The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

VioletSky

You must suffer to be beautiful?

Sod that.

You’re right!
Being demasculated wouldn’t make a man who wasn’t already good looking, look any better.

You cant change sex whatever you do or dont do to your body.

No you can't.

You must suffer to be beautiful?

Sod that.

Chewbacca
???

So true Elegran!

Il faut souffrire pour être belle.

Most of the trans women I have known loathed their penises and couldn't wait to have them removed.

That makes complete sense LadyH, but it leads me to question why other men, who wish to transition, are so reluctant to get them removed. I'm discounting the reasons that vs gave Why should anyone do that when they can love their bodies the way they are? as nonsense, in view of their many previous posts that have attempted to teach us the miseries of dysphoria and body self loathing. The 2 statements are so self contradictory it's ridiculous.

Like others, I have total respect for those who do undergo surgery to complete their transistion, but, in view of the increasing numbers of men, who repeatedly commit offences against women, either by gaining access to women because they've presented as women themselves, or by committing their crimes and then seek to subvert justice by hiding behind their claim that they're a woman; I remain distrustful, sceptical and unaccepting.

So you are asking people to undergo risky surgery in order to accept them as men and women?

My point in my first post above was that some are obviously transwomen and some are not obviously so. I don't know who has had an operation and who has not but I can see how some of those people could cause consternation in a women only space.

Regarding Doodledog's comment which I agreed with ...I am not asking them to have risky surgery, I am just agreeing that those who have are very different to those who "chop and change" their gender identification

I like many others do not have the answer to this problem but I do think that there has to be recognition of the concerns/fears of women who were born as women rather than those concerns/fears being dismissed as transphobic. I suspect that mutual respect and social adaptation of systems to meet differing needs has a part to play too but it will take a long time to get there and the present "battle" between "sides"/shouting transphobia whenever someone questions aspects of the problem and "cancelling" of various people is not the way to go!

As I said earlier the issue is the implications of certain aspects of the problem and suggested solutions which is what so many women are trying to express, not because they are transphobic but because they are looking at the bigger picture and those potential implications.

You cant change sex whatever you do or dont do to your body. We should never have pretended otherwise. Its harmful for all to pretend this, harmful to women, transwomen, children, etc.

Personally, I think that if someone has undergone an operation (or series of operations) to become a woman, they are in a very different category from those with ‘feelings’ that they are women, and different again from those who chop and change. I don’t think they are women, but I would certainly refer to them as ‘she’ and see them as honorary women (with no disrespect meant by that).

I agree Doodledog and meant to put that as my view after my comment above but pressed post too early...I cam back to clarify in a follow up[ post but your comment fits my view perfectly

The number of trans isn’t in question for me. I don’t subscribe to the “only a small percentage cause harm” when situations which enable that harm to take place by TW are endorsed by males and male supporters, however they present.

Certainly anyone going through surgery in order to not be a man is more committed to discarding the gender that offends him than those who aren’t so keen on irrevocable surgery. That person might justifiably call himself a ‘woman’ 2004 version. Certainly more deserving of ‘woman’ status than those who decide they ‘feel like a woman’, on a day to day basis, or, when faced with prison among males, or on seeing an opportunity to cheat, or to cause hurt or damage to AHF women by claiming to be ‘women’.

However he isn’t, and never will be, female.

So you are asking people to undergo risky surgery in order to accept them as men and women?

Perhaps sacrifice their ability for sexual pleasure, live with scars from skin grafts, risk the procedure failing or even their lives simply to attain acceptance?

Isnt that kinda similar to expecting any women to "look more feminine" by makeup, dress or even surgery to be socially acceptable? Isnt that kinda similar to all the things we hate about pressures put on women to look a certain way?

Why should anyone do that in order for acceptance when there are plenty of people who accept them for who they already are on the inside anyway?

Why should anyone do that when they can love their bodies the way they are?

Why should those who date according to their sexuality, have plenty of willing partners and are able to use the genitalia they already have to engage in that loving relationship change that for some sort of acceptance when, they likely wont get that acceptance anyway?

No one actually knows what is in other peoples pants and it is no ones business.

This has, indeed, been discussed over and over (although, to be fair, the search facility on here is so dire that people can be forgiven for not finding anything). As wit most things, posters do not speak as one about it. Personally, I think that if someone has undergone an operation (or series of operations) to become a woman, they are in a very different category from those with ‘feelings’ that they are women, and different again from those who chop and change. I don’t think they are women, but I would certainly refer to them as ‘she’ and see them as honorary women (with no disrespect meant by that).

I am not happy to go along with someone’s vague ‘feelings’ when it comes to allowing changes in the law, or in diminishments of women’s rights, however - I would want much more of a commitment than that.

FarNorth

trisher as the character was clearly a man using a disguise, why are you keen to say he was a transwoman?

Surely your previous comment of "He's a criminal" covers that man.

