'Trans' a book about transactivism

GJ-
1. My DD in a situation that consequently involved me
2. Me personally.
Two different circumstances. How many adverse effects do you think I need to have?
I’m not arguing. I’m simply saying that natal women are women and transwomen are just that.

It's all very well, all this arguing. But how many have personally been adversely affected by encountering a trans woman in your real, face to face life?

If transwomen and especially those (the vast majority) who retain intact male genitalia were to act with consideration for the sex class they've transitioned into, they would self-police access to areas where their presence could cause distress to natal females. For example knowing your presence at a single sex swimming session would mean some natal women couldn't attend would perhaps cause them to attend a mixed sex swimming session instead?

Perfectly put.

My comment above which mentioned gynaecologists should have added 'in rape suites', but even without that, as I'm sure you are aware, trisha, patients in surgeries or hospitals can ask for a female doctor to carry out intimate examinations for religious (or other) reasons.

Without talking about not wanting to check under their clothing, do you think that a request for a female doctor should be assumed to encompass male doctors who self-ID as female? If so, how would you weigh the rights of the female patient against what you see as the rights of the male doctor?

This.

And they wouldn't be entering women's sports classifications. They'd do the honourable thing and enter the men's class which should be renamed the open class. Oh I forgot, they've never been able to succeed in their own sex class, so that won't do at all.

The argument for single sex spaces seems to be an amorphous and indefinable one where someone is going to ensure that only people born a certain sex will be permitted to enter somewhere. Quite how these people will identify themselves or who will enforce that requirement seems to be unresolved. An unenforceable law is much worse than no law.

See my above post. If transwomen and especially those (the vast majority) who retain intact male genitalia were to act with consideration for the sex class they've transitioned into, they would self-police access to areas where their presence could cause distress to natal females. For example knowing your presence at a single sex swimming session would mean some natal women couldn't attend would perhaps cause them to attend a mixed sex swimming session instead?

Sorry Trisher, I pressed post before finishing and I had to deal with a call. CAYAW refers to those who believe that only they are right. They think or say it about other posts whilst being one of the CAYAW themselves.
It stands for Can’t Accept You Are Wrong.
When I post that I believe that only natal women are women. Transgender women are transgender women. They are free to be that except when they use that for reasons like cheating at sports or harming natal women.
My knowledge of transwomen in prisons or refuges relies on what I have read. My knowledge/experience of transwomen in sport or in mental health care is much more personal.
I can’t accept I am wrong.
Try making an acronym out of ‘what you are saying is what you believe but it simply isn’t true’.

Rosie51 Is that an argument for early transition then?

No it's an argument for men who transition to actually consider the rights of others, and get a grip on fairness and decency. I do not agree with putting prepubescent children on puberty blockers with all the harm they do both physically and mentally. Humans need to go through puberty for brain development and bodily health. Cross sex hormones do not replicate puberty.

When fearing that your arguments have no real substance and you want to cling on, revert to unknown acronyms as a way of insulting someone and hoping GN don't notice.
Apparently because I believe the women who reported to the subcommittee I am somehow reversing victims and offenders. So were those women, experienced and hard working refuge workers either lying or being intimidated by Stonewall? If there are workers who have experience of this why didn't they report to the subcommittee? Are they all being intimidated by Stonewall and transwomen activists? If you don't want to read the article, Google the select committee report and read the evidence given.
As for the statement of transwomen not being gynaecologists. Any patient is entitled to refuse treatment by any doctor and ask for another opinion without giving a reason. But I don't understand why a man could be a gynaecologist but a transwomen couldn't.
The argument for single sex spaces seems to be an amorphous and indefinable one where someone is going to ensure that only people born a certain sex will be permitted to enter somewhere. Quite how these people will identify themselves or who will enforce that requirement seems to be unresolved. An unenforceable law is much worse than no law.
And apologies it is gender reassignment which is a protected characteristic.
Rosie51 Is that an argument for early transition then?

Never heard of CAYAW, and having trouble trying to decipher it.

Learn something new every day is a great motto, so thanks for that SueDonim. I only ever knew DARVO as Victim Blaming.
There’s a lot of CAYAW too.

SueDonim

Doodledog there’s a bit of DARVO-ing going on in this thread.

