through so much to live the life they want, benefit from there divisiveness brought about by the TRA? Have posters who seem to have a disproportionate number (compared to the number in the population as a whole) of trans friends asked them about this?

I'm not on twitter either and posting that these things are happening is not evidence all my opinions are formed by social media

Rosie51

FarNorth

trisher, by 'women' and 'men' do you mean people who present themselves in a particular way, who meet certain stereotypes, or what exactly?
Obviously you don't mean people who have a certain biology.

Quoting FarNorth's post as you may have missed it. I'd be interested in your answer too trisher

As some of you seem obsessed by this I regard a man as anyone who chooses to present or identfy as a man. And a women as anyone who presents or identfies as woman. I do not want to know, nor am I interested in what ever genitalia they have under their clothes and I am certainly not going to challenge anyone about their identity. There are quite a few younger people now who I find it hard to classify and in mny cases that is because they identfy as binary and as far as I'm concerned that's fine. I have also met people who prefer the pronoun "they' and I have no problems with that. I use men and women because they are still accepted as defining terms, but perhaps we are heading towards just calling them people.
I'd like to know how any of you propose to check or monitor anyone's biology. In real life people tend to be accepted for what they say they are.

Rosie51

trisher

Rosie51 Try Googling JaneElsdon Brailsford for a slightly different point of view.

Jane Elsdon Brailsford yielded nothing on google, however Jane Esdon Brailsford did. So two different versions of the marriage but both depict it as unhappy, and her entry does say he pestered her into it. Being a woman, of course she was at fault, it was ever thus.

Sorry I put an "l" in it by mistake.
It seems to me if women are for ever to claim it was never their fault they can't complain if they are treated as infantile. Being an adult requires that you take some responsibility.
Jane Brailsford used Henry's reputation when it suited her (he was an established and respected journalist and writer). She was released from Newcastle prison early and without force feeding because of this. She left him but refused to divorce him.
Their complicated relationship does not detract from his suffrage efforts.

I identify people as how choose to present themselves if they don’t announce their particular persuasion to me and expect me to accept it when my own opinion differs. Hence I could be standing in a group where no one announces they are natal men or natal women, heterosexual, lesbian, homosexual, transgender, (either way) and I would not care one way or the other.

trisher

It seems to me that what most people need to do is get off social media and stop basing their opinions on what is said on twitter by people who may or may not be trans activists. I don't know any lesbians who have been pressured to have sex with a transwoman, I'm not saying there aren't any, simply that Twitter isn't necessarily real life.

OMG, what a bloody sensible statement.

All this pontificating which bears NO relation to real life.

As some of you seem obsessed by this I regard a man as anyone who chooses to present or identfy as a man. And a women as anyone who presents or identfies as woman. I do not want to know, nor am I interested in what ever genitalia they have under their clothes and I am certainly not going to challenge anyone about their identity.
This is the mantra that you always recite on these threads. Do you think that the rest of us are going to challenge people about their identity, or that we are interested in 'the genitalia under their clothes'?

I am far less concerned about individuals than about the way in which vocabulary, legislation and pressure from Stonewall is shifting women's rights and position in society.

What have pronouns to do with anything on this thread?

Also, why do you say that 'some of us' are 'obsessed' with definitions of women and men? The terms have been used for centuries to describe people of different biological make-up, and it is not 'some of us' who want to change that.

I repeat - I cannot envisage anyone I know 'wanting to check' on people's genitals. If I may say so, it is you who seems obsessed in this regard, as you bring that notion onto virtually every thread on the subject of trans.

trisher Jane Brailsford used Henry's reputation when it suited her (he was an established and respected journalist and writer). She was released from Newcastle prison early and without force feeding because of this.

Now that's unfair. The very wiki entry you directed me to says that it was suspected she was released early because of her husband being a journalist, and says she was annoyed about it, not that she used his reputation to secure her early release. You just can't stop blaming women, have you been totally captured by the patriarchy?

That’s really funny. XX
You obviously know more about what’s on Twitter than I do but I’d agree that it isn’t real life (any more than posting anonymously on here, which is after all, a social media platform).
Does the pontificating which bears no relation to real life include yours, or only the pontificating which has a different point of view from your own?
I need to go to real life work now, so I’ll have to wait till later to read any possible response.

No, Molly. My opinions are based on what I have experienced with face to face interaction with humans. I have no idea what yours is based on.

Theory is one thing. Real life is another. I get depressed about the attitude towards trans people when I'm online, but then I go back to my real life and see them mostly accepted and included, which reassures me.

I am far less concerned about individuals than about the way in which vocabulary, legislation and pressure from Stonewall is shifting women's rights and position in society.

What have pronouns to do with anything on this thread?
Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?
What are pronouns if not vocabulary.
If you really need an explanation. If you don't know if I am a she or a he you might just treat me differently. I don't need to reveal my gender you must treat me just as a person.

Rosie51

trisher Jane Brailsford used Henry's reputation when it suited her (he was an established and respected journalist and writer). She was released from Newcastle prison early and without force feeding because of this.

