# Why do some feminists hate transgender people?



## D'wards (Oct 24, 2015)

Germaine Greer states that a man can never be a woman, despite having the full procedure. And is pretty pissed off that Caitlin Jenner might get the award for Woman of the Year by Glamour magazine. Another Guardian feminist writer, who's name escapes me, is famous for hating trangender women too.

I personally feel if someone says they were born with the wrong gender, then their gender is what they say it is, and that's that. Even more so if they are prepared to go through an operation and pretty horrific procedure to correct this

Oddly the Daily Mail and Guardian comments section are in synchronicity on this issue.

Caitlyn Jenner 'wanted limelight of female Kardashians' – Germaine Greer

Germaine Greer says Caitlyn Jenner went trans to enjoy the limelight


----------



## weltweit (Oct 24, 2015)

I don't think Greer hates transgender people, isn't it possible she just doesn't think they are women, but does not hate them?


----------



## Sirena (Oct 24, 2015)

Germaine Greer has flip-flopped a bit on this subject.  Originally she followed the American feminists and found the whole thing objectionable.

Then about 10 years ago she had a change of heart and became quite mellow on the subject.

Now it seems she has changed again.

I suspect the reference to limelight is more about psychological projection than anything.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 24, 2015)

I'm pissed off Caitlyn Jenner might get woman of the year because she's a republican cretin. Still, it's Glamour mag, so it's hardly a Nobel.

Greer's got form for this.

Who the fuck would 'decide' to 'become' transgender just for a bit of publicity? Fucking hell. Disgusting bullshit.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I don't think Greer hates transgender people, isn't it possible she just doesn't think they are women, but does not hate them?


I'm using hate in the way you might say Dapper Laughs hates women. Its obviously more nuanced than that, but its a helpful shortcut


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 24, 2015)

It's obviously a complex subject, but I think to some extent it's that allowing trans women into the feminist club would mean having to re-evaluate and reformulate a few long-held beliefs and principles, and that can be quite an uncomfortable process. So they'd rather not bother, and they'd rather keep the club all to themselves, regardless of who it hurts (including themselves) in the long run.

I expect these same people would find no problem reading something like _Ain't I A Woman?_ and yet wouldn't be able to transfer the same broad logic to the issue of a trans woman's place in feminist and other struggles.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 24, 2015)

I watched Greer on Question Time this week and her views on China and human rights surprised me a bit. She basically said cut them some slack because they had massive famine with starvation and who are we to talk we used to supply them opium. It wasn't so much the view that surprised me, because I have sympathy with it, more that she seemed to have given the Chinese a get out on human rights which I didn't expect her specifically to do.


----------



## a_chap (Oct 24, 2015)

Not being a woman, I'm not sure I have the right to an opnion on this subject.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 25, 2015)

It's a difficult subject.  A man does not become a woman simply by saying so.  

There is a long period of transition and, while that is happening, he/she can be still very 'blokey'.

But all it requires is a bit of give and take on both sides


----------



## Humberto (Oct 25, 2015)

Sirena said:


> It's a difficult subject.  A man does not become a woman simply by saying so.
> 
> There is a long period of transition and, while that is happening, he/she can be still very 'blokey'.
> 
> But all it requires is a bit of give and take on both sides



blokey?


----------



## Sirena (Oct 25, 2015)

Humberto said:


> blokey?


blokey


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

_






I'll get you judith butler_


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2015)

I believe walking in high heels is the first skill m-f transexuals are required to learn in their quest to become a woman. If they fail at that hurdle, there's no chance of them ever being 'accepted'.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

Sirena said:


> blokey


Nasty post this btw.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nasty post this btw.


Not really. They were quoting someone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Not really. They were quoting someone else.


Try again, sniffer.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 25, 2015)

...because patriarchy is built on the fact that people with female bodies supply future labour and it is in the interests of those who do not gestate to control those who do.  

Part of that way of controlling gestators is through gender - the sex role that female bodied people are expected to perform.
Some feminists believe that non-gestators can never have the same gender as a gestator because gender (ie being a man or being a woman) is a necessary consequence of their biology in a patriarchial society and is inescapable except through the abolition of gender as a concept.

Transgender people are not accepted by some feminists as being the gender role that they adopt by choice as (they argue), gender is not something which is chosen but imposed as a consequence of sex.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 25, 2015)

Sniffer? That sounds vaguely insulting. What do you mean by the word sniffer?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

The culture wars truly have arrived


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

Well, as long as we can all sit around and decide what trans people are for them, it's all good, eh?


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, as long as we can all sit around and decide what trans people are for them, it's all good, eh?


Cisplaining.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 25, 2015)

a_chap said:


> Not being a woman, I'm not sure I have the right to an opnion on this subject.


Does the same set or kind of issue(s) exist with ftm trans people? Wouldn't that give basis for a man to have an opinion, ie if you think ftm trans people are men then it follows that you'd think mtf trans people are women if you were a woman?


Sirena said:


> blokey


Are any cis women ever "blokey"?


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nasty post this btw.


Aye, on a spectrum of full on barbie to rambo I wonder where "blokey" sits etc


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Who the fuck would 'decide' to 'become' transgender just for a bit of publicity? Fucking hell. Disgusting bullshit.



I know. A member of the Kardashian clan craving more publicity. What a mad idea.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Sirena said:


> It's a difficult subject.



No its not. 

Greer and other prominent feminists who take a similar position on this have a vested interest in policing the boundaries of acceptable woman-ness, and in defining what consistitutes acceptable gender identity politics.  Admitting the reality that those boundaries are porous and not fixed would undermine their own authority.

I've heard her attempt to excuse her position by arguing that even individual women aren't able to define what makes a woman, so how can a man do so 'simply' by undergoing a medical procedure? The inherent contradiction there (as she is an individual woman doing what she says others can't) undermines any attempt to dignify this as some kind of principled personal stance that she has a right to. Declaiming people as 'not women' because they don't (to her) 'look, sound or behave like women' makes her sound arrogant, ignorant and deeply hypocritical.

I once had a lot of respect for Greer, but this massively diminishes her. What gives her the right to define what gender identity anyone else is allowed to have?


----------



## treefrog (Oct 25, 2015)

Given how appalling society's treatment of trans folks is, the idea that someone would subject themselves to threats, ridicule, violence and worse to get "attention" is fucking despicable. 

These dusty old "feminists" who hide their shitty prejudices behind weaselly BS while trans women are raped in mens' prisons, murdered at a rate far higher than almost any other section of society and are far more likely to be homeless and unemployed because transphobia is so ingrained deserve no platform. Any feminism that comes with an exclusionary definition of what a woman is is trash.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Still amused at the essentialist arguments like this:


> ...saying they do not “look like, sound like or behave like women”.



I mean, really?!

Y'know, I used to have a lot of respect for Greer years ago, even the way she discussed trans issues in the passage she wrote in Female Eunuch. Then by the time she wrote the chapter about trans women (almost always about trans women, not trans men) in The Whole Woman, she really seemed to be losing her own arguments. Then there was the ridiculous outing of Dr Padman.

Taking that chapter title from the Whole Woman, it's like she's become a _Pantomime Dame_ now. Every time I see her she seems to lack any really decent analysis on either trans or other issues, and has succumb to tired, cynical, and lazy cliché stuff for whomever will pay her some cash to pop up on a telly programme, or the occasional regurgitating of 40 year old arguments in a newspaper piece.

Frankly, Bindel has done trans critical radical/separatist feminism better than Greer for decades now, even though I disagree hugely with her.

Anyway, meh. Have posted a length over the years about all this and not sure if I can motivate myself enough this morning to write much. On the 'blokey' comment, I've written about this stuff before and its problematic because it tends to be framed in regards to a trans woman who does not live up to hyper-femininity or stereotyped 'female' things as being criticised as being 'blokey' (trans woman = really a man, not trying hard enough to pass). And of course, when a trans woman does express any  outward femininity, they are attacked for that too as reinforcing stereotyped gender roles. Can't fucking win really.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm pissed off Caitlyn Jenner might get woman of the year because she's a republican cretin. Still, it's Glamour mag, so it's hardly a Nobel.



Also to say, this this this!

My issue with Jenner is that she doesn't particularly represent any trans people's live/experiences I know, and that she's republican. But, as you say, this is an award from a sleb gossip/fashion mag. That would be a more interesting critique from Greer - about trans women also having their 'value' and 'identity' as women reduced merely to their celebrity status, how they look, etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2015)

The aspects I wanted to comment on was the free speech angle. I've seen it said that Greer may be wrong (I'd concur) but can say what she likes (I'd concur again) and therefore the petition to disinvite her from speaking at Cardyff University is an assault on freedom of speech (I'd disagree).

The idea that Greer has been prevented from airing her views is laughable: she has access to far more broadcast media than most, and her views on this issue have been widely distributed.  I have seen the Kirsty Wark interview, and both the BBC and Guardian websites have given the interview prominence. 


Brief word on her stance:

Her current stance seems to be the Life of Brian compromise.

"Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have _the right_ to have babies."

So while she doesn't think transgender women are actually women, she'll address them as such out of "courtesy".


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Oh, and permit me one more post - no one is fucking 'born a woman', Greer 

They're born a baby.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Oh, and permit me one more post - no one is fucking 'born a woman', Greer
> 
> They're born a baby.





I do think that women's oppression has largely been sex based and to do with their role as mothers etc. My dad once said the only way to make men and women equal was to make it possible for men to have children.

I think that the proportion of trans people is so tiny they dont threaten the cause of that side of feminism in any way and a certain group of radical feminists dont do themselves any favours by talking about it in almost Jewish conspiracy like terms. For example I have read the book transsexual empire and while there are some valid points about the medicalisation and social construction of gender in it at the beginning she goes off on one about how the 'end game" of all this is a conspiracy by men to get rid of women and have only men with wombs.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

That book does really does go down a conspiracy-like angle of it being the ultimate domination of women by the menz.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> That book does really does go down a conspiracy-like angle of it being the ultimate domination of women by the menz.



Yeah it's very OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!! type stuff


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 25, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> The idea that Greer has been prevented from airing her views is laughable: she has access to far more broadcast media than most, and her views on this issue have been widely distributed.



This is an important point to remember whenever these kinds of situations come up. Even the act of trying to stop someone from having a platform at a certain place or event generally gets that person, and by extension their views, more attention anyway.

It's not about preventing someone from saying something, it's preventing them from saying it under your roof. It's people making a statement of their own, and often it will be people who generally have fewer opportunities to be heard than the person they're trying to ban iyswim.

You have the right to speak, you don't have a right to be listened to.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

I do think theres a point about the medicalisation of childhood and young kids being prescribed hormones and labelled trans when they're not but this is far more of an issue in the US rather than the UK where anything transgender related (or anything else) is being totally butchered by the government. Plus theres the issue of doctors prescribing drugs rather than offering therapies or surgery because its cheaper. But its like that with everything rather than just transgender people. The restrictive gender role thing and the idea that people who act like the opposite sex are assumed to be that sex is an interesting point but again this is not a reason to hate transgender people and surely wider social trends are a far bigger cause of this. 

I had a big argument the other day with a radical feminist about all this as she seemed to be suggesting some sort of 'jewish lobby' type situation and when challenged even came out with 'but some of my best friends are trans' bullshit. One day I want to write a Marxist critique of radical feminism but id have enough material for a whole book. The entire feminist movement (whatever wing of it) seems to have become coopted by rich women (cis or trans) and despite radical feminists saying that the transgender issue overshadows other stuff such as the pay gap and abortion etc etc by banging on about a stupid conspiracy theory it doesnt actually do anything to address anything to do with the majority of women and actually helps to make life worse for everyone.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 25, 2015)

Yeah they'll medicate kids for anything in the US. If you shook that place, it would rattle


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Also to say, this this this!
> 
> My issue with Jenner is that she doesn't particularly represent any trans people's live/experiences I know, and that she's republican. But, as you say, this is an award from a sleb gossip/fashion mag. That would be a more interesting critique from Greer - about trans women also having their 'value' and 'identity' as women reduced merely to their celebrity status, how they look, etc.



yep.

that the membrs of a group who have the most privilage are held up as spokespeople and representatives of that group.

Jenner has access to a quality of treatment, family support and a position that protects her from the worst abuses that transwomen face. She's not likely to end up poor, ostracised and being beaten/murdered for being a transwomen. 

but she;s being held up as a representatiuve of women and specifically of transwomen by people who want to prove they are accepting, without having to actually gain a fucking clue


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I do think theres a point about the medicalisation of childhood and young kids being prescribed hormones and labelled trans when they're not but this is far more of an issue in the US rather than the UK where anything transgender related (or anything else) is being totally butchered by the government.



Well, in the capitalist US of A, trans stuff is big business - all good providing you're middle class and got medical insurance, of course. If you're poor and trans in the States, you're more likely to end up a casualty.



frogwoman said:


> I had a big argument the other day with a radical feminist about all this as she seemed to be suggesting some sort of 'jewish lobby' type situation and when challenged even came out with 'but some of my best friends are trans' bullshit. One day I want to write a Marxist critique of radical feminism but id have enough material for a whole book. The entire feminist movement (whatever wing of it) seems to have become coopted by rich women (cis or trans) and despite radical feminists saying that the transgender issue overshadows other stuff such as the pay gap and abortion etc etc by banging on about a stupid conspiracy theory it doesnt actually do anything to address anything to do with the majority of women and actually helps to make life worse for everyone.



You know, rad feminism does have some good critiques when it comes to deconstructing gender, the pathologising of children for showing any kind of 'deviance' from gendered behaviour, medicalization and surgeries, etc. It's just that I've found in my experience that there's invariably a fundamental lack of Marxist analysis at the heart of rad feminism, which is why the trans issue has become such an obsessive one for them, rather than many other very important issues facing women - and which needs capitalism/class to be addressed more critically.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Well, in the capitalist US of A, trans stuff is big business - all good providing you're middle class and got medical insurance, of course. If you're poor and trans in the States, you're more likely to end up a casualty.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, rad feminism does have some good critiques when it comes to deconstructing gender, the pathologising of children for showing any kind of 'deviance' from gendered behaviour, medicalization and surgeries, etc. It's just that I've found in my experience that there's invariably a fundamental lack of Marxist analysis at the heart of rad feminism, which is why the trans issue has become such an obsessive one for them, rather than many other very important issues facing women - and which needs capitalism/class to be addressed more critically.



I 100% agree. 

And yes in america you end up getting stuff like trans people economically coerced into sex work or other dangerous, low paid jobs in order to pay for hormones / surgery etc. 

A friend of mine who is trans said that because of the waiting times for drugs etc on the nhs she ends up having to buy most of it on the internet. Bit of a different situation than the conspiracy theories dreamt up by raymond etc. 

I entirely agree thats what happens when you have no marxist analysis. 

The thing is that even if you could eliminate gender roles completely some people would still change their gender. It might be massively reduced from now (or might be increased) but its not the sort of thing you can stop, people are always going to do it.


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, meh. Have posted a length over the years about all this and not sure if I can motivate myself enough this morning to write much. On the 'blokey' comment, I've written about this stuff before and its problematic because it tends to be framed in regards to a trans woman who does not live up to hyper-femininity or stereotyped 'female' things as being criticised as being 'blokey' (trans woman = really a man, not trying hard enough to pass). And of course, when a trans woman does express any  outward femininity, they are attacked for that too as reinforcing stereotyped gender roles. Can't fucking win really.



I look at the discussion from Jack Monroe. I know i've questioned a lot over the years and that incluces whether I'm properly a woman. settled that when i realised that female was not equal to feminine and i didn't have to live up to gender expectations to be a woman. But reading Jack;s story and i know it's different to mine. i don't have to properly understand it and i'm not sure I ever will, but i know it's different. 

but transwomen are still judged far more than I will ever be by the standards of femininity that I reject. by how they look, how they dress. those who id as agender or gender neutral face a commentary that all that is not gendered is that of masculine origin, that wearing a dress is gendered, while wearing trousers isn't. but so much of this is based on assumptions so common that it takes constantly active awareness to even start to avoid reinforcing. and thats before you start fighting against those who believe it should be reinforced.

but a lot of the attack on transfolk just looks like picking an easy victim, i'm alright, you can stop picking on me cause look over there at the easier target. pisses me right off


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> The aspects I wanted to comment on was the free speech angle. I've seen it said that Greer may be wrong (I'd concur) but can say what she likes (I'd concur again) and therefore the petition to disinvite her from speaking at Cardyff University is an assault on freedom of speech (I'd disagree).
> 
> The idea that Greer has been prevented from airing her views is laughable: she has access to far more broadcast media than most, and her views on this issue have been widely distributed.  I have seen the Kirsty Wark interview, and both the BBC and Guardian websites have given the interview prominence.



Good points and I think Greer's more or less made the 'I may be wrong but I'm entitled to my opinion' argument herself.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's, it's the same thing the far right try to get away with in objecting to 'no platform': I have a right to think what I like (yes, you do) and I should be allowed to express it within the law (yes, you should), therefore anyone who doesn't allow me to do so on any given occasion is the _real _fascist here (fuck off).


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not about preventing someone from saying something, it's preventing them from saying it under your roof. It's people making a statement of their own, and often it will be people who generally have fewer opportunities to be heard than the person they're trying to ban iyswim.
> 
> You have the right to speak, you don't have a right to be listened to.


The important point to pay attention to is who is doing to inviting/disinviting. Had it been a students' organisation (a women's group or an LGBT group, say) who'd invited her to hear what she has to say and the uni chancellor had stepped in to say she wasn't welcome, then I'd be opposed to that as an assault on free speech. 

What we have here is not that.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> The aspects I wanted to comment on was the free speech angle. I've seen it said that Greer may be wrong (I'd concur) but can say what she likes (I'd concur again) and therefore the petition to disinvite her from speaking at Cardyff University is an assault on freedom of speech (I'd disagree).
> 
> The idea that Greer has been prevented from airing her views is laughable: she has access to far more broadcast media than most, and her views on this issue have been widely distributed.  I have seen the Kirsty Wark interview, and both the BBC and Guardian websites have given the interview prominence.