There certainly is.
I wonder if many of the problems arise because transwomen have grown up with male privilege and most see no reason to abandon that when they transition? They haven't had a lifetime of female socialisation. That would explain why increasing numbers see nothing wrong in taking the huge advantages of their male puberty into women's sports. Regardless of being within the rules it isn't in the spirit of fair play in sport. The same goes with taking places reserved for women on boards, political arenas and so forth. They don't want to give up their entitlement and justify it by reasoning they are women now so that's just fine. Not a thought for the natal women they're still trampling underfoot.

Doodledog there’s a bit of DARVO-ing going on in this thread.

Well the legal position has been stated so many times it's getting ridiculous if you don't believe it is going to be applied then really why bother wiith any other legislation because that won't be either.
So why ask about who should police any changes I suggest? Could it be that you were setting me up by any chance? That does seem like a prepared answer to whatever I came up with. As was pointed out upthread, though, you are being disingenuous when you quote the law. It is the spirit rather than the letter that matters in this case, and the spirit is defined by Stonewall and similar groups. I know for sure that workers in refuges are afraid to say that they won't accept self-identifying transwomen, even when they know that women in need of protection will leave as a direct result.

If transmen can't use male spaces where do they go? What is to stop one of the predatory males you claim are everywhere just saying they are trans and going wherever they like?
First, I am not 'claiming that predatory males are everywhere'. Stop gaslighting me. Anyone can go anywhere they like, as far as I am concerned, unless by doing so they are impacting on the single sex requirements of others. It needn't be a big deal - it wouldn't be too difficult not to go to a single sex pool, or take a job as a gynaecologist for instance, and not doing these things is surely a small price to pay for living a life you are born to live?

Sex remains a protected characteristic, but so is gender. Nope

The female residents of refuges are best protected by efficient risk assessment.
No. They are best protected by being allowed to go to stay somewhere with other women, if that is what they want to do to feel safe. Not all threats are to physical well-being. If a woman suffers from PTSD caused by rape or other assault by a man, she could suffer serious mental health issues if forced to share space with a male.

I don't suppose it is of any interest but the women who worked in refuges and who gave evidence to the select committee did not know of one case of a transwoman being violent in a refuge. You can read about it here
I have read numerous reports of women being threatened in refuges, hospitals and prisons. I don't keep a handy file of links on my computer though so perhaps we can agree that one article is not enough to make a case.

Sex remains a protected characteristic, but so is gender
Gender is not a protected characteristic, Gender reassignment, however, is protected. Be sure to use the right classification. Gender Identity has no protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Gagajo I was responding to a point raised by Trisher 20:52.
I didn’t say they didn’t have the right to choose what they do with their body. It’s quite reasonable to avoid painful and irreversible surgery when you can achieve what you want without it.

What they don’t have the right to do is to use their male characteristics to cheat by competing in women’s sports or expect their rights as self ID’d women to override the rights of a natal woman. Unfortunately we see are seeing this happen, and sadly we are seeing some women willing to accept yet another example of men being allowed to want things their way.
You evidently disagree-you have the right to do that and I have the right to believe you are wrong.

AmberSpyglass

Trans women are women, and belong in women’s prisons. In women’s changing rooms. In women’s refuges. Anywhere that cis women are allowed. There is no difference.

If transwomen are just the same as women what are they in transition from? Why aren't they just called women, why the word trans in front of the word woman?
I'd really love to have an answer to this question, so I hope that you can give me an answer @AmberSpyGlass

Doodledog

^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?
The protection of single-sex spaces. Whatever you say about the legal right of people to refuse entry to those considered potentially dangerous, we both know that the truth is that it won't be unless an incident occurs that any action will be taken. The very fact that transwomen are allowed on certain premises means that women from orthodox branches of religions will be unable to be there, in what once were single sex spaces.

2. What is your position on transmen and their use of facilities?
I don't really have one. I am not setting out to be discriminatory, so if they pose no threat there is no point in denying them the use of male facilities, other than to avoid accusations of sex/gender discrimination. The chances of a transman posing a physical threat to a natal man are slim. I don't know whether religious groups proscribe men mixing with natal women with the onus being on the men to withdraw, but if they do, I would suggest that transmen should not be able to access male spaces unless they have transitioned.

