Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[emanymton]

Short reply, out the door soon - but simply not from these competing ID focused groups who spend 24-7 on twitter and facebook winding each other up as far as they possibly can.

Sorry yes. I asked the question. When what I really should have done is just read your post again.

 

[Geri]

I guess I'm saying we currently have areas where the sexes are separated. Sport as I mentioned. Toilets and showers etc. Are these separations necesarry or not? Is there a reason for the separation beyond it being simply an arbitrary one?

I'm not proposing things, I'm trying to learn.

I went into a newish cafe yesterday and used the toilets for the first time. They were toilets that can be used by anyone - i.e. they were cubicles, with both male and female signs on the door, and each cubicle had inside it the things women need to put sanitary towels in, and sinks/hand dryers. Apart from the fact that they were a bit cramped I was very impressed with the way it had been thought out.

I don't see why showers/changing facilities can't be designed the same way, although I appreciate that in cases where a large number of people are needing to change then it may not be as easy. I've never in my life used a communal shower, as I don't feel comfortable being naked in front of anyone I don't know. I would rather not have to change in front of strangers either.

 

[Athos]

... some cis women (and actually it's many) do not accept trans women as 'real women' and they see them as men, fake and predators invading wimmins spaces. Let's be clear and honest about that.

Many women accept that trans women aren't faking it (i.e. that they believe themselves to be women), and don't believe that the reason trans women want access to women's spaces is to prey on women, but remain unconvinced that they are women (even if, in 99% of situations they're willing to treat them as such for reasons of compassion), and would like to discuss the question of what it means to be a woman. Conflating them with the bigots who go out of their way to persecute trans women is inaccurate (albeit made more likely by the fact that some bigots use such discussion as cover). More importantly, it's polarising, and a bar to any productive discussion. Personally, I no longer consider the philosophical debate sufficiently important me to justify the unintended consequences to specific trans people. But I can understand why some women might feel differently, without holding the dodgy views you describe.

 

[chilango]

I just feel the whole 'we did this to ourselves' idea doesn't really work - elsewhere we try to avoid the idea of systemic trends being down to individual morality, so we should probably avoid doing it when talking about our own shit.

Aye. I didn't mean it moralistically, more that it's not the result of some sort of conspiracy by the secret state to destabilise the Left.

 

[spanglechick]

I guess I'm saying we currently have areas where the sexes are separated. Sport as I mentioned. Toilets and showers etc. Are these separations necesarry or not? Is there a reason for the separation beyond it being simply an arbitrary one?

I'm not proposing things, I'm trying to learn.

There's no simple answer. We used to segregate hospital wards but no longer do in many cases. Other countries have less segregated facilities with no ill effect (especially Scandinavia iirc).

Prisons are a thorny issue, because a victim cannot escape their aggressor, and because the system is even worse at protecting them than it is outside... yet this is a problem between cis men in prison - and in this country, apparently a very serious issue of significant magnitude between cis women in women's prisons, sexual violence being used to enforce prisoner hierarchies.

Another thorny issue is women's refuges. Yet already these do not offer refuge to the mothers of sons above their individually determined cut off age.

Organising society along sex-binary lines is not a clear or unproblematic thing to do. The introduction of trans people to the equation, and of gender-non-conforming people complicates matters, but saying "fit in with the existing system, using your genitals OR genetics OR legal status OR self determination" (depending on the preferences of the speaker), doesn't solve the problem for anyone except the speaker.

Even for gender conforming cis people, our systems are like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. When we realise that our society isn't binary at all, we have something more asking to a great big spikey star-shaped peg and the same round hole.

The answer isn't, and has never been, "hit the peg harder" - because the people at the edges get broken that way. The answer is to change the shape of the hole.

 

[Borp]

There's no simple answer. We used to segregate hospital wards but no longer do in many cases. Other countries have less segregated facilities with no ill effect (especially Scandinavia iirc).

Prisons are a thorny issue, because a victim cannot escape their aggressor, and because the system is even worse at protecting them than it is outside... yet this is a problem between cis men in prison - and in this country, apparently a very serious issue of significant magnitude between cis women in women's prisons, sexual violence being used to enforce prisoner hierarchies.

Another thorny issue is women's refuges. Yet already these do not offer refuge to the mothers of sons above their individually determined cut off age.

