Topic: Thread for Discussion on Trans Rights (*)

[Snail]

Well stop doing it then. Women are saying no because we face sexual harassment and violence on a daily basis. We want and need separate spaces. Your response to this is to say that there's no valid reason to deny pre-op transwomen, even though there's mounting evidence that they're committing crimes against girls and women, access to our spaces. You're not simply disagreeing with me, you're telling me that women don't get to set our boundaries.

Yet again I’m going to ask that you don’t speak for other women on the subject of sexual harassment and trans rights (not that the two things are related to each other as far as I’m concerned, but they are as far as you’re concerned). I’ve posted about my experiences/trauma several times on this thread and made it clear that at no time have I ever felt threatened by trans people so you need to stop saying “we”. Please don’t make me say it again.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

The only evidence that is ever provided is individual cases. Making law on individual cases is never a good idea.

Just to follow on from this - a list of Islamic terror attacks in the UK in the last 15 years

7/7/05 - 52 killed in the tube bombings
30/06/07 - Attack on Glasgow airport
14/05/10 - Stephen Timms MP stabbed by Islamic extremist
22/05/13 - Murder of Lee Rigby
22/03/17 - 4 killed in Westminster Bridge attack
22/05/17 - 22 killed in Manchester bombing
03/06/17 - 8 killed in London Bridge attack
29/11/19 - 2 killed in London Bridge stabbings

If we follow Bioluminescence's logic then the conclusion would be that we need to ban Muslims from 'white' spaces. I can't imagine many of us are down with that.

[Bioluminescence]

[quote author=Just Elmo? link=topic=345127.msg17372362#msg17372362 date=1600983853

The only evidence that is ever provided is individual cases. Making law on individual cases is never a good idea.


Just to follow on from this - a list of Islamic terror attacks in the UK in the last 15 years

7/7/05 - 52 killed in the tube bombings
30/06/07 - Attack on Glasgow airport
14/05/10 - Stephen Timms MP stabbed by Islamic extremist
22/05/13 - Murder of Lee Rigby
22/03/17 - 4 killed in Westminster Bridge attack
22/05/17 - 22 killed in Manchester bombing
03/06/17 - 8 killed in London Bridge attack
29/11/19 - 2 killed in London Bridge stabbings

If we follow Bioluminescence's logic then the conclusion would be that we need to ban Muslims from 'white' spaces. I can't imagine many of us are down with that.

Tell me, why do we have sex-segregated spaces in the first place? I mean, most men don't pose a threat to women, so what is the logic behind them? Do you know that women had to fight, and are still fighting in some part of the world, to get public toilets, for example, in order to participate in public life/go to school? That our concerns relate to bodily privacy in a world where we experience harassment on a daily basis? Where male violence against women and girls is described as a global health issue of epidemic proportions by the WHO?

I don't think your analogy is fair. Women face harassment, discrimination and violence on a daily basis. Terrorist attacks are rare.

Edit - I've been over my post history and I can't find a post where I say I'm going to name businesses that had to close down. It's not really something I'd say, so evidence would be nice. Throughout my posts I've stated that I think trans people deserve rights and protections, and I've made a distinction between trans people in general and trans activists in particular. But sure, I've been weaponising women's abuse and hounding trans people because I happen to think that biological sex matters politically *shrug*

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I'm going to address quite a few of the claims that JKR made in the next few days, because I think they deserve closer examination and misconceptions need to be addressed. What people object to is gender identity ideology (GII), not trans people. And it's not only women who raise concerns - it's medical professionals, parents, LBG people, many men and a fair number of trans people themselves. GII isn't really easily defined - it's more an assortment of beliefs that are generally unscientific and lack evidence. To give an idea it's a belief system that people such as Alex Drummond (photo below) are lesbians if they claim to be lesbians, and questioning it gets you labelled a TERF/transphobe.



Alex's case is interesting, because Alex is on Stonewall's Trans Advisory Group. Stonewall is a major so-called LGBT organisation and is pushing GII onto people and organisations, which highlights the fact that the concerns that are being raised are not simply fringe issues. A lot of these issues are about safeguarding and boundaries, not least with respect to childhood transition. There's a lot at stake here and there's a lot more nuance and agreement than online debates would have you believe. Conflicting rights need to be balanced, as in all cases where rights conflict. And different solutions are available to break the deadlock. But this means being able to discuss the subject without being labelled a hateful bigot for wanting to protect your rights and needs.

