Jump to content

Menu

Why do I keep seeing the word "women" spelled as "womyn"?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This sets me on edge because the term journalist doesn't need a gender disclaimer.

Using the word women has never made me feel as you described above.  it is just a word.  A word that feminists have decided to attach negative connotations to. Using womyn and womxn is nonsensical to

No, it is not an anti-men thing. Nothing sets my feminist roots on edge more then a dismissive comment about feminism and what it means.  Womyn is an acknowledgment that feminizing a male word is not

As a detransitioned person, I've found the conversation interesting though confusing. I think it shows a lot of how the whole conversation around this has changed in the last decade. 

 

When I was a trans man, I was still female. When I was genderqueer, I was still female. It didn't matter how I looked, how other people saw me, how much I could deadlift, how well I could wear a kilt, what medication I was on, how bad my dysphoria got and how my brain was obsessed that everything would be better if I could just change my body and how others related to it, still female. Society's view of my reproductive capabilities did not change. And until a few years ago, I could talk about the abuse that happened because I am female and discuss the difference between being female and the feminine gender role and plenty of people understood. I could be female and trans and no said that saying both was a slur. People recognized and even spoke out about detransition, how it is a possibility, our history recognized, because it was seen as common sense that if you encourage people to transition and question their identity, then there are people who transition does not help and people who take different paths. 

 

Now, it's a minefield.  When I was a genderqueer, I was part of an online discussion on medical abuse. I used the phrase "I didn't feel like a person, I felt like a female who needed to comply." I got an inbox full of threats and called a TERF for calling myself female and saying that the cause of the violence against me was them seeing me as female which still is my perspective. When I was a teen, it was not only openly discussed but it was considered vital to our health to discuss alternatives to medical transition - it's an expensive process financially and to the body of which research is very limited and for females, we have a high risk of organ atrophy within years - now several health conferences literally ban any discussion of it because they're worried about their image - and violence. Universities are banning research on detransitioned people on ethical grounds - our existence is considered too controversial and unethical to discuss while we have hospitals doing reversal surgeries. 

 

It is and never been about who is the most oppressed until a few years ago. Oppression Olympics helps no one. No one identity makes one the most oppressed. Some groups are vulnerable - female people are a socially vulnerable group. Surely we should get some say in how we are called and how our bodies are talked about. Female is a physical, material reality even when people, like me, try to avoid and ignore it with every fibre of our being because acknowledging it seems like a massive threat to... everything. I think there is plenty of room for sex based and identity based space and language and discussion as there has been within our communities for decades until this all went off recently. I think acting like trans people are inherently most oppressed and therefore have more of a right to control language and space than everyone else doesn't actually help anyone...really, I think the current popular rhetoric is harming many young people who see threats around every corner and put all their faith in a cure to their pain when with what little research we have we know isn't there. Statistically, trans people are no more likely and in some communities less likely to be harmed or murdered. The group that is at most risk that bumps up the statistics because the population is so small is the same group most at risk for other people - those involved in sex work. Far better would it be to make sure people were financially supported to prevent people needing to do that to survive than the current governments' obsessions with making certificates easier to get and trying to make misgendering a person a hate crime. 

 

As a detransitioned person who was in part and without hyperbole saved by legally protected single sex spaces and the women who worked them and who cared for me no matter how I identified, I think the idea that I was not female because of how I identified and that single sex spaces being protected excludes trans people is nonsense. That only works if you think trans women and their belief in their right to female spaces is the only things that matters to trans people. It's not. Many trans people do not agree with the current changes going on and do not think they will see any benefit. Many will not benefit from space and bathroom laws, the harassment will continue anyways and only those who are strong enough already to fight for themselves will have any chance. That's why so many have fought for years for single use unisex stalls to be included alongside the disabled (which disabled people fought and still fight to have) and the sexed stalls (which women fought for a long time to have and are having to fight again for) and built trans only spaces and groups - there already there no matter the population size. I mean, oddly, in my country, legally, hate crime based on gender identity is nationally recognized and recorded while only a handful of places do the same for sex so I'm thinking population size isn't what matters for these things.  

 

I don't get why female people should not have female only spaces? I run groups for disabled people, I run women-as-identity groups, I run mixed LGBTQ+ events, I go to female-only groups, I've gone to immigrant groups in the past, there is room for all of these. People work hard to run and maintain and make sure there is support for all of these. Why is it such an issue for female women to have their own space because I've yet to see anything comparable to anything else. I think female people are just as worth defending as anyone else. 

 

 

Here in Canada, a gender clinic that deals with kids was recently shut down for not using the "just accept without question what the kid says" approach.  Their director was one of the foremost researchers on children and gender and they'd been awarded a huge grant to study the effects of drug therapies on kids.

 

What shut them down was optics - lobbyists and a poorly done review by people with little experience in the field at all.

 

To me this is a prime example of the physical reality - including that of the people affected -  being shunted aside in order to maintain particular ideological points.  Because that research was going to be a heck of a lot more important than anything they achieved doing this.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, well, I am wondering if you have an issue with women only groups generally?  I don't, or with men only groups for that matter.  A women only music festival might not be my cup of tea but I can't say it bothers me.

 

They are a women only festival.  And by woman, they mean sex-category, female.  That is a concrete, physical world thing, even primate species is sexually dimorphic and even where there is not encultured gender, that impacts the life of all primates in a very immediate way.  Are we now to the point we being asked to deny those biological categories outright?  

 

The festival organizers found it necessary to clarify "women only" to be women-sex, not women-gender.  (And as far as I know they always accepted people born as women who presented in masculine ways - though there seems to have been much less inclination until quite recently for such people to call themselves transgendered.)

 

Given that the festival has had to be discontinued, I have a hard time seeing how there wasn't aggression towards female-sex persons identifying themselves with that material reality - apparently we aren't allowed to meet on that basis. 

 

 

No, I don't have a problem with women-only spaces.  I went to a women's college (loved it!) and am now a girl scout leader.

 

I don't see any reason to exclude trans women.  Like, any.   Why were they excluded?   Why does an event for women have to be about the uterus? If I had a hysterectomy am I no longer invited?  I don't understand why they made it "women-sex not women-gender" except for some kind of hostility towards trans women.  

 

I also don't understand how "female-sex persons" are supposed to be immune from criticism, or how criticism is seen as aggression.  This is why I compared it to race-separated events in the past.   The biological , material reality is that races are different, and people are not really allowed to hold festivals where other races are forbidden from attending.  Or at least, are not allowed to act like the victims if they are called out on that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't have a problem with women-only spaces.  I went to a women's college (loved it!) and am now a girl scout leader.