Now that's unfair. The very wiki entry you directed me to says that it was suspected she was released early because of her husband being a journalist, and says she was annoyed about it, not that she used his reputation to secure her early release. You just can't stop blaming women, have you been totally captured by the patriarchy?

But the other woman released early went on to make sure her status didn't stop her being treated as other women and was force fed- Lady Constance Lytton.
Another of the women imprisoned lengthened her sentence by setting fire to a bible and barricading herself in her cell. Kitty Marion.
Jane Brailsford didn't involve herself in any such activities. So she may have been cross but she wasn't that cross. It isn't a question of blame really, I don't think I could have withstood force-feeding, but of who was using who. And Henry Brailsford was immensely useful.
But the question I was asked was for a man who was a better feminist than a woman. So was Henry Brailsford a better feminist than Gertrude Bell? I think as far as women's suffrage goes he certainly was.

Ah but was he a better feminist than Kitty Marion? We can usually find an example to validate our argument. I'm not trying to goad you trisher but my perception of your posts is that you will always laud a man in preference to a woman. In general, in the widest terms, who do you think stands up for women more, men or women?

Interestingly Rosie51 Kitty Marion was completely written out of suffragette history until recently when someone found her hand written biography and has published a book about her. She isn't mentioned in the first accounts of the suffragettes possibly because her activities were looked on as too extreme. While she was active she was called "The most dangerous women in Europe" She was an arsonist and set bombs. She went on to promote birth control and advocate abortion if women wanted it.
She would get my vote as a great feminist but I've heard many women say she went too far.
There are more women standing up for women, but I think the problem now is that some people call themselves feminists who don't realise the aim of feminism was never to only promote the needs of women but to substantially change society so that things were done in different ways. The first wave feminists (the suffrage movement) didn't want the vote just for equality but because they believed that men could not be trusted to care for the poor, for women or for children. Sadly there are now women who can't be trusted as well.

If you don't know if I am a she or a he you might just treat me differently. I don't need to reveal my gender you must treat me just as a person.
Yes, I get that. The thread is about men in women's prisons - or it started there anyway, and drifted (as threads do) to include the impact of self-id on women's rights. The pronoun thing is, and always has been a bit of a side issue to me. I always respect the trams/non-binary people I know's right to be called what they wish, but I've never understood why it matters when they aren't there, which is when pronouns are used most often (cat's mother, anyone?). In any case, I would be as likely to say Jane or John than he or she.

My point, though, if you really need an explanation, is that it is another deflection. Can you answer the question about how women benefit from any of this instead of introducing pronouns, or going on about Edwardian history? We have all (or most of us) heard your thesis on the development of feminism on trans threads passim, but it doesn't explore the nitty gritty of the situation we are in today.

What do women get out of allowing self-id?

What women get out of allowing self ID (and most trans people simply want a legal, non-medical process) is that another section of society, oppressed by the patriachy, is permitted to exist and thrive. I think the history of feminism is important because the ideals which have been lost over time are things which are important today. Those ideals were lost because it suited the patriachy and men to lose them, just as it suits the patriachy and men now to send women off on a wild goose chase, looking for transpeople who will in some way cause them harm, because the alternative, a society where minorities stand together to promote equality, and support the weakest, scares them shitless.
If you believe that in some way a patriachal society is going to protect the rights of women and legislate for them by controlling or censoring transpeople I can see where you are coming from. Personally I think patriachies need to be reformed and that the feminist way of doing this is to question the toxic masculinity accepted as the norm, unite minorities and establish a more caring and supportive system, where the weakest and the poorest are cared for. All I see by by blaming transpeople for this is another way to keep control and maintain the status quo which does nothing for women.

trisher what you seem to be wilfully ignoring is the ease with which men with purely nefarious intent, not gender dysphoria, would be able to impact on women by the action of self ID. As no hormones or surgery are a requirement just a vague commitment of "living as a woman" whatever that airy-fairy phrase means, it would be open season. You are apparently willing to risk women this way, I am not. I may take risks or relinquish rights on my own behalf, I am not entitled to make that decision on behalf of other women. Are you aware that of the self declared transwomen in prisons a greater percentage of them are guilty of sex crimes including rape than in the general male prison population? Seems rather odd you'd expect the percentages to be roughly similar.

What women get out of allowing self ID (and most trans people simply want a legal, non-medical process) is that another section of society, oppressed by the patriachy, is permitted to exist and thrive

This does not benefit women at all. What you're saying is women should put their needs behind the needs of another group once again. I think feminism should centre women and children, men have held centre stage too long. Women should have inalienable rights, including single sex spaces in prisons, hospitals, sports, communal changing rooms and showers.

What do women get out of allowing self ID? I’m not sure women, (either singly, or in committees not run by men, or even bigger groups with no male influence allowed), were ever asked if it should be allowed.
Is there evidence that a majority of women were consulted?
I thought transwomen decided it was a good idea because it benefits men. They then whipped up a furore about their rights, using words like ‘phobic’ incorrectly and calling anyone who didn’t agree, a bigot. All very emotive words.
I sympathise with those who are unhappy with their sexual designation. I don’t care if they are natal men calling themselves women or natal women calling themselves men.
Transwomen who cause problems by cheating at sport or denying the rights of natal women because they feel their own desires override them, are doing more harm to those transgender people who just wish to get on quietly and privately with their own lives.