Here's the problem for me. There is a whole lot of what you are saying that makes complete sense to me. In particular the stuff about the need to be able to discuss GII (particularly in young children) without the extremists getting involved.

But for me that all gets undermined by other parts of your post. I know nothing whatsoever about Alex Drummond. He/She might be an utterly poisonous piece of work. But if you get down to the nuts and bolts of it your post it is saying 'look at him - he's got a beard - he can't be a woman' . For me that is transphobia - seeking to undermine somebody's identity by reference to their physical appearance. 

[Bioluminescence]

Here's the problem for me. There is a whole lot of what you are saying that makes complete sense to me. In particular the stuff about the need to be able to discuss GII (particularly in young children) without the extremists getting involved.

But for me that all gets undermined by other parts of your post. I know nothing whatsoever about Alex Drummond. He/She might be an utterly poisonous piece of work. But if you get down to the nuts and bolts of it your post it is saying 'look at him - he's got a beard - he can't be a woman' . For me that is transphobia - seeking to undermine somebody's identity by reference to their physical appearance. 

Ok, I’m a lesbian. A lesbian is a female homosexual. Alex isn’t a lesbian because Alex is male. It’s not appearance that’s the issue, it’s the denial of the material reality of sexed bodies that leads to this type of homophobia. Sexual orientation has got nothing to do with gender identity.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Apologies I'm no use at splitting quotes up so will reply bit by bit

Tell me, why do we have sex-segregated spaces in the first place? I mean, most men don't pose a threat to women, so what is the logic behind them? Do you know that women had to fight, and are still fighting in some part of the world, to get public toilets, for example, in order to participate in public life/go to school? That our concerns relate to bodily privacy in a world where we experience harassment on a daily basis? Where male violence against women and girls is described as a global health issue of epidemic proportions by the WHO?

I think this is the fundamental point of departure in this debate. I don't deny any of what you are saying. But for me there are two ways of looking at it.

The first is that males are biologically predisposed to oppress and harass females and that is why we see what you describe. From that point of view a trans-woman, whatever her identity, remains an inevitable threat to other females.

The other way of looking at it is that male on female 'violence' (whether explicit or implicit) is rooted not in biology but in patriachal/male-dominated society. If you take that view then a trans-woman is putting herself in the position of least 'power' - not only is she giving up the advantages that a male identity gives her but she also faces prejudice from both sexes that seek to deny her identification.

My personal view is based on what I know about sex-differences in psychology. If you have a large enough sample size then yes you will observe higher levels of spatial awareness/goal-driven behaviour/aggressiveness in males and you will see higher levels of empathy/socialisation skills/nurturing behaviours in females. But those differences only appear on very large samples. If you go down to the individual level and measure a male subject and a female subject on spatial awareness then it is pretty much a coin flip as to which will perform better. Given that trans women compromise maybe 0.75% of the total UK population I would say that there is an incredibly low probability that as a demographic they differ in any meaningful way from both the residual male population and perhaps more importantly in terms of what we are talking about the residual female population.   

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Ok, I’m a lesbian. A lesbian is a female homosexual. Alex isn’t a lesbian because Alex is male. It’s not appearance that’s the issue, it’s the denial of the material reality of sexed bodies that leads to this type of homophobia. Sexual orientation has got nothing to do with gender identity.

Current OED definition of Lesbian: A woman who engages in sexual activity with other women; a woman who is sexually or romantically attracted (esp. wholly or largely) to other women; a homosexual woman.

You can have your own definition of who you see as an appropriate sexual partner (this is another thing I agree with you on - it is not transphobic for a female lesbian to 'reject'  a transexual lesbian in sexual terms). But in terms of identity definition you are out of step.

[Bioluminescence]

Current OED definition of Lesbian: A woman who engages in sexual activity with other women; a woman who is sexually or romantically attracted (esp. wholly or largely) to other women; a homosexual woman.

You can have your own definition of who you see as an appropriate sexual partner (this is another thing I agree with you on - it is not transphobic for a female lesbian to 'reject'  a transexual lesbian in sexual terms). But in terms of identity definition you are out of step.

And this is what happens when words become meaningless and detached from material reality - homosexuality is now no different to heterosexuality. I don’t think you’re aware of what’s going on here. Trans activists have even invented a term to refer to lesbians who won’t date them - the cotton ceiling - and there’s a huge amount of coercion going on. We get a lot of abuse for saying no. I’m going to address this in a post. Gay men and lesbians are now setting up their own separate LGB groups because of the homophobia we experience within many LGBT groups.