 

I don't see any reason to exclude trans women.  Like, any.   Why were they excluded?   Why does an event for women have to be about the uterus? If I had a hysterectomy am I no longer invited?  I don't understand why they made it "women-sex not women-gender" except for some kind of hostility towards trans women.  

 

I also don't understand how "female-sex persons" are supposed to be immune from criticism, or how criticism is seen as aggression.  This is why I compared it to race-separated events in the past.   The biological , material reality is that races are different, and people are not really allowed to hold festivals where other races are forbidden from attending.  Or at least, are not allowed to act like the victims if they are called out on that.

  

 

Even with no uterus or even breasts you will always be a biological female.  that will never change.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a detransitioned person, I've found the conversation interesting though confusing. I think it shows a lot of how the whole conversation around this has changed in the last decade.

 

When I was a trans man, I was still female. When I was genderqueer, I was still female. It didn't matter how I looked, how other people saw me, how much I could deadlift, how well I could wear a kilt, what medication I was on, how bad my dysphoria got and how my brain was obsessed that everything would be better if I could just change my body and how others related to it, still female. Society's view of my reproductive capabilities did not change. And until a few years ago, I could talk about the abuse that happened because I am female and discuss the difference between being female and the feminine gender role and plenty of people understood. I could be female and trans and no said that saying both was a slur. People recognized and even spoke out about detransition, how it is a possibility, our history recognized, because it was seen as common sense that if you encourage people to transition and question their identity, then there are people who transition does not help and people who take different paths.

 

Now, it's a minefield. When I was a genderqueer, I was part of an online discussion on medical abuse. I used the phrase "I didn't feel like a person, I felt like a female who needed to comply." I got an inbox full of threats and called a TERF for calling myself female and saying that the cause of the violence against me was them seeing me as female which still is my perspective. When I was a teen, it was not only openly discussed but it was considered vital to our health to discuss alternatives to medical transition - it's an expensive process financially and to the body of which research is very limited and for females, we have a high risk of organ atrophy within years - now several health conferences literally ban any discussion of it because they're worried about their image - and violence. Universities are banning research on detransitioned people on ethical grounds - our existence is considered too controversial and unethical to discuss while we have hospitals doing reversal surgeries.

 

It is and never been about who is the most oppressed until a few years ago. Oppression Olympics helps no one. No one identity makes one the most oppressed. Some groups are vulnerable - female people are a socially vulnerable group. Surely we should get some say in how we are called and how our bodies are talked about. Female is a physical, material reality even when people, like me, try to avoid and ignore it with every fibre of our being because acknowledging it seems like a massive threat to... everything. I think there is plenty of room for sex based and identity based space and language and discussion as there has been within our communities for decades until this all went off recently. I think acting like trans people are inherently most oppressed and therefore have more of a right to control language and space than everyone else doesn't actually help anyone...really, I think the current popular rhetoric is harming many young people who see threats around every corner and put all their faith in a cure to their pain when with what little research we have we know isn't there. Statistically, trans people are no more likely and in some communities less likely to be harmed or murdered. The group that is at most risk that bumps up the statistics because the population is so small is the same group most at risk for other people - those involved in sex work. Far better would it be to make sure people were financially supported to prevent people needing to do that to survive than the current governments' obsessions with making certificates easier to get and trying to make misgendering a person a hate crime.

 

As a detransitioned person who was in part and without hyperbole saved by legally protected single sex spaces and the women who worked them and who cared for me no matter how I identified, I think the idea that I was not female because of how I identified and that single sex spaces being protected excludes trans people is nonsense. That only works if you think trans women and their belief in their right to female spaces is the only things that matters to trans people. It's not. Many trans people do not agree with the current changes going on and do not think they will see any benefit. Many will not benefit from space and bathroom laws, the harassment will continue anyways and only those who are strong enough already to fight for themselves will have any chance. That's why so many have fought for years for single use unisex stalls to be included alongside the disabled (which disabled people fought and still fight to have) and the sexed stalls (which women fought for a long time to have and are having to fight again for) and built trans only spaces and groups - there already there no matter the population size. I mean, oddly, in my country, legally, hate crime based on gender identity is nationally recognized and recorded while only a handful of places do the same for sex so I'm thinking population size isn't what matters for these things.

 

I don't get why female people should not have female only spaces? I run groups for disabled people, I run women-as-identity groups, I run mixed LGBTQ+ events, I go to female-only groups, I've gone to immigrant groups in the past, there is room for all of these. People work hard to run and maintain and make sure there is support for all of these. Why is it such an issue for female women to have their own space because I've yet to see anything comparable to anything else. I think female people are just as worth defending as anyone else.

I really appreciate hearing your perspective on this.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with no uterus or even breasts you will always be a biological female. that will never change.

Yeah I was being a bit facetious. But the classic argument against gay marriage is that the purpose of marriage is procreation . If that were actually true , all women over 60 should ineligible for marriage ... the same thing seems to hold here. Making biology the prerequisite to purchasing a festival ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Canada, a gender clinic that deals with kids was recently shut down for not using the "just accept without question what the kid says" approach.  Their director was one of the foremost researchers on children and gender and they'd been awarded a huge grant to study the effects of drug therapies on kids.

 

What shut them down was optics - lobbyists and a poorly done review by people with little experience in the field at all.

 

To me this is a prime example of the physical reality - including that of the people affected -  being shunted aside in order to maintain particular ideological points.  Because that research was going to be a heck of a lot more important than anything they achieved doing this.

 

I have heard of that and think it is disgraceful. Dr Zucker deserved so much better than that. Dysphoric people deserve so much better. We need options and to have a real idea of the risks. We know that the most common puberty blockers are off prescription drugs that have a history of lifelong side effects, we know synthetic hormones can screw up the endocrine system. I have on one hand the pros and cons of taking hormone treatment for menopause that I went into when I was 27 and big warnings that they should only be taken for a few years because of the increased risks of stroke and cancer, but discussing testosterone therapy will mean likely hysterectomy due to organ atrophy within a few years, that we actually have no idea the long-term effects is practically blasphemy now. 