Organising society along sex-binary lines is not a clear or unproblematic thing to do. The introduction of trans people to the equation, and of gender-non-conforming people complicates matters, but saying "fit in with the existing system, using your genitals OR genetics OR legal status OR self determination" (depending on the preferences of the speaker), doesn't solve the problem for anyone except the speaker.

Even for gender conforming cis people, our systems are like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. When we realise that our society isn't binary at all, we have something more asking to a great big spikey star-shaped peg and the same round hole.

The answer isn't, and has never been, "hit the peg harder" - because the people at the edges get broken that way. The answer is to change the shape of the hole.

Interesting.
I guess for sport other boundaries could be found like testosterone levels or something. It would be interesting to see a fully worked out system for that.

 

[belboid]

Interesting.
I guess for sport other boundaries could be found like testosterone levels or something. It would be interesting to see a fully worked out system for that.

Caster Semenya is the obvious starting point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Interesting.
I guess for sport other boundaries could be found like testosterone levels or something. It would be interesting to see a fully worked out system for that.

There are plenty of tricky questions that need addressing, and there's no reason to think there are easy answers to all of them. We grope our way forward. But the starting point to that groping for better systems has to be respect towards those who don't fit into current systems, and paying attention to what they say (which is not the same as saying you have to accept everything they say). In terms of this thread, there are groups such as the so-called terfs in the OP who clearly don't start from a position of respect, and have no interest in opening up dialogue. They start from a position of open hostility, a reactionary hostility as it is basically a defence of current systems with an added fuck you towards those who don't fit. The callous lack of compassion on display here is what gets me. The likes of Germaine Greer, for instance, who is openly scornful and hatefully dismissive of the very idea of trans women. I don't know whether or not she or those like her realise how they come across, as the natural political bedfellows of old-school conservatives like Mary Whitehouse but with the added vitriol and hate of a Kelvin Mackenzie.

 

[emanymton]

Many women accept that trans women aren't faking it (i.e. that they believe themselves to be women), and don't believe that the reason trans women want access to women's spaces is to prey on women, but remain unconvinced that they are women (even if, in 99% of situations they're willing to treat them as such for reasons of compassion), and would like to discuss the question of what it means to be a woman. Conflating them with the bigots who go out of their way to persecute trans women is inaccurate (albeit made more likely by the fact that some bigots use such discussion as cover). More importantly, it's polarising, and a bar to any productive discussion. Personally, I no longer consider the philosophical debate sufficiently important me to justify the unintended consequences to specific trans people. But I can understand why some women might feel differently, without holding the dodgy views you describe.

I'm increasingly thinking that the principal damage identity politics* is doing is to erode the idea of solidarity, and crucially that solidarity is very different from agreement. I don't have to agree with the way some trans people approach gender to be willing to support them as an oppressed group. I don't have to agree with the opinion some radical feminists have about trans people to be willing to support them against misogynistic abuse. The fact that the people on one side of this are called people on the other side fascists, in what appears to be a serious way, is quite shocking to me.

Another important aspect of solidarity that seems to be falling by the wayside, is that it doesn't have to be reciprocal. Support for one group should not be based on their willingness to support you in turn. To me these are the most principles of what it means to be 'left'.

*Or maybe it is the other way around. The weakening of the idea of solidarity, allows identity politics in it's current form to grow.

 

[Clair De Lune]

Many women accept that trans women aren't faking it (i.e. that they believe themselves to be women), and don't believe that the reason trans women want access to women's spaces is to prey on women, but remain unconvinced that they are women (even if, in 99% of situations they're willing to treat them as such for reasons of compassion), and would like to discuss the question of what it means to be a woman. Conflating them with the bigots who go out of their way to persecute trans women is inaccurate (albeit made more likely by the fact that some bigots use such discussion as cover). More importantly, it's polarising, and a bar to any productive discussion. Personally, I no longer consider the philosophical debate sufficiently important me to justify the unintended consequences to specific trans people. But I can understand why some women might feel differently, without holding the dodgy views you describe.