Quite - Bindel's cried this too after having written pages and pages in the Guardian and hosting BBC debates on the subject


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 25, 2015)

I think some people think transgenderism is a _fetish, _and that men co-opt womanhood for their own nefarious blokey purposes.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> You know, rad feminism does have some good critiques when it comes to deconstructing gender, the pathologising of children for showing any kind of 'deviance' from gendered behaviour, medicalization and surgeries, etc. It's just that I've found in my experience that there's invariably a fundamental lack of Marxist analysis at the heart of rad feminism, which is why the trans issue has become such an obsessive one for them, rather than many other very important issues facing women - and which needs capitalism/class to be addressed more critically.



I'm quoting you not to disagree with anything you've said, just to observe that even labelling Greer's position here as 'radical feminism' dignifies it as more coherently arguable stance than I think it is. I find it reactionary and self-serving.


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I do think that women's oppression has largely been sex based and to do with their role as mothers etc. My dad once said the only way to make men and women equal was to make it possible for men to have children.
> 
> I think that the proportion of trans people is so tiny they dont threaten the cause of that side of feminism in any way and a certain group of radical feminists dont do themselves any favours by talking about it in almost Jewish conspiracy like terms. For example I have read the book transsexual empire and while there are some valid points about the medicalisation and social construction of gender in it at the beginning she goes off on one about how the 'end game" of all this is a conspiracy by men to get rid of women and have only men with wombs.




oh ffs.

i reckon the exceptional as example thing going on with holding up jenner is a massive gift to terf agendas though. the more that she is held up, the more the debate moves away from the problems and dangers that she dosen't have to face and onto a place where they can set th diacussion. and presents an example they can use for the usurpation of what they see as actual women by a fake woman.* 





*soz, but theres not many ways to discuss terf agendas without discussing some of their beliefs that I do not share in any way.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

treefrog said:


> Any feminism that comes with an exclusionary definition of what a woman is is trash.


This is the bit I find particularly odd and aggressive about the whole debate tbh - that everyone has to accept this particular, niche world view about gender and what it is to be a women or else they're hateful terfs and should be hounded off the internet


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I'm quoting you not to disagree with anything you've said, just to observe that even labelling Greer's position here as 'radical feminism' dignifies it as more coherently arguable stance than I think it is. I find it reactionary and self-serving.



you missed the resemblence to a weathercock


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> This is the bit I find particularly odd and aggressive about the whole debate tbh - that everyone has to accept this particular, niche world view about gender and what it is to be a women or else they're hateful terfs and should be hounded off the internet



it comes down to accepting that people have a right to define their own identity rather than have one imposed upon them. this is a fairly basic principle IMO, not something that should be labelled as 'niche'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 25, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> I think some people think transgenderism is a _fetish, _and that men co-opt womanhood for their own nefarious blokey purposes.



Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just for trolling purposes. I could think of easier ways to piss off women, if I were so inclined.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 25, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> I think some people think transgenderism is a _fetish, _and that men co-opt womanhood for their own nefarious blokey purposes.


I'll expand on this now I've had a swig of strong tea. 

Co-opt a _version _of womanhood for _reasons _that a lot of people find extremely hard to understand. Like, literally can't get their heads around why anyone would do this. And if it's men doing it, and becoming accepted women and getting into the club - why would a man want to do this? It's shady.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> it comes down to accepting that people have a right to define their own identity rather than have one imposed upon them. this is a fairly basic principle IMO, not something that should be labelled as 'niche'.


I presume you are only referring to gender and not ethnicity, class or anything else when you say that?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just for trolling purposes. I could think of easier ways to piss off women, if I were so inclined.



How? What other way is better than being inside the tent and sitting down to piss and getting actually told all our plans for world domination into your ear, rather than trying and failing to work it out from the outside?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Well there are occasions where blokes have dressed up as women and gone into womens changing rooms etc, or have otherwise pretended to be transgender as some sort of pervy thing without going through any of the treatments, but i dont think this is the majority of trans people at all and from what i can gather in real life LGBT spaces these guys are treated with as much disdain as they would be anywhere else


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> it comes down to accepting that people have a right to define their own identity rather than have one imposed upon them. this is a fairly basic principle IMO, not something that should be labelled as 'niche'.


I do think gender, ethnicity, class etc as something you define yourself rather than a social construct which is imposed is a very niche worldview btw, although it might not seem that way on some parts of the Internet.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> This is the bit I find particularly odd and aggressive about the whole debate tbh - that everyone has to accept this particular, niche world view about gender and what it is to be a women or else they're hateful terfs and should be hounded off the internet



Given that 'niche world view about gender' is imposed on trans people by cis society, and that trans people can be as diverse as anyone else, including their gender expression as cis people, I'm not sure why this point gets made tbh.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Well there are occasions where blokes have dressed up as women and gone into womens changing rooms etc, or have otherwise pretended to be transgender as some sort of pervy thing without going through any of the treatments, but i dont think this is the majority of trans people at all and from what i can gather in real life LGBT spaces these guys are treated with as much disdain as they would be anywhere else



Not the reality of trans people but the reality of what a lot of people who don't truly get it think.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Given that 'niche world view about gender' is invariably imposed on trans people by cis society, and that trans people can be as diverse as anyone else, including their gender expression as cis people, I'm not sure why this point gets made tbh.


I don't follow you.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Given that 'niche world view about gender' is imposed on trans people by cis society, and that trans people can be as diverse as anyone else, including their gender expression as cis people, I'm not sure why this point gets made tbh.



A mate of mine was complaining that if the wore a skirt and high heels etc she would get told that she was 'appropriating womanhood' but the same people would jump on her wearing jeans etc as proof she was actually a bloke.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> I don't follow you.



I read it that you are inferring that trans people have a niche world view about gender? Or did I misread what you was saying there?


----------



## YouSir (Oct 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is an important point to remember whenever these kinds of situations come up. Even the act of trying to stop someone from having a platform at a certain place or event generally gets that person, and by extension their views, more attention anyway.
> 
> It's not about preventing someone from saying something, it's preventing them from saying it under your roof. It's people making a statement of their own, and often it will be people who generally have fewer opportunities to be heard than the person they're trying to ban iyswim.
> 
> You have the right to speak, you don't have a right to be listened to.



It's also an act to prevent other people from having the chance to listen though, even if they have wider access to the ideas it's still an attempt to make those ideas taboo and inaccessible even before they're stated. Especially bad for a university where, you'd hope, those ideas could be protested/debated/argued and fairly easily destroyed - which is worth far more to the wider audience there than the censoring actions of an already aware minority.

Strays too close to the self-censorship you get at US universities for my tastes.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

I understand the whole idea in abstract that some feminists think that trans people even existing is an insult because it reinforces the gender binary but my god can't they just shut up. There are so few transgender people and they generally have a really shit time of it even before you get to heaping bigotry on top of that, transphobic feminists just seem to care _so much_ about something that must have an absolutely negligible effect on their lives, it makes me wonder if some of them aren't just bitter angry people looking for a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with their lives.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 25, 2015)

My sense is that Germaine Greer has a theory that the biological basis for gender identity derives purely from (adult) physical biology. This view is dated, but you can see why it lingers in feminist theory. If you have spent your life deconstructing ideas about gender roles you will have spent your life arguing against ideas about gender identity which underpin ideas about gender roles. Further it would have been natural for feminism of the 60's and 70's to borrow from then fashionable (especially among the left) ideas about the mind being malleable, nurture over nature etc.

Transgender people and gender dysphoria offer rude counter examples to such theorising. Some feminists just can't handle it. If gender identity is a social construct with no more physical basis than the physical body rather than the brain then those who see their identity as something different from their physical bodies can only do so for superficial reasons. Feminists like Greer will have no problem with sex change operations, one can do what one likes with one's body, but they refuse to understand why people go through with these operations.

There are worse than Greer out there on this.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

If only the majority of cis people would smash gendered society instead of attacking a minority of trans people for living in it 

Anyway, spent loads of time posting on this stuff in the past, can't be arsed now so going out for a walk whilst it's bright and sunny!


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I read it that you are inferring that trans people have a niche world view about gender? Or did I misread what you was saying there?


I was saying that women who express a fairly mainstream view about gender (that it is something that is socially constructed, and that the "woman" gender role is imposed on people born with a female body) are often shouted down as exclusionary by people who have a different view - that gender is something intrinsic/internal that is unrelated to your body or socialisation.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2015)

I suspect Greer initially wanted to make the reasonable point that tran women don't share a large part of female experience such as growing up and being socialised as a woman. Which is fine and they doubtless have their own very valid experience as does everyone, there's not one female experience anyway. And I'd be inclined to say that trans women are very welcome as a part of any feminism I'd sign up to which would be inclusive and not exclusive of more diverse perspectives. But I can vaguely see the point that Greer ks making. Over the years she's got pushed into a corner and I suspect she's never actually expressed her viewpoint in a way that's very respectful to transgender people.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> it comes down to accepting that people have a right to define their own identity rather than have one imposed upon them. this is a fairly basic principle IMO, not something that should be labelled as 'niche'.



The problem with this approach, IMO, is that it risks reducing issues of gender (and by extension those of race, class and others) simply to an individual (and individualistic) question of personal identity, which in turn makes it an entirely subjective thing with no generally agreed or socially established meaning.

Anyone can define their own identity as a woman, but in practical terms they can't insist that everyone else accepts or agree with their self-definition, particularly if it contradicts the more broadly accepted definition. One person's self-identity isn't simply of interest to them, it has implications for the identities of many other people, in this case in the insistance by some that female adults who are quite happy to simply identify as women now have to be referred to and regard themselves as cis-women, because not to do so is supposedly to exclude trans-women from the identity of women.

I'm not coming down on either side of that argument, BTW, simply pointing out that it isn't as simple as some (not necessarily you, but your point about the right to self-identify highlights it) appear to be portraying it.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I understand the whole idea in abstract that some feminists think that trans people even existing is an insult because it reinforces the gender binary but my god can't they just shut up. There are so few transgender people and they generally have a really shit time of it even before you get to heaping bigotry on top of that, transphobic feminists just seem to care _so much_ about something that must have an absolutely negligible effect on their lives, it makes me wonder if some of them aren't just bitter angry people looking for a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with their lives.


Tbh I haven't come across any feminists that argue this, but I have come across many who do not wish to redefine what it is to be a woman, or their view of gender, who are then accused of being transphobic or hating transpeople.  There's a big difference between hating someone and disagreeing with them, but this gets lost in increasingly aggressive arguments on both sides.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> I was saying that women who express a fairly mainstream view about gender (that it is something that is socially constructed, and that the "woman" gender role is imposed on people born with a female body) are often shouted down as exclusionary by people who have a different view - that gender is something intrinsic/internal that is unrelated to your body or socialisation.



I think in a World where gender is so ubiquitous and forced upon everybody, that gender is very difficult to separate from sex and socialisation (whilst clearly gender does not equal biological sex), whilst also being entirely compatible with holding an opinion that 'gender is a social construct'.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Tbh I haven't come across any feminists that argue this, but I have come across many who do not wish to redefine what it is to be a woman, or their view of gender, who are then accused of being transphobic or hating transpeople.  There's a big difference between hating someone and disagreeing with them, but this gets lost in increasingly aggressive arguments on both sides.



There's a big difference, though, isn't there, between saying 'I believe what it is to be a woman is X, Y and Z', in which X, Y and Z could be all manner of things, and saying 'I believe what it is to be a woman can't include you lot'? The latter may not be intended to be hateful, but it is.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Tbh I haven't come across any feminists that argue this, but I have come across many who do not wish to redefine what it is to be a woman, or their view of gender, who are then accused of being transphobic or hating transpeople.  There's a big difference between hating someone and disagreeing with them, but this gets lost in increasingly aggressive arguments on both sides.



I do agree with this actually, and I think the worst of this plays out by opposing 'sides' especially on the internet!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Tbh I haven't come across any feminists that argue this, but I have come across many who do not wish to redefine what it is to be a woman, or their view of gender, who are then accused of being transphobic or hating transpeople.  There's a big difference between hating someone and disagreeing with them, but this gets lost in increasingly aggressive arguments on both sides.



I agree with this tbh 

There seem to be increasingly extremist positions on both sides. I have still not entirely made up my mind on my 'political stance' on this issue tbh except to say that transgender people should be treated with respect and that i suspect even if gender was totally abolished (which in communism hopefully it would be) you would always get people wanting to change their gender 

I have questioned stuff about myself including my gender and was brought in a family with some fairly domineering female figures in it and a lot of what feminists view as like a non female gender roles didnt really occur to me when growing up. I also find that when i went through a phase of reading radfem material a while back the sort of things they said would make me a lot more nervous about men and walking alone at night etc than before and it was previously stuff i had not given a great deal of thought to.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> There's a big difference, though, isn't there, between saying 'I believe what it is to be a woman is X, Y and Z', in which X, Y and Z could be all manner of things, and saying 'I believe what it is to be a woman can't include you lot'? The latter may not be intended to be hateful, but it is.


I'm not sure I understand your point.  If someone says "I believe what unites women as a class, something that crosses socioeconomic and ethnic divides, is the shared experience of being born with a female body and having the gender role of woman imposed on you" - do you consider that hateful?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

I don't know any trans people that would have an issue with this tbh.

Ah, getting drawn in, I'm off out for a walk


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I don't know any trans people that would have an issue with this tbh.


Well yes, the other issue is that most of the people doing the terf-calling and shouting down are not actually trans, and I have read articles by transpeople that have been attacked for being hateful and exclusionary too.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I don't know any trans people that would have an issue with this tbh.
> 
> Ah, getting drawn in, I'm off out for a walk



You don't think so?

It seems to me that saying "born with a female body" very definitely does not include trans-women, unless you and I have utterly different understandings of the meaning of one of those terms.

ETA: And if you don't want to get drawn in (which is fair enough) I won't expect an answer from you, but I still think this is something worth exploring further.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 25, 2015)

This is worth reading, not just because of it's obnoxiousness but it shows where Greer is coming from.
Caster Semenya sex row: What makes a woman? | Germaine Greeer

It's a position quite distinct from defending a rigid idea of womanhood. More an over correction of that.



> And then Caster Semenya appeared. Big, blokish and bloody fast, could she really be a girl? No simple chromosomal test will decide. Establishing her sex will require the services of an endocrinologist, a gynaecologist, an expert on gender and a psychologist. For those of us who have never been allowed to doubt that we were female, the process seems bizarre. We don't know if we think like women or not. We just think. Is there a reputable psychologist out there who would dare to distinguish a female thought process from a male one?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> You don't think so?
> 
> It seems to me that saying "born with a female body" very definitely does not include trans-women, unless you and I have utterly different understandings of the meaning of one of those terms.



Not  'hateful' which was what was asked (sorry, should have said that rather than 'take issue with'), though it could be interpreted as exclusionary.


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> The problem with this approach, IMO, is that it risks reducing issues of gender (and by extension those of race, class and others) simply to an individual (and individualistic) question of personal identity, which in turn makes it an entirely subjective thing with no generally agreed or socially established meaning.
> 
> Anyone can define their own identity as a woman, but in practical terms they can't insist that everyone else accepts or agree with their self-definition, particularly if it contradicts the more broadly accepted definition. One person's self-identity isn't simply of interest to them, it has implications for the identities of many other people, in this case in the insistance by some that female adults who are quite happy to simply identify as women now have to be referred to and regard themselves as cis-women, because not to do so is supposedly to exclude trans-women from the identity of women.
> 
> I'm not coming down on either side of that argument, BTW, simply pointing out that it isn't as simple as some (not necessarily you, but your point about the right to self-identify highlights it) appear to be portraying it.



1.what parts of identity are not socially constructed labels?

2. I don't think I got the memo that told me that told me that i had to describe myself as a cis-woman all the time. the use of cis as a term tends to only be used when someone is also referring to trans. when it's necessary to separately describe 2 aspects of womanhood or manhod. to have only a term for trans implies that trans is other. that it is not normal. 

we see this in the media in other ways. there is a person, or a woman .a person or an ethnic miniority. a person or a muslim. people are described in how they are different from the norm.it's a factor of how our society is structured to see everyone in terms of white male or other. the term cis is only unique in that it was necessary to invent a term to allow trans related discussion without implying normal and other


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point.  If someone says "I believe what unites women as a class, something that crosses socioeconomic and ethnic divides, is the shared experience of being born with a female body and having the gender role of woman imposed on you" - do you consider that hateful?



There's an entirely valid point there about the experiences of growing up that might be being emphasised, but in other contexts the subtext of the above could be 'if you weren't born with a vagina we'll never let you in the club'.

And the statement you've put in quotes does subtly reinforce determinist (and I think reductionist) categories and boundaries of identity, by providing essential criteria for belonging to the group in question. People for whom the reality is more fuzzy round the edges are excluded by that in ways that may not be directly, intentionally hateful but may feel hateful all the same. A trans person may not share the experience of being born with a female body and having a female gender role imposed on them as a result, but may well have - often traumatic - experience of what it's like to be considered to embody aspects of that imposed gender role despite having the 'wrong' physical body for it.  To simply say that having the wrong equipment at birth permanently excludes someone from 'becoming' a different gender does rather ignore that fact, because it assumes that one set of equipment makes you a privileged male and the other a disadvantaged female, full stop.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> 1.what parts of identity are not socially constructed labels?
> 
> 2. I don't think I got the memo that told me that told me that i had to describe myself as a cis-woman all the time. the use of cis as a term tends to only be used when someone is also referring to trans. when it's necessary to separately describe 2 aspects of womanhood or manhod. to have only a term for trans implies that trans is other. that it is not normal.
> 
> we see this in the media in other ways. there is a person, or a woman .a person or an ethnic miniority. a person or a muslim. people are described in how they are different from the norm.it's a factor of how our society is structured to see everyone in terms of white male or other. the term cis is only unique in that it was necessary to invent a term to allow trans related discussion without implying normal and other




I haven't said, nor did I wish to suggest, that there is any part of identity which isn't socially constructed, at least in part. Your point (not exclusively yours, obviously) seems to suggest that identity can simply be chosen by the individual, with no reference to what the socially constructed and generally accepted notion of what/who that particular identity includes and excludes. 