 

I'm one of the lucky ones. When I was teen in school therapy, I could discuss how my gender issues were connected to my trauma, I could discuss alternatives to the medicine I couldn't afford and wouldn't be given because I was a minor anyways, I could hear in peer group therapies other girls who had been through the same and different ways to cope. For some, transition was the best move, others like me tried it repeatedly because more and more it's treated as a cure-all even when we know so many will not get long-term benefits from it and the side effects are literally deadly. Now, I sit with 22-year-olds while they buy hormones off the internet without medical support, 20 somethings who've been on hormones for a few years now and don't understand why they're still suicidal because no one ever talked them through what transition can and cannot do for people and the idea that they might need other therapies is heavily resisted because they've been taught all their pain is due to being trans, I help 30 something trans sex workers who are struggling to function because everything is about maintaining that identity and what they are doing to keep that is destroying them. It's gone from I want to feel comfortable in my skin in a world that has very small boxes that has treated me horribly to I need to prove to everyone and have everyone acknowledge in my way that I am who I say I am. It's like an entirely different world with entirely different rules has appeared and I struggle to keep up and I've been in it ages. I am not surprised a lot of other people haven't the foggiest 

 

I firmly believe that there is space for women-by-sex and women-by-identity spaces. I don't particularly care if trans women call themselves women and I only get slightly annoyed when one refers to not having their hormones for a few weeks as menopause though it does make it quite a bit harder to discuss it in a mixed sex group. I do get why there is a need for words that separate, that's part of what language does - give us categories so we can understand each other. Personally, I find the move by some to try to change the meaning of male and female baffling and don't think that will help anyone and that it should remain on medical forms and criminal forms and similar because without that information it will make doing any sort of research to help anyone a lot harder. No matter how I identify, I am female. Even in a world where people like to tell me that because I have DSD or because I have gender dysphoria I am not, being female is not something that can be taken from me and I wish people would stop trying. 

 

And I worry about the consequences of having those opinions. I mean Maria Maclachlan got punched and strangled for wanting to attend an event which was open to and included trans women speakers on the potential effects of the changes to the Gender Recognition Act in the UK which could legally change the definition of women and female. I used to be part of running a space for detransitioned women online but had to step away because I couldn't take the threats anymore. I fight to have sex based hate crimes have the same recognition as all the others including gender identity and it's really draining having people try to dismiss it as even existing while at the same time trying to care for my daughter after she's been sexually harassed and threatened by her male peers because she's a girl. My daughters deserve to be defended and to have space and to have attacks they suffer because of their sex recognized as that because I know very well that how we identify isn't going to change that. It's why trans women are mostly recognized for businesses and achievements and trans men mostly are recognized for having babies.  I've been in this so long and it's just...if you ignore the physical reality of sex, you miss a lot. Ignoring it won't make it go away. 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't have a problem with women-only spaces.  I went to a women's college (loved it!) and am now a girl scout leader.

 

I don't see any reason to exclude trans women.  Like, any.   Why were they excluded?   Why does an event for women have to be about the uterus? If I had a hysterectomy am I no longer invited?  I don't understand why they made it "women-sex not women-gender" except for some kind of hostility towards trans women.  

 

I also don't understand how "female-sex persons" are supposed to be immune from criticism, or how criticism is seen as aggression.  This is why I compared it to race-separated events in the past.   The biological , material reality is that races are different, and people are not really allowed to hold festivals where other races are forbidden from attending.  Or at least, are not allowed to act like the victims if they are called out on that.

 

It isn't the festival reducing women to their uterus - it's you. Female is material reality and also a lived experience. 

 

No one is saying we're immune to criticism or that all criticism is aggressive. But surely women are allowed to say how we would like to define ourselves? Some do so by identity, others do so by biology. There is room for both. Saying I want space with other immigrants isn't hostile to native born people, saying I want space with other disabled people doesn't mean I'm hostile to able people, saying I want space with women doesn't mean I hate men, saying I want a space for mothers doesn't mean I hate fathers or non parents, and saying I want female space does not mean I am hostile males no matter how they identify. 

 

It's funny how people always want to compare sex to race - but if we try to discuss so called trans racial people the argument always falls apart, when we discuss that there are ethnicity based community groups people fought hard and still work hard for and gives a lot of support to their communities, the argument women-as-sex can't have the same while we fight tooth and nail to keep our women's centres and refuges open falls flat to me. 

 

 

Yeah I was being a bit facetious. But the classic argument against gay marriage is that the purpose of marriage is procreation . If that were actually true , all women over 60 should ineligible for marriage ... the same thing seems to hold here. Making biology the prerequisite to purchasing a festival ticket.

 

There are autistic groups that require proof of diagnosis. Many disability charities and groups require some form of evidence - as does the government when giving assistance. Many jobs require fitness tests. Biology is a prerequisite for a lot of things. 

 

Sometimes, it's just nice to be with other women-as-sex. It's not that hard. My women centre supported me no matter how I identified. My biology was all that mattered and it saved my life. My city has multiple trans groups and women-as-identity groups, but the women's centre helped me and I think trying to disregard women-as-sex spaces as just about the uterus is insulting for all the hard work they do. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

You started it!!!

 

I blame you. :D

I just asked a simple question. Lol

 

Honestly though, I've been reading this thread, and my head is spinning. I give up trying to understand any of it. I feel like I just figured out long division while everyone else around me is talking about differential equations. Lol

Edited by Kinsa
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a lot of transgender patients. We say transgender m>f (or transgender f>m) on the charts. Is this offensive? The charts still identify the patient as the sex the patient was born with. I'm not sure how to change that.

 

Even if it is, doing otherwise sounds dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So trans identified man is a slur, then? Or at least, I'm sure someone it's how it would be received by the people you are describing. It's like calling a naturalized citizen a "American-identified foreigner".

 

There really is nowhere to go if you star with a slur.

Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two different people. One is a black, lesbian Jewish woman who began Black History month in the UK. The other is a lecturer in political theory. 

 

Well, you could read the rejection of self declaration as the rejection of self declaration. Self declaration removes safeguards such as living as one's intended gender for two years, having the intention of permanently living as that gender, and making steps towards transition, either hormonal or physical. It also removes the involvement of any medical or pychological oversight. 

 

I'm not sure what protections you're referring to  and linking to here ? 

 

Rejecting the ideology of gender identity - you know that 'gender' is akin to 'soul' here, as there is no material evidence for 'gender' ? Seriously. This 'gender' that you're defending - there is no evidence for it. There is sex, there are sex linked behaviours, and sex based stereotypes, and personality/temperament. There are socially defined constructs of 'masculine' and 'feminine' and obviously, people should feel free to adopt or reject those to whatever extent they wish, regardless of sex. But there is no material basis to the idea of 'gender'.

