Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[beesonthewhatnow]

because of what comes with it. Only people looking to exclude trans women say this. I'm happy to accept the difference but I'm not having anyone tell me i can be excluded from women's spaces because i'm not a "women born women".

Women are very diverse as a group. why single out one group of women in particular unless you think they're not actually women?

That's why it's transphobic.

If a group of people want to get together for a chat in a private space it's down to them who is allowed in, no?

If this was a debate about a public body, organisation or workplace it would be different. But it's not.

You don't get to tell people who can or cannot come to their own bloody meeting.

 

[Sea Star]

because they are mentranswomen?

had to quote this before it gets deleted. I have no response to this utter bigotry.

 

[19force8]

I'm skipping out on this one - I'm abroad, my internet's shite, and I'm beginning to lose my cool.

AuntiStella massive respect. Take care of yourself.

 

[sunnysidedown]

had to quote this before it gets deleted. I have no response to this utter bigotry.

you want to erase the place of departure?

 

[Lord Camomile]

If a group of people want to get together for a chat in a private space it's down to them who is allowed in, no?

If this was a debate about a public body, organisation or workplace it would be different. But it's not.

You don't get to tell people who can or cannot come to their own bloody meeting.

I think the issue comes from when those people in the meeting are claiming the power to decide who can and can't identify as a particular group. It's not saying "you can't be in our club", it's saying "you can't be who you are, because we say so".

Also, New Cross Learning, the library where the original debate was to be held, isn't a private space, it's a very public one and a part of the community.

<edit: I say this while still believing I don't have a full grasp of the issue, so the above isn't a completely solid or coherent set of thoughts.>

 

[campanula]

Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.
And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?

 

[Shechemite]

I think the issue comes from when those people in the meeting are claiming the power to decide who can and can't identify as a particular group. It's not saying "you can't be in our club", it's saying "you can't be who you are, because we say so".

Also, New Cross Learning, the library where the original debate was to be held, isn't a private space, it's a very public one and a part of the community.

<edit: I say this while still believing I don't have a full grasp of the issue, so the above isn't a completely solid or coherent set of thoughts.>

Transwomen weren't barred from the new cross meeting. There was a trans speaker.

'You can't be who you are'. Who is saying this?

 

[Raheem]

Any time you invite the public to a meeting, it's obviously not a private meeting.

 

[Raheem]

Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.
And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?

Does what you're talking about here actually count as organising, though?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If a group of people want to get together for a chat in a private space it's down to them who is allowed in, no?.

Not entirely, no. You can invite whomever you like to your home. But beyond that, once you step into a hired room or hall, you're not in an entirely private space. 'No black people allowed', for instance, is not allowed, and nor should it be. There are limits. In this case, as a man, I think women-only meetings are entirely fair and reasonable if that's what a bunch of women want. And there we hit the problem - somebody somewhere needs to decide what a woman is, and there is dispute, clearly, over definitions here. There is more than dispute - there is open hostility.

 

[trashpony]

Was this a dream you had? Because just saying the words "rapist" and "murderer" doesn't count as evidence.

I already did that. But if you're too dim or lazy

Transpeople are murdered and assaulted by men. Men hate women and they hate transpeople. Women - even if some of them are 'TERFs' - aren't actually killing or hurting transpeople. Men are. But somehow it's easier to condemn women.

Some violent misogynist men are saying they're trans:
Rapist moved to female jail after sex change
Ian Huntley wants a sex change so he can live in a women's prison
which I think is pretty fucking scary.

I would like to think that most people would think that violent rapists and paedophile murderers shouldn't be given unfettered access to the women's estate, particularly when the women's prison system isn't set up for violence (because so few of the population is). Where is the outcry?

Transpeople and women should be working together to decry violence. We should stand united.

How about you provide some evidence for your assertion that men are using transactivism to promote misogyny.

 

[campanula]

it's saying "you can't be who you are, because we say so".

