'Trans' a book about transactivism

trisher you neglected the second part of the paragraph.

"No doubt the video, and other materials, emphasised the stress felt by trans people etc etc and no-one gave a thought to possible drawbacks for women. "

Why are you determined to ignore the huge stress, as well as real danger, for women prisoners who are incarcerated along with men?

The simplest solution is not to use women as support humans for men who claim to be women.

(Transmen prisoners are never housed in the male estate. Can you guess why?)

trisher

So if the stress was removed Far North and that might be acheived by making the process Self ID along the lines already described, there would be little excuse for those who had not at least started transition, no matter how chaotic their lifestyle.

But just for a minute can we concentrate on the threat to women as things stand? Your answer above is still putting the feelings of transmen ahead of the safety of women.

Unless we reach a stage where it is not possible for men to self-ID and be referred to as 'she' when in court on a rape charge, or to be housed in a women's prison, or to be treated in female wards in hospital, what would you do to ensure that women are kept safe?

So if the stress was removed Far North and that might be acheived by making the process Self ID along the lines already described, there would be little excuse for those who had not at least started transition, no matter how chaotic their lifestyle.

*Correction - Trans Britain was edited by Christine Burns who contributed some of the sections, alongside many other people.
It was not by Christine Burns.

A part of the case which was put to the Scottish Prison Service was that trans people who are imprisoned may have led chaotic lives, meaning that they have no documentation or evidence of gender identity and that is why their own self-declaration of sex should be accepted.
(My own words, based on what James Morton, of Scottish Trans Alliance, wrote.)

Self ID in the UK is not legal. Which leads you to wonder why the police and other organisations are accepting it.

Stonewall and other trans-supporting bodies positioned themselves as the source of knowledge on all things gay and trans.
After their work on gay rights, people trusted them on trans also.
They gave training telling organisations that it is illegal to exclude trans people from anything at any time.

In the book 'Trans Britain - Our Journey from the Shadows' by transwoman Christine Burns, there is an account by transman James Morton of Scottish Trans Alliance explaining that the intention was to persuade the Scottish Prison Service to accept transwomen in female prisons so that others would then be influenced to follow their lead on trans-inclusion.
This was successful for them.
One method used was a home made video, featuring trans people, which was used to train NHS staff, youth workers, teachers, local council staff and the police.

No doubt the video, and other materials, emphasised the stress felt by trans people etc etc and no-one gave a thought to possible drawbacks for women.

And yes. None of the above deals with how women should be protected.

I think we have some common ground here.

I agree that whatever happens should not involve prohibitive costs - IMO nobody should be unable to access legal protection for financial reasons.

I agree that the process should be simple, and that it should involve evidence (although I'm not sure what that should be).

I also think that certificates should not be issued until a period of time has elapsed after the process has passed, so that people can't get them in advance of a prison sentence, for example, and I still don't think that male-born athletes should be able to compete against women.

I'm unclear about where the evidence that 'most transpeople want . . . and 'doesn't have much support in the trans community' comes from? Who speaks for the trans community?

I think we are in agreement that there seem to be sinister forces at work, but differ in our ideas as who is their target. You think that it is transpeople who are threatened, whereas I think it is women.

So, trisher/ GagaJo, unless you consider what is happening to natal women in prison, in hospitals, in refuges because of some transwomen, acceptable because it is so far, only a small number, what do you think should be done to protect natal women in those circumstances?

The law as it stands could be applied Doodledog.Now self ID to my mind is the only acceptable solution for transpeople. But this doesn't mean anyone just deciding to be a different gender one day. Most transpeople want a legal process that is simple to use and has a reasonable cost. So for example there is a basic solicitors fee, the transperson produces evidence which shows they have been living as the gender they consider themselves. They swear an oath (much like divorcees do) and receive a GRC.
The concept that self ID means just deciding to be something else each day really doen't have much support in the trans community. Apart from a few extremists. Which seems to be who the authorities are listening to. Which is strange because it isn't the way they usually work.

I think it's the other way round. It would only work if 'the patriarchy' (which is a system, rather than a body of people anyway) could persuade people as I described, and I still can't see what their motive would be. I can see that the current state of affairs is very worrying to many women, however.

Of course something can be done about it.
If by this you mean that something can be done about men saying that they are women in order to access female spaces, what do you think could be done? If you answer this question, rather than deflecting it, we might be getting somewhere close to a discussion.

What do you think could be done about it?

Are you saying that 'the patriarchy' is deliberately encouraging behaviour which threatens women, and encouraging the manipulation of language to neutralise the female sex in order to turn opinion against trans people? It seems a convoluted thing to do, and I'm not sure what their motive would be. First they would have to trick transpeople and their 'allies' into accepting that TWAW regardless of biology, of intention, of anything, really ('No Debate!'), even though this works against the cause of the genuinely misgendered. I suppose anything is possible, but it seems to me more likely that 'the patriarchy' is pushing for women to become invisible, and is recruiting TRAs and other misogynists to do their dirty work for them.
But that would only work if the transcommunity had some sort of power Doodledog they don't.That was plainly demonstrated by their attempt to get Self ID legalised in the UK. A campaign that was craftily presented as people just choosing to be any gender they chose but which for most trans people simply meant a legal process they could enter into without the current medical and other assessments. If the trans lobby is so strong why did it fail? The patriachy who have the power are instead turning one minority against another. It's how they thrive.

So if this is a real concern and not just something to use against trans people why is the title of the book Trans Doodledog?
It's no good asking me about the title of the book. I didn't write it.