 

Honestly. I think people need to go away and do their own research on this matter. It's not transphobia to look at the studies in the same way you'd read any study for quality of method or conclusion. It's not transphobia to seek to balance competing rights. It's not transphobia to be concerned about a new epidemic of rapid onset dysphoria in teen girls,which even gender identity specialists worry is a social contagion. It's not transphobia to be troubled by current transactivism - plenty of transsexuals are. They think it's neither in their interests nor in the interests of women. It's not transphobia to question queer ideology and critical theory. It's not transphobia to care that up to 80% of children expressing that they want to be the other sex, even persistently and over a long period, desist by adulthood and become gay men and women, and that social transition and hormone blockers disrupt the desistance rate and produce 'straight' kids. It's not transphobic to want to know more about health effects of long term hormone use in those kids, especially but not only on fertility and sexual function.

 

The transgender umbrella is huge - I mean, I even fit under there, as someone who is agender, or feels she doesn't have a gender. Under that umbrella are people with sex dysphoria which makes their life hell...but they are being forced to share that space with a hell of lot of people whose aims and priorities do not align with theirs, and who most certainly don't give two hoots about women. 

 

First of all, i don't know why you keep defending yourself against the charge of transphobia. I haven't accused you of that, and I don't believe anyone else has either. It's a straw man.

 

 

As for the rest of it, I don't even know what to reply to the assertion that gender doesn't exist in a discussion about transgender people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not arguing in good faith, because either:

 

1. you don't believe in class analysis, in which case, fine, but your arguments based on this rejection are neither of the left nor are they feminist

 

or

 

2. you're not prepared to make the effort to understand class analysis.

 

Either I don't believe it class analysis, or I am too lazy to understand it....

if I don't think it is impossible for any woman of any class to oppress any man of any class?

OK then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am ok with acknowledging trans men are transgendered. If the debate here was ‘should we them men or transgendered men?’, then your comments would apply. Posters like LMP and Sadie will not use either term.

 

Taking the power of naming themselves away from a vulnerable population is an act of oppression . I suspect they would say ‘I was born with a uterus so I cannot oppress someone who was born with a penis.’ I simply do not think it is true that a women cannot oppress a man by virtue of biology. Especially since it completely removed class and race and culture from the conversation as well .

Are you freaking kidding me?

 

I have no problem with trans women or trans men - the people or the terms. I've used the terms in this thread already.

 

To the bolded, you can't even see the hypocrisy can you? So a straight, white, male-bodied person can suddenly at 50 years old call themselves 'woman' and 'lesbian' and that's somehow not "Taking the power of naming themselves away from a vulnerable population is an act of oppression"

 

This is why things get ugly.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am responding to here is the movement within feminism that looks at Barb Greve — someone who is bald and has a goatee and dressed in men’s clothes who calls himself a ‘transgender guy’ — and say ‘ no, this is a trans identified female’ .

 

We can sort out medical issues. We can sort out collective language . i hope. But if we refuse to acknowledge trans people without contempt.... it’s gonna be really ugly.

I would say that a transgender guy is a female bodied person.

 

What about people like Danielle Muscato, who was born male, has a beard, short receding hair, dresses in men's suits and... identifies as female?

In transactivism now, presuming that a trans person wants to change their body or presuming someone's gender identity based on visual cues is presumptuous.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that a transgender guy is a female bodied person.

 

What about people like Danielle Muscato, who was born male, has a beard, short receding hair, dresses in men's suits and... identifies as female?

In transactivism now, presuming that a trans person wants to change their body or presuming someone's gender identity based on visual cues is presumptuous.

 

The nice thing about my way of looking at the world is that Danielle gets to decide who she is. Not you, and not me.

I don't get to, or want to, override someone else's decision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a class, not of a class.

 

Ah, thank you. 

 

This way of thinking reminds of that famous photo of a black woman at the Women's March (a massive anti-Trump demonstration) holding up a sign saying "55% of white women voted for Trump'.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you freaking kidding me?

 

I have no problem with trans women or trans men - the people or the terms. I've used the terms in this thread already.

 

To the bolded, you can't even see the hypocrisy can you? So a straight, white, male-bodied person can suddenly at 50 years old call themselves 'woman' and 'lesbian' and that's somehow not "Taking the power of naming themselves away from a vulnerable population is an act of oppression"

 

This is why things get ugly.

 

I think you are the poster who uses those terms to mean the opposite of what the individual intends.  So a M -> F transgender  you call a trans man?

 

As for the hypocrisy accusation: I just don't' see it.  I don't think a gay trans woman's existence  harms lesbians.      I also don't think any 50 year old person's sexuality or identity changes "suddenly".  I can see you feel passionately, and the opposite way.  I acknowledge that.  But I don't know what else to say.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the connection.

 

 

 

So this person went to the rally--  with millions of  (mostly white) women celebrating their united dislike for Donald Trump-- just to hold up a sign saying "I'm here to remind you and the world that it was white women got this guy elected.". 

 

Some white women went to the rally, but overall, they supported Donald Trump.

Some trans people are delightful, but overall, they are anti-woman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are the poster who uses those terms to mean the opposite of what the individual intends. So a M -> F transgender you call a trans man?

 

As for the hypocrisy accusation: I just don't' see it. I don't think a gay trans woman's existence harms lesbians. I also don't think any 50 year old person's sexuality or identity changes "suddenly". I can see you feel passionately, and the opposite way. I acknowledge that. But I don't know what else to say.

1. No, I'm not. I was explaining a term that you said you didn't understand.

 

2. Lesbians are saying that it harms them and their communities. Or don't we listen to their lived experience or self identity anymore? There's also the gay trans women like Dana Rivers who murdered two lesbians, so yeah, some literally do harm.

 

3. I'm not talking about sexuality. But rapid onset gender dysphoria is definitely a thing - it's already been mentioned in this thread.

 

4. You can say 'I just don't think it's a problem' as many times as you like, but many very smart and compassionate lgbt women around the world disagree with you. I reckon they're worth listening to just like listening to trans folks talk about their lived experience is important.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean the idea is that voting for Trump is by definition a racist vote, or something?

 

That's somewhat reductivist, to put it mildly and kindly.

 

Nothing at all to do with Donald Trump, or racism, or anything like that. I get I was being confusing.   It was just an "as a class, not of a class" analogy.

Edited by poppy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see, so you were saying that this lady (the sign holder) perceived that white women were, as a class, racists for voting for Trump - without making any claim as to whether her perception was correct.  

 

In which case I, a white woman who did not vote for Trump but who resents the implication that doing so even as a class represents oppression or racism, will reduce my hackles :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't have a problem with women-only spaces.  I went to a women's college (loved it!) and am now a girl scout leader.