Ah right. Well this is the crux of it, isn't i? Any of us can say we are this or that...but we also require enough people to actually give this substantive reality...a consensus, I guess...and power is the fulcrum.

Does what you're talking about here actually count as organising, though?

Indeed...and there is always some ambiguity between public and private.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Transwomen weren't barred from the new cross meeting. There was a trans speaker.

This is true, I was sort of conflating the two issues.

As I understand it though the debate was about the Gender Recognition Act, featuring a number of speakers known to opine that transwomen cannot be considered women, and seemingly a number of trans activists did not want to validate the position of by appearing in a debate.

Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.
And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?

Again, I think in this specific instance it was about the discussion at hand.

I expect, though obviously can't say for sure, that any group dealing with a particular biological issue would be rather self-selecting, just like you wouldn't expect to see people not suffering from cancer at a cancer support group.

There's a difference between "you don't suffer from this condition" and "you don't belong here because we don't recognise you as a woman".

 

[Lord Camomile]

Ah right. Well this is the crux of it, isn't i? Any of us can say we are this or that...but we also require enough people to actually give this substantive reality...a consensus, I guess...and power is the fulcrum.

Well, indeed, and this is where we get waaaaaaaay beyond my very basic understanding of the issues at play.

 

[campanula]

Not entirely, no. You can invite whomever you like to your home. But beyond that, once you step into a hired room or hall, you're not in an entirely private space. 'No black people allowed', for instance, is not allowed, and nor should it be. There are limits. In this case, as a man, I think women-only meetings are entirely fair and reasonable if that's what a bunch of women want. And there we hit the problem - somebody somewhere needs to decide what a woman is, and there is dispute, clearly, over definitions here. There is more than dispute - there is open hostility.

I have worked in many women only spaces and organisations - Women's Aid, Women's Resources centre etc.etc. and still think that gendered spaces are legally permitted. There were, I recall, many, many bitter arguments about boys in refuges - age of exclusion and so on which were never solved to any sort of satisfactory conclusion (in my day) but always somewhat contingent on politcs rather than the actual needs of a family...but hey - these battles are not new, are they.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

And all the while the middle class have a fight in a car park over labels, poverty murders continue.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And all the while the middle class have a fight in a car park over labels, poverty murders continue.

Start a thread about it, and we will talk about that on there.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Start a thread about it, and we will talk about that on there.

I was putting it in perspective.

 

[The Flying Pig]

there's no misrepresentation here. you are defending the use of no-platform tactics against some cranky radfems. do i have to repeat this all night? these kind of opinions, now current on the left, are fucking appalling and utterly indefensible. maybe in 10 years time after the ID-pol idiots have more solidly discredited themselves and burned through their left support, you'll look back and feel ashamed of this kind of mad positioning.

Lets get one thing straight, these nutjobs have absolutely nothing to do with left wing politics and everything to do with maintaining the staus quo.

 

[The Flying Pig]

You're talking about trans rights activists here, yes?

I wonder if there were people saying the same thing back in the 70s about Stonewall and gay rights activists. And people talk about the lack of solidarity. That's the lack of solidarity right there.

Your viewpoint is just too weird for words You also appear to want to translate my comments into something i have not said. Therein lies your challenge, seeing the written word as it is rather than turning it upside down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your viewpoint is just too weird for words You also appear to want to translate my comments into something i have not said. Therein lies your challenge, seeing the written word as it is rather than turning it upside down.

That was a genuine question. You were talking about trans rights activists here, yes?

 

[Sea Star]

And all the while the middle class have a fight in a car park over labels, poverty murders continue.

who's middle class here? Sick of this. I grew up in a working class community and I have always done what i can to support the struggle. But I'm fucking trans. Didn;t choose to be and I now, suddenly, find myself at odds with the left for something I'm not in control of. So, what the fuck? Does being trans mean I'm no longer working class all of a sudden?