Again, I never said that there was an official and universally agreed position that all women have to use either cis or trans all the time, but there certainly are some who insist on their own right to self determine their identity and simultaneously seek to impose the identity of cis-women on others who would not choose it for themselves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I agree with this tbh
> 
> There seem to be increasingly extremist positions on both sides. I have still not entirely made up my mind on my 'political stance' on this issue tbh except to say that transgender people should be treated with respect and that i suspect even if gender was totally abolished (which in communism hopefully it would be) you would always get people wanting to change their gender


Can you think of a human society that hasn't included the concept of gender? I can't. 

While gender, as opposed to biological sex, is clearly a socially constructed thing, that doesn't mean you can completely pigeon-hole it 'nurture'. Separating nature and nurture isn't so simple to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Knotted said:


> It's a position quite distinct from defending a rigid idea of womanhood. More an over correction of that.





> For those of us who have never been allowed to doubt that we were female, the process seems bizarre. We don't know if we think like women or not. We just think. Is there a reputable psychologist out there who would dare to distinguish a female thought process from a male one?



I think there is loads of bunkum thinking on this, which is partly clouded by the fact of sexual attraction and its potential existence in one or both parties. Take that out of the equation, and do we really feel that we think differently from the opposite sex? I don't find that my sister thinks very differently from me.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point.  If someone says "I believe what unites women as a class, something that crosses socioeconomic and ethnic divides, is the shared experience of being born with a female body and having the gender role of woman imposed on you" - do you consider that hateful?


It's not a nice thing to say. The statement denies a transwoman the term 'woman' for their own identity. 
So, yeah, hateful seem apt.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> There's an entirely valid point there about the experiences of growing up that might be being emphasised, but in other contexts the subtext of the above could be 'if you weren't born with a vagina we'll never let you in the club'.
> 
> And the statement you've put in quotes does subtly reinforce determinist (and I think reductionist) categories and boundaries of identity, by providing essential criteria for belonging to the group in question. People for whom the reality is more fuzzy round the edges are excluded by that in ways that may not be directly, intentionally hateful but may feel hateful all the same. A trans person may not share the experience of being born with a female body and having a female gender role imposed on them as a result, but may well have - often traumatic - experience of what it's like to be considered to embody aspects of that imposed gender role despite having the 'wrong' physical body for it.  To simply say that having the wrong equipment at birth permanently excludes someone from 'becoming' a different gender does rather ignore that fact, because it assumes that one set of equipment makes you a privileged male and the other a disadvantaged female, full stop.


I wonder if this actually makes an argument for there being more than two genders, rather than trying to shoe horn everyone, with such different experiences, into a binary of two?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there is loads of bunkum thinking on this, which is partly clouded by the fact of sexual attraction and its potential existence in one or both parties. Take that out of the equation, and do we really feel that we think differently from the opposite sex? I don't find that my sister thinks very differently from me.



Exactly.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> It's not a nice thing to say. The statement denies a transwoman the term 'woman' for their own identity.
> So, yeah, hateful seem apt.


Do you think that women who see their identity as people born with female bodies who had gender imposed on them, might feel it a bit hateful that you are trying to change or redefine their identity without their consent?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Do you think that women who see their identity as people born with female bodies who had gender imposed on them, might feel it a bit hateful that you are trying to change or redefine their identity without their consent?


I'm not trying to do that.
I'm just saying excluding people from using a term, and telling people how they should identify isn't very nice.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there is loads of bunkum thinking on this, which is partly clouded by the fact of sexual attraction and its potential existence in one or both parties. Take that out of the equation, and do we really feel that we think differently from the opposite sex? I don't find that my sister thinks very differently from me.



I think Greer's position is rather seductive. If I thought that gender identity was purely a product of social conditioning then I too would not be able to take gender dysphoria seriously. I might well think that people are free to do what they want with their bodies and that they should be treated equally (which I think is Greer's position anyway). But I would think that either transgender people have been brought up atypically (possibly "wrongly" if you want to be judgemental) or that they are motivated by superficial desires such as attention seeking. You can't fault her consistency.

I just reject the idea that gender identity is *purely* a product of social conditioning.

Same with sexual identity.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

The sports thing is totally fucked. There were actually women competing in womens sports who were told they had to have operations to reduce the size of their genitalia   

Then there are places like Iran which orders sex change as a punishment for homosexuality and recently the womens football team there was found to be mostly made up of men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Do you think that women who see their identity as people born with female bodies who had gender imposed on them, might feel it a bit hateful that you are trying to change or redefine their identity without their consent?


Does any woman really feel threatened by this, though? trans people - whether male-to-female or female-to-male - are comparatively rare. And it seems to me so clear that they're anything but in a position of power. The opposite is true.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Knotted said:


> I think Greer's position is rather seductive. If I thought that gender identity was purely a product of social conditioning then I too would not be able to take gender dysphoria seriously. I might well think that people are free to do what they want with their bodies and that they should be treated equally (which I think is Greer's position anyway). But I would think that either transgender people have been brought up atypically (possibly "wrongly" if you want to be judgemental) or that they are motivated by superficial desires such as attention seeking. You can't fault her consistency.
> 
> I just reject the idea that gender identity is *purely* a product of social conditioning.
> 
> Same with sexual identity.



What is gender identity tho? I dont think i think that differently to the opposite sex tbh. But if i was to wake up one day in a mans body i think i would feel horrible and weird tbh. Ironically i would probably one of the trans-women denied treatment to get back to female as i dont have much interest in stuff regarded as girly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Knotted said:


> I just reject the idea that gender identity is *purely* a product of social conditioning.


yes, I reject this idea as well. In biology, the nature or nurture argument is mostly over - it's always both, nurture of nature, and it's just not valid to think of these as separate things. Seems to me that social scientists often act as if we humans were not part of biology, but imo normally that kind of exceptionalism is just wrong.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Do you think that women who see their identity as people born with female bodies who had gender imposed on them, might feel it a bit hateful that you are trying to change or redefine their identity without their consent?



Perhaps they would - but only because they couldn't see that self-definition is just that: it doesn't change what anyone else is.  In your scenario, both Person A (a woman who doesn't believe 'woman' can include trans people born as male because they don't share certain experiences shared by those born as female) and Person B (someone, who may or may not be trans themselves, who believes that it can) are claiming the right to self-identify as a woman. Only Person A is seeking to deny the other's right to that self-definition.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

And that brings me to another rant about radical feminism. These days I actually find it uncomfortable to wear trousers (women's or men's) because of the shape of my hips and the fact that ive put on a bit of weight, i also find that women's clothes in general look nicer than men's, but if you read radfem blogs they make a huge big deal out of this. In one blog it actually said that womens clothes were designed to damage your body and shorten your lifespan.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> I'm not trying to do that.
> I'm just saying excluding people from using a term, and telling people how they should identify isn't very nice.



Identity in the sense the term is being used here *always* involves excluding as well as including, the question is who doing the defining and therefore the including and excluding.

And there are people on *both* sides of this issue attempting to exclude people from using a term, and telling them how they should identify.


Identity is the crisis can't you see...


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Does any woman really feel threatened by this, though? trans people - whether male-to-female or female-to-male - are comparatively rare. And it seems to me so clear that they're anything but in a position of power. The opposite is true.


Yes, I think it certainly feels threatening to many women - not transpeople themselves, but the redefinition of women to erase women's lived experiences.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> What is gender identity tho? I dont think i think that differently to the opposite sex tbh. But if i was to wake up one day in a mans body i think i would feel horrible and weird tbh. Ironically i would probably one of the trans-women denied treatment to get back to female as i dont have much interest in stuff regarded as girly.



I think the nub (at least with respect to trans gender people) is how you view your own body.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> What is gender identity tho?


Perhaps. And I say only perhaps - this is conjecture. But _perhaps_ we are born with an inclination to look for a gender identity of some kind. What that identity is is dependent on the culture we're born into - in a similar process perhaps to the way that children are born with an inclination to look for language in some way, but the particular language they learn is culturally determined. 

The exact way that works, I'm not so sure, but it may be that we're attracted to, and look for, binary ideas. In morality, something is either right or wrong. In identity, a person is either male or female. Only as we get older do we come to recognise that things are not always so simple.


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> I haven't said, nor did I wish to suggest, that there is any part of identity which isn't socially constructed, at least in part. Your point (not exclusively yours, obviously) seems to suggest that identity can simply be chosen by the individual, with no reference to what the socially constructed and generally accepted notion of what/who that particular identity includes and excludes.
> 
> Again, I never said that there was an official and universally agreed position that all women have to use either cis or trans all the time, but there certainly are some who insist on their own right to self determine their identity and simultaneously seek to impose the identity of cis-women on others who would not choose it for themselves.



never said you did suggest it. but just replying to the points you raised.



i don't think that the term cis is redefining of identity. just allowing a discussion without defining trans folk as not normal/othrr. 

and if identity is socially constructed, then it can be reconstructed. or redefined by an individual. without reference to how anyone else defines that. if tht gets complicated, then it only serves to highlight how complicated social and official pigeonholing of people can become. sure i ciuld explain better when i'm not so knackered.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Knotted said:


> I think the nub (at least with respect to trans gender people) is how you view your own body.



The problem is that it gets tied up with concepts such as brain sex etc which are used to oppress women.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Perhaps they would - but only because they couldn't see that self-definition is just that: it doesn't change what anyone else is.  In your scenario, both Person A (a woman who doesn't believe 'woman' can include trans people born as male because they don't share certain experiences shared by those born as female) and Person B (someone, who may or may not be trans themselves, who believes that it can) are claiming the right to self-identify as a woman. Only Person A is seeking to deny the other's right to that self-definition.


Is it only gender where you feel people can self identify or does this apply to any other identity/class of people?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

I think there are sex differences tho but primarily to do with physical strength and ive known women seriously fuck themselves up with manual labour and heavy lifting etc.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> The problem is that it gets tied up with concepts such as brain sex etc which are used to oppress women.



That concept might lack nuance. I'm on the same page as lbj here - don't trust any reductive ideas on gender identity. But aside from that if a concept is used to oppress women then that might be more to do with how the concept is used rather than the concept itself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> The problem is that it gets tied up with concepts such as *brain sex* etc which are used to oppress women.


Yes, mostly scientific nonsense, that stuff. But it endures in the drivel in the self-help sections in bookshops. Unfortunately many people are attracted to these ideas.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 25, 2015)

YouSir said:


> It's also an act to prevent other people from having the chance to listen though, even if they have wider access to the ideas it's still an attempt to make those ideas taboo and inaccessible even before they're stated. Especially bad for a university where, you'd hope, those ideas could be protested/debated/argued and fairly easily destroyed - which is worth far more to the wider audience there than the censoring actions of an already aware minority.
> 
> Strays too close to the self-censorship you get at US universities for my tastes.



I see your point, but most people will never have access to that sort of platform, to speak to large numbers of people and be presented as an authority in the field of x, y or z. Nobody is stopping Greer from sitting in the union coffee shop and talking to people in person. That's the biggest audience most of us have access to. It's also the level at which it's genuinely possible for the people she's talking to to tell her if they don't agree with what she says.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Yes, I think it certainly feels threatening to many women - not transpeople themselves, but the redefinition of women to erase women's lived experiences.


But again, is this really what is happening when you accept a person in their new gender role? A man who used to be a woman or a woman who used to be a man?

Gender is deeply embedded in our interactions with each other - in our language, we have to make a choice, there are no gender-neutral terms often. And because of that, what's the alternative here to accepting trans people in their new identities? I don't see one. But more than that, I don't see a need for one - accepting them is the solution.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> What is gender identity tho? I dont think i think that differently to the opposite sex tbh. But if i was to wake up one day in a mans body i think i would feel horrible and weird tbh. Ironically i would probably one of the trans-women denied treatment to get back to female as i dont have much interest in stuff regarded as girly.



I'm not going to get this into words well, but....

I think that generally speaking in my life I've met far more women than men who I've felt 'think like me'. And while in terms of appearance mrs_bob and I (these days...) probably fit with fairly conventional gender norms, in terms of character I think we both have far more traits that supposedly belong more to the gender we're not. It's difficult to disentangle the extent to which gender identity is purely about how you see your self from the extent to which it includes what you think you should think, do and feel as a result of that.  The trouble with the latter is that 'should' - because it's almost impossible to address it without buying back into reductionist ideas about what being one thing or the other entails (no matter how much of those ideas you believe is socially constructed and how much innate).

My impression is that one thing some people have trouble with is the _perception _that trans people often buy into rather stereotypical notions of the gender into which they're transitioning. Of course if it was the case that that was generally true, I could understand Greer (for example) seeing it as a demonstration of people taking on the superficial appearance of a woman without actually 'being' a woman. But it's a partial and inaccurate perception, isn't it? (A bit like thinking all gay men are camp because you've met a few camp gay men, without considering how many hundreds of non-camp gay men you might have met without knowing they were gay.)  Even to the extent that some trans people might do this, it's presumably tied up with assertion of identity in the face of other people's non-acceptance - it's certainly not as simple as thinking being a woman is all about frocks and makeup.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> never said you did suggest it. but just replying to the points you raised.
> 
> i don't think that the term cis is redefining of identity. just allowing a discussion without defining trans folk as not normal/othrr.
> 
> and if identity is socially constructed, then it can be reconstructed. or redefined by an individual. without reference to how anyone else defines that. if tht gets complicated, then it only serves to highlight how complicated social and official pigeonholing of people can become. sure i ciuld explain better when i'm not so knackered.



OK, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

Identity (or anything else that's social constructed) *can* be reconstructed or redefined, but if a relative handful of people attempt to significantly refine it, and simultaneously to paint any resistance to this redefinition as exclusionary or hateful, and then retreat into the idea that identity is simply a personal matter and they have some "right" to define themselves as they like (I'm not referring to you here), I don't think that's particular helpful, sensible or coherent.

I've also got stuff to do today, so maybe I'll rejoin the thread later.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Is it only gender where you feel people can self identify or does this apply to any other identity/class of people?



Didn't you ask someone else that already? Of course it's not only gender. Why would you think I'd make what I think are fairly vehement arguments for self-identification in relation to one aspect and deny it in relation to others?

E2a: I've been around so-called 'identity politics' a fair bit, and on occasion I've seen a very similar process to what we're discussing here going on in relation to the exclusion of people of mixed ethnic heritage from (politically) black groups as well as from the 'white' 'norm'.  It's human nature to ascribe categories to things, especially once they're named - I didn't reply to your earlier point to me about more than two genders, but my immediate thought was that we'd pretty quickly fix any 3rd, 4th or 17th gender with as many absolute attributes and expectations as there are about the current two.  I think the idea of a spectrum is more useful, in relation to gender but also (back to your question) in thinking about definitions of ethnicity, social class, age, (dis)ability, etc.


----------



## toggle (Oct 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> OK, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.
> 
> Identity (or anything else that's social constructed) *can* be reconstructed or redefined, but if a relative handful of people attempt to significantly refine it, and simultaneously to paint any resistance to this redefinition as exclusionary or hateful, and then retreat into the idea that identity is simply a personal matter and they have some "right" to define themselves as they like (I'm not referring to you here), I don't think that's particular helpful, sensible or coherent.
> 
> I've also got stuff to do today, so maybe I'll rejoin the thread later.



if you have no term for those who are not members of a group, the only way to discuss issues relating to that group is through a labelling of normal and other. creating a term that allows that to be discussed as 'group a' and 'group b' isn't redefining group a in my opinion. and insisting that group b are defined only inn terms of not group a, in terms of being not the normal, is exclusionary.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Didn't you ask someone else that already? Of course it's not only gender. Why would you think I'd make what I think are fairly vehement arguments for self-identification in relation to one aspect and deny it in relation to others?
> 
> E2a: I've been around so-called 'identity politics' a fair bit, and on occasion I've seen a very similar process to what we're discussing here going on in relation to the exclusion of people of mixed ethnic heritage from (politically) black groups as well as from the 'white' 'norm'.  It's human nature to ascribe categories to things, especially once they're named - I didn't reply to your earlier point to me about more than two genders, but my immediate thought was that we'd pretty quickly fix any 3rd, 4th or 17th gender with as many absolute attributes and expectations as there are about the current two.  I think the idea of a spectrum is more useful, in relation to gender but also (back to your question) in thinking about definitions of ethnicity, social class, age, (dis)ability, etc.


The thing about spectrums in terms of identities that have at least a partly physical aspect is that some things are better suited to them than others.

Race is a good example where anything other than a spectrum makes no physical sense - the binaries are created despite biology, not because of it.

But does that work with gender? Most of us think of ourselves as one gender or the other, and we think that way in part, or even largely, because we match ourselves with the gender that physically fits us. In that sense, the binary fits the biology for most of us. Also, for a trans person, do they want a spectrum? Or do they just want to switch sides in a binary system?

imo, what I'd like to see is a reduction in the importance of gender as your identity, rather than necessarily an alteration of it. So you may still identify and be indentified as male or female, but in your everyday life, it isn't an important thing either to you or to the people you are interacting with.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But does that work with gender? Most of us think of ourselves as one gender or the other, and we think that way in part, or even largely, because we match ourselves with the gender that physically fits us. In that sense, the binary fits the biology for most of us. Also, for a trans person, do they want a spectrum? Or do they just want to switch sides in a binary system?



Yes, most of us think of ourselves as one or other, but to what extent is that because the binary demands it? I've no idea what the answer is to that. But I think plenty of people who have no thought that they're 'on the wrong side' are still often conscious of the label feeling like a poor fit, and perceive others to apparently be much more at ease with it.




			
				littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> imo, what I'd like to see is a reduction in the importance of gender as your identity, rather than necessarily an alteration of it. So you may still identify and be indentified as male or female, but in your everyday life, it isn't an important thing either to you or to the people you are interacting with.



Great! When does it start?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Great! When does it start?


I think it has started. Long way to go, clearly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Yes, most of us think of ourselves as one or other, but to what extent is that because the binary demands it? I've no idea what the answer is to that. But I think plenty of people who have no thought that they're 'on the wrong side' are still often conscious of the label feeling like a poor fit, and perceive others to apparently be much more at ease with it.


I don't feel a poor fit with 'male'. I do often feel a poor fit with various expectations of 'male behaviour'.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But does that work with gender? Most of us think of ourselves as one gender or the other, and we think that way in part, or even largely, because we match ourselves with the gender that physically fits us. In that sense, the binary fits the biology for most of us. Also, for a trans person, do they want a spectrum? Or do they just want to switch sides in a binary system?



