Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

:eek:

I thought that sort of shit had stopped (sending trans people to prison according to gender assigned at birth)

Or does it depend just what stage of transition someone's at?
 
Really chilling, that is. The dangers facing transgender people come from the state as much as anyone. Would love to know what Greer would say about this case. 'Just cos he's cut off his dick...'
 
The Metro version of the story as linked says "because passport".

Ah.

I *think* you can at least now request a new birth certificate / passport (if so, it's only been allowed for the last 10 years or so) but no idea quite where in the process you have to be to do this.

When I was a bit more involved in LGBTetc stuff (early 90s) I'm pretty sure that as far as the law was concerned you were legally the gender you'd been assigned at birth no matter what.

Which did of course mean that a few same-sex couples could legally marry...
 
Ah.

I *think* you can at least now request a new birth certificate / passport (if so, it's only been allowed for the last 10 years or so) but no idea quite where in the process you have to be to do this.

When I was a bit more involved in LGBTetc stuff (early 90s) I'm pretty sure that as far as the law was concerned you were legally the gender you'd been assigned at birth no matter what.

Which did of course mean that a few same-sex couples could legally marry...
Back in the day (late 1960s-1970s: once the gender clinic at Charing Cross had opened in 1968 and transsexualism was officially recognized), you could get a one-year passport with a letter from your doctor. This was renewable on a yearly basis until you had your operation then you could apply for a normal 10 year passport.

From 2004/5 they introduced the 'certificate' procedure and now you have to have the certificate before you get a passport.
 
It wasn't that I thought you were being inconsistent (not read enough of your posts to know) it's just that the way you put it - I can't decide between oozed and dripped - droozed patriarchy.

How so? The idea I put forward, or the way I did it? Genuine question; will help me know for next time.
 
to add to the discussion in the laws....

the change in the law t allow paperwork t be changed in 2004 removed any requirement for surgery. the key factors are a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and evidence of living as the 'chosen' gender for 2 years and no intent to 'change back'. and if someone wants to rewrite that in not-clumsy, please correct me.

particularly important for transmen, who are less likely to take genital surgical options because the surgery offered to them is less likely to produce a result that they consider satisfactory.

the downside of this seems to be that it's difficult to get the paperwork for some people and without it, there is not the flexibility that existed pre-2004.
 
Athos, I can't speak for others but hazard a guess that this:
I have chosen to embrace a definition of 'woman' that includes trans women. That choice is based more on compassion than on logic or science.
is what gets people's backs up before they read this:
Whilst I understand the views of some women who would exclude trans women, not only am I unconvinced by them, but, also I see little point in arguing about the definition whilst trans women are being killed, abused, driven to suicide etc. In my opinion, it would be good if this issue stopped taking up such a disproportionate amount of contemporary feminist discourse - better surely to focus on DV, wage differentials, etc., etc. And better to put to bed an issue that's bringing out the worst on both sides, and so is very divisive. I hope that a movement towards a more inclusive feminism can be bought about be a calmer conversation, which fosters empathy on both sides.
Plus your view of what contemporary feminist discourse should concentrate on may not be welcomed by contemporary feminists of any stripe. They are quite capable of discerning that for themselves. BTW, last I heard you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist.

Your choice of definition may be well intentioned but it sounds patronising because you (honestly) include your reservations. To express any reservations here makes it sound as if you're tolerating rather than openly accepting. Reservations almost cancel out acceptance. But you make an excellent point about what's important here: the health and safety of trans women is paramount.

There will be others sharper than me who will have much less forgiving remarks.
 
Lisa posted a link to this on her twitter:
Comment: The attack on Germaine Greer shows identity politics has become a cult

Just to ramp things up a bit more :eek: :D :hmm:
Thanks for this article, it's been really helpful in clarifying for me the way "terf" and accusations of transphobia are being used to silence women who don't share the 'right' view of gender. This in particular: "
There are people who believe that trans women are women, and there are transphobic bigots who "deny trans people's right to exist". No intermediate position is possible"
When even transwomen are abused and told to kill themselves for committing thoughtcrime then it seems it is more about maintaining ideological purity than anything else.
 
No one has asked Germaine Greer whether she'd be in favour of sending Tara to a male prison.

It's a bit different from lecturing at a Cambridge women's college. I reckon she'd take the Athos option. Not sure what I am saying here except that there may be lots of people feeling their way to a less doctrinaire position.
 
I think it comes down to the judge. Whose obviously wrong in this case.

How did they even find out she was trans? If she had committed some horrendous crime I could see someone wanting to make her life as miserable as possible ,but, she didn't so it just looks like stupidity.

I'd have thought it's down to the home office / prison service (or whatever it's called this week) - don't think judges / magistrates have the power to say 'I'm sending you to this particular clink' or would have the power specifically to sentence someone to the 'wrong' sort of prison.

defence solicitor / counsel might well have pointed out in mitigation what the consequences of a custodial sentence would be in this case and the beak may have chosen to ignore that

maybe the lesson here is that trans people should make sure they have their 'official' paperwork up to date in case they get sent down :(
 
Thanks for this article, it's been really helpful in clarifying for me the way "terf" and accusations of transphobia are being used to silence women who don't share the 'right' view of gender. This in particular: "
There are people who believe that trans women are women, and there are transphobic bigots who "deny trans people's right to exist". No intermediate position is possible"
When even transwomen are abused and told to kill themselves for committing thoughtcrime then it seems it is more about maintaining ideological purity than anything else.
Tbh that article just highlights for me how disingenuous Greer is being. 'It's just an opinion' says probably the single most famous feminist in the UK (bet if you asked in the street for people to name a feminist, her name would be the clear winner). No it's not just an opinion - it's a position that she is using her status to put into the public domain, and she is doing so in a deliberately crass way that simply ignores whole aspects of questions of identity, in particular the psychological aspect.
 
How did they even find out she was trans? If she had committed some horrendous crime I could see someone wanting to make her life as miserable as possible ,but, she didn't so it just looks like stupidity.

Because the investigating officers will have looked at her details.
 
Back
Top Bottom