No-one dies quicker than a poor trans woman in a capitalist society. Let's fucking talk about that, eh?

 

[Sea Star]

Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.

Then you have that as your common thing not "women born women". I doubt any trans women would want to be there. I'm pretty sure also that cis women who don;t have that issue won't turn up either. You don't need to exclude trans women. Why would we even be there?

And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?

like you said - it's a about excluding those who you feel would oppress you. So - my question still remains to be answered. When do you feel that you need to exclude trans women because they are going to oppress you?

 

[redsquirrel]

And I am disgusted that some of you are condoning this bloke punching a woman in the face. It's fucking awful.

1) Flick Wood isn't a bloke
2) Who has condoned it?

Lol. You think gender reassignment treatment alters a person's genetic code. Too much!

Urgh. You piece of shit. Take your "science" and go fuck yourself.

 

[Jonti]

You seriously think that observation deserves your response. Seriously?

This debate wouldn't even be happening without science and scientific understanding, you silly muppet.

 

[redsquirrel]

I think you've shown yourself (once again) as a grade A cunt, like pretty much all the 'rationally based politics' crowd.

 

[Jonti]

Thank you for sharing. It's a pity you haven't posted to me the error of my ways before, instead of launching an intemperate attack.

The world is round, and DNA is not changed during gender reassignment treatments. These matters should not upset you, not at all.

 

[Jonti]

I think you've shown yourself (once again) as a grade A cunt, like pretty much all the 'rationally based politics' crowd.

On reflection, I think you should at least try to provide a few links to support your outburst. And this 'rationally based politics' crowd sounds interesting. Who are they, please?

 

[19force8]

I already did that. But if you're too dim or lazy

First of all, neither. There's a limit to the amount of vicious crap I'm going to wade through on holiday [or any other time]. I started at page 1, got to the bottom of page 2 and skipped to the penultimate page to see if it got any better. So pardon me for missing your pearls of bigotry.

Transpeople are murdered and assaulted by men. Men hate women and they hate transpeople. Women - even if some of them are 'TERFs' - aren't actually killing or hurting transpeople. Men are. But somehow it's easier to condemn women.

Roughly 10% of convicted murderers in the UK are women [ONS figures(Appendix Table 2.02 (1.59 Mb Excel sheet))], but also it's not just about the hand that wields the knife. If TERFs are contributing to an atmosphere of transphobia they are hurting transpeople.

Some violent misogynist men are saying they're trans:
Rapist moved to female jail after sex change

FFS this is not a man "saying" he is trans - GRA is not something you go through on a whim. It is entirely appropriate that she is transferred to a female facility.

The other issues about the lack of support for survivors, the vicious nature of this rapist, the fact that rapists are released without ever having had to address their behaviour, are all valid criticisms of the way rape is dealt with. They aren't valid criticism of transpeople in general.

Ian Huntley wants a sex change so he can live in a women's prison
which I think is pretty fucking scary.

It is, but to generalise from the behaviour of a paedophile murderer to "men using transactivism to promote misogyny" is beyond weak, it's mendacious.

I would like to think that most people would think that violent rapists and paedophile murderers shouldn't be given unfettered access to the women's estate, particularly when the women's prison system isn't set up for violence (because so few of the population is). Where is the outcry?

How do you know it's "unfettered access?" You are just assuming that as part of a TERF fantasy narrative of men having their dicks cut off so they can abuse women in their safe places.

Transpeople and women should be working together to decry violence. We should stand united.

Now if I was generous I might assume your use of "transpeople and women" was in recognition that there are transmen as well as transwomen. However, given the rest of the spiteful shit you've been posting I think you were just using it to emphasise your view that transwomen are men. In which case you can just fuck right off with your fucking hate speech you twisted turd.

 

[trashpony]

I was actually using it to mean ALL traspeople but you've stuck me in the bigot box. Silencing women.