This is probably a semantic quibble, but surely there's a distinction between _sex_ and _gender_? Most of us think of ourselves as being biologically either male or female_, _but our _gender_ identities are more fluid. Hence people saying things like 'he's so masculine', 'he's not very very manly', 'he's effeminate' 'she's so butch', 'she's a toy boy' and so on. These socially constructed identities seem to represent something more like a continuum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is probably a semantic quibble, but surely there's a distinction between _sex_ and _gender_? Most of us think of ourselves as being biologically either male or female_, _but our _gender_ identities are more fluid. Hence people saying things like 'he's so masculine', 'he's not very very manly', 'he's effeminate' 'she's so butch', 'she's a toy boy' and so on. These socially constructed identities seem to represent something more like a continuum.


I'm not sure there's a well-defined distinction between sex and gender, tbh. People try to define them separately, but I'm not sure you can.

But yes, gender identities and gender expectations are certainly fluid and culturally conditioned. These are the things whose importance I would like to see diminish. But even here, this stuff is complex. If we're heterosexual, we want to appeal to the opposite sex (gender!), and I think most of us do play up to gender roles as part of doing that.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't feel a poor fit with 'male'. I do often feel a poor fit with various expectations of 'male behaviour'.



I guess generally that's how I'd see it in relation to myself too. OK, but then we're back to how much of gender identity and definition is down to physical, innate characteristics and how much is learnt behaviour, social construction etc.  I'm sure we're all talking about more here than the extent to which people felt happy with the bits they were born with.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure there's a well-defined distinction between sex and gender, tbh. People try to define them separately, but I'm not sure you can.
> 
> But yes, gender identities and gender expectations are certainly fluid and culturally conditioned. These are the things whose importance I would like to see diminish. But even here, this stuff is complex. If we're heterosexual, we want to appeal to the opposite sex (gender!), and I think most of us do play up to gender roles as part of doing that.



Google just gave me these two definitions:

Sex:



> either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.



Gender:



> the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).



I think that it's a valid distinction to make - that social and cultural understandings of gender are related to a biological notion of sex does not mean that the former reducible to the latter (or vice versa).


----------



## emanymton (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> There's an entirely valid point there about the experiences of growing up that might be being emphasised, but in other contexts the subtext of the above could be 'if you weren't born with a vagina we'll never let you in the club'.
> 
> And the statement you've put in quotes does subtly reinforce determinist (and I think reductionist) categories and boundaries of identity, by providing essential criteria for belonging to the group in question. People for whom the reality is more fuzzy round the edges are excluded by that in ways that may not be directly, intentionally hateful but may feel hateful all the same. A trans person may not share the experience of being born with a female body and having a female gender role imposed on them as a result, but may well have - often traumatic - experience of what it's like to be considered to embody aspects of that imposed gender role despite having the 'wrong' physical body for it.  To simply say that having the wrong equipment at birth permanently excludes someone from 'becoming' a different gender does rather ignore that fact, because it assumes that one set of equipment makes you a privileged male and the other a disadvantaged female, full stop.


Isn't this the point, that by definition being a trans women will be a different type of experience to being a cis women? Are trans and cis not really two different identities within the wider identity of 'women'? The problem comes when some members of one of the two groups try and lay claim to the whole identity, either by denying the importance of lived experience or by deny trans women the right to be called women at all?


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> if you have no term for those who are not members of a group, the only way to discuss issues relating to that group is through a labelling of normal and other. creating a term that allows that to be discussed as 'group a' and 'group b' isn't redefining group a in my opinion. and insisting that group b are defined only inn terms of not group a, in terms of being not the normal, is exclusionary.



I'm afraid I don't understand what this means, or what point you're seeking to make. Maybe you could try saying it again (if you want to of course).


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> and if identity is socially constructed, then it can be reconstructed. or redefined by an individual. without reference to how anyone else defines that.



I don't want to get too involved in this thread because I know I'll say the wrong thing, but surely wider society does get to label people in certain ways, at least as long as we have gendered bathrooms and changing rooms (something that won't change soon)?  Also putting a label on something isn't the same as judging...


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I'm not going to get this into words well, but....
> 
> I think that generally speaking in my life I've met far more women than men who I've felt 'think like me'. And while in terms of appearance mrs_bob and I (these days...) probably fit with fairly conventional gender norms, in terms of character I think we both have far more traits that supposedly belong more to the gender we're not. It's difficult to disentangle the extent to which gender identity is purely about how you see your self from the extent to which it includes what you think you should think, do and feel as a result of that.  The trouble with the latter is that 'should' - because it's almost impossible to address it without buying back into reductionist ideas about what being one thing or the other entails (no matter how much of those ideas you believe is socially constructed and how much innate).


I think the difference between gender identity and gender traits/interests is interesting and complex. I'm also not sure I'm going to word this well  but just in regards to the latter, I wonder if people who see themselves as having some gender incongruent traits/behaviours/interests have two ways* of making sense of this. The first is to reject gender essentialism and to interpret gender traits as socially constructed and irrelevant. The second is to interpret this as indicative of intrinsic gender characteristics and to see themselves as more identified with the opposite gender, or a mixture of the two. It's more relevant for the growing number of people who either describe themselves as  "just not that feminine/masculine" or non binary rather than the less ambiguous cis or trans identifications. What I find an interesting question is what are the differences and similarities between those two groups, and indeed is there something more fundamental going on or how much does it relate to different ways of interpretation? But tbh I don't really think I'm qualified to say any more. It's just interesting because I'm not sure I know of many people who see themselves as all feminine or all masculine.

But then as someone else said, it's complicated because identify and personality/traits/interests, gendered or not, are so linked it can be hard (if not impossible) to pull them apart.

All I do know is that if my daughter aged 6/7/8 came up to me and said "I think I might be a boy because I prefer boy things" I would listen to them, let them explore it, and non judgmentally suggest that they then do whatever activities they want, dress however they'd like, hang around with whatever children they'd like etc. and see where it takes them. I find it awful when people tell children that they can't do or act in ways that are seen as opposite gender traits , yet at the same time the idea of labelling someone as trans before they're developmentally capable of abstract thought and pulling apart interests and identities really doesn't sit well with me .


*(Actually it's probably also possible to have a stance between the two, and that I would be really interested to hear more about from someone holding that view).


----------



## Sirena (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Google just gave me these two definitions:
> 
> Sex:
> 
> ...


Another, separate, concept is sexual orientation.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 25, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> How? What other way is better than being inside the tent and sitting down to piss and getting actually told all our plans for world domination into your ear, rather than trying and failing to work it out from the outside?



Meh. If they want to rule the world they can have it. Their turn init.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I do think theres a point about the medicalisation of childhood and young kids being prescribed hormones and labelled trans when they're not but this is far more of an issue in the US rather than the UK where anything transgender related (or anything else) is being totally butchered by the government. Plus theres the issue of doctors prescribing drugs rather than offering therapies or surgery because its cheaper. But its like that with everything rather than just transgender people. The restrictive gender role thing and the idea that people who act like the opposite sex are assumed to be that sex is an interesting point but again this is not a reason to hate transgender people and surely wider social trends are a far bigger cause of this.
> 
> I had a big argument the other day with a radical feminist about all this as she seemed to be suggesting some sort of 'jewish lobby' type situation and when challenged even came out with 'but some of my best friends are trans' bullshit. One day I want to write a Marxist critique of radical feminism but id have enough material for a whole book. The entire feminist movement (whatever wing of it) seems to have become coopted by rich women (cis or trans) and despite radical feminists saying that the transgender issue overshadows other stuff such as the pay gap and abortion etc etc by banging on about a stupid conspiracy theory it doesnt actually do anything to address anything to do with the majority of women and actually helps to make life worse for everyone.



This has probably already been answered (haven't finished reading the thread) but there's a reason why hormone blockers are used from an early age rather than a) doing nothing or b) doing surgery - it's because they are reversible should the child decide it's not the right path for them at a later date. It puts puberty on hold, which has the dual bonus of allowing the child/teen to avoid the stress of developing secondary sex characteristics that are not in line with their gender, and allows that puberty to go ahead later if they decide they do in fact want that to happen after all. It gives them some breathing space, basically. I really can't see a single downside to it. 

Then, when they're older, they can make the informed choice of what level of medical intervention is right for them, if any. 

Anecdotal evidence suggests it's far easier to go through the process at an earlier age having never gone through that puberty stage than it is to try to reverse the effects of puberty, along with dealing with the psychological effects of having gone through it.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I think the difference between gender identity and gender traits/interests is interesting and complex. I'm also not sure I'm going to word this well  but just in regards to the latter, I wonder if people who see themselves as having some gender incongruent traits/behaviours/interests have two ways* of making sense of this. The first is to reject gender essentialism and to interpret gender traits as socially constructed and irrelevant. The second is to interpret this as indicative of intrinsic gender characteristics and to see themselves as more identified with the opposite gender, or a mixture of the two. It's more relevant for the growing number of people who either describe themselves as  "just not that feminine/masculine" or non binary rather than the less ambiguous cis or trans identifications. What I find an interesting question is what are the differences and similarities between those two groups, and indeed is there something more fundamental going on or how much does it relate to different ways of interpretation? But tbh I don't really think I'm qualified to say any more. It's just interesting because I'm not sure I know of many people who see themselves as all feminine or all masculine.
> 
> But then as someone else said, it's complicated because identify and personality/traits/interests, gendered or not, are so linked it can be hard (if not impossible) to pull them apart.
> 
> All I do know is that if my daughter aged 6/7/8 came up to me and said "I think I might be a boy because I prefer boy things" I would listen to them, let them explore it, and non judgmentally suggest that they then do whatever activities they want, dress however they'd like, hang around with whatever children they'd like etc. and see where it takes them. I find it awful when people tell children that they can't do or act in ways that are seen as opposite gender traits , yet at the same time the idea of labelling someone as trans before they're developmentally capable of abstract thought and pulling apart interests and identities really doesn't sit well with me .



I think I'm largely with you on the last para (as a father of a 7-yr-old boy). But would your approach/attitude be different if she said 'I think I might be a boy because I feel like I'm living in the wrong body and I hate it'?

Perhaps if society does become increasingly less determined to box people in with gender, those who don't feel theirs fits the standard-issue definitions would be able to deal with that more easily without going to the undoubtedly extreme length of reassignment. But on the other hand, having heard some people's personal accounts of the torment of living in what they feel is the wrong body, (e2a: and also in light of the kind of issues Vintage Paw posted while I was trying to write this) it's also possible that putting that off and 'seeing where it takes them' in the meantime could be really damaging for some people.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> I wonder if this actually makes an argument for there being more than two genders, rather than trying to shoe horn everyone, with such different experiences, into a binary of two?



There do appear to be more than two genders. There are people who describe themselves as gender fluid, some as agender. What society calls them is a different matter. 

None of that detracts from the fact that trans women are women and trans men are men.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> Do you think that women who see their identity as people born with female bodies who had gender imposed on them, might feel it a bit hateful that you are trying to change or redefine their identity without their consent?



No one is trying to tell cis women they are not women. Some cis women are trying to tell trans women they are not women. No one is trying to tell cis women they have not had specific experiences growing up with a female body. Some cis women are trying to tell trans women their own experiences are not valid.


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> None of that detracts from the fact that trans women are women and trans men are men.


That's certainly a contested opinion.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

Why exactly do you feel threatened by allowing trans people (probably specifically trans women, I don't believe you've aired your thoughts on trans men, I may have missed them) to be accepted as the gender they feel, Thora?

Because you do find it threatening. To you personally.

What is it about your own identity that will be lost or taken away if a trans woman calls herself a woman?

Do you think marriage between a man and a woman is redefined and made meaningless by marriage between same-sex couples? I mean, if we're treating all these identity issues as being utterly equivalent to one another (which they are not). Do you think someone adopting a child and calling themselves their parent makes your relationship with your biological children meaningless?

It seems to me that the scapegoating of trans women is the easy road, instead of doing the hard work - and it _is _hard work - of insisting upon nuance when discussing issues of gender and gender roles (arguably two different things), and when thinking about the ways in which cis women are acted upon by patriarchy _and_ the ways that trans women are acted upon by patriarchy. It's not this or that, it's both. There is room for both. Patriarchy (more specifically patriarchy under capitalism) is the target, not the people who have to negotiate it in various ways. Do we blame capitalism and the government for a lack of employment security and the lack of discussion around the realities of class and poverty, or do we blame them dirty immigrants and scroungers? Do we blame patriarchy and capitalism for the way cis women's bodies are commodified and objectified and codified, or do we blame those dreadful imposter trans women, coming over here stealing our femininity?


----------



## Thora (Oct 25, 2015)

I don't personally feel threatened by transwomen, but I do disagree with some of the theories about gender being put forward.  And I very strongly disagree with the way any disagreement is silenced by accusations of transphobia or calling people terfs.


----------



## Athos (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> No one is trying to tell cis women they are not women.



Whilst true on the face of it, by defining womanhood differently from the way some cis women define it, those women are being told they are not what they had previously defined themselves as, since that definition is no longer valid.

It's like someone who considers the fact that they are, say, tall, to be an important part of their identity; to tell them that they must now consider everyone over 4' to be tall, might, for them, rob that part of their identity of any meaning.

That's not to say that, given the real world facts of terrible things regularly happening to trans people, it wouldn't be better if all cis women accepted them as women.  But I do think that it's not my place to tell them they must (particularly as a man).  Nor do I think that cis women who define womanhood in a way that doesn't encompass trans women are necessarily motivated by bigotry or hate.

I do think Greer is way off the mark with the idea that Jenner changed sex to cash in on the attention given to the other Kardashian women.  First, because it's inconceivable that anyone would take such a drastic step, and, secondly, becasue it seems to be recognised that this is something that Bruce Jenner was toying with for some time before the family found fame.

Also, whilst I don't buy the idea that the attempt to 'no platform' Greer is an attack on free speech, I don't think it's helpful at all.  Far better would be to challenge her publicly to defend her views.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 25, 2015)

Sirena said:


> It's a difficult subject.  A man does not become a woman simply by saying so.
> 
> There is a long period of transition and, while that is happening, he/she can be still very 'blokey'.
> 
> But all it requires is a bit of give and take on both sides



Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> I don't personally feel threatened by transwomen, but I do disagree with some of the theories about gender being put forward.  And I very strongly disagree with the way any disagreement is silenced by accusations of transphobia or calling people terfs.


Can you be more specific about which theories you disagree with and why?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I think I'm largely with you on the last para (as a father of a 7-yr-old boy). But would your approach/attitude be different if she said 'I think I might be a boy because I feel like I'm living in the wrong body and I hate it'?
> 
> Perhaps if society does become increasingly less determined to box people in with gender, those who don't feel theirs fits the standard-issue definitions would be able to deal with that more easily without going to the undoubtedly extreme length of reassignment. But on the other hand, having heard some people's personal accounts of the torment of living in what they feel is the wrong body, (e2a: and also in light of the kind of issues Vintage Paw posted while I was trying to write this) it's also possible that putting that off and 'seeing where it takes them' in the meantime could be really damaging for some people.


Thing is I am sceptical that a child of _7 _could say that and properly understand its ramifications. From what I know of child development, and also my experience of 7 year olds, they define things in concrete rather than abstract terms. This includes gender. It might be a clue where things will go but it isn't definite.

There are studies on children who were born intersex and assigned, and also of several children at once who were born after their mothers were exposed to high levels of hormones, who have always said they were the opposite gender but weren't allowed to live it and subsequently were able to reassign themselves. And yes many of those have said it was very damaging. But these people weren't raised in a gentle "do what you like and don't feel you have to define yourself" environment. They were very much pushed into traditional gender roles, even more so because of the concern that they were slipping. Of course that active denial of who you think you might be would be damaging. But who's to say that being pushed into an opposite gender role based on something you've said when you're 7 that you then change your mind about couldn't be equally as damaging? I would make an educated assumption that there's quite a few 7 year olds who do say they want to be a boy/girl and later retract. Not all tomboys decide that they want to later change sex.

There is no equivalent  decision that a 7 year is seen to be able to consent to. We don't even let them decide what parent to live with when divorce happens. Most young people are Gillick competent and are seen as able to make health decisions by the time they come of age but it occurs a long time after the age of 7.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> None of that detracts from the fact that trans women are women and trans men are men.


Its interesting that in describing wo(men) who regard themselves as wo(men) you find yourself using the prefix trans in front of the descriptor wo(man). I wonder if it might be more logically coherent to refer to wo(men) that have transitioned?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Its interesting that in describing wo(men) who regard themselves as wo(men) you find yourself using the prefix trans in front of the descriptor wo(man). I wonder if it might be more logically coherent to refer to wo(men) that have transitioned?



I'll refer to people however they want to be referred to. It's my understanding that saying 'trans woman' in the context we have been discussing is appropriate and acceptable, but if a trans woman thinks it would be better to say 'woman who has transitioned' then I will say that instead. Please be clear that this is within the confines of this specific conversation. When speaking about a trans woman in a situation where her trans-ness isn't a part of the conversation, I would simply describe her as a woman if the need arose.

And what's all this brackets stuff?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Thing is I am sceptical that a child of _7 _could say that and properly understand its ramifications. From what I know of child development, and also my experience of 7 year olds, they define things in concrete rather than abstract terms. This includes gender. It might be a clue where things will go but it isn't definite.
> 
> There are studies on children who were born intersex and assigned, and also of several children at once who were born after their mothers were exposed to high levels of hormones, who have always said they were the opposite gender but weren't allowed to live it and subsequently were able to reassign themselves. And yes many of those have said it was very damaging. But these people weren't raised in a gentle "do what you like and don't feel you have to define yourself" environment. They were very much pushed into traditional gender roles, even more so because of the concern that they were slipping. Of course that active denial of who you think you might be would be damaging. But who's to say that being pushed into an opposite gender role based on something you've said when you're 7 that you then change your mind about couldn't be equally as damaging? I would make an educated assumption that there's quite a few 7 year olds who do say they want to be a boy/girl and later retract. Not all tomboys decide that they want to later change sex.
> 
> There is no equivalent  decision that a 7 year is seen to be able to consent to. We don't even let them decide what parent to live with when divorce happens. Most young people are Gillick competent and are seen as able to make health decisions by the time they come of age but it occurs a long time after the age of 7.