 

I don't see any reason to exclude trans women.  Like, any.   Why were they excluded?   Why does an event for women have to be about the uterus? If I had a hysterectomy am I no longer invited?  I don't understand why they made it "women-sex not women-gender" except for some kind of hostility towards trans women.  

 

I also don't understand how "female-sex persons" are supposed to be immune from criticism, or how criticism is seen as aggression.  This is why I compared it to race-separated events in the past.   The biological , material reality is that races are different, and people are not really allowed to hold festivals where other races are forbidden from attending.  Or at least, are not allowed to act like the victims if they are called out on that.

 

 

So I don't quite understand your logic here.

 

Why is it ok to exclude all men from a women's college, but not have a meeting of female people because it's exclusive?  You could make the same arguments about excluding men from a university - why does it have to be about sexual equipment or gender presentation?

 

The only reason I can see is a denial that there is any substantive difference between female and male anatomy - and that's without getting into questions of socialization at all.

 

And people have meetings and groups exclusively for certain ethnicities or races all the time.

Edited by Bluegoat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.  Trans people have an alarmingly high suicide / attempted suicide rate.  Certainly higher than 30%, maybe significantly more.  So they are they are an exceptionally vulnerable population (even though ,somehow, the risk mentioned most often in this thread is the # of trans individuals who have committed murder.....)

 

So one way to look at it.  is their vulnerability because being trans is a mental illness, or it is because being trans makes one being regarded as mentally ill.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop deflecting poppy. You said that you didn't get how trans women harm lesbians. I answer you with (amongst other things) one specific case. You're now turning that into not caring about the (highly debatable) trans suicide rate?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop deflecting poppy. You said that you didn't get how trans women harm lesbians. I answer you with (amongst other things) one specific case. You're now turning that into not caring about the (highly debatable) trans suicide rate?

 

I truly just don't know how to answer "trans women's existence ins't inherently harmful" with "well here's a murderer".   I guess to be clear:   I agree that murder  is bad.

 

Sometimes this thread feels like I'm talking to anti-vaxxers.    Which doesn't mean your arguments are as weak as anti-vaxxers arguments; that's not what I'm trying to say.  More like "here are a bunch of people in a  closed circuit community agreeing with each other about how science  and common knowledge is just bunk".  Gender isn't real-- the studies you see everywhere are all distorted-- here are anecdotes about bad things that happened.  I'm not really prepared to put up that kind of fight but I also don't accept all the basic premises you are working from.  So I just keep replying, I'm not even sure why anymore. Because I know a trans kid who killed herself last year.   Her name was Destini.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels the same from this side! :)

 

Can I clarify a couple of those points? We're saying that gender is a social construct, that means it is cultural not biological. Sex is biological and universal to our species but gender identity/roles/expression are not.

 

I'm also saying that studies have limitations, serious ones, that should inspire more study - not less. And given what we know about suicidality and social contagion, we should be darn careful before we use '40% will kill themselves' as our mantra!

 

Their existence isn't inherently harmful, but other oppressed groups (women and lesbians) are trying to say that the politics and ideology has elements that is. They get violence and harassment for speaking out.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't quite understand your logic here.

 

Why is it ok to exclude all men from a women's college, but not have a meeting of female people because it's exclusive?  You could make the same arguments about excluding men from a university - why does it have to be about sexual equipment or gender presentation?

 

The only reason I can see is a denial that there is any substantive difference between female and male anatomy - and that's without getting into questions of socialization at all.

 

And people have meetings and groups exclusively for certain ethnicities or races all the time.

 

I guess you're right, if I am OK with excluding men, I'm OK with excluding in gender.  I guess I just think of trans women as women. Where women are welcome.

 

People DO have meetings for groups / ethnicities all the time, but, a music festival isn't a "meeting".  Parades, festivals, bars, these are things where you don't usually have  a color  or sex requirement.  If there was a bouncer kicking out people who aren't Puerto Rican at the Puetro Rican festival, that would be odd.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels the same from this side! :)

 

Can I clarify a couple of those points? We're saying that gender is a social construct, that means it is cultural not biological. Sex is biological and universal to our species but gender identity/roles/expression are not.

 

I'm also saying that studies have limitations, serious ones, that should inspire more study - not less. And given what we know about suicidality and social contagion, we should be darn careful before we use '40% will kill themselves' as our mantra!

 

Their existence isn't inherently harmful, but other oppressed groups (women and lesbians) are trying to say that the politics and ideology has elements that is. They get violence and harassment for speaking out.

 

Safety should be paramount. Absolutely. Gotta be a parent now-- but-- violence and harrassment is unacceptable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you're right, if I am OK with excluding men, I'm OK with excluding in gender.  I guess I just think of trans women as women. Where women are welcome.

 

I'm a feminist and there is one place I absolutely prohibit other women from being and that's in my body. Your* right to feminism** runs out right before it meets my nose. Out in society, I think it needs to run out where it meets impracticality. No matter how woman you are, your prostate specialist is currently employed in men's health, not women's.

 

*In the general sense.

**The verb department is currently renting this noun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why it's totally bizarre that the political left - home of collectivist action and thought - embraces these ideologies. 

 

I'm pretty angry that people on the left just take the easy way out of making nice virtue noises and refusing to grapple with issues of language, of the co-opting of critical theory by post modernism. I mean, seriously, use your brains, people! 

 

And yes, it's hard. This isn't a mild conversation for me, given I'm living with the effects of this stuff in my family. Not that moms matter in queer theory, lol. 

 

I mean, I'd rather be nice. I'd rather be nice and comfy in my virtue too. But jeez. Read. Think. Look where these ideas take us. Is atomic individualism really the best place to stand in order to tackle all the crises facing us now, and in the near future ?

 

My sense is that there are a lot of people that don't really know of any other way to think.  Even when they see examples of thinking more collectively, it's like they don't quite "see" them because they don't have the knowledge or language or something to interpret them, or notice that they are there.

 

It's interesting.  My sense of collectivism is a little different than the Marxist sense - though there is overlap - it's more of a religious model I suppose, or even an ecological one.  But I do think that having that allows me to "see" other ways of thinking collectively when I encounter them.

 

Individualism is one of the Big Assumptions of or time, I think, so accepted and foundational that people don't notice it's a belief at all.

 

Which really reinforces to me how important history of thought - and taught properly -  is in education.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the many things that keeps bothering me about much of the what transgender activists present is that their view of gender is frequently very binary. 