[Corkboy]

Fair enough, I remember you saying you were going to post a list but I’ve just gone back through and I can’t find it, so you must have deleted it at some point.

This is not how it works.

I see the mask is fully off at this point.

And nor is this.

There's an asterisk on this topic, behave.

[Theoldkopite]

Some of the responses to Bios posts are bang out of order. Whatever one’s thoughts are about this subject at least discuss it civily.

[kellan]

Current OED definition of Lesbian: A woman who engages in sexual activity with other women; a woman who is sexually or romantically attracted (esp. wholly or largely) to other women; a homosexual woman.

You can have your own definition of who you see as an appropriate sexual partner (this is another thing I agree with you on - it is not transphobic for a female lesbian to 'reject'  a transexual lesbian in sexual terms). But in terms of identity definition you are out of step.

Yet the same OED defines 'woman' as adult human female and 'homosexual' as attraction to one's own sex which it defines as male/female. Therefore making the OED's definition of lesbian incompatible with transwomen - unless you either conflate sex and gender or subscribe to the idea that gender identity renders your sex the opposite one. Which was Bio's point. What are words anymore if all are redefined to mean the same thing or have definitions which conflict with what constitutes that definition. And what happens if those words are then put out into a society which is expected to function upon the understanding of them. A big fucking mess, is what you get. The whole subject of transgenderism (and the subject of sexuality too) is, by its own nature, inherently centred around personal and individual perspective in its definitions. But not in its applications or implications.

[WhoHe]

Rarely post in here but often read the thread, its dominated (as many threads on RAWK tend to be) by 100% correct obsessives, it then angrily goes around in circles before being forgotten about for a few months then something happens (usually involving JKR) and repeat, anger. loads of posts, quiet for monnths, JKR speaks ......

Its tedious and annoying but the people posting already know that, some of the posting styles are weird and this is from a user who has an official warning about my posting style.
I know this concept is difficult for some, but people are allowed a different opionion to you, it doesn't make them bad people that deserve abuse, as the user base of RAWK falls so seemingly does the tolerance for differing views.

[Jiminy Cricket]

There has to be some less binary ground on this issue?


There appears to be no middle ground.  Bigots or women who have genuine concerns seem to be the two default positions (not saying you are doing this by the way).Most of the women I hear discuss trans issues seem to have genuine concerns.

Whether these concerns are founded or unfounded is a different question, but they seem utterly genuine to me. To ignore genuine concerns seems unwise to me as it will not help trans issues to be adopted in to mainstream society.

Opening up discussion seems rather better than closing it down.

THIS.

The problem is that, for some, no nuance exists with this subject - no acceptance that differing rights may be in conflict - no acceptance that although concerns might be exaggerated, they are, never the less, genuinely held and based on some reality (even if it is not your reality).

My personal view is based on what I know about sex-differences in psychology. If you have a large enough sample size then yes you will observe higher levels of spatial awareness/goal-driven behaviour/aggressiveness in males and you will see higher levels of empathy/socialisation skills/nurturing behaviours in females. But those differences only appear on very large samples. If you go down to the individual level and measure a male subject and a female subject on spatial awareness then it is pretty much a coin flip as to which will perform better. Given that trans women compromise maybe 0.75% of the total UK population I would say that there is an incredibly low probability that as a demographic they differ in any meaningful way from both the residual male population and perhaps more importantly in terms of what we are talking about the residual female population.   

All that may be true (I think it is true), but it skirts the problem: most violence is committed by men; nearly all sexual violence is committed by men. So, the fear of a very sizeable chuck of women is based on undeniable reality. Some might argue that transwomen are by their very nature non-violent. But I am not aware of any good evidence to support this. And, even if this could be established, it would not fully resolve the issue because: 1) fear might still exist (even if unfounded); and 2) the potential ability (if passed into law) for any man to 'self-identify' as a woman and enter what are considered women-only spaces* will create fear for same/many women. These fears are real. They are - contrary to what some believe - not totally without foundation, and should not be dismissed.

* And even if the distinction might not always exist in law now, this is still the de facto understanding amongst the general population - an accepted norm.

For what it is worth, I'd prefer to see mixed-sex/gender toilets. But, it is not all about me (or you) - I can understand that others feel differently and for understandable reasons. And, there are spaces more problematic than toilets. I am fed up with people applying their singular perspective upon everyone else. There is no simple, good answer to this which will satisfy everyone. A workable solution necessitates compromise, and this seems in short supply.