I'm not sure what you mean specifically when you say 'discuss the question of what it means to be a woman' that probably needs clarification. But if women want a space to talk about their lived experience of being assigned female at birth and how society has treated them due to that then they can right? Nobody is stopping them. What puzzles me is that they feel that discussion needs to be held away from trans women. Personal example- I have discussed this stuff with trans friends present, had my experience heard and acknowledged as different to theirs and different to other cis women's experiences also. I have then listened to their experiences of growing up, where they differed from mine and any overlaps we noticed. We've discussed what it feels like to lose (unwanted, misplaced and painful) male priviledge or gained it as trans men and how society changes the way they treat people as a result. We all have things to add to these discussions from our own unique viewpoints. It is interesting how trans men aren't excluded nearly as frequently from female only spaces as trans women. I think this is a good article https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/trans-inclusive-feminist-movement/

 

[Athos]

I'm not sure what you mean specifically when you say 'discuss the question of what it means to be a woman' that probably needs clarification. But if women want a space to talk about their lived experience of being assigned female at birth and how society has treated them due to that then they can right? Nobody is stopping them. What puzzles me is that they feel that discussion needs to be held away from trans women. Personal example- I have discussed this stuff with trans friends present, had my experience heard and acknowledged as different to theirs and different to other cis women's experiences also. I have then listened to their experiences of growing up, where they differed from mine and any overlaps we noticed. We've discussed what it feels like to lose (unwanted, misplaced and painful) male priviledge or gained it as trans men and how society changes the way they treat people as a result. We all have things to add to these discussions from our own unique viewpoints. It is interesting how trans men aren't excluded nearly as frequently from female only spaces as trans women. I think this is a good article https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/trans-inclusive-feminist-movement/

By "discuss what it means to be a woman" I was referring to women discussing what a woman is, and whether that includes trans women.

 

[Thora]

I'm not sure what you mean specifically when you say 'discuss the question of what it means to be a woman' that probably needs clarification. But if women want a space to talk about their lived experience of being assigned female at birth and how society has treated them due to that then they can right? Nobody is stopping them. What puzzles me is that they feel that discussion needs to be held away from trans women. Personal example- I have discussed this stuff with trans friends present, had my experience heard and acknowledged as different to theirs and different to other cis women's experiences also. I have then listened to their experiences of growing up, where they differed from mine and any overlaps we noticed. We've discussed what it feels like to lose (unwanted, misplaced and painful) male priviledge or gained it as trans men and how society changes the way they treat people as a result. We all have things to add to these discussions from our own unique viewpoints. It is interesting how trans men aren't excluded nearly as frequently from female only spaces as trans women. I think this is a good article https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/trans-inclusive-feminist-movement/

But weren't trans women welcome to attend this discussion, but chose to disrupt/attack it instead? I thought the whole issue here was that the trans activists did object to women having this discussion, hence giving them a smack in the face

 

[Clair De Lune]

By "discuss what it means to be a woman" I was referring to women discussing what a woman is, and whether that includes trans women.

Oh. Cis women meeting to decide if trans women are real. Gotcha.

 

[Athos]

Oh. Cis women meeting to decide if trans women are real. Gotcha.

No, that's misrepresenting what I said, with a gross caricature. The discussion need not necessarily exclude trans women. I'm sure lots of women who are currently undecided about where they stand would welcome hearing a range of perspectives. And the question wouldn't be whether trans women are real, but whether they are women. Do you agree that women ought to have the freedom to have this discussion?

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

People were meeting to discuss:

What is "gender"?
Is it simply "gender" which makes one a woman or man?
If "gender identity" is enough to make one a woman or a man or is there more to it?
Is gender identity" innate or not?
How do we define what words mean?
Can you can self identify as anything regardless of prior linguistic use?
Do nouns have to be collectively agreed upon to make communication coherent?
Are the terms male or female important statues?
Do adult and child males and females need words to describe themselves? What should those words be?
What are the political implications?
Do sex statuses need special protection regardless of what you think about gender?
If sex becomes an obsolete categorisation how do we identify homosexuals and protect them from homophobia?
If sex becomes an obsolete categorisation how to we fight misogyny (a word whose roots are "gynaecological system" ie female)?
How do we record statistics? Should the gender pay gap be based on gender or sex?
What about crime statistics?

I would expect these are important questions for everyone.

That is the discusson no one is willing to have to the point of shut down because no one seems to be willing to talk about the Glaringly Huge Elephant in the Room which is the sex status of trans people lest someone be called a terrible bigot.

 

[belboid]

But weren't trans women welcome to attend this discussion, but chose to disrupt/attack it instead? I thought the whole issue here was that the trans activists did object to women having this discussion, hence giving them a smack in the face

The objection was to women who hold a very specific, anti-trans, position pretending to be interested in a genuine debate. Would you expect gay people to debate with campaigners who said they were inherently scumbags? Why legitimise a reactionary position?