I saw slides from a presentation which depicted a graphic of supposedly a gender spectrum, with a pink lady shape on one end, and a dark blue man shape cutout at the other end and a bunch of gradual shapes in between.  Underneath the pink shape, there was a silhouette of a pink Disney princess, and under the blue man there was essentially a gi joe type figure.  See - when I see things like this I think yes, there's a lot of overlap and a lot of room in the middle and how we express ourselves is so varied by culture and what is 'acceptable'.

But the presentation was just about how if you like one end you must be that gender and if that's not what you were born with, you should fix it. So there's no room in their world for women who are soldiers or mechanics or tow truck operators; women who don't really fuss about appearance much and don't 'pretty' themselves up. If you're at that end and you happened to have been born with ovaries, too bad. You're meant to be a man, obviously. 

And similarly no room for men who like to sew or wear fancy clothes or are into beauty. 

 

I have especially grave concerns about telling young children that their interest in X is now a sign that they're misgendered and it's something that needs fixing through (experimental) surgery and lifelong drugs. It seems eerily reminiscent of saying that's a sign you're gay and it's something that needs fixing... 

And I echo Sadie's comments about the whole social media world and social contagion and how that might be playing out with adolescents & that we need to be researching this instead of just everyone going along. I think there should be strict limits on hormone therapy for children for example - but to say so in some circles is instantly to be branded transphobic. 
  
 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a lot of transgender patients. We say transgender m>f (or transgender f>m) on the charts. Is this offensive? The charts still identify the patient as the sex the patient was born with. I'm not sure how to change that.

 

I don't think we should.  Medical professionals need to know what anatomical structures are there, what surgeries have been performed, what hormone balances are likely, because that's part of the information that would signify a disease process.  

 

 

This is like when that Cdn man decided to live as a 6 year old girl.  Just because he wants to be identified as a 6 year old, the chart should still say he's 52. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly just don't know how to answer "trans women's existence ins't inherently harmful" with "well here's a murderer".   I guess to be clear:   I agree that murder  is bad.

 

Sometimes this thread feels like I'm talking to anti-vaxxers.    Which doesn't mean your arguments are as weak as anti-vaxxers arguments; that's not what I'm trying to say.  More like "here are a bunch of people in a  closed circuit community agreeing with each other about how science  and common knowledge is just bunk".  Gender isn't real-- the studies you see everywhere are all distorted-- here are anecdotes about bad things that happened.  I'm not really prepared to put up that kind of fight but I also don't accept all the basic premises you are working from.  So I just keep replying, I'm not even sure why anymore. Because I know a trans kid who killed herself last year.   Her name was Destini.  

 

I don't think the main point that people are making is actually that some transgendered people are murderers.  There are some statistics around violence in that context that are suggestive - for example they tend to show that patterns of violence in mTf are similar to those for men, not those for women.  It tends to make people ask the question - in what way are people who identify as the other sex in fact men or women?  What is a women or a man, fundamentally?

 

I think though that largely, when people talk about a danger involved, it's an ideological danger.  And - I think this is something many people have a hard time conceptualizing as a thing.  It's just an idea, so how can it be a danger unless it's leading to an action?  Which is only partly true I think - I believe that bad ideas should be free to be spoken - even ones that are inherently dangerous.  I also think that they can lead to serious problems and need to be critiqued.  

 

I don't think it's an accident that sex has started to become a fuzzy concept at a time when we are able to use technology to suppress it's most obvious effects.  Concretely, it is less noticeable today than it has ever been, and this is 90% about technology and 10% about a complex society (in part also enable by tech) that can manage certain effects of sexual differences.  A lot of these things about sex differences that we think we have virtuously by-passed are nothing to do with our clear vision and goodness, and everything to do with the fact that we don't really have to deal with them in the same way as previous generations.

 

But for most of human history, being a male or female had very visible, very clearly experienced, differences, that had nothing to do with feeling a certain way or identifying with certain social conventions.  These things were the largest physical reality that shaped people's lives.  And tomorrow, if our technological or organization basis changed, we would be right back there, no matter how enlightened we think we are about sex and how much we think it is all on a continuum, or that there is really only gender, whatever that is.  That's a concrete physical reality.

 

In light of this, talking about the physicality of sex being less real than "gender identification", so much so that the latter defines what it is to be a male or female - seems odd and like it misses out a mass of human experience.

 

As far as studies and such - it's not that they are "bad" so much as we hear very little about them at all.  It's actually become unacceptable to talk about them, but if you look at the work, it is not nearly as clear as activists like people to think.  And worse, as I mentioned above, some of the best science is being suppressed or prevented from happening at all.  I can see why this seems like anti-vax and other conspiracy theories, but I can only say that this is much more clearly happening once you look into it.

 

With regard to gender not being "real" - I don't think people think there is no cultural construct of gender, and some (me!) think that is inevitable in human society and sometimes very functional.  It also seems clear that people can have a sense of identity that is not clearly aligned with sex structures, as you see happens in intersex conditions, and as we see in dysphoric individuals.  But there is a lot that's unknown beyond that scientifically, and a lot of questions around how much is physical - we know for example most children have very malleable gender identification rather than it being inborn.  

 

We also don't really know that what people call gender identification is always the same thing as what scientists are talking about when they are looking at brain function, or whether it is something else entirely.  And even in the activist movement this is really a moving target - the definition of gender is all over the place with some saying there is a continuum, that it is not fixed, etc.  So - it's very difficult to get any handle on what we even mean by "real" in his sense.  But apparently, it's more foundational than sex?  I don't think it is strange that people feel doubtful about that.

 

 

 

I guess you're right, if I am OK with excluding men, I'm OK with excluding in gender.  I guess I just think of trans women as women. Where women are welcome.

 

People DO have meetings for groups / ethnicities all the time, but, a music festival isn't a "meeting".  Parades, festivals, bars, these are things where you don't usually have  a color  or sex requirement.  If there was a bouncer kicking out people who aren't Puerto Rican at the Puetro Rican festival, that would be odd.  

 

 

I don't think in this case it really functioned just as a music festival, though.  In a way that was almost secondary.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The nice thing about my way of looking at the world is that Danielle gets to decide who she is. Not you, and not me.

I don't get to, or want to, override someone else's decision. 

 

So, does Rachel Dolezal get to decide she's black? Do many various people who try to claim membership to American Indigenous groups get membership without evidence? Can I just decide to be British and skip the testing, getting people of suitable professions to be my reference, the over a grand it's going to cost me, the lawyer?

 

 It isn't about what you claim, it's about who claims you. Women-as-sex should have some say in our spaces. Other people shouldn't be able to override the definition of female and those legal protections because it doesn't suit them. 

 

I guess you're right, if I am OK with excluding men, I'm OK with excluding in gender.  I guess I just think of trans women as women. Where women are welcome.