And, again, some (or even much) of the commentary directed here towards Bioluminescence is completely out of order. If you do not agree with her (or me), argue your corner.

[Sheer Magnetism]

The problem is that, for some, no nuance exists with this subject - no acceptance that differing rights may be in conflict - no acceptance that although concerns might be exaggerated, they are, never the less, genuinely held and based on some reality (even if it is not your reality).All that may be true (I think it is true), but it skirts the problem: most violence is committed by men; nearly all sexual violence is committed by men. So, the fear of a very sizeable chuck of women is based on undeniable reality. Some might argue that transwomen are by their very nature non-violent. But I am not aware of any good evidence to support this. And, even if this could be established, it would not fully resolve the issue because: 1) fear might still exist (even if unfounded); and 2) the potential ability (if passed into law) for any man to 'self-identify' as a woman and enter what are considered women-only spaces* will create fear for same/many women. These fears are real. They are - contrary to what some believe - not totally without foundation, and should not be dismissed.

But the basic crux of the issue isn't whether women should have their own spaces - I think the vast majority on here agree they do - but how you define 'women'. Obviously, when BL talks about women-only spaces she means places that exclude trans women, though for many women and feminists that isn't what they mean at all. Similarly, are men responsible for most violent crime or are people with penises? And is there a quantifiable difference? It seems to me that's the focal point, and anything else is just dancing around it.

Essentially, I don't think anything anyone else says on here is going to make BL comfortable with, for instance, sharing a changing room with a trans woman, and that probably goes for lots of women (though I have no idea just how widespread 'lots' is in this case). But if you're a trans woman you'll obviously feel horrifically offended and even victimised if your gender is being invalidated. The questions are a) whose feelings take precedence, b) are there ways to get around it that would give space to everyone, and c) how valid do we believe biology is when we determine gender? I feel like it should be possible to discuss at least the last couple of points in ways that avoid name calling or implying people are condoning abuse.

[Jiminy Cricket]

But the basic crux of the issue isn't whether women should have their own spaces - I think the vast majority on here agree they do - but how you define 'women'. Obviously, when BL talks about women-only spaces she means places that exclude trans women, though for many women and feminists that isn't what they mean at all. Similarly, are men responsible for most violent crime or are people with penises? And is there a quantifiable difference? It seems to me that's the focal point, and anything else is just dancing around it.

Essentially, I don't think anything anyone else says on here is going to make BL comfortable with, for instance, sharing a changing room with a trans woman, and that probably goes for lots of women (though I have no idea just how widespread 'lots' is in this case). But if you're a trans woman you'll obviously feel horrifically offended and even victimised if your gender is being invalidated. The questions are a) whose feelings take precedence, b) are there ways to get around it that would give space to everyone, and c) how valid do we believe biology is when we determine gender? I feel like it should be possible to discuss at least the last couple of points in ways that avoid name calling or implying people are condoning abuse.

I think you've summed up the problem well there. It is not so much the differing views, it is that, for some, there can be no discussion, no compromise. Of course, this is a problem with wider society in general these days, but the black-and-white 'discussion' around transgenderism is a prime exemplar. It is a type of intolerance. And it is fucking up everything.

[Bioluminescence]

But the basic crux of the issue isn't whether women should have their own spaces - I think the vast majority on here agree they do - but how you define 'women'. Obviously, when BL talks about women-only spaces she means places that exclude trans women, though for many women and feminists that isn't what they mean at all. Similarly, are men responsible for most violent crime or are people with penises? And is there a quantifiable difference? It seems to me that's the focal point, and anything else is just dancing around it.

Essentially, I don't think anything anyone else says on here is going to make BL comfortable with, for instance, sharing a changing room with a trans woman, and that probably goes for lots of women (though I have no idea just how widespread 'lots' is in this case). But if you're a trans woman you'll obviously feel horrifically offended and even victimised if your gender is being invalidated. The questions are a) whose feelings take precedence, b) are there ways to get around it that would give space to everyone, and c) how valid do we believe biology is when we determine gender? I feel like it should be possible to discuss at least the last couple of points in ways that avoid name calling or implying people are condoning abuse.

I'll reply to this properly in the next few days hopefully, but I just wanted to ask you if you include those who have no undergone no medical transition in your case? Because the transgender umbrella now if very wide, and includes cross-dressers for example. This is the concern for women - the issue of self-ID where anyone can declare themselves a woman. Many of us, though not all, would agree to sharing certain spaces with transwomen who have had what we call bottom surgery. Not the case with those who are unambiguously male.