I didn't
^ I can only think that in making a serial killer a man who dresses as a woman and a transwomen as an agressive character she is trying to influence opinion.^

The transwoman is Pippa Midgely in The Silkworm.
The serial killer is in Troubled Blood

Incidentally, how do you feel about "post-op" transwomen in women's spaces? It wouldn't bother me. I'm sure such a process demands a high level of commitment

It certainly does demand a high level of commitment!

As has already been discussed endlessly on this thread, "post op" is a difficult criteria because how would one ever know? I am aware of a number of transwomen in my circle (work; volunteering; a friendly acquaintance;) Some are very obviously transwomen due to build, mannerisms, facial features. Some are not obviously transwomen, and I think those who do not know them would probably not even notice them as transwomen. Which of them has/has not had "the op" I have absolutely no idea, and I don't intend to ask!!

There really isnt any effort or interest to get to know and understand trans people. Just a dogged and determined search for any "proof" that trans people are "bad" on every media.

Actually it just doesnt stand up given the estimated number of trans people in the UK, wasnt it between 200,000 and 500,000, to suggest in any way there are a greater number of unsavoury chatacters than in any other demographic.

From the relatively few examples shared, it looks like less than general society. Much less.

Forgot to add. How do those who tell us that TW are women feel about this issue with regard to state pensions. It seems to me that in this case, TW are only women and expect to regarded as such, when it suits.

I'd be very suspicious of anybody describing themselves as a trans woman who isn't even on medication to suppress male genital behaviour. I'd call that taking the piss. Even after any change in the law to allow self-certification I don't believe such a person is going to be getting a Gender Recognition Certificate, especially if they have a history of sex offences.

You are too trusting LadyHD.

Rhyannon Styles, a gay man who identifies as a transwoman and whom I don't suspect of any wrongdoing, described being on oestrogen and deciding against penis removal after his flaccid penis unexpectedly started producing wonderful orgasms once again.

I think you are mistaken about safeguards on self-id. We'll have to wait and see.

According to the Government website on State Pensions, a TW born between 31.10.1953 and 06.11.1953 may be eligible for a state pension from 31.10.2018 to the date of their 65th birthday, when they were born biological men.

They must have lived as a woman for 2 years by 31.10.2018 and have had gender reassignment surgery.

So, is this not discriminating against biological women. If TW really believe they have become women, why are they able to claim the State Pension at a time only available to biological men?.

Apparently this is because a court ruling means a trans gender person, who has had gender reassignment surgery and lived in their acquired gender for a significant period (2 years!) must be recognised in their acquired gender for state pension purposes.

I happened to come across this:

"For those saying being transgender has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a rapist: research shows that crossdressing, included under the trans umbrella, is the most common paraphilia of convicted sex offenders. Here are about a hundred examples."

mobile.twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1313278186654896128

Madgran77

*Seriously, how big an issue is this? How many transwomen did you notice when out and about in the last week? How many didn't you notice? I've known a few you wouldn't give a passing glance. How many have you ever seen while you were using a public toilet or a changing room? Is it possible that certain elements of the media will pick up isolated examples of idiots taking the piss and make them out to be a burgeoning menace?*

I think you may well be right re the media LadyHonoria. However, the issue is not the examples found or publicised. The issue is the bigger picture of the implications of what is "allowed", who has "rights" where, and the potential consequences within "tge law". That applies across many areas of life.

Most of the trans women I have known loathed their penises and couldn't wait to have them removed. It seems fairly common for them to have experienced physical and psychological violence up to and including anal rape for being "sissies" or generally failing to conform to the expectations of masculinity laid upon them. I know that a minority of them are unable to undergo surgery for one reason or another, but I'd be very suspicious of anybody describing themselves as a trans woman who isn't even on medication to suppress male genital behaviour. I'd call that taking the piss. Even after any change in the law to allow self-certification I don't believe such a person is going to be getting a Gender Recognition Certificate, especially if they have a history of sex offences.

Incidentally, how do you feel about "post-op" transwomen in women's spaces? It wouldn't bother me. I'm sure such a process demands a high level of commitment.

trisher as the character was clearly a man using a disguise, why are you keen to say he was a transwoman?

Surely your previous comment of "He's a criminal" covers that man.

trisher Well sorry but presenting one character who is violent and dresses as a woman might be considered acceptable, but presenting two is bit questionable. You still haven't told me the title of the other novel that features a trans person? I'm really interested to check it out because I don't know which one it's in and I missed it. The character in Troubled Blood is not trans, anymore than a killer who dressed as a nun or a nurse as a disguise for example would be trans.

Rosie, that is actually chilling.

How can a Civil Liberties union* say that they will ‘never defend’ one group against another? Surely these things should be on a case to case basis?

*In fact how can anyone say (even by omission) that they will never defend one group against another? Oh.)

So would a writer of detective fiction who had more than one doctor as a killer be ‘questionable’? Agatha Christie had several.

Or a romantic fiction writer who has more than one tall, dark and handsome cad in her novels?