 

People DO have meetings for groups / ethnicities all the time, but, a music festival isn't a "meeting".  Parades, festivals, bars, these are things where you don't usually have  a color  or sex requirement.  If there was a bouncer kicking out people who aren't Puerto Rican at the Puetro Rican festival, that would be odd.  

 

Trans women are trans women. There is nothing wrong with that. Can a female person decide she's a trans woman? I've had several people tell me that that would be highly appropriative and offensive to the fight trans women have had to do for their rights...why this doesn't apply to women-as-sex I'm not sure. Women-as-sex fought for sexed bathrooms, fought for our spaces, fought for refuges, fought for changes to law so we have rights to our bank accounts and homes, fought for so much...surely, we get some say in our identity?

 

There are many festivals and parades and events for ethnicities and other groups. There is a carnival parade in my city every year, it's done by the West Indian community centre and they are who are in the parade. There are entire music events set up by and for certain groups - every year there are lists on the best Black music festivals, Asian music festivals, queer music festivals going around. There are vegan festivals. My daughter's best friend goes to a Polish community club weekly and does Polish dancing and except on open days, it's for Polish people. There are several other nationality and ethnicity clubs within my city. I have friends very excited for a park event this upcoming Sunday for Black Women. There are dances and meals out run by an organization by and for lesbian and bisexual women in our community. I run a game group for disabled people - I only let disabled people join. I go to a film club for women-by-sex and a gaming group that is "no men" group by identity - and the shop we hold it in which is entirely run by men not only supports us in that but helps the relevant people find us because each and everyone one of us have had the frustration of being the only one in a group who isn't a dude. Both are great and fill very different needs. I've gone to groups for immigrant mothers to socialize with babies. It was lovely. These things are everywhere, people work very hard to make them, and there is nothing odd in them. They are wonderful places to connect, to build community, to have space where something important to us is recognized and celebrated and acknowledged as just another normal with a very normal desire to talk to each other.  I think it's very odd to think these things don't exist or don't have a purpose. 

 

I mean, my local gay club has a trans nights which actively keeps out "chasers" and any other nontrans person so there is a safe space. There is another one which actively encourages chasers. People build their spaces how they want to - and women should be able to do the same. 

 

Right.  Trans people have an alarmingly high suicide / attempted suicide rate.  Certainly higher than 30%, maybe significantly more.  So they are they are an exceptionally vulnerable population (even though ,somehow, the risk mentioned most often in this thread is the # of trans individuals who have committed murder.....)

 

So one way to look at it.  is their vulnerability because being trans is a mental illness, or it is because being trans makes one being regarded as mentally ill.   

 

 

I truly just don't know how to answer "trans women's existence ins't inherently harmful" with "well here's a murderer".   I guess to be clear:   I agree that murder  is bad. 

 

Sometimes this thread feels like I'm talking to anti-vaxxers.    Which doesn't mean your arguments are as weak as anti-vaxxers arguments; that's not what I'm trying to say.  More like "here are a bunch of people in a  closed circuit community agreeing with each other about how science  and common knowledge is just bunk".  Gender isn't real-- the studies you see everywhere are all distorted-- here are anecdotes about bad things that happened.  I'm not really prepared to put up that kind of fight but I also don't accept all the basic premises you are working from.  So I just keep replying, I'm not even sure why anymore. Because I know a trans kid who killed herself last year.   Her name was Destini.  

 

Using suicide to get one's way is an abuse tactic. It's a very common one - do what I want, say what I want, or I will kill myself - and to use others as proof. I don't understand using someone's suicide as a discussion point - it doesn't prove anything and kinda disgusting. I've had suicidal ideation since elementary school and been suicide baited since I was 11, I've talked people down. Women-as-sex spaces saved me in my darkest times and cared for me no matter how I identified which is why I find the idea that they are transphobic very insulting because they worked very hard to care for me while I was trans and still do. My individual story doesn't prove anything on a class level though. 

 

Something else that saved me is The World Health Organization, which has done more for trans people than most, who defines gender as "Gender: Refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. The concept of gender includes five important elements: relational, hierarchical, historical, contextual and institutional. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit†established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health". Source: WHO, Gender mainstreaming for health managers: a practical approach, 2011. 

 

Nothing in that is innate or about feelings and to me, that was a wonderful freeing thing. Nothing in me or about me or about my body needed to be fixed. The abuse I suffered which resulted in PTSD which is connected to my dysphoria was due to many people buying into gender and hurting me because I did not fit was all on their ideas, not mine. I was able to let go of the need others placed in me to try to identify and change myself to fit. We know from what little research there is that medical transition by itself has poor results, social support and care practices for depression and anxiety and trauma are needed but those are getting left out too often these days. 

 

The idea of being any one thing makes an adult uniquely exceptionally vulnerable helps no one. It is practically impossible to get people to better themselves, either individually or collectively, if they think that innately, what they are, makes them depressed, anxious, want to die, and makes others murder them. It's doubly horrible to keep telling people that when the statistics don't back it up - trans people are no more likely to do so than others in the cohort with similar backgrounds. Women are more likely to try to kill themselves, men more likely to be successful, none of this tells us which group is most vulnerable. Trans women are no more likely to be violent than others of their sex. This is an important seeing as over 80% of violent crimes, and over 98% of sexual violence specifically, are committed by male people. This doesn't mean there aren't vulnerable male people, but any person is statistically safer with female people than with male people. My having been raped by women and attacked by women as an individual doesn't change that. When we consider changes to the law that might affect prisoners, keeping such information in mind is relevant and saying sex doesn't matter is to put women at risk. 

 

Interestingly, for me, I used to be anti-vax. I was a loud vocal supporter of parents choosing not to vaccinate. As a new parent, my first and for a while only support network was a very environmental parenting group that actively encouraged my fears of medical professionals (having been verbally, physically, and sexually assaulted by them) and discouraged other information - practically classic BITE model group. I then saw the consequences - outbreak after outbreak, vulnerable groups that couldn't be vaccinated getting hurt, and mostly a lot of confused parents wanting to do the best for their own in a world where information seems to be all twisted. I used to be a very vocal supporter of trans activism, trans women are women, trans men are men though I never fit into that and heard it far less often, and that to not support them that way was to harm people - another BITE model group. Then I started to see the consequences: trans people taking tons of pills and injections thinking it will make them happy without any knowledge of the possible side effects because to discuss the risks and alternatives to transition is now frowned upon and viewed as being unsupportive of trans people; women getting death threats, being suicide baited, attacked all for saying our sex matters and we want it as legally protected as gender identity; rising numbers of female teens chest binding which carries significant health risks and can be deadly no matter how "safely" it is done because they're getting told that if they hate how others treat them because of their sex and their secondary sex characteristics then they must be men ignoring that they are of an age where sexual harassment and sexual threats is highest (both of my daughters aren't even pubescent and have had to deal with it), I see people terrified that their experiences and feelings and identity is going to make others hurt themselves or get others killed because they're being told it will, I see lesbians being threatened and told they must accept trans women into their dating pool or they are transphobic and deserve a violent death...