I have had this argument so many times Rosie51 the law is clear about protected spaces where it will significantly impact on the women using them, transwomen, even those with a GRC, can be refused access. That's the law.
How else do you propose those places should be protected or quite what do you want done? Should the law be applied more rigorously? Of course it should. But that isn't the fault of transpeople is it?
Changing rooms and showers are another question quite how the regulation you seem to be requesting would function I don't know. Then there is the question of transmen so often ignored. They, if what I believe you are proposing is right, would have to use women's facilities. So you would have people with the appearance of men using those facilities and quite how that makes women safer I don't know. It would in fact save any predatory man the job of disguising himself as a women.
Prisons have horrendous levels of violence for all inmates. The whole system needs an overhaul. The service has admitted it failed to deal properly with the trans issue and is trying to rectify that. Personally I'd like to see fewer women given custodial sentences particularly as the majority are there because of drug or debt problems. Perhaps instead of just focussing on the actions of a few transwomen you might like to look at dealing with that.
Why I wonder when there are so many areas where reform is needed do you focus entirely on transwomen? Young people held in custodial facilities for example have many more problems, incidences of violence, self harm and suicide.

And how many times has it been pointed out that Stonewall have done such a "good" job with their training program that organisations don't think they can keep transwomen out. They are currently trying to get sex removed as a protected characteristic in the equality act, wanting it just to be gender. As for the transwomen sex attackers in prisons you think they are transwomen? I'd always thought of them as fraudulent imposters taking advantage of the current situation, but I stand corrected, they are genuine transwomen.

Why I wonder when there are so many areas where reform is needed do you focus entirely on transwomen? How arrogant and dismissive of you. It says a lot when you sink to crass insults. I'm on a thread about transgender issues and particularly the aspects of self ID. Should I really be bringing in concerns about the environment, drug abuse, lack of educational opportunities, homelessness, zero hours contracts? Why are you so determined to give away protections for women without their permission or even consulting them?

If we do away with the categories of men and women, becoming ‘people’, how can things like sex-based health conditions be researched? We know, for instance, that heart attacks present differently in women v men and that men are more likely to die of Covid.

If only ‘people’ take part in competitive sport then ‘former women’ are doomed to be sidelined forever from the winners podium.

It’s the erasure of women that concerns me, because what will replace it is not ‘people’ but the male model. I don’t know of any women except on GN who wish to have be erased. ‘Woman’ is not an identity, it is a fact. Adult human female.

Yes SueDonim.

Rosie51 do you really think Stonewall have trained every single organisation?
You called the people in prison transwomen although you added self-declared. I haven't looked at every case so I have no idea of the status of these people and I strongly suspect only the headliners are known to you. I have admitted there is a problem and attempts are being made to deal with this. But you seem reluctant to accept anyting is being done.
I raised the problem of women in prisons because it seemed to me that any committed feminist would be aware of it and at least concerned about those women.
As for transgender issues I know you are never going to answer the difficult questions. But here's what I would like to know.
1. What "protection" am I giving away?
2. What is your position on transmen and their use of facilities?
3. What legislation would you like to see and who would oversee and enforce that?
4.Why do you see the actions of a few transwomen as more dangerous to women than the actions of the government and men currently impacting on the lives of so many women. Things like the dismissal of pregnant women, the introduction of employment tribunal fees, the use of zero hours contracts all areas where more women than men suffer.

I thought this thread was about trans. If it’s supposed to be about the actions of men in general or men in particular, e.g. in politics which damage the status of natal women and place the rights of transwomen above those of natal women, the title didn’t make me aware of that.

If gender (with self ID) replaces sex as a protected characteristic in the equality act then there won't even be a chance of single sex places. You keep referring to a "few" transwomen, you honestly don't see the possibility of male perverts using self ID as an easy means to access vulnerable targets? Are you really that naive? Have you never heard of people (usually men) who enter religious orders, scouting groups, kids clubs etc in order to have easy access to victims? Prisons should never house people with penises, no matter how they identify, alongside women. Third spaces would solve so many problems in lots of areas, but that's never acceptable because it's always about the validation.

As SueDonim so succinctly says

If we do away with the categories of men and women, becoming ‘people’, how can things like sex-based health conditions be researched? We know, for instance, that heart attacks present differently in women v men and that men are more likely to die of Covid.

If only ‘people’ take part in competitive sport then ‘former women’ are doomed to be sidelined forever from the winners podium.

It’s the erasure of women that concerns me, because what will replace it is not ‘people’ but the male model. I don’t know of any women except on GN who wish to have be erased. ‘Woman’ is not an identity, it is a fact. Adult human female.

You still haven't answered how woman standing aside for another group actually benefits women. For the last time I have other concerns, I even mentioned zero hour contracts before you did. This thread is not the place to raise those other concerns.