 

[belboid]

People were meeting to discuss:

What is "gender"?
Is it simply "gender" which makes one a woman or man?
If "gender identity" is enough to make one a woman or a man or is there more to it?
Is gender identity" innate or not?
How do we define what words mean?
Can you can self identify as anything regardless of prior linguistic use?
Do nouns have to be collectively agreed upon to make communication coherent?
Are the terms male or female important statues?
Do adult and child males and females need words to describe themselves?
What are the political implications?
Do sex statuses need special protection regardless of what you think about gender?
If sex becomes an obsolete categorisation how do we identify homosexuals and protect them from homophobia?
If sex becomes an obsolete categorisation how to we fight misogyny (a word whose roots are "gynaecological system" ie female)?
How do we record statistics? Should the gender pay gap be based on gender or sex?
What about crime statistics?

I would expect these are important questions for everyone.

That is the discusson no one is willing to have to the point of shut down because no one seems to be willing to talk about the Glaringly Huge Elephant in the Room which is the sex status of trans people lest someone be called a terrible bigot.

All perfectly valid questions. But, see above re debating with someone with a deeply reactionary position on the question.

 

[Clair De Lune]

But weren't trans women welcome to attend this discussion, but chose to disrupt/attack it instead? I thought the whole issue here was that the trans activists did object to women having this discussion, hence giving them a smack in the face

I wasnt speaking about that particular event in that post.

The event with only Terf speakers? I cant imagine why trans women might not wish to attend that or indeed may wish to protest it. It was never going to be a fair, inclusive and nuanced discussion with those speakers. Allan and Long both call trans women 'he' and believe they are not women.
I think it's unfair to say someone got smacked because they wanted a discussion. That clearly wasnt the case here. Even from the confusing video it's clear there was a bunch of people goading each other. And before anyone accuses me of supporting or excusing violence, let me make clear I have done no such thing. I support discussion and listening, not violence by anyone.

 

[Thora]

The objection was to women who hold a very specific, anti-trans, position pretending to be interested in a genuine debate. Would you expect gay people to debate with campaigners who said they were inherently scumbags? Why legitimise a reactionary position?

So they didn't want to attend the meeting, but they also wanted to stop women having the discussion at all and were prepared to use violence to achieve that.
I suppose the traditional solution to women with the wrong opinions is a good slap.

 

[belboid]

So they didn't want to attend the meeting, but they also wanted to stop women having the discussion at all and were prepared to use violence to achieve that.
I suppose the traditional solution to women with the wrong opinions is a good slap.

The slap has been condemned by pretty much everyone. The slapper was a fucking pillock. That doesn't suddenly turn a bigot into someone you should debate with though. The fact that some women would be attending with a genuine interest in the subject, and not realising the agenda behind it, is one reason why it should have been protested, but not 'no platformed' - giving the protestors the opportunity to say to the attendee's exactly why they were refusing to 'debate'

Is it okay to refuse to debate people sometimes?

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

I've been reading up about this. It was organised by a Labour Momentum member.

These kinds of debates will often chaor polar opposite views in an attempt to find middle ground where agreement can be reached.

Apparently, Stonewall had agreed to be at the meeting but pulled out after pressure. They couldn't find anyone else to replace them despite repeated requests.

I've watched debates between people who vociferously disagree. One I remember in particular was a Christopher Hitchebs/Stephen Fry debate vs two Catholics on "Whether the church is a force for good".

They smashed it. Won the debate despite the audience being heavily against them and pro church at the beginning. It was amazing.

I expect Stonewall would have been itching to win the debate too.

You win arguments by putting your points across and winning over the minds of people.

I'm guessing no minds have been won with this little escapade (on either side), but I also expect an awful lot of hearts have been lost.

 

[Sea Star]

Funny, because from this side it seems that everyone's allowed to discuss what makes a woman except, you know, actual women.

who's stopping you? I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

 

[belboid]

I've been reading up about this. It was organised by a Labour Momentum member.

These kinds of debates will often chaor polar opposite views in an attempt to find middle ground where agreement can be reached.

Apparently, Stonewall had agreed to be at the meeting but pulled out after pressure. They couldn't find anyone else to replace them despite repeated requests.

I've watched debates between people who vociferously disagree. One I remember in particular was a Christopher Hitchebs/Stephen Fry debate vs two Catholics on "Whether the church is a force for good".

They smashed it. Won the debate despite the audience being heavily against them and pro church at the beginning. It was amazing.