3. What legislation would you like to see and who would oversee and enforce that?
I would like to see a return to the rules that accepted sex as a protected characteristic. Most laws don't wait until a committee has decided how they will be policed, so I don't see that question as relevant. I am neither a lawyer nor a police officer, so I am not best placed to answer that anyway.

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 see two wrongs as never equalling a right. All of the things you mention are wrongs. Adding to them by putting female residents of refuges at risk of attack (just as one example) will not right those wrongs, just add another wrong that needs to be addressed. Frankly, the question seems very like another diversionary tactic.

Well the legal position has been stated so many times it's getting ridiculous if you don't believe it is going to be applied then really why bother wiith any other legislation because that won't be either.
If transmen can't use male spaces where do they go? What is to stop one of the predatory males you claim are everywhere just saying they are trans and going wherever they like?
Sex remains a protected characteristic, but so is gender.
The female residents of refuges are best protected by efficient risk assessment. I don't suppose it is of any interest but the women who worked in refuges and who gave evidence to the select committee did not know of one case of a transwoman being violent in a refuge. You can read about it here www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/08/trans-women-refuges-domestic-abuse-myth-debunked-womens-aid-diana-james/

Mollygo

‘Still have a penis because they are, for one reason or another unable to have the surgery involved’. Hmm, yes.
Since having it removed wouldn’t make them a woman, they’d just be a transwoman without a penis, and if they changed their mind and wanted to detransition later it couldn’t be replaced, that’s two really good reasons not to have the surgery.

But it is their body, their choice.

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?
The protection of single-sex spaces. Whatever you say about the legal right of people to refuse entry to those considered potentially dangerous, we both know that the truth is that it won't be unless an incident occurs that any action will be taken. The very fact that transwomen are allowed on certain premises means that women from orthodox branches of religions will be unable to be there, in what once were single sex spaces.

2. What is your position on transmen and their use of facilities?
I don't really have one. I am not setting out to be discriminatory, so if they pose no threat there is no point in denying them the use of male facilities, other than to avoid accusations of sex/gender discrimination. The chances of a transman posing a physical threat to a natal man are slim. I don't know whether religious groups proscribe men mixing with natal women with the onus being on the men to withdraw, but if they do, I would suggest that transmen should not be able to access male spaces unless they have transitioned.

3. What legislation would you like to see and who would oversee and enforce that?
I would like to see a return to the rules that accepted sex as a protected characteristic. Most laws don't wait until a committee has decided how they will be policed, so I don't see that question as relevant. I am neither a lawyer nor a police officer, so I am not best placed to answer that anyway.

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 see two wrongs as never equalling a right. All of the things you mention are wrongs. Adding to them by putting female residents of refuges at risk of attack (just as one example) will not right those wrongs, just add another wrong that needs to be addressed. Frankly, the question seems very like another diversionary tactic.

“Feminism is inclusive of other minorities”, none of those minorities include putting the rights of men before those of natal women, even if the said men self ID as women.

‘Still have a penis because they are, for one reason or another unable to have the surgery involved’. Hmm, yes.
Since having it removed wouldn’t make them a woman, they’d just be a transwoman without a penis, and if they changed their mind and wanted to detransition later it couldn’t be replaced, that’s two really good reasons not to have the surgery.

I don’t condemn the trans community. I object to the TRA’s efforts to move the goalposts from biological reality to the feelz.

I don't think I have ever said that women should stand aside for anyone. I have said that feminism is inclusive of other minorities which is entirely a different thing.
If you don't want to discuss other things perhaps you can answer the transmen question. The question of what legislation you actually want to see (not what you don't want in society).

There are some transwomen who still have a penis because they are for one reason or another unable to have the surgery involved.

The first transgender prison unit opened 2 years ago www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47434730
It is an ongoing problem but a wholesale condemnation of the entire trans commnity is not the answer. This is an interesting comment www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/are-transgender-prison-wings-answer

I also didn't suggest getting rid of anything I did say that some young people refuse to be identified by their gender and use the pronoun "they" because they want to be treated as people and that perhaps that is a good idea. Quite how that translates as getting rid of categories I don't know.,
It does seem that not only the trans community is disapproved of but gender neutral people are as well. You do wonder who will be left.

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.