There can be quite a bit of difference between being a tomboy and being very deeply unhappy that you aren't what you really are, iyswim. A child may not have the tools to be able to describe or analyse how they feel, but the pain and alienation can be very real. 

From the perspective of hormone blockers, they stop the need for a decision. Doing nothing and allowing puberty to happen is, effectively, doing something. It is making a decision - "live with this biological process, although we won't force you to act in a certain way, you're free to be who you want, but you will have to go through this biological process regardless of its harm. Sorry if it fucks you up, we'll deal with that later." 

Hormone blockers are not a transitioning process, they are the removal of the looming biological determination so as to provide space for a child to explore and consider and just exist as themselves for a while. It is a way of saying, "we won't force you to act in a certain way, you're free to be who you want, and you can do so free from additional stresses of puberty. We'll do what we can to prevent the things that can fuck you up, and give you space."

And at that age, it's highly unlikely a family would agree to their child receiving hormone blockers if they weren't already on-board with the idea of their child being who they want. 

Hormone blockers don't take away anything, they prevent something from acting on their bodies to automatically start turning them into something they may not be. Once the hormones are blocked, it's down to the parents, the kid, the professionals involved, to give as much support as possible while the child tries to work things out for themselves -- but that's the case whether the child is on blockers or not. Being on blockers just removes something that can be very stressful and damaging from the equation until they're better able to deal with it.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Thora said:


> I don't personally feel threatened by transwomen, but I do disagree with some of the theories about gender being put forward.  And I very strongly disagree with the way any disagreement is silenced by accusations of transphobia or calling people terfs.





emanymton said:


> Can you be more specific about which theories you disagree with and why?



I second that request. You've put a question or two to me, Thora, and although I have strong views on this subject and disagree with some of the things you've said, I hope I've answered them more or less without resorting to silencing accusations.  I would like to know, though, your own thoughts on a question you've asked more than once:



Thora said:


> Is it only gender where you feel people can self identify or does this apply to any other identity/class of people?



The way you've phrased it, without giving away your own view, and the fact that you've not responded to my response ('of course it isn't only gender') gives the impression that you were hoping to triumphantly me in a little hypocrisy here. Please do correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick!


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 25, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.



Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'll refer to people however they want to be referred to. It's my understanding that saying 'trans woman' in the context we have been discussing is appropriate and acceptable, but if a trans woman thinks it would be better to say 'woman who has transitioned' then I will say that instead. Please be clear that this is within the confines of this specific conversation. When speaking about a trans woman in a situation where her trans-ness isn't a part of the conversation, I would simply describe her as a woman if the need arose.
> 
> And what's all this brackets stuff?


Seems reasonable. Brackets used to save writing 'women and men'.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw - but it's not common for 7 year olds to go to puberty. 10 year olds still think pretty concretely but their understanding is already very different to a 7 year old, and if the child has hung on to this idea of them being the wrong gender and puberty is looming then of course there's no reason why the decision can be made then. Even 9 is older than 7 yet will be likely to be be pre-pubescent if 10 seems too close to the edge.

I'm not talking about children not having the tools to describe things, I'm talking about children of 7 having a different cognitive structure than older children, a different way of making sense of the world, one that I doubt can really differentiate between gender identity and gender being about what boys/men and girls/women do. And honestly, I wonder if when parents of 7 year olds then say "live as your born gender" or "live as the opposite gender" whether it isn't more about the parents than the child. I wonder about the politics behind both of them tbh.


Vintage Paw said:


> And at that age, it's highly unlikely a family would agree to their child receiving hormone blockers if they weren't already on-board with the idea of their child being who they want.


And there's just something about this that makes it sound like a parent of a 7 year old who doesn't want to jump straight into medicalization immediately isn't on board with their child being who they want.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.



Yes



Buckaroo said:


> Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.



No


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw 

Though actually on reflection, there's nothing incompatible at all with taking hormone blockers and still allowing a child to experiment with gender roles and not define themselves as one or t'other until they're older. That would completely allow the child the space, as you say, to "explore and consider and just exist as themselves for a while", which is _exactly_ what I am saying is important. I'm just suggesting that when a child is very young, any attempt to define them is taking away that space.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 25, 2015)

tbf some people do claim to be trans for attention on tumblr but its tumblr home to otherkin and animekin( If you dont know dont google it the stupidity will cost you brain cells)  which makes the worst of terf/cis argument look highly intelligent.

the funny thing is if you change sex form female to male nobody seems to have a huge issue


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 25, 2015)

Does anyone have a rough figure for the percentage of mtf trans that define their new gender by wearing high heeled shoes?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

a_chap said:


> Not being a woman, I'm not sure I have the right to an opnion on this subject.


and that's what Germaine Greer would say about me which is why her views are the views of hatred. They seek to exclude trans women from the debate about their own gender identity.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Vintage Paw
> 
> Though actually on reflection, there's nothing incompatible at all with taking hormone blockers and still allowing a child to experiment with gender roles and not define themselves as one or t'other until they're older. That would completely allow the child the space, as you say, to "explore and consider and just exist as themselves for a while", which is _exactly_ what I am saying is important. I'm just suggesting that when a child is very young, any attempt to define them is taking away that space.



I think we are essentially coming from the same direction. 

The thing about 7, 9 or 10 years old... when I was talking originally about hormone blockers it wasn't with any kind of age in mind. I don't know at what age they are usually first prescribed. As far as the argument I was making that's somewhat immaterial, because it was to say that using the blockers to avoid puberty simply gives the child more space to breathe and think without having to make a decision. If puberty isn't going to start at 7 for a child, there's no point giving them the blockers at that point, so that whole argument was moot - the age itself was never a part of the discussion I was having.

But I agree, the ideal is to give the child space. To let them lead the way, essentially. If they want to wear their hair in plaits and be called a girl, then go ahead with that. If they decide the next day they want to be called a boy, then okay. It's not about forcing one particular identity on the child, whether that be a cis or trans gender identity, but rather giving them the space to explore free from any pressure to conform. 

That's an incredibly difficult task because of societal pressures, but frankly we should be doing this for all children, not just those we suspect of being trans. But it's not enough to say "let's just work to get rid of prescribed gender roles entirely" because while it's definitely a good thing to move away from the idea that there are two binary genders and you're this or you're that and if you're not you're a freak or 'wrong' it's something that will take a lot of time and in the meantime - alongside that - we have to offer support to kids and others who want to transition or who don't fit their birth-assigned gender because it's unfair to expect them to suffer while we wait for gender to magically stop being a thing. And part of challenging binary genders and gender roles is in recognising that trans people exist and are as legitimate in their expressions of gender as anyone else. Which, of course, is something I know you're not denying... I'm going off topic, I do that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Has greer shown any sign of the conspiratorial type thinking that seems to characterise a lot of radfems thinking on this issue? IE that there's a lobby pushing this stuff who are trying to stop people saying the word woman and various other sensationalist and unbelievable claims.

Re the toilet issue, getting rid of gendered toilets entirely could be dangerous (in countries such as india there have been a long struggle trying to get womens toilets as thats one of the main times they are raped/sexually assaulted) but tbh i can't see why its not possible to have three/four types of toilets in a public place, one gender neutral, one womens, one men's and one disabled. And trans people would use whatever one was the most appropriate for them


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

Yes Vintage Paw, I agree. And suspect there was never any real disagreement. 

As this is urban, would it help if I agree fiercely and robustly? I can add angry faces


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Yes Vintage Paw, I agree. And suspect there was never any real disagreement.
> 
> As this is urban, would it help if I agree fiercely and robustly? I can add angry faces



Fuck you 

*offers cake*


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Lol one of the things i read on a radfem website was that there has never been a school of political thought named after a woman. Er what about thatcherism


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Lol one of the things i read on a radfem website was that there has never been a school of political thought named after a woman. Er what about thatcherism



I'd be wary of laying claim to that one too, tbf


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Has greer shown any sign of the conspiratorial type thinking that seems to characterise a lot of radfems thinking on this issue? IE that there's a lobby pushing this stuff who are trying to stop people saying the word woman and various other sensationalist and unbelievable claims.
> 
> Re the toilet issue, getting rid of gendered toilets entirely could be dangerous (in countries such as india there have been a long struggle trying to get womens toilets as thats one of the main times they are raped/sexually assaulted) but tbh i can't see why its not possible to have three/four types of toilets in a public place, one gender neutral, one womens, one men's and one disabled. And trans people would use whatever one was the most appropriate for them


Also women could choose to use the gender neutral ones in the face of those bloody massive queues! 

When toilets are single cubicles though I see no reason why they shouldn't be unisex. At my significantly female dominated work the single male and female toilets are used like they're unisex anyway!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Also women could choose to use the gender neutral ones in the face of those bloody massive queues!
> 
> When toilets are single cubicles though I see no reason why they shouldn't be unisex. At my significantly female dominated work the single male and female toilets are used like they're unisex anyway!



Yea agreed, when theres a huge queue at the ladies i sometimes go in the mens anyway


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yea agreed, when theres a huge queue at the ladies i sometimes go in the mens anyway


I can't do that following infant school embarrassment trauma, when I wandered in a daze right into the middle of the boy's loos


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> There can be quite a bit of difference between being a tomboy and being very deeply unhappy that you aren't what you really are, iyswim. A child may not have the tools to be able to describe or analyse how they feel, but the pain and alienation can be very real.
> 
> From the perspective of hormone blockers, they stop the need for a decision. Doing nothing and allowing puberty to happen is, effectively, doing something. It is making a decision - "live with this biological process, although we won't force you to act in a certain way, you're free to be who you want, but you will have to go through this biological process regardless of its harm. Sorry if it fucks you up, we'll deal with that later."
> 
> ...


not being able to express my gender at 7, because the laguage hadn't eveolved enough then, and transitioning seemed to be an impossible dream led me to live a non-life for 40 years, the fall out of which is still with me and will be with me for years. I can't imagine anything worse than what i went through - forced to endure a male adolescence and years of being forced to live as a male.

I know exactly how certain trans kids can be about their own gender identity, and to transition at an early age is a life saver. Though a tiny number do change their mind, life would be no harder for kids who transitioned and then changed their minds than it has been on those of us who didn't transiton, and suffered for decades, or didn't make it through.

Not transitioning children will not avoid the problem. We need to give children the language and the choice and trust their instincts. Less mistakes will be made that way.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Also women could choose to use the gender neutral ones in the face of those bloody massive queues!
> 
> When toilets are single cubicles though I see no reason why they shouldn't be unisex. At my significantly female dominated work the single male and female toilets are used like they're unisex anyway!



I think there should be more toilet attendants too for safety purposes like you have in some countries. I dont feel safe going in some of the oxford public toilets even tho they are just single sex.


----------



## keithy (Oct 25, 2015)

I personally see absolutely no reason why feminism as a debate and movement cannot include binary trans women, cis women AND non-binary trans people... plus of course cis men and trans men. 

I also feel that whilst it is ALWAYS wrong to preach hate and transphobic vile, it is still important for us to debate and consider the arguments and concepts put forward by radical feminists as we continue to move forward in the way we treat gender as a society. 

There have been plenty of accounts of trans women of the shock of losing the male privilege they had before, and I think those women sharing those experiences is really valuable to us all as they have seen both 'sides' of that binary just in those terms. Those women are definitely welcome in my feminism!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

There should probably more of a view that gender identity (as opposed to sex) is on more of a spectrum because some trans people choose not to have the surgery but choose to have the hormones or vice versa (and some dont want either). It seems to cover a huge range of experiences/identities tbh. It seems like its something quite individual to each person. I could be wrong though and admit im not the best informed but someone like jack monroe could have been quite unhappy if they had had any medical treatment at that age as they don't seem to feel as they fit 'either' gender.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

toggle said:


> it comes down to accepting that people have a right to define their own identity rather than have one imposed upon them. this is a fairly basic principle IMO, not something that should be labelled as 'niche'.


yes, its certainly not niche. At least 2% of the population are trans by latest estimate and many others now identifying as non binary or other variations, and this is with most people still afraid to come out of the closet.
And also our view on gender is based on out own experiences - and we are mostly very reluctant to accept we're trans, most of us - and scientifically conducted research which backs up how we feel.
"Wimmin born wimmin" as they describe themselves feel perfectly happy to disregard other "wimmin born wimmin" who identify as men, and the majority of women who do not even identify as feminist.
It's the trans exclusionary view that is niche.

ETA - I just read one report that suggests that young children who exhibit transgender behaviour is as high as 15%.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

keithy said:


> I personally see absolutely no reason why feminism as a debate and movement cannot include binary trans women, cis women AND non-binary trans people... plus of course cis men and trans men.
> 
> I also feel that whilst it is ALWAYS wrong to preach hate and transphobic vile, it is still important for us to debate and consider the arguments and concepts put forward by radical feminists as we continue to move forward in the way we treat gender as a society.
> 
> There have been plenty of accounts of trans women of the shock of losing the male privilege they had before, and I think those women sharing those experiences is really valuable to us all as they have seen both 'sides' of that binary just in those terms. Those women are definitely welcome in my feminism!



This tbh.


----------



## keithy (Oct 25, 2015)

I think it is a crying shame that we have played the game of binary gender for so long that people even need to have operations to change their sex to feel more comfortable with their gender. I see it as part of my work to encourage people to question that idea of gender being binary so that people can be more comfortable in their body and with their gender identity without having to include their sex in that. 

Having a dick doesn't make you male and having a cunt doesn't make you female, so the way we assign gender at birth and then seek to reaffirm it constantly is just ridiculous. 

I wish we didn't have this set-up where some people have to go under the knife to feel ok and like their mind matches up with their body. As feminists we should be fighting for those people too as they are also victims of 'gender'!!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

keithy said:


> I personally see absolutely no reason why feminism as a debate and movement cannot include binary trans women, cis women AND non-binary trans people... plus of course cis men and trans men.
> 
> I also feel that whilst it is ALWAYS wrong to preach hate and transphobic vile, it is still important for us to debate and consider the arguments and concepts put forward by radical feminists as we continue to move forward in the way we treat gender as a society.
> 
> There have been plenty of accounts of trans women of the shock of losing the male privilege they had before, and I think those women sharing those experiences is really valuable to us all as they have seen both 'sides' of that binary just in those terms. Those women are definitely welcome in my feminism!



many of us would argue we never had male privilege in the first place. I was never plugged into the patriarchy as I never lived up to accepted model of being male, never identified as male and always felt lost between genders.


----------



## keithy (Oct 25, 2015)

I hold absolutely no judgment against trans people or anyone who does need to take those drastic steps to 'become' who they are and to  match up their own perception and other people's perception and all of these really complicated things. But I judge our society for making it like this. 

Trans people are so much more likely to die of violence or suicide than most (if not all, I can't remember the stats) groups of people and that makes me angry and sad and it is more related to our struggles as cis women than some people realise. So yeah. That's my feelings on the matter, but I still think we should debate those arguments put forward by terfs as they have their reasons and their ideas behind it, and some of those ideas about gender are useful to us.


----------



## keithy (Oct 25, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> many of us would argue we never had male privilege in the first place. I was never plugged into the patriarchy as I never lived up to accepted model of being male, never identified as male and always felt lost between genders.



Yes of course, but many feel that after transitioning they realise the privileges they had because they no longer have them. I wish I could remember the article I read about this which included somebody's account of it.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

keithy said:


> I hold absolutely no judgment against trans people or anyone who does need to take those drastic steps to 'become' who they are and to  match up their own perception and other people's perception and all of these really complicated things. But I judge our society for making it like this.
> 
> Trans people are so much more likely to die of violence or suicide than most (if not all, I can't remember the stats) groups of people and that makes me angry and sad and it is more related to our struggles as cis women than some people realise. So yeah. That's my feelings on the matter, but I still think we should debate those arguments put forward by terfs as they have their reasons and their ideas behind it, and some of those ideas about gender are useful to us.


every time i try to talk to terfs i become depressed and potentially suicidal. It's not a debate many trans women can have because it erases our identity and we are assumed to be men.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

keithy said:


> Yes of course, but many feel that after transitioning they realise the privileges they had because they no longer have them. I wish I could remember the article I read about this which included somebody's account of it.


not disagreeing with you, just wanted to represent what i see as a more complete truth.

Whats more interesting to me is the number of trans men who claim to suddenly be experiencing male privilege. It's fascinating. 

TBH I'm doing better as a woman because i suddenly have support from women in a largely female work place.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Oh, I see that tosspot Brendan O'Neill has also waded into this too. That's just what the discourse needed


----------



## keithy (Oct 25, 2015)

And that seems to be part of what the terfs don't like, is that they see it as a man choosing to 'become' (I am using inverted commas because I feel like a trans person is already the gender they identify with iyswim, there is no becoming) a woman cannot understand or be part of that lived experience of oppression because they chose to let go of their privilege.

But like you say, a lot of people didn't tap into or experience that privilege in a typical way and even if they DID - they still suffer and get trett like shite effectively because of our ridiculous ideas about gender. They suffer too, before and after transitioning, from my perspective.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 25, 2015)

Being a non-trans man I'm not certain how true this song is, but I find it heartbreaking none-the-less


----------



## keithy (Oct 25, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> every time i try to talk to terfs i become depressed and potentially suicidal. It's not a debate many trans women can have because it erases our identity and we are assumed to be men.



Exactly, that's why I consider it to be something feminists should be behind you on. Trans women are so important in MY feminism because A) we need to make things better for you B) we need to re-consider gender/patriarchy and the impact it has on lots of different people  C) we can learn a lot about the impact our assertions about gender have on people by listening when you talk to us.


----------



## keithy (Oct 25, 2015)

That makes it sound like I want to use people as fodder or as a specimen to examine but hopefully my point is clear :/


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

D'wards said:


> Being a non-trans man I'm not certain how true this song is, but I find it heartbreaking none-the-less



well, probably true for them. Like everyone else we are a diverse bunch.


keithy said:


> Exactly, that's why I consider it to be something feminists should be behind you on. Trans women are so important in MY feminism because A) we need to make things better for you B) we need to re-consider gender/patriarchy and the impact it has on lots of different people  C) we can learn a lot about the impact our assertions about gender have on people by listening when you talk to us.


i've been talking to a lot of women about this and they have been pretty much without exception, very interested and very sympathetic.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

I think that the radfems do bring up some valid points but as there is no marxist/class analysis and much of it seems based on an appeal to emotion and a kind of nationalism where the sex/gender becomes the 'nation' and not the race. Are there trans people that have transitioned and regretted it or felt pushed into it by societal pressures? Defo ive read articles by some of them (male and female). Are there issues with over medicalisation/men pretending to be trans to perve on women etc etc? Yep (although if the solutions advocated by a lot of the radfems were carried out they would find another avenue more sanctioned by the State in order to do this).

In the transsexual empire raymond says that genital surgeries and the like should be restricted but i cant see how thats a solution at all and would only lead to more misery and suffering. Even in a communist society where everyone had the same life chances, access to wealth etc etc and gender differences were eliminated completely, you would still get people wanting to change their sex. And it seems to me that in focusing obsessively on this one issue a minority of radfems are going down very dark roads tbh. Its the stuff about lobbies and the idea that 'they' will have certain words be 'banned' and predictions that seem very far fetched on the lines of the 'britain will have sharia law by 2050' sort of model, the arguments are structured upon lines that are very over exaggerated and like anti immigration or 'rothschild banker' type arguments, even if some of the critiques about gender etc are sound.

I dont think that no platforming people like greer is an answer though, some of this stuff does need to be debated as keithy says. I don't think silencing her will convince people already half convinced by that sort of conspiratorialism


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Apologies if i am putting my point across wrongly btw.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

keithy said:


> And that seems to be part of what the terfs don't like, is that they see it as a man choosing to 'become' (I am using inverted commas because I feel like a trans person is already the gender they identify with iyswim, there is no becoming) a woman cannot understand or be part of that lived experience of oppression because they chose to let go of their privilege.
> 
> But like you say, a lot of people didn't tap into or experience that privilege in a typical way and even if they DID - they still suffer and get trett like shite effectively because of our ridiculous ideas about gender. They suffer too, before and after transitioning, from my perspective.



Yup


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

keithy said:


> That makes it sound like I want to use people as fodder or as a specimen to examine but hopefully my point is clear :/


yes - it is. Coincides with my views pretty much.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> many of us would argue we never had male privilege in the first place. I was never plugged into the patriarchy as I never lived up to accepted model of being male, never identified as male and always felt lost between genders.



Why on earth are genders so important?   It seems to be getting worse as well with all the pink and blue toys marketed to little girls and boys that i dont remember when i was a kid, must be hell if you already feel like your body/brain already dont match up.   Not that that is trans peoples fault (quite the opposite tbh)


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Even in a communist society where everyone had the same life chances, access to wealth etc etc and gender differences were eliminated completely, you would still get people wanting to change their sex.


Gosh, wouldn't this be interesting though to see how it would influence things? Whether the same amount of individuals would want to change their sex, fewer, or more? I mean, that would really tease out the essentialist/social constructionist strands. Just as I can see how it would lead to fewer people wanting to transition, I can also definitely see how in a less gendered world more people would want to change their sex because of the taboos being lesser. 

Shame computer modeling can't do human psychology


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Gosh, wouldn't this be interesting though to see how it would influence things? Whether the same amount of individuals would want to change their sex, fewer, or more? I mean, that would really tease out the essentialist/social constructionist strands. Just as I can see how it would lead to fewer people wanting to transition, I can also definitely see how in a less gendered world more people would want to change their sex because of the taboos being lesser.
> 
> Shame computer modeling can't do human psychology



Lets introduce communism and find out.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why on earth are genders so important?   It seems to be getting worse as well with all the pink and blue toys marketed to little girls and boys that i dont remember when i was a kid, must be hell if you already feel like your body/brain already dont match up.   Not that that is trans peoples fault (quite the opposite tbh)


They clearly are important to most of us, however much we may hate the proscribed roles we're often forced to live up to (and i certainly am not a stereotypically feminine woman) I just know I'm female, and to be able to espress that internal feeling means i get treated as such. But that doesn't necessarily mean i buy into all the gender baggage women get lumbered with, I like having choice.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Gosh, wouldn't this be interesting though to see how it would influence things? Whether the same amount of individuals would want to change their sex, fewer, or more? I mean, that would really tease out the essentialist/social constructionist strands. Just as I can see how it would lead to fewer people wanting to transition, I can also definitely see how in a less gendered world more people would want to change their sex because of the taboos being lesser.
> 
> Shame computer modeling can't do human psychology


i don't think people transition for ideological reasons. It's too bloody hard for that! My own view is that numbers would not change.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 25, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> i don't think people transition for ideological reasons. It's too bloody hard for that! My own view is that numbers would not change.


Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that people would transition for ideological reasons. Just that given the debates (both on and outside of this thread) about whether gender norms do influence gender identity both for cis and trans individuals, it would obviously clear all that up. But obviously it's never going to happen (or at least not until a long way into the future) so it's really just an aside.


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 25, 2015)

Radical feminists are a tiny minority of cis-women though. It is strange that trans activists spend so much effort trying to force their way into their 'women only' spaces.

The older feminists I've spoken to about this aren't so much opposed to the integration of long term trans-women i.e people who have lived as women for a long period of time into the cis-female community but do find the prospect of being shouted down by 20 somethings who have announced that they are women in the last six months and have done little to unpack their own male privilege (i.e the assumption that their's should be the loudest voice in the room) quite galling.

Strangely in my experience the politics of insisting that gender boundaries are fluid and that there should be no restriction on an individuals right to assert their gender identity often seem to go hand in hand with ideas around ethnicity and culture that are positively hidebound.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that people would transition for ideological reasons. Just that given the debates (both on and outside of this thread) about whether gender norms do influence gender identity both for cis and trans individuals, it would obviously clear all that up. But obviously it's never going to happen (or at least not until a long way into the future) so it's really just an aside.


i don't think it would clear anything up. How we identify is so fundamental i don't think ideas of gender norms impact on self identity at all.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> Radical feminists are a tiny minority of cis-women though. It is strange that trans activists spend so much effort trying to force their way into their 'women only' spaces.



Trans people with their industrial wire cutters, forcing their way IN 2 UR women only spaces!1!!!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> It is strange that trans activists spend so much effort trying to force their way into their 'women only' spaces.


They don't - if anything we're intimidated away from women only spaces. It's taken me 18 months of being a woman to begin to feel i am able to and have any need to enter women only spaces. But as my friends and colleagues tell me, I'm a woman and I have every right to be there.


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Trans people with their industrial wire cutters, forcing their way IN 2 UR women only spaces!1!!!



Isn't that how the whole TERF war started?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> Isn't that how the whole TERF war started?


is that a joke?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Are you offering an opinion here Red Sky, or regurgitating stuff, I'm not sure which?


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 25, 2015)

Second para of this piece

The Dispute Between Radical Feminism and Transgenderism - The New Yorker


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Are you offering an opinion here Red Sky, or regurgitating stuff, I'm not sure which?



Offering an opinion based on conversations I've had - regurgitating if you like - but of digested matter.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> Second para of this piece
> 
> The Dispute Between Radical Feminism and Transgenderism - The New Yorker


its in the New Yorker so it must be true


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 25, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> its in the New Yorker so it must be true



What have they got wrong?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> What have they got wrong?



all of it I expect. It's hardly reliable source material.


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 25, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> all of it I expect. It's hardly reliable source material.


Names, dates, quotes? All made up?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> Names, dates, quotes? All made up?


the whole article is so clearly biased against trans people that it might well be a complete fabrication.


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 25, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> the whole article is so clearly biased against trans people that it might well be a complete fabrication.


But it isn't a complete fabrication is it?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

I've put Red sky on ignore. I'm already starting to get upset.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> Offering an opinion based on conversations I've had - regurgitating if you like - but of digested matter.



I was just interested in your use of the word 'forcing' that was all.

In relation to the article, I never really did see the point of trans people counter protesting Michfest, or Rad Fem conferences tbh, however much I might disagree with them.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

And trans critical discourse came about in the second wave of feminism - I don't think the battle over trans women and 'women only spaces' really gained traction until the 90s afaik. Possibly around the same time as trans people started to be more visible, vocal and also began to organise.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I was just interested in your use of the word 'forcing' that was all.
> 
> In relation to the article, I never really did see the point of trans people counter protesting Michfest, or Rad Fem conferences tbh, however much I might disagree with them.


most of us are just trying to live our lives. I enter women only spaces every day now - when i want to take a piss. I think every space that defines itself as women only should not exclude trans women, or we will quickly find ourselves being excluded more and more. And its not as if most cis women want to exclude us, because they clearly don't. It's a principle that I would fight for if it impinged on my life at all - though i'm not an activist - i support those who help to fight for my rights.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2015)

what are "cis women"?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> what are "cis women"?


Comfortable in skin.


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> what are "cis women"?


The opposite to trans women i.e. born as female.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> what are "cis women"?


I looked it up, it doesn't actually stand for that its from the Latin cis, on the same side as. Living in the gender you were born in.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2015)

8115 said:


> Comfortable in skin.



No.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> No.


I know, I looked it up. I don't know if its a common misconception or where I picked I up from.


----------



## Epona (Oct 25, 2015)

8115 said:


> I looked it up, it doesn't actually stand for that its from the Latin cis, on the same side as. Living in the gender you were born in.



Yep - like cisalpine and transalpine (terms completely unrelated to gender identity, but using the Latin terms for "same" and "opposite" to describe parts of Gaul depending upon their location to Rome in respect of the Alps)


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2015)

Now I am confused.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 25, 2015)

It may seem insensitive to wade in on an issue that's vital to some people here but doesn't affect me personally. Yet we all need to know how to use the language meaningfully and considerately.
Several things occur to me that haven't been mentioned:
A lot of noise is made by a few people, probably because the bulk of the population has a long way to go to catch up with views expressed on places like urban and among my FB friends. Some of the loudest noise seems to be coming from allies rather than trans women themselves.
It doesn't make any difference to anyone's gender identity or anything else to accept someone else as the gender they say they are. (The equal marriage analogy is a good one.)
I don't know what the fuck gender means. I know, I know, I've read plenty but am still confused. (It certainly doesn't mean plaits!)
I know it means so much to some people that they go to heroic lengths for it.
Yes, as frogwoman says there is a need for gender specific toilets and washrooms in some sketchy places, and trans women are at least as much (if not more) in need of them as anyone else.
Caitlyn Jenner is not the only transwoman in the world and her way is not the only way there is of being trans. Plus she is rich and that makes a massive difference.
Stories like Mount Holyoake scrapping The Vagina Monologues as not being inclusive enough are not a good advert for the notion that (all) trans women understand that cis women have some commonality too. The idea that 'being pregnant is simply a bodily function' rather than gender-specific still takes a lot of getting used to. Treating cis women as people who may (or do) become pregnant has been the primary cause of historic discrimination - isn't this one of Greer's gripes?
People who complain about the cotton ceiling totally fail to understand how sexual attraction works and that there is no entitlement to sexual relations with another human being of whatever gender or orientation. (How many of these people are there, is it really a thing?)
There maybe needs to be a word other than uterus-havers for people who have shared certain life experiences both societal and biological. "Cis women" doesn't cut it as it doesn't include trans men (see above) and other AFABs without a uterus.  BTW I've seen a lot of hate online directed to cis women as a whole group.
Would be grateful for any light to be shed on any of this. There is a lot of genuine confusion and ignorance, not all of it intentionally hostile, not all of it mine, and certainly not ineducable. Unlike us urban sophisticates, not everyone has ever heard the term TERF or would care even when it's explained. But it's not brilliant advocacy to shoot people down for being behind the curve, even on urban. Perhaps there is no debate to be had, as there is no debate to be had about other human rights issues like gay rights or torture or slavery, but language and definitions are involved so there needs to be persuasion that there is no debate; and there is education to be had.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Google just gave me these two definitions:
> 
> Sex:
> 
> ...



In terms of whether or not you think there is a spectrum, though, I think there are still problems. Within ideas of gender there are many that I think are bollocks. I don't think certain aspects of me are 'masculine' but that I also have a 'feminine side'. I think both of these as descriptions of traits are generally bollocks, demonstrably so given the exceptions on both sides within people who don't doubt their own gender. It's possible to reject many ideas of what is 'male' and what is 'female' without thinking that instead there is a continuum of gender identity. Rather, it is simply that such ideas have no place being described as gendered in the first place.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 25, 2015)

It's clear from my post that my understanding is fuzzy round the edges (Iranian football team?). I don't understand gender, certainly not as a binary and am suspicious of it as a spectrum if M is on one end and F on the other. Moreover, I'm beginning to suspect the argument is primarily not about patriarchy but generational.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Sky said:


> Second para of this piece
> 
> The Dispute Between Radical Feminism and Transgenderism - The New Yorker


What about it? The second para of that piece sums up the rotten nature of identity politics.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In terms of whether or not you think there is a spectrum, though, I think there are still problems. Within ideas of gender there are many that I think are bollocks. I don't think certain aspects of me are 'masculine' but that I also have a 'feminine side'. I think both of these as descriptions of traits are generally bollocks, demonstrably so given the exceptions on both sides within people who don't doubt their own gender. It's possible to reject many ideas of what is 'male' and what is 'female' without thinking that instead there is a continuum of gender identity. Rather, it is simply that such ideas have no place being described as gendered in the first place.



Gender norms are contested and contestable, but that doesn't negate their existence: they are embedded in cultural expectations, economic arrangements, the family, institutional practices, the legal system etc., whether or not you or I think they're bollocks or not.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

> Would be grateful for any light to be shed on any of this. There is a lot of genuine confusion and ignorance, not all of it intentionally hostile, not all of it mine, and certainly not ineducable.



Certainly agree with that and its not helped by amount of extremism and hostility that there is surrounding this, as i said i am not fully decided on my stance on this as a political issue as i think both sides have valid points, the most you can do is by treating people with respect really. And i think too often, thats not happening


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gender norms are contested and contestable, but that doesn't negate their existence: they are embedded in cultural expectations, economic arrangements, the family, institutional practices, the legal system etc., whether or not you or I think they're bollocks or not.


That's not quite what I was saying. Various traits are gendered in various ways. To be simplistic, but this process is, by its nature, simplistic:

Being good at languages is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'female' trait.
Being good with numbers is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'male' trait.

Neither of these things is remotely true, yet they still permeate various discourses, the ways children are treated, etc. You will still hear, despite the evidence to the contrary, that girls are not as good at maths as boys, for instance, and you will still see girls guided away from maths in lots of subtle ways. 'Gender norms', as you put it, exist despite the evidence that they are the wrong way to look at things, that they are not what is going on, that they are not the _explanation_. Again, simple example: why do fewer girls do maths at uni than boys? Is it because girls are not as good at maths as boys (it's a 'male' trait)? No. It isn't. All the evidence is that this is not true at all, and the reasons are in fact far more to do with the self-fulfilling nature of the gender norms themselves.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

> I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he _dares_to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.



That is nationalism, that is what I mean about the structure of a lot of their arguments being similar to anti immigration and conspiratorial views about jews or other groups. That is a pure argument based on emotion its like for instance a zionist looking at another group claiming to be oppressed and being like how dare they say they are this when we were the most oppressed through history we owe it to our forefather's blah blah blah. 

I think that the main cause of womens oppression was and still is sex based and in terms of the expectation of getting pregnant, and that gender roles a social construct that harms women but why the fuck cant they also realise the fact that these stupid ideas about gender harm everyone and they actually help perpetuate them. The myth that men are all automatically dangerous and that therefore trans women are all automatically dangerous as they used to be men, feeds in to that whole concept of womens behaviour needing to be restricted and controlled for 'their own good' because most/every man is a rapist and unable to control their urges. 

And lets be clear there are trans-activists who think similar stuff on their side too.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 25, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> A lot of noise is made by a few people, probably because the bulk of the population has a long way to go to catch up with views expressed on places like urban and among my FB friends. Some of the loudest noise seems to be coming from allies rather than trans women themselves.



I don't see why urban can claim some elite high ground on this, there's been a trans character in Corrie, Kellie Maloney's transition has been well if not warmly received even by the tabloid press, there was someone transitioning who worked in my local Tesco with barely an eyelid batted - thats not to say discrmination does not still take place and theres a long way to go, but most people seems to be broadly accepting of trangenderism and just getting on with things, its only lefties and liberals tying themselves in knots over it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2015)

I get equally annoyed with both sides of this 'argument' tbh, still dont really know what is the right (as in 'correct') position to take over it but i am leaning towards the conclusion that as far as things that effect feminism it isnt really the most important issue and there are lots of things that we should be working together on. All you can and should do is go by peoples wishes as to how they see themselves and treat them with respect unless theres a good reason not to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

The thing about gender norms is that they may be defined as the cultural manifestation of ideas based on biological sex, but they are invariably framed by those that reinforce them as _actually due to_ biological sex. You can't neatly separate the two.


----------



## Epona (Oct 25, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I don't see why urban can claim some elite high ground on this, there's been a trans character in Corrie, Kellie Maloney's transition has been well if not warmly received even by the tabloid press, there was someone transitioning who worked in my local Tesco with barely an eyelid batted - thats not to say discrmination does not still take place and theres a long way to go, but most people seems to be broadly accepting of trangenderism and just getting on with things, its only lefties and liberals tying themselves in knots over it.



The problem is though, that a lot of people who aren't affected actually say similar things about feminism - that it's not really an issue now and that sexism has fallen off to a point where it isn't really relevant, and anyone who claims that it is needed is some sort of dinosaur who wants to 'take it too far'.  I've heard similar things said about race, there's a black president of the US so racism isn't a problem in the US.

It's a lovely idea that trans people don't experience prejudice because there is a soap actor and a woman in your local Tesco who you haven't seen suffering abuse, but that is hardly a firm basis for a socio-political discussion about the issue, is it?


----------



## Humberto (Oct 25, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I don't see why urban can claim some elite high ground on this, there's been a trans character in Corrie, Kellie Maloney's transition has been well if not warmly received even by the tabloid press, there was someone transitioning who worked in my local Tesco with barely an eyelid batted - thats not to say discrmination does not still take place and theres a long way to go, but most people seems to be broadly accepting of trangenderism and just getting on with things, its only lefties and liberals tying themselves in knots over it.



Depends. It ranges from back handed comments to verbal and physical threats and attacks. I hope thats very rare though but I'm learning as I go along here so don't have a list of stats.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 25, 2015)

Epona said:


> The problem is though, that a lot of people who aren't affected actually say similar things about feminism - that it's not really an issue now and that sexism has fallen off to a point where it isn't really relevant, and anyone who claims that it is needed is some sort of dinosaur who wants to 'take it too far'.  I've heard similar things said about race, there's a black president of the US so racism isn't a problem in the US.
> 
> It's a lovely idea that trans people don't experience prejudice because there is a soap actor and a woman in your local Tesco who you haven't seen suffering abuse, but that is hardly a firm basis for a socio-political discussion about the issue, is it?



I'm not denying theres still problems, I said that, some of the crap on this thread is evidence enough of that, I was pointing out that in general, there is a greater acceptance of transgenderism where it counts and where the struggle will be won, than has often been evidenced by threads on here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I'm not denying theres still problems, I said that, some of the crap on this thread is evidence enough of that, I was pointing out that in general, *there is a greater acceptance of transgenderism where it counts and where the struggle will be won, than has often been evidenced by threads on here*.



How do you judge this?



> Serge Nicholson, from the charity Galop, which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said transphobic hate crimes recorded by police were a “tiny fraction of the true number”.
> 
> “A third of trans people in the UK go through transphobic abuse every year,” he said. “That’s the second highest of any EU country. Yet only a few hundred transphobic crimes get recorded by the police each year. That has got to be a tiny fraction of the true number.



rise in reports of transphobic hate crimes


----------



## Epona (Oct 25, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I'm not denying theres still problems, I said that, some of the crap on this thread is evidence enough of that, I was pointing out that in general, there is a greater acceptance of transgenderism where it counts and where the struggle will be won, than has often been evidenced by threads on here.



I think that's fair enough up to a point, but the struggles against racism and sexism have been going on for longer than I have been on the planet, and still a long way from being won - it is not yet time to stop the fight for those, let alone for acceptance of sexuality and gender identity, the fight for rights for those is still young by comparison.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How do you judge this?



by some of the threads on here, and the wider debate amongst lefties and liberals.  Such as Thora's unchallenged assertion that trans people being the gender they identify as is a niche position, when its clearly anything but.  The rad fem position is a niche position, the ultra-identity politics is another, but what seems to be happening, and how acceptance will be gained, is people muddling through, using a bit of common sense and tolerance for others and not really giving that much of a shit when it comes down to it - how much fire and brimstone was rained down over the gender recognition act, which is pretty radical considering where society was a couple of decades ago.  Urban is behind the class, no big surprise, bit uncomfortable for some no doubt though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

smokedout said:


> by some of the threads on here, and the wider debate amongst lefties and liberals.  Such as Thora's unchallenged assertion that trans people being the gender they identify as is a niche position, when its clearly anything but.  The rad fem position is a niche position, the ultra-identity politics is another, but what seems to be happening, and how acceptance will be gained, is people muddling through, using a bit of common sense and tolerance for others and not really giving that much of a shit when it comes down to it - how much fire and brimstone was rained down over the gender recognition act, which is pretty radical considering where society was a couple of decades ago.  Urban is behind the class, no big surprise, bit uncomfortable for some no doubt though.


The majority position of people on this thread, as on any other thread on trans acceptance, is that trans people should be accepted with the identity they want. 

'urban' includes _you_, btw.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The majority position of people on this thread, as on any other thread on trans acceptance, is that trans people should be accepted with the identity they want.
> 
> 'urban' includes _you_, btw.



You'll note the comment I was referring to



> the bulk of the population has a long way to go to catch up with views expressed on places like urban and among my FB friends.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2015)

Tbh since becoming friends with a couple of transgender people i have had my eyes opened quite a bit, i know ive swallowed some of the radfem stuff a bit too uncritically in the past, i do still think theres some valid concerns but i think that openness etc can go a long way. I think there is a lot of ignorance out there and some quite messed up 'facts' can fill the void quite quickly cos people dont really understand. Some of the radfem articles online can give the impression that these drugs etc are being given out like sweets but thats actually (in this country at least) not the case at all. Really tough to get a referral in this part of the uk and a lot of people end up self medicating via the internet. So yeah as ive discovered the way things are presented online on either side are often too binary and without any subtlety and its a good idea to actually meet and talk to people


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

smokedout said:


> You'll note the comment I was referring to


Fair dos. I missed that bit, tbh. Yes, I agree to that extent that urban isn't some kind of vanguard on this stuff.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 26, 2015)

smokedout said:


> You'll note the comment I was referring to


To be fair, I have no firm evidence so I shouldn't have made the claim. But perhaps you have more than anecdata to go on? Meanwhile I think we need to listen to what transwomen have to say about their experiences.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not quite what I was saying. Various traits are gendered in various ways. To be simplistic, but this process is, by its nature, simplistic:
> 
> Being good at languages is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'female' trait.
> Being good with numbers is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'male' trait.
> ...



This is exactly how gender norms function - they are not necessarily (or even usually) accurate descriptions of the innate characteristics and capabilities of the sexes: as in your example, they _constitute_ gender identities rather than describe them. That's what norms do. I don't think we have any real disagreement on that point. 

Some interesting research on gender stereotypes and maths performance: 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.370.3979&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Bustle


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> To be fair, I have no firm evidence so I shouldn't have made the claim. But perhaps you have more than anecdata to go on? Meanwhile I think we need to listen to what transwomen have to say about their experiences.


and trans men surely?
it seems like it is a term that is used to describe a huge range of different experiences tbh. And i dont think theres like a correct position to have about it all only 'dont be a dick'. Eg dont force kids to play with dolls or action men, dont go round calling the trans person by their old name and gender (unless it turns out they want you to, such as if they change their mind about it all). That's it really. it's something that has always happened to an extent, and probably always will and its not really something you can or should 'morally mandate out of existence'.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The thing about gender norms is that they may be defined as the cultural manifestation of ideas based on biological sex, but they are invariably framed by those that reinforce them as _actually due to_ biological sex. You can't neatly separate the two.



Not always. For example, men are called 'girls', 'pussies', 'bitches' etc. not due to the biology but _in spite_ of it, because of their failure to conform to societal ideals of masculinity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Not always. For example, men are called 'girls', 'pussies', 'bitches' etc. not due to the biology but _in spite_ of it, because of their failure to conform to societal ideals of masculinity.


I don't think that really contradicts what I'm saying. As you said, and you summed it up well, gender norms _'constitute_ gender identities rather than describe them'. But that's not how they are enforced, or how they are understood by those enforcing them. I would say that they are invariably enforced in a way that assumes some form of biological determinism - even when they're used as above as insults.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 26, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is exactly how gender norms function - they are not necessarily (or even usually) accurate descriptions of the innate characteristics and capabilities of the sexes: as in your example, they _constitute_ gender identities rather than describe them. That's what norms do. I don't think we have any real disagreement on that point.
> 
> Some interesting research on gender stereotypes and maths performance:


Just in case there is anyone in the entire universe who hasn't seen this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ,


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2015)

Rad fem theirs your problem.
 I imagine somebody going through transition and all the hassle that causes let alone the years of pain before deciding to go down that route is likey to react poorly to somebody you'd think would be on their side.
 Stupid bigatory is one thing claiming extra special snowflake status  thats allows  your little group to claim ownership of what it means to be a woman or a lesbian etc etc is just bigatory disguised with a confrence .

Its the stupidy that many years got my partner and her friend asked to move their tent from the "womans circle"in the big green gathering as apprantly they werent the right sort of woman.


----------



## Epona (Oct 26, 2015)

(I think you mean bigotry, not bigatory.  Just saying).


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 26, 2015)

Tbh it's stuff like that satirised by xkcd, and accusations of being emotional rather than rational, sentimental rather than analytical, caring rather than strategic, weak (pliant?) rather than strong, that have (in my limited experience) defined gender - differences I've always rejected as false dichotomies. So it's a bit baffling that anyone should choose to identify as female: why identify as emotional, weak and innumerate? That is clearly not what trans women are identifying with. I'm sure it's not just the make-up and high heels: you can do all that while still being a man. Besides, some women hate that stuff.

So what is a woman? I realise it's not even necessarily about body - though for some people it necessarily is, and they are the ones it's easy to understand. God, I think everyone understands that.

It's the others, comfortable in their bodies, who are so puzzling. No, of course it's no one's business what anyone else chooses to do or not to do with their body. But what is a woman? And why even bother with gender? I mean, why does anyone trans rather than resist the binary, especially as tolerance of difference is increasing?

Should add that most of my info comes from a trans woman who wears a beard and has no intention of passing as AFAB. They won't talk about any of this as it is triggering. And how exclusionary cis women are! so I can't ask them these questions. Maybe it is rude to ask questions about what it means to be a woman when it's different from the generally accepted definition.

As for F to M, I have no problem understanding that... Of course it's not about me, but who I am is the place from which I can start to understand.

Wow, likesfish that's a horrible story.  'Bigotry with a conference' is a good description.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2015)

They didnt think it was just horrible just deeply weird
 Kind of difficult to be upset by not being called a woman when you are one?
 Its like being targeted with a load of homophobic abuse when your not actually gay  yes I should be upset by this but I'm not actually gay Client who was screaming about how much I liked cock etc


----------



## Epona (Oct 26, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Tbh it's stuff like that satirised by xkcd, and accusations of being emotional rather than rational, sentimental rather than analytical, caring rather than strategic, weak (pliant?) rather than strong, that have (in my limited experience) defined gender - differences I've always rejected as false dichotomies. So it's a bit baffling that anyone should *choose* to identify as female: why identify as emotional, weak and innumerate? That is clearly not what trans women are identifying with. I'm sure it's not just the make-up and high heels: you can do all that while still being a man. Besides, some women hate that stuff.
> 
> So what is a woman? I realise it's not even necessarily about body - though for some people it necessarily is, and they are the ones it's easy to understand. God, I think everyone understands that.
> 
> ...



I've highlighted one word in your post, that may make it a bit clearer.

(Realised once I hit post that just bolding it doesn't make it really stand out, but the word I highlighted is "choose".  Do you think it is a choice?)


----------



## treefrog (Oct 26, 2015)

The "I don't understand why (insert marginalised group) are so angry all the time. Why can't they be polite and engage properly in the debate" privileged whinge makes me ropeable.

People who will defend the right to violent protest and will argue (rightly) that we shouldn't have to defend our own existence to those more privileged than us, who then turn to more marginalised people and demand that they are polite, debate their right to existence endlessly, and then get all shitty when they get anger and frustration back, just don't seem to get it. 

It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist. It's our duty as cis people to educate ourselves and unpack our own prejudice.


----------



## Epona (Oct 26, 2015)

treefrog said:


> Why can't they be polite and engage properly in the debate" privileged whinge makes me ropeable.



Especially when "The Debate" is often formed around an idiotic argument along the lines of "Y U exist?"


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 26, 2015)

Epona said:


> I've highlighted one word in your post, that may make it a bit clearer.
> 'd
> (Realised once I hit post that just bolding it doesn't make it really stand out, but the word I highlighted is "choose".  Do you think it is a choice?)


Fair call. No I don't think it's a choice. Certainly not for body dysphoria. I just don't understand gender dysphoria but maybe I don't have to.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 26, 2015)

I mean, I don't understand it because my own concept of gender is so out of whack.


----------



## Epona (Oct 26, 2015)

I'm not even sure this is the right place to try to explain that gender identity is not the same thing as, and not always in step with, whatever bits you happen to have been born with on your undercarriage so to speak.  It's not about cultural gender norms either.  It's not even as simple as some people are born one gender and want to be the other, there's more to it than that.

Just respect for other people -as people - and without making assumptions- goes a hell of a long way.


----------



## Thora (Oct 26, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Such as Thora's unchallenged assertion that trans people being the gender they identify as is a niche position, when its clearly anything but.


Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2015)

I guess if you build your entire identify around having a vagina and periods.
 Somebody who has a vagina created or chooses to get rid of said organs is a threat to everything you hold dear.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 26, 2015)

Thora said:


> Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.



What is the "sex" you refer to here? Genitalia? Chromosomes?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2015)

biological sex like the ability to get pregnant i think (which has been the primary source of discrimination against women and the way it gets justified), so not a case of building your identity around something but having it (or society's ideas about it) imposed on you. 

isnt the point that gender roles are something that are imposed on people since birth? i dont think conspiracy bullshit is the way to change that, but i dont think thoras actually said anything like that so far tbf. the conspiracy theories and lies are a million miles away from a debate about gender being a social construct but it some people have coopted a version of this theory for their own purposes (some of whom like alex jones et al have very very outdated ideas on gender themselves).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2015)

The Fields, in Racecraft argue that racism produces race, not that race produces racism. They argue that ignoring or sidelining this, getting the polarity wrong is  where most people go wrong. Is that insight of any use here?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The Fields, in Racecraft argue that racism produces race, not that race produces racism. They argue that ignoring or sidelining this, getting the polarity wrong is  where most people go wrong. Is that insight of any use here?


Of use? Maybe, except that you would have to recognise that "race" isn't based in an objective biological reality, while gender is not unrelated to a biological reality (note I said "not unrelated to", not "determined by").


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Of use? Maybe, except that you would have to recognise that "race" isn't based in an objective biological reality, while gender is not unrelated to a biological reality (note I said "not unrelated to", not "determined by").


Isn't that exactly what much race-based discussion assumes though - that race exists, biologically. And their argument isn't that black people don't exist -  but that race doesn't., that it's a epiphenomenon (yes, i said epiphenomenon) And isn't the last part of your post exactly what many people are arguing here isn't the case? Both can be related materially back to something and both have a set of other stuff that flows from the grounds of that original assumption.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Isn't that exactly what much race-based discussion assumes though - that race exists, biologically. And their argument isn't that black people don't exist -  but that race doesn't., that it's a epiphenomenon (yes, i said epiphenomenon) And isn't the last part of your post exactly what many people are arguing here isn't the case? Both can be related materially back to something and both have a set of other stuff that flows from the grounds of that original assumption.



Both can be (but may not necessarily be) related materially back to something, and both have a set of other stuff that is believed or assumed to flow from the grounds of that original assumption - even if both that assumption and the things that are assumed to flow from it may not be a secure foundation for such arrangements.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I do think theres a point about the medicalisation of childhood and young kids being prescribed hormones and labelled trans when they're not but this is far more of an issue in the US rather than the UK where anything transgender related (or anything else) is being totally butchered by the government. Plus theres the issue of doctors prescribing drugs rather than offering therapies or surgery because its cheaper. But its like that with everything rather than just transgender people. The restrictive gender role thing and the idea that people who act like the opposite sex are assumed to be that sex is an interesting point but again this is not a reason to hate transgender people and surely wider social trends are a far bigger cause of this.
> 
> I had a big argument the other day with a radical feminist about all this as she seemed to be suggesting some sort of 'jewish lobby' type situation and when challenged even came out with 'but some of my best friends are trans' bullshit. One day I want to write a Marxist critique of radical feminism but id have enough material for a whole book. The entire feminist movement (whatever wing of it) seems to have become coopted by rich women (cis or trans) and despite radical feminists saying that the transgender issue overshadows other stuff such as the pay gap and abortion etc etc by banging on about a stupid conspiracy theory it doesnt actually do anything to address anything to do with the majority of women and actually helps to make life worse for everyone.



To be fair, froggie, the "entire feminist movement (whatever wing of it)" has *always* been dominated by women with a more than average stash of money and of social capital. Much of the shift to identity politics in the '80s was due to that domination (and to the blindness of the dominators to their social colonialism).


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> BTW I've seen a lot of hate online directed to cis women as a whole group.



I very much doubt this as most trans women would like nothing more than to have been a cis woman, and will identify strongly as women, so to hate women would be absurd. I see hate directed at TERFs as a group but they don't represent even a majority of cis women. But hate expressed by a marginalised minority for a unrepresentative group of narrow minded people who have unusually privileged access to academia and media, and who campaign to have our rights removed seems fairly justified to me. 

I have found cis women in real life to be nothing but entirely supportive and sympathetic, as I think most trans women I've spoken to also find. Online, things are slightly different and I've been actively campaigned against by TERFs, both male and female, who do not consider me to be a woman, including a group who tried to get me deselected as a candidate at the general elections.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> So it's a bit baffling that anyone should choose to identify as female:



We don't choose. no one would choose to be transgender!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

toggle said:


> it comes down to accepting that people have a right to define their own identity rather than have one imposed upon them. this is a fairly basic principle IMO, not something that should be labelled as 'niche'.



Unfortunately the principle is fairly new in historical terms, whereas "imposed identity" is as old as the hills, and has millennia of reaction behind it.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> What is the "sex" you refer to here? Genitalia? Chromosomes?


No one knows - its just an innate subject feeling that all children are able to report at some age whether they are cis or trans.

An acute awareness of this feeling of gender identity only arises if the gender you were assigned disagrees with the one you subjectively feel.

When I knew I was a girl at the age of 7 I saw no gender role I wanted to buy into - I just knew that I was a girl. It's as simple as that.

Research into the mechanism continues - can be found using Google if you're interested. Trans feelings can now be shown to be an objective reality from pyschological studies on children looking at our behaviour.

What is clear is that due to the fact that we identify as girls from as far back as we have any gender identity, and contrary to the conditioning we are given, our brain develops differently from "normal" males.

The best thing to do at this stage is to just listen to/read the more articulate trans women out there, probably not me, but I recommend the writings of Julia Serano.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Fair call. No I don't think it's a choice. Certainly not for body dysphoria. I just don't understand gender dysphoria but maybe I don't have to.


If you mean you don't understand how it feels, then sure I would think only those experiencing it can really understand that. Not having that kind of understanding is absolutely no reason not to accept it, though.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you mean you don't understand how it feels, then sure I would think only those experiencing it can really understand that. Not having that kind of understanding is absolutely no reason not to accept it, though.


I know how it feels if anyone wants to know, though subjective feelings are very hard to express. I do try. It mostly seems to go down fairly well to the people I explain it to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> The problem with this approach, IMO, is that it risks reducing issues of gender (and by extension those of race, class and others) simply to an individual (and individualistic) question of personal identity, which in turn makes it an entirely subjective thing with no generally agreed or socially established meaning.
> 
> Anyone can define their own identity as a woman, but in practical terms they can't insist that everyone else accepts or agree with their self-definition, particularly if it contradicts the more broadly accepted definition. One person's self-identity isn't simply of interest to them, it has implications for the identities of many other people, in this case in the insistance by some that female adults who are quite happy to simply identify as women now have to be referred to and regard themselves as cis-women, because not to do so is supposedly to exclude trans-women from the identity of women.
> 
> I'm not coming down on either side of that argument, BTW, simply pointing out that it isn't as simple as some (not necessarily you, but your point about the right to self-identify highlights it) appear to be portraying it.



Self-identification is only feasible if/when the identification has some root in lived experience. Describing yourself as working class, when you have no experience of what "being working class" is, is fatuous. Describing yourself as "minority ethnic" when you're an obvious Euro-white is similarly fatuous. Describing yourself as a woman when you live and exist as a woman *isn't* fatuous. It's an expression of lived experience even if some women deny the validity of that experience.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

toggle said:


> 1.what parts of identity are not socially constructed labels?



None of them.

Some, however, are more culturally-concretised than others, which leads some people to assume that the labels are "natural" rather than man-made artefacts.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 26, 2015)

Thora said:


> Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.



Even that's not a niche view, either amomgst scientists, or wider society - Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus etc.  But anyway you said



> This is the bit I find particularly odd and aggressive about the whole debate tbh - that everyone has to accept this particular, niche world view about gender and what it is to be a women or else they're hateful terfs and should be hounded off the internet



Which implies, along with your wider comments, that you think someone who believes they can self-identify as a woman in a way you don't agree with is a niche view.  And it's not, it's a pretty mainstream view, so mainstream that in fact it's the law.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 26, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> I mean, I don't understand it because my own concept of gender is so out of whack.



is it?  how do you transcend the gender you were born into on a daily basis?  it seems to me that there is a huge amount of pressure on people who are trans to reject gender in a way that almost nobody else does.  classic bigotry, a minority groups is held to a higher moral standard than everyone else and condemned for not reaching it.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

Thora said:


> Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.


which is also wrong


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> which is also wrong


 
You mean it's wrong that it's a niche view?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

8ball said:


> You mean it's wrong that it's a niche view?


yes


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> yes


 
Yeah, seems like it to me too.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 26, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I have found cis women in real life to be nothing but entirely supportive and sympathetic, as I think most trans women I've spoken to also find. Online, things are slightly different and I've been actively campaigned against by TERFs, both male and female, who do not consider me to be a woman, including a group who tried to get me deselected as a candidate at the general elections.



This seems to play both ways, though. Online discussion is simply more unpleasant than real life interaction - which is why the suggestion that those feminists who view natally assigned gender as essential to gender identity "hate trans people" appears to be accepted here and elsewhere online.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

The Joan/ John case is very illuminating as an example of how gender identity is innate and cannot be shifted with conditioning.
David Reimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know an intersex person who identifies as male (and indeed was born as a male with genital abnormalities) but was brought up as a girl and forced through a female adolescence. They feel strongly that the feeling of gender identity that they struggled with all through their life is the same feeling that trans people feel. We've compared our experiences and they are remarkably similar through parts of our lives.

If it is socialisation that makes men and women then it has yet to be demonstrated and all the evidence is to the contrary, that if you take a boy or girl and bring them up as the 'opposite gender' (I hate using that phrase but for the purposes of this post it will have to do) does not change their gender identity.

ETA - I was very much brought up as a boy, albeit in the less pressured environment of the 1970s, and with a very strong mother and a relatively hands off father. However, despite my upbringing and my conditioning, and the way society would try to shape me as a boy, I remained unrelentingly female!!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> This seems to play both ways, though. Online discussion is simply more unpleasant than real life interaction - which is why the suggestion that those feminists who view natal gender as essential to gender identity "hate trans people" appears to be accepted here and elsewhere online.


I've had more positive and pleasant convos about this online than negative. Online just means the tiny minority who hate Trans are more likely to find you!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

As I find more clear scientific or medical evidence i will post it up here. I've seen so much but remembering where it all is is a problem.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Self-identification is only feasible if/when the identification has some root in lived experience. Describing yourself as working class, when you have no experience of what "being working class" is, is fatuous. Describing yourself as "minority ethnic" when you're an obvious Euro-white is similarly fatuous. Describing yourself as a woman when you live and exist as a woman *isn't* fatuous. It's an expression of lived experience even if some women deny the validity of that experience.



For that to make sense, you would need to define what you mean by "living and existing as a woman".

The traditional, pre-identity politics definition of what a woman is/who is a woman is quite clear. though it's certainly problematic in various respects. But the new identity focussed one appears, to me at least, to have very little of substance and ultimately to boil down to someone is a woman if they identify as a woman, regardless of any external factors and regardless of what the word has traditionally meant and still does mean for most people most of the time.

I would really be interested to hear someone who supports the idea that a woman is anyone who so identifies or who "lives as a woman" to attempt to explain what they that actually means, and how they might reconcile the differences between the traditional and still general meaning and the recent identity politics meaning, ideally without simply attacking anyone who doesn't agree with the new def as being exclusionary or trans-phobic.

But I'm also rather wary of continuing this thread along the purely linguistic course it seems to be taking, because it seems to me to be something of a blind alley, and of little practical relevance to the very real issues of transgenderism and the exclusion and discrimination people face (that's just how it seems to me, BTW, it's obviously up to transgender people themselves to decide what's relevant and important to them).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> For that to make sense, you would need to define what you mean by "living and existing as a woman".
> .


It's possible to overcomplicate this, I think. Treefrog's point is right - "It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist."

Without any reason not to, why not just accept that they feel their body doesn't match their feeling of gender and that they wish to live as and be accepted as a woman or man from now on instead (however that may be defined _by them_). I think some people are creating problems where there are none, and voicing fears where there are no grounds for them.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But again, is this really what is happening when you accept a person in their new gender role? A man who used to be a woman or a woman who used to be a man?
> 
> Gender is deeply embedded in our interactions with each other - in our language, we have to make a choice, there are no gender-neutral terms often. And because of that, what's the alternative here to accepting trans people in their new identities? I don't see one. But more than that, I don't see a need for one - accepting them is the solution.



actually, i think gender neutral language would be useful for us all, not the least of which is the necessity to stop using the masculine as default/normal.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's possible to overcomplicate this, I think. Treefrog's point is right - "It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist."
> 
> Without any reason not to, why not just accept that they feel their body doesn't match their feeling of gender and that they wish to live as and be accepted as a woman or man from now on instead (however that may be defined _by them_). I think some people are creating problems where there are none, and voicing fears where there are no grounds for them.



I was struggling over how to articulate my own response to the part of andysays' post which you quote. Yours is spot on.

I can't really see why anyone 'need to define what they mean by "living and existing as a woman" ', except to themselves, in coming to terms with their own feelings about their wish or need or compulsion to do so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

toggle said:


> actually, i think gender neutral language would be useful for us all, not the least of which is the necessity to stop using the masculine as default/normal.


Sure. One hell of a thing to change, though. I can't think of a European language that doesn't have gender deeply embedded in it. Would be interested to know if there are any languages that are not like that.


----------



## YouSir (Oct 26, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I see your point, but most people will never have access to that sort of platform, to speak to large numbers of people and be presented as an authority in the field of x, y or z. Nobody is stopping Greer from sitting in the union coffee shop and talking to people in person. That's the biggest audience most of us have access to. It's also the level at which it's genuinely possible for the people she's talking to to tell her if they don't agree with what she says.



The duty of a speaker on that stage isn't to be debatable on a one to one level though, it's to offer ideas which trigger a debate that can flow before, during and after their talk. I don't think offering some sort of platform for that is a particularly bad thing. Nor would it be a particularly good thing to just line up people to argue personally with Germaine Greer because, ultimately, she as an individual doesn't matter. It's the ideas that are the important bit and finding ways to counter them in society and culture. And to do that you need to let them be aired. Winning an argument with one person in the canteen doesn't really do that, although triggering a debate which draws a load of people into those arguments on a personal level does.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand what this means, or what point you're seeking to make. Maybe you could try saying it again (if you want to of course).



it's the ability to discuss an issue without labeling one group as other/not normal. when discussing the issues trans people face, do we use the terms people and transeople, or cis people and trans people. one implies abnormality of the other group. the other implies difference, but does not lack equality


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2015)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I don't want to get too involved in this thread because I know I'll say the wrong thing, but surely wider society does get to label people in certain ways, at least as long as we have gendered bathrooms and changing rooms (something that won't change soon)?  Also putting a label on something isn't the same as judging...



it is possible to provide gender neutral facilities. 

and yes, putting a label on something that implies they are other is judging.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2015)

keithy said:


> I personally see absolutely no reason why feminism as a debate and movement cannot include binary trans women, cis women AND non-binary trans people... plus of course cis men and trans men.
> 
> I also feel that whilst it is ALWAYS wrong to preach hate and transphobic vile, it is still important for us to debate and consider the arguments and concepts put forward by radical feminists as we continue to move forward in the way we treat gender as a society.
> 
> There have been plenty of accounts of trans women of the shock of losing the male privilege they had before, and I think those women sharing those experiences is really valuable to us all as they have seen both 'sides' of that binary just in those terms. Those women are definitely welcome in my feminism!



this.

its been by listening to transwomen describing that expereince and the levels of gender expectations placed upon them that i've got more of an idea of how we internalise gendered behaviors

what does 'living as a woman' actually mean, because i don't think any of us that were assigned female at birth, that aren't part of a fundamentalist group that enforces absolute obedience to the patriarchy, could agree on any rules for being a woman. impression that handbook is more than a bit variable and depends on individual prejudices.



keithy said:


> Exactly, that's why I consider it to be something feminists should be behind you on. Trans women are so important in MY feminism because A) we need to make things better for you B) we need to re-consider gender/patriarchy and the impact it has on lots of different people  C) we can learn a lot about the impact our assertions about gender have on people by listening when you talk to us.



this basically.

plus, we need to support those who need it.

if we cannot use feminsm to support those who identify as women who as a group are among the most vulnerable, then lets just pack up and fucking go home, because we'd be doing nothing worth a shit here.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

toggle said:


> it is possible to provide gender neutral facilities.
> 
> and yes, putting a label on something that implies they are other is judging.


I'm in two minds about this. Yes - there is definitely a place for gender neutral facilities and they should be available. However, a few years ago when London Underground tried to introduce gender neutral toilets at train drivers' accommodation buildings, the women there objected and the trade unions forced the project to be ditched.
I'm well used to the way men use toilet facilities (not all, I freely admit) and having access to women only facilities is a bit of a relief. Also, having to share toilets with men - who are far more likely to express any anti trans feelings than women - might lead to safety issues for women, not least trans women.
TBH - when we have more acceptance and awareness of trans issues I think the whole toilet issue will sort itself out anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. One hell of a thing to change, though. I can't think of a European language that doesn't have gender deeply embedded in it. Would be interested to know if there are any languages that are not like that.


esperanto?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2015)

Gender neutrality in genderless languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 26, 2015)

toggle said:


> if we cant use feminism to support those who identify as women who as a group are among the most vulnerable, lets just pack up and fucking go home



I've part-quoted that, but can you cut 6 more characters out of it without changing the gist, so it can be Tweeted repeatedly @ Ms Greer?

e2a: it would be a shame if it had to be the expletive!


----------



## D'wards (Oct 26, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm in two minds about this. Yes - there is definitely a place for gender neutral facilities and they should be available. However, a few years ago when London Underground tried to introduce gender neutral toilets at train drivers' accommodation buildings, the women there objected and the trade unions forced the project to be ditched.
> I'm well used to the way men use toilet facilities (not all, I freely admit) and having access to women only facilities is a bit of a relief. Also, having to share toilets with men - who are far more likely to express any anti trans feelings than women - might lead to safety issues for women, not least trans women.
> TBH - when we have more acceptance and awareness of trans issues I think the whole toilet issue will sort itself out anyway.


Plus I'd feel awful about having a noisy poo knowing a young woman was in the next stall.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2015)

Yeah, young women don't shit, so their delicate ears should be protected from such base activities.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I've part-quoted that, but can you cut 6 more characters out of it without changing the gist, so it can be Tweeted repeatedly @ Ms Greer?
> 
> e2a: it would be a shame if it had to be the expletive!


if we cant use feminism to support those who identify as women who as a group are among the most vulnerable, lets just pack up and fucking go home


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm in two minds about this. Yes - there is definitely a place for gender neutral facilities and they should be available. However, a few years ago when London Underground tried to introduce gender neutral toilets at train drivers' accommodation buildings, the women there objected and the trade unions forced the project to be ditched.
> I'm well used to the way men use toilet facilities (not all, I freely admit) and having access to women only facilities is a bit of a relief. Also, having to share toilets with men - who are far more likely to express any anti trans feelings than women - might lead to safety issues for women, not least trans women.
> TBH - when we have more acceptance and awareness of trans issues I think the whole toilet issue will sort itself out anyway.



I agree. 

but to add, i think that a lot of the stuff that makes me a fucking furious feminist will be deconstructed through aceptance and awareness of trans issues.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yeah, young women don't shit, so their delicate ears should be protected from such base activities.


99% of men would be embarrassed about loudly pooing next to a young woman, not many would care so much about doing it next to a hairy arsed bloke.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2015)

D'wards said:


> 99% of men would be embarrassed about loudly pooing next to a young woman, not many would care so much about doing it next to a hairy arsed bloke.



I'd be equally embarrassed man or woman


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2015)

christ, is this real?


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's possible to overcomplicate this, I think. Treefrog's point is right - "It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist."
> 
> Without any reason not to, why not just accept that they feel their body doesn't match their feeling of gender and that they wish to live as and be accepted as a woman or man from now on instead (however that may be defined _by them_). I think some people are creating problems where there are none, and voicing fears where there are no grounds for them.



We're not talking about anyone's right to exist, we're not talking about people's right to behave as they wish free of discrimination, we're not even talking about people's right to identify themselves personally or collectively the way they wish (all of those are important, and I fully support all those rights for everyone, in case that needs saying). 

What we are talking about is people's right (or not) to insist that everyone else accepts their personal self-identification as being the only thing which matters, even when it contradicts the generally accepted and generally used meaning of the word "man" and "woman". 

To deny that there is a problem here, but at the same time to insist that this self-identification trumps everything else and to label anyone who doesn't automatically accept this new and contradictory use of the words as exclusionary or transphobic is, IMO, not only an act of identity-politics solopsism, but (far more importantly) a diversion and something which will ultimately drive away many (including some who have been attacked on this and previous threads) who are fully supportive of transgender people, but who see the insistance on the re-definition of the word "woman" as undermining their own identity, their own idea of what it means to be a woman.

All that's just my opinion, and people can accept it or not as they see fit. I previously stepped away from this thread because I felt it was getting too fixated on and too polarised by this linguistic business to the detriment of other things. I only came back because VP replied to one of my earlier posts, and I wanted to respond to him.

Maybe I should step away again, because although I'm sure all of you are well intentioned and have broadly similar views on the broader aspects of this issue, the insistance on this particular point from some of you is, again IMO, totally counter-productive.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2015)

toggle said:


> it's the ability to discuss an issue without labeling one group as other/not normal. when discussing the issues trans people face, do we use the terms people and transeople, or cis people and trans people. one implies abnormality of the other group. the other implies difference, but does not lack equality



Sorry, I appreciate you coming back with clarification, but I'm stepping away from this thread now so won't be responding.

No reflection on you or anyone else, it's just not for me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

Problems often occur when one starts thinking in terms of rights rather than simply what is right. The latter is often clear where the former can cause a mess.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> We're not talking about anyone's right to exist.



Actually, we are. We're talking about trans peoples' rights to exist as the people we know we are, and not to be merely "tolerated" or having to live in seclusion, but to live full and productive lives in the gender we identify as.



andysays said:


> What we are talking about is people's right (or not) to insist that everyone else accepts their personal self-identification as being the only thing which matters, even when it contradicts the generally accepted and generally used meaning of the word "man" and "woman".


 there is no generally accepted and generally used meaning of the words "man" and "woman", unless you consider it to be the entirely deficient forms that are defined entirely by genitals. And there are many reasons why such a definition does not work, not least because it feeds into the narrative of the most bigoted transphobes who seem to think gender identity can be summed up entirely by the naked people diagrams in a child's biology text book.
Gender identity is a much more complex thing than any of the current definitions and its only by listening to gender non-conforming people that we will know more about it.



andysays said:


> To deny that there is a problem here, but at the same time to insist that this self-identification trumps everything else and to label anyone who doesn't automatically accept this new and contradictory use of the words as exclusionary or transphobic is, IMO, not only an act of identity-politics solopsism, but (far more importantly) a diversion and something which will ultimately drive away many (including some who have been attacked on this and previous threads) who are fully supportive of transgender people, but who see the insistance on the re-definition of the word "woman" as undermining their own identity, their own idea of what it means to be a woman.


 Well, who are you to tell a marginalised person that they're not actually marginalised? When you see the TERFs in their true colours, writing to have trans women sacked or deselected, or whatever, and baseless accusations of misogyny hurled at us. I had a Tweet from Cathy Brennan calling me Brian, and it was completely unprovoked. These people say bigoted things and behave like bigots, so I call them bigots. My female identity is being systematically denied by these people, and any attempt to try to improve my rights, or my place in the world is met with their aggression.



andysays said:


> All that's just my opinion, and people can accept it or not as they see fit.


And can't you see how completely worthless your opinion is regaridng this matter?


andysays said:


> Maybe I should step away again, because although I'm sure all of you are well intentioned and have broadly similar views on the broader aspects of this issue, the insistance on this particular point from some of you is, again IMO, totally counter-productive.


Maybe you should. Maybe this isn't your fight?

oh, and may I be the first to point out that you are clearly not "fully supportive of