A transperson is someone who genuinely believes they are a different gender to the one they were identified as at birth.
I know what a transperson is. Although in reality, a transperson is someone who acts on that knowledge - there are people who are misgendered who do not, and are not 'trans'. But hey, who's splitting hairs?

They are not pretending. They are not taking advantage. They are not using anything.
Just as with any group of people some will take advantage and some will 'use anything' (whatever that means). How could it be otherwise?

Of course something can be done about it.
If by this you mean that something can be done about men saying that they are women in order to access female spaces, what do you think could be done? If you answer this question, rather than deflecting it, we might be getting somewhere close to a discussion.

Self ID in the UK is not legal. Which leads you to wonder why the police and other organisations are accepting it. These are bodies which have substantially resisted change in other areas and kept prejudice and discrimination at the heart of their operations even when society has moved on.
I would hazard that they are 'accepting it' because of the pressure from Stonewall and other TRAs with 'no debate' slogans and a fixed position that TransWomen Are Women.

Have they suddenly changed? Are transactivists more influential than race riots?
I don't understand the reference to race riots in this context.

If I was cynical I might imagine that actually an attempt was being made to manipulate public opinion to turn against the trans coommunity. But the patriachy wouldn't do that, would they?
Are you saying that 'the patriarchy' is deliberately encouraging behaviour which threatens women, and encouraging the manipulation of language to neutralise the female sex in order to turn opinion against trans people? It seems a convoluted thing to do, and I'm not sure what their motive would be. First they would have to trick transpeople and their 'allies' into accepting that TWAW regardless of biology, of intention, of anything, really ('No Debate!'), even though this works against the cause of the genuinely misgendered. I suppose anything is possible, but it seems to me more likely that 'the patriarchy' is pushing for women to become invisible, and is recruiting TRAs and other misogynists to do their dirty work for them.

Mm institutionalised racism is alive and well in the Met Police but a few transactivists terrify the establishment-is that likely?

No they wouldn't. It's the aggressive Trans lobby that's doing that all by themselves.

So if this is a real concern and not just something to use against trans people why is the title of the book Trans Doodledog? A transperson is someone who genuinely believes they are a different gender to the one they were identified as at birth. They are not pretending. They are not taking advantage. They are not using anything.
Of course something can be done about it. Self ID in the UK is not legal. Which leads you to wonder why the police and other organisations are accepting it. These are bodies which have substantially resisted change in other areas and kept prejudice and discrimination at the heart of their operations even when society has moved on. Have they suddenly changed? Are transactivists more influential than race riots? If I was cynical I might imagine that actually an attempt was being made to manipulate public opinion to turn against the trans coommunity. But the patriachy wouldn't do that, would they?

It’s quite interesting watching how many different sidelines G&T (I may never drink one again) can come up with. But I have to work now.

trisher

So your main point is that there are men in prison identifying as women who are not, and are criminals seeking to sexually assault women. Is that right?
Did you notice I manged to say that without once mentioning the word trans. So why are you using it?

My main point is that having a concern about how some men may self-ID as women for nefarious purposes is not the same as being against all transpeople.

That is what keeps getting ignored (or disbelieved) on this thread, and that is what seems to be leading to the condescending dismissal of what those of us sharing this concern are saying.

As you admit (and as petunia picks up) there are clearly men using the trans loophole (call it what you will, it won't alter the reality, and nor will it deflect me) to get into women's prisons. As long as those who insist that TWAW, there is nothing that can be done about it. The same applies in hospitals and refuges, and whereas yes - most transwomen will not be problematic, laws are made to protect the many from the few. Most people are not murderers, but murder is still illegal.

None of that is to suggest that all transwomen are perverts - you are the only one to make that link. None of that is to suggest that there are not cases when transwomen's rightful place would be amongst other women, eg when they have transitioned.

I am sure that there are times when a medical transition need not be a prerequisite, but as long as the idea that all men have to do to 'become' women is say that this is the case, it is difficult to think of how else to ensure the safety of 'natal women' in circumstances where they are vulnerable. That is another reason why the TWAW argument works against the interest of the majority of transpeople.

If you can translate what I have said (whilst keeping the spirit intact) without using the word 'trans', I'd be interested to see how.

Could you be any more patronising petunia?

Trisher, that is one of the concerns that some men-SOME men-may take advantage. Are you displaying a chink of understanding of the complexities of the issue of self ID and how SOME women may be disadvantaged?

MInd I was just thinking that if I was a young bloke sentenced to prison and I knew the sort of things that went on (We had a brief glimpse in the programme Time) I might very well consider saying I was a woman in order to get into a woman's prison.

So your main point is that there are men in prison identifying as women who are not, and are criminals seeking to sexually assault women. Is that right?
Did you notice I manged to say that without once mentioning the word trans. So why are you using it?

What have you added to the discussion?

You are talking to yourselves.

It's an interesting topic, but the same old, same old, repeated ad nauseam is boring.

If you've got anything new to add, maybe you'll attract more participants.

It really is like talking to yourself, isn't it, Mollygo?

We all keep saying that we are not against the trans community, but this is ignored. Instead there are diversionary posts questioning our feminism, posts telling us to get 'life experience', posts telling us to read more but not to be theoretical, posts telling us that being concerned about men competing in women's categories in sport is ignoring the plight of black female athletes and so on.

I repeat - it is impossible to debate with those who will not engage, either because they ignore the main point that we are making, think that they know our minds better than we do, or because they leave the thread when they have no answers.