Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[elbows]

A key tactic in this debate is to reframe disagreement as hate. What this does is to let the transactivist off the hook when it comes to providing evidence to defend their argument. It's just another way of suffocating debate.

Mind you despite my frequent hostility towards your stance and a lot of the things you say, I will sporadically search for any common ground.

So, I know we arent going to agree about pronouns so I wont go there again. But are there some examples of things said that do qualify as being hate-sponsored as far as your concerned? A specific example: Some people delight in using the old, dead names of people who have transitioned. I'm going to assume you dont agree with that being done, please correct me if Im wrong, and I would like to know whether its fair enough to think hate might come into things at that point?

 

[Vintage Paw]

Loving the direction of this thread today. Good job, everyone.

 

[kabbes]

Loving the direction of this thread today. Good job, everyone.

I assume this is sarcasm, as the thread descends into nothing more than tedious name-calling?

 

[Sea Star]

I assume this is sarcasm, as the thread descends into nothing more than tedious name-calling?

Descends? From that OP? Don't think so!!

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Loving the direction of this thread today. Good job, everyone.

I honestly though cope was being comradely when I appeared, hence erroneously in bants mode.

I assume this is sarcasm, as the thread descends into nothing more than tedious name-calling?

But we get cool discussions in between, like last night was nice. I think we can survive the name calling, most seem to have thick skins.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I thing the arguments have regularly burnt out themselves, like we had a tete a tete with Bimble yesterday but we still got some progress out of it, with Sea Star giving some personal thoughts and Bimble thinking about concepts a bit. Then some helpful scamp turns up and tries to police the whole thing "men r shuttin women down" usually the summing up. Leave us to it like, we can fucking handle it.

 

[smokedout]

This is such horseshit to make this point; literally no one on this thread who has been critical of what has become the standard trans agenda has got even near the idea of wanting to 'morally mandate transexuality out of existence'. It's such nonsense to make that what this debate has been about, it's utterly dishonest. The fact that some of those people exist is no different from the fact that there are utter crazies on the trans side and this doesn't utterly invalidate a trans perspective.

I didn't say on these boards, I said the trans critical movement. Venice Allen has called Jeffries her hero, and she is probably one of the key organisers of the current campaign. These are not marginalised crazies, they are organising meetings, meeting with MPs and journalists and trying, in their own way, to set the agenda - such as Allen's relentless onslaughts against Lily Madigan. And since you mentioned it there has been some pretty vile transphobia on this thread and those who are more trans critical have steadfastly refused to condemn it.

Under such conditions it would be stragetically suicidal for trans people to give an inch, especially because of the greater pressure from the conservative right. The trans critical side have shown they will not protect them from that, and neither will the social conservatives protect them from the likes of Allen and Jeffries. Capitulation and appeasement does not have a good history for groups under attack like this. You can choose to recognise that or not, but whilst trans critical feminists apologise for the likes of Jeffries and team up with the Murdoch press then they are forcing trans people to fight for their right to exist. To expect concessions, compromises or comradly debate under these circumstances is just naive.

How on earth is anything that gender-critical feminists saying about "putting kids back in their woman/man boxes"? It's literally the opposite of what they have been demanding for 40 years.

Isn't it just. And just when it looks like they might have an outside chance of getting it they attack the very generation facilitating that.

 

[pengaleng]

I thing the arguments have regularly burnt out themselves, like we had a tete a tete with Bimble yesterday but we still got some progress out of it, with Sea Star giving some personal thoughts and Bimble thinking about concepts a bit. Then some helpful scamp turns up and tries to police the whole thing "men r shuttin women down" usually the summing up. Leave us to it like, we can fucking handle it.

i liked that bit with bangle

OR BANTLE

 

[pengaleng]

PM isn't a bloke? Pengaleng isn't a bloke?

I'd accept that you made an honest mistake but when you try and justify it, you're just a liar.

what you saying?

 

[bimble]

i liked that bit with bangle

OR BANTLE

It was good last night, having a friendly fight with you lot made me feel loads better about drinking alone after my crap driving test. Ouch my head this morning though

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

It was good last night, having a friendly fight with you lot made me feel loads better about drinking alone after my crap driving test. Ouch my head this morning though

Good to know lassie

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Mind you despite my frequent hostility towards your stance and a lot of the things you say, I will sporadically search for any common ground.

So, I know we arent going to agree about pronouns so I wont go there again. But are there some examples of things said that do qualify as being hate-sponsored as far as your concerned? A specific example: Some people delight in using the old, dead names of people who have transitioned. I'm going to assume you dont agree with that being done, please correct me if Im wrong, and I would like to know whether its fair enough to think hate might come into things at that point?

Is this common ground with you as someone who is trans, who disagrees with my position on trans issues and considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical, or as someone who is not trans, who considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical? Just to be clear?

I think there is often more common ground than most people think, even between transactivists and radical feminists; there has been a shift in the last ten years where it is now de rigeur for transgender males to claim 'woman' and even 'female' for themselves, with no debate on this entertained. This is a huge problem, and I think does more to create inertia on both sides than any other.

One of the frustrating things about this thread is that the whole trans debate is painted in 'all or nothing', or 'black and white' terms, and disagreement is reframed as hate. This happens on both sides, as I stated earlier in this thread apropos of Lily Madigan.

Here are three topics this thread has contained and my stated (and often restated) position on them, explaining why I consider my position 'pro-trans':

• Self-ID: I oppose this as it weakens the protections that currently exist for transsexuals (replacing 'gender reassignment' with 'gender identity'). I can prove the former(!) but nobody can objectively prove the latter;
• 'Trans women' in female prisons: I don't think this is fair either on women or 'trans women', the latter have very specific needs and requirements and should have their own facilities where they are safe. As a side note, prisons are awful, it's the government's failure and something about these needs to be done across the board especially given the dreadful suicide rate. Also, to ensure people are cared for properly, we need proper statistics reported;
• The Dhejne long-term follow-up paper: the key point behind this which is almost always completely ignored is that the second group's outcome was better than the first group's outcome because the former group had a better somatic and psychological care protocol both before and after surgery. These protocols are not offered anywhere else, indeed in the UK mental health care is poorly funded, and I believe we should be campaigning for protocols that give a better outcome instead of engaging in a war of words over what the paper says. Also, we need proper statistics and unbiased research.

I'm interested on whether you believe these positions are pro- or anti-trans.

Regarding pronouns, as someone who has been out of the closet for almost three decades (although only a decade post transition) it bugs me when I get told online by someone who lives 29 days a month as Brian and a day a month as Brianna how bloody awful I am because I don't consider him to be a woman. This also extends to newly transitioned 'trans women' who seem to come out of the closet, hit Twitter and head straight for me to tell me what an awful human being I am because I don't think 'women' like them are 'real women'. I can totally understand why women get pissed off when transitioners tell them they're doing 'woman' wrong. I have made a political statement as to why I disavow the use of 'woman' for myself and other trans-identified males.

Personally, I don't believe in outing or doxing political enemies; we are all entitled to private lives and to enjoy safety and comfort. I also think it's a rather vindictive thing to do when based on an argument on the internet. HOWEVER I have no problem with women naming and identifying transgender male sex offenders/or convicted of violence against girls or women, who are 'identifying as women' and thus hiding their male identity. I make no apology for this, and would reaffirm my belief that men convicted of sexual or other violent acts should not be allowed to change their legal sex.

I do know pronouns and 'dead names' can be antagonistic. However, if these same people had been on the trans scene in say 1995, this was routine amongst ourselves (the joy of '90s banter). I remain concerned people are creating fragile and unstable identities for themselves, and it benefits us all to take a realistic approach of recognising we cannot control other people's minds. And I have no problem with pronouns or 'deadnaming' for myself. I have experienced first-hand homophobic abuse, one particular episode in 2009 took me weeks to overcome (the police treated is as a 'transphobic hate crime' but unfortunately didn't catch the culprits). As far as hate goes, pronouns, 'deadnaming' and pointing out I'm male/am a man come nowhere near this.

I hope this answers your questions, and thanks for the conciliatory post.

 

[pengaleng]

it wasnt fighting it was learning

 

[Pickman's model]

Is this common ground with you as someone who is trans, who disagrees with my position on trans issues and considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical, or as someone who is not trans, who considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical? Just to be clear?

I think there is often more common ground than most people think, even between transactivists and radical feminists; there has been a shift in the last ten years where it is now de rigeur for transgender males to claim 'woman' and even 'female' for themselves, with no debate on this entertained. This is a huge problem, and I think does more to create inertia on both sides than any other.

One of the frustrating things about this thread is that the whole trans debate is painted in 'all or nothing', or 'black and white' terms, and disagreement is reframed as hate. This happens on both sides, as I stated earlier in this thread apropos of Lily Madigan.

Here are three topics this thread has contained and my stated (and often restated) position on them, explaining why I consider my position 'pro-trans':

• Self-ID: I oppose this as it weakens the protections that currently exist for transsexuals (replacing 'gender reassignment' with 'gender identity'). I can prove the former(!) but nobody can objectively prove the latter;
• 'Trans women' in female prisons: I don't think this is fair either on women or 'trans women', the latter have very specific needs and requirements and should have their own facilities where they are safe. As a side note, prisons are awful, it's the government's failure and something about these needs to be done across the board especially given the dreadful suicide rate. Also, to ensure people are cared for properly, we need proper statistics reported;
• The Dhejne long-term follow-up paper: the key point behind this which is almost always completely ignored is that the second group's outcome was better than the first group's outcome because the former group had a better somatic and psychological care protocol both before and after surgery. These protocols are not offered anywhere else, indeed in the UK mental health care is poorly funded, and I believe we should be campaigning for protocols that give a better outcome instead of engaging in a war of words over what the paper says. Also, we need proper statistics and unbiased research.

I'm interested on whether you believe these positions are pro- or anti-trans.

Regarding pronouns, as someone who has been out of the closet for almost three decades (although only a decade post transition) it bugs me when I get told online by someone who lives 29 days a month as Brian and a day a month as Brianna how bloody awful I am because I don't consider him to be a woman. This also extends to newly transitioned 'trans women' who seem to come out of the closet, hit Twitter and head straight for me to tell me what an awful human being I am because I don't think 'women' like them are 'real women'. I can totally understand why women get pissed off when transitioners tell them they're doing 'woman' wrong. I have made a political statement as to why I disavow the use of 'woman' for myself and other trans-identified males.

Personally, I don't believe in outing or doxing political enemies; we are all entitled to private lives and to enjoy safety and comfort. I also think it's a rather vindictive thing to do when based on an argument on the internet. HOWEVER I have no problem with women naming and identifying transgender male sex offenders/or convicted of violence against girls or women, who are 'identifying as women' and thus hiding their male identity. I make no apology for this, and would reaffirm my belief that men convicted of sexual or other violent acts should not be allowed to change their legal sex.

I do know pronouns and 'dead names' can be antagonistic. However, if these same people had been on the trans scene in say 1995, this was routine amongst ourselves (the joy of '90s banter). I remain concerned people are creating fragile and unstable identities for themselves, and it benefits us all to take a realistic approach of recognising we cannot control other people's minds. And I have no problem with pronouns or 'deadnaming' for myself. I have experienced first-hand homophobic abuse, one particular episode in 2009 took me weeks to overcome (the police treated is as a 'transphobic hate crime' but unfortunately didn't catch the culprits). As far as hate goes, pronouns, 'deadnaming' and pointing out I'm male/am a man come nowhere near this.

I hope this answers your questions, and thanks for the conciliatory post.

You seemed very happy with the stats till it was pointed out they didn't say what you said they did

 

[Nigel Irritable]

A very articulate recent mumsnet post from a lesbian about all this;

Transactivism and the lesbian community | Mumsnet Discussion

This actually is a very useful insight, but probably not in the way you intend.

It makes it very clear that much anti-trans sentiment among a minority of older participants in lesbian scenes is mixed up with a deep resentment of the changing subcultural mores of younger lesbians and bisexual women. There’s a sort of tragedy in people like this responding to a growth in the numbers of younger women who are able to be open about their sexual attraction to other women primarily by feeling indignation that those younger women aren’t interested in replicating the communities and rules that some of their elders developed.

It’s an interesting example of the conservative, subcultural nostalgias that drive a lot of what claims to be a movement for radical social change.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's quite common to go through the twitter accounts of people occupying positions in public life - I see it a lot.

The idea that all of the thousands of Labour Party branch officers are “in public life” is laughable. Transphobes go through her tweets looking for ammunition because they are transphobes obsessed with bullying a young woman. Nobody does this to the thousands of other holders of internal Labour branch positions and you know it.

 

[co-op]

This actually is a very useful insight, but probably not in the way you intend.

It makes it very clear that much anti-trans sentiment among a minority of older participants in lesbian scenes is mixed up with a deep resentment of the changing subcultural mores of younger lesbians and bisexual women. There’s a sort of tragedy in people like this responding to a growth in the numbers of younger women who are able to be open about their sexual attraction to other women primarily by feeling indignation that those younger women aren’t interested in replicating the communities and rules that some of their elders developed.

It’s an interesting example of the conservative, subcultural nostalgias that drive a lot of what claims to be a movement for radical social change.

No, in fact I think there's some truth in what you say here (although "deep resentment" is surely overdoing it), the first time I've noticed you get off your high horse. I've mentioned my own generational take on this in other posts. But there are many young women who are saying similar things too; what's problematic is the demand for a total monopoly over what is and isn't transphobic by a massively vocal minority and the unconditional support for that line from the likes of you.

 

[co-op]

The idea that all of the thousands of Labour Party branch officers are “in public life” is laughable. Transphobes go through her tweets looking for ammunition because they are transphobes obsessed with bullying a young woman. Nobody does this to the thousands of other holders of internal Labour branch positions and you know it.

Seriously don't be silly; she's at the epicentre of a national debate, you think it's odd that her twitter feed is scrutinised? Daft take.

 

[co-op]

what you saying?

There are plenty of transpeople on the thread.

 

[pengaleng]

There are plenty of transpeople on the thread.

and what?

 

[co-op]

And that's a good thing right?

 

[trashpony]

This actually is a very useful insight, but probably not in the way you intend.

It makes it very clear that much anti-trans sentiment among a minority of older participants in lesbian scenes is mixed up with a deep resentment of the changing subcultural mores of younger lesbians and bisexual women. There’s a sort of tragedy in people like this responding to a growth in the numbers of younger women who are able to be open about their sexual attraction to other women primarily by feeling indignation that those younger women aren’t interested in replicating the communities and rules that some of their elders developed.

It’s an interesting example of the conservative, subcultural nostalgias that drive a lot of what claims to be a movement for radical social change.

Your enthusiasm for policing women's sexuality is really fucking creepy

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Seriously don't be silly; she's at the epicentre of a national debate, you think it's odd that her twitter feed is scrutinised? Daft take.

She’s “at the epicenter of a national debate” because TERFs fed her to their friends in the right wing media as a shock story. Then they use a prominence they themselves vindictively created to justify endless continuing monitoring and bullying.

 

[Shechemite]

She’s “at the epicenter of a national debate” because TERFs fed her to their friends in the right wing media as a shock story. Then they use a prominence they themselves vindictively created to justify endless continuing monitoring and bullying.

Give over. She’s an adult politician who has pulled a number of deliberately provacative stunts and is reaping the benefit of doing so.

Typical IDPol crybully crap - attack and then burst into tears when called on it.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Your enthusiasm for policing women's sexuality is really fucking creepy

It wasn’t me who posted up a piece where an older lesbian expresses her resentments about the changes younger women have made to a cherished subculture. And I expressed absolutely no views about her sexuality.

For those who don’t know, queer is now used as an all-encompassing term for anyone who doesn’t identify as a heterosexual “cis” person. However, it is also preferred by certain people over terms like lesbian, gay and bisexual because it does away with what are considered the rigid boundaries of ‘gender’ and sexuality e.g. lesbian and gay meaning being attracted to the same sex, bisexual as being attracted to ‘both’ sexes, when certain people reject these categories and the idea that there are two sexes.

Take, for example, Lily Madigan who is a biological male who has now come out as a lesbian and is dating a woman. Let’s presume for a moment that this woman (let’s call her Chloe) is a) a biological female b) and a passionate trans uber-ally. Chloe is a bio female who is dating a bio male with a penis who wears a pink hoodie and identifies as a woman. Say, before that, Chloe was dating a bio male with a penis who wears a blue hoodie and is, therefore, a man. Maybe in her next relationship, she will date a bio male with a penis who has purple hair and identifies as ‘genderqueer’. Therefore, Chloe can say that she dates men, women and genderqueer people, including both cisgender and trans people. Therefore, she is a queer or pansexual woman.

Along with the transbians, these ‘queer’ woman become involved in what was formerly the lesbian and bisexual women’s community. However, these trans uber-allies have a lot of views that are contrary to the interests particularly of lesbians. They believe that lesbians have ‘cis’ privilege and also that lesbians (along with gay men) are the most privileged people in the LGBT community. They believe that lesbians are narrow-minded and transphobic for only wanting to date other biological women and oppress transwomen who can’t break through the ‘cotton ceiling’ of their underwear.

I’m not even sure when this stuff started because, like most of us, due to the blurring of the meaning of words, I just didn’t see it happening. A lot of the main online websites, blogs and forums for lesbians started to change, with different women running them and, over time, a shift in the tone – lots about trans inclusion and more references to being ‘queer’ and open to relationships with anyone, about how some people (the lesbians) had privilege in our community and should prioritise these other people, less representation of butch women (despite the talk of blurring of gender boundaries/genderfluidity) etc.

It was only years later, someone who knew the women who had been running one of these websites was talking about who they were and who they were in relationships (bio females in relationships with bio males, basically) that the penny finally dropped with me that these were straight women appropriating our identity and lecturing at us and marginalising us in our own community.

This blurring of the language enables them to do it – but even in cases where you can see it for yourself (e.g. if you are looking at what is clearly a straight couple, who you know will be read by everyone they meet as a straight couple, even if the guy is wearing a bit of eyeliner), you couldn’t say anything as you couldn’t suggest that he wasn’t a woman (or genderqueer or whatever).

 

[trashpony]

It wasn’t me who posted up a piece where an older lesbian expresses her resentments about the changes younger women have made to a cherished subculture. And I expressed absolutely no views about her sexuality.

No I know that. But you read it and then you made a point of making a post about how younger lesbians are doing lesbianism The Nigel Way and how they should be congratulated. No lesbian gives a shit about your approval or otherwise.

 

[Sea Star]

The idea that all of the thousands of Labour Party branch officers are “in public life” is laughable. Transphobes go through her tweets looking for ammunition because they are transphobes obsessed with bullying a young woman. Nobody does this to the thousands of other holders of internal Labour branch positions and you know it.

It surprised me how suddenly, as a minor candidate, for a minor party in an unwinnable seat, in 2015, i became the centre of a TERF shit storm including demands that I be deselected, and many, many people telling me I was a misogynist man. It's obvious what happens - an organised pile on, using national media. I plunged into a deep depression at the time, had to go on medication, offered to resign as candidate but everyone told me I shouldn't, and I'm glad I didn't despite the toll it took on me. Imagine what I'd have experienced if I'd won! I think I was lucky compared to what trans women are having to deal with now though. I won't be standing for election again, as openly trans, any time soon.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

It wasn’t me who posted up a piece where an older lesbian expresses her resentments about the changes younger women have made to a cherished subculture. And I expressed absolutely no views about her sexuality.

Your contempt for lesbians and other women is quite something to behold.

 

[co-op]

She’s “at the epicenter of a national debate” because TERFs fed her to their friends in the right wing media as a shock story. Then they use a prominence they themselves vindictively created to justify endless continuing monitoring and bullying.

She's at the epicentre today because she's been in on the organising of a list of people she wants to get expelled from the Labour Party. Nearly all of them women naturally, because that's what a Women's Officer ought to be doing in your Brave New World.

 

[co-op]

Lesbianism The Nigel Way

Out shortly on Pluto Press.