I expect Stonewall would have been itching to win the debate too.

You win arguments by putting your points across and winning over the minds of people.

I'm guessing no minds have been won with this little escapade (on either side), but I also expect an awful lot of hearts have been lost.

Stonewall weren't actually invited (apparently), that was a fib told by the organisers.

Did the churchy people in the above debate argue Fry & Hitchens didn't really exist?

 

[Thora]

The slap has been condemned by pretty much everyone. The slapper was a fucking pillock. That doesn't suddenly turn a bigot into someone you should debate with though. The fact that some women would be attending with a genuine interest in the subject, and not realising the agenda behind it, is one reason why it should have been protested, but not 'no platformed' - giving the protestors the opportunity to say to the attendee's exactly why they were refusing to 'debate'

Is it okay to refuse to debate people sometimes?

You particularly, and other posters, don't come across as condemning the violence at all - even just rereading the first page of this thread there's a lot of "violence isn't OK but" "she was provoking them" "what do you expect in public".

 

[Sea Star]

The slap has been condemned by pretty much everyone. The slapper was a fucking pillock. That doesn't suddenly turn a bigot into someone you should debate with though. The fact that some women would be attending with a genuine interest in the subject, and not realising the agenda behind it, is one reason why it should have been protested, but not 'no platformed' - giving the protestors the opportunity to say to the attendee's exactly why they were refusing to 'debate'

Is it okay to refuse to debate people sometimes?

OMG!! Yes. Of course. What a shoulder to have to burden. Trans people would be killed by exhaustion of having to 'debate' with overwhelming numbers of hostile people. For my health i have to close the input sometimes, as do we all.

If there was a right to debate and an obligation to debate, and indeed be debated, I'd pull TERFs in with my trans supportive cis feminist mates, a few trans women and we could get it all done and dusted in one go. Who's up for that?

 

[Sea Star]

Stonewall weren't actually invited (apparently), that was a fib told by the organisers.

Did the churchy people in the above debate argue Fry & Hitchens didn't really exist?

from the horses mouth - Bex Stinson told me ahead of the meeting that she'd never been involved or agreed to appear. I heard same form other trans women who were asked to appear. Miranda Yardley has form and none of trust her. She's a lying abuser.

eta - Bex was actually on holiday at the time of the meeting so how they thought they would get her there i have no idea. I'm pretty sure they never expected her to be there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That is the discusson no one is willing to have to the point of shut down because no one seems to be willing to talk about the Glaringly Huge Elephant in the Room which is the sex status of trans people lest someone be called a terrible bigot.

What is the sex status of trans people? I'm not talking just legal definitions here. I don't think it's a straightforward question, and I think this quite probably gets to the heart of a lot of the confusion here. You and others have spoken about your struggles with gender identity, but how ultimately that did not lead you to question your sex identity, ie your physical body. But surely trans people are in a state of unease with their sex identity. They feel it is wrong, that they have been born into the wrong body, to the extent that they desire medical intervention to align their physical bodies with how they feel they should be. This goes beyond gender and enters into questions of biological sex. That a trans woman is never going to be a reproductively female person, nor a trans male a reproductively male person, is a function of the limits to the interventions available to them, but there are plenty of women-born-women and men-born-men who also lack that ability. That doesn't seem a very good test.

Seeing the above problem of what a test might be, there is what seems to me to be a post-fact rationalisation of what is basically a bigotted viewpoint - namely that they haven't passed the woman-test of growing up as a woman. Would that then mean that a trans woman who was given medical intervention at puberty is allowed in? We're back to having a ludicrous debate about age cut-off points for admittance - and once you get to that point, I think you should consider that your thinking's gone wrong somewhere along the line.

 

[belboid]

You particularly, and other posters, don't come across as condemning the violence at all - even just rereading the first page of this thread there's a lot of "violence isn't OK but" "she was provoking them" "what do you expect in public".

The thread was started with a clearly reactionary agenda, slagging off 'the transgenders.' So, no, I wasn't exactly sympathetic to the OP and started from that point.

 

[Sea Star]

Because transwomen tend to make it all about them.

bullshit

 

[bemused]

And before anyone accuses me of supporting or excusing violence, let me make clear I have done no such thing. I support discussion and listening, not violence by anyone.

It would appear to be counterproductive to attend an event where women are claiming that transwomen threaten female ony spaces ... then beat a woman up.