 

...and I see my son. My son like me does not fit sex roles very well. Pretty much since infancy he has had random people telling him how he's not a boy. The way he looks, the way he talks, the way he dresses, his interests, his activities, pretty much everything about him at one point or another someone has told him he does like a girl - ignoring the fact his father has hair almost to his waist and works in hospitality and his main hobby is painting. The boy literally had speech therapists try to teach him sex stereotypes for weeks rather than help him ask and understand questions which was the reason he was there because she thought it was weird he couldn't tell little cartoon people's gender by their clothes and hair. When he was 11, he nearly scalped himself cutting off the long hair he had fought so hard for, literally jumped through every hoop at cadets and other places for, because, as he told me in tears, he "just wants to look like a cool guy". He's tired of having so many people telling him that the way he is isn't for boys just as I once got tired of being told that my way of being female was wrong but what he is being told is entirely different. He's extremely vulnerable - and people think telling him he could grow up to be a woman is doing him a kindness even when it hurts and confuses him so much. I had to explain to him that it couldn't happen unless he took medication for it because he was terrified he would just wake up like that one day because of how he is. This is the consequence of having transition from an adult choice to become more comfortable in one's skin and in society that I repeatedly tried to an innate biological wrong that must be fixed asap or the person will die horribly. Kids are getting hurt trying to fit into a concept I fought for that was never designed to be pushed onto such small shoulders. 

 

I am fine as I am, my son is fine as he is, my detransitioned friends are fine as they are, my trans friends are too...and we all deserve our space and recognition. We're different and that's great, we don't need to be all blurred together with our differences ignored to bring about love and safety, that's not love. It's pretty hateful really to say you must fit in this box and anything different about you we won't talk about or let you gather with others like you because what you have to say must be said in front of everyone regardless of common sense otherwise. That's pretty much the opposite of a caring model of connection. Some people will transition, all dysphoric people need better, additional care than what we can get right now, and women-as-sex deserve just as much right to define ourselves, who we wish to be around and who we want to make space for as anyone else. Sometimes I'm fine being with everyone, and sometimes it's important for me and my well-being to be around people who I have important connections to whether by sex, nationality, disability, parenting, home educating, age bracket, area I live in, sexuality...and there is nothing odd in wanting that kind of community space. 

Edited by SporkUK
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have a whole lot of time to reply right now but I have zero patience for ‘some trans people think it is mean to ask these questions so the conversation is null’. It reads to me as ‘feminists just hate men’ level of dismissal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have a whole lot of time to reply right now but I have zero patience for ‘some trans people think it is mean to ask these questions so the conversation is null’. It reads to me as ‘feminists just hate men’ level of dismissal.

 

Don't answer now if you've not time, but I'm not sure how to read this post - it seems like I can understand it at least two ways, but they aren't compatible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have a whole lot of time to reply right now but I have zero patience for ‘some trans people think it is mean to ask these questions so the conversation is null’. It reads to me as ‘feminists just hate men’ level of dismissal.

??

 

I don't know whether you don't have patience for the trans people who think it is mean to ask these questions,

 

or you don't have patience for the people who are reporting that these questions are shut down and considered invalid. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't see any reason to exclude trans women.  Like, any.   Why were they excluded?   Why does an event for women have to be about the uterus? If I had a hysterectomy am I no longer invited?  I don't understand why they made it "women-sex not women-gender" except for some kind of hostility towards trans women.  

 

Because generally they lack the experience base that biological women have, and also their presence can be threatening.  And because false claimants to be trans women who just want to oogle or observe or harass people destroy the whole feel of the group.

 

I have a friend who is a trans woman.  We have had long discussions about how women grow up knowing that they can be sexually assaulted and how it effects those women more than men who grew up at the same time.  But who STILL talked about going into a women's restroom and being treated in a friendly way there, as if that proved that s/he was welcome and everyone was comfortable with her/his presence.  Friend is 6 feet tall and a muscular looking runner.  Who would put forward a challenge?  Nothing was proven in that situation but due to the differences in earlier life experiences, that was entirely unclear.

 

It's not usually a matter of hostility but of cultural experience base.

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So for those who believe that trans women should be excluded from born-women's spaces, how do you feel about public bathrooms? Do you think that a trans woman with breasts who is wearing makeup and women's clothing should be required to use men's bathrooms, and a trans man with a beard and muscles and male clothing should be using women's bathrooms?

 

I don't understand how the idea that anyone who was born with a penis (even if they no longer have one) is inherently more dangerous to women than someone born with a vagina, can logically result in anything other than trans men in women's bathrooms and vice versa. And it seems to me that the risk of a trans woman being assaulted by men in a men's bathroom is vastly higher than the risk of a born-woman being assaulted by a trans woman in a women's bathroom. Does that not matter?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So for those who believe that trans women should be excluded from born-women's spaces, how do you feel about public bathrooms? Do you think that a trans woman with breasts who is wearing makeup and women's clothing should be required to use men's bathrooms, and a trans man with a beard and muscles and male clothing should be using women's bathrooms?

 

I don't understand how the idea that anyone who was born with a penis (even if they no longer have one) is inherently more dangerous to women than someone born with a vagina, can logically result in anything other than trans men in women's bathrooms and vice versa. And it seems to me that the risk of a trans woman being assaulted by men in a men's bathroom is vastly higher than the risk of a born-woman being assaulted by a trans woman in a women's bathroom. Does that not matter?

 

i think that we should implement pod bathrooms everywhere.

I think that once we do, or are well on our way to doing so, we will look back, amazed at the lack of privacy and vulnerability that we once put up with in public.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't the concern that "men" is a subset of / less than "women"?  I know history doesn't bear out this view, but really, the word is not the issue.  Seems someone had too much time on her hands or forgot that there are much bigger issues for women than the word.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a lot of transgender patients. We say transgender m>f (or transgender f>m) on the charts. Is this offensive? The charts still identify the patient as the sex the patient was born with. I'm not sure how to change that.

 

How about "xy woman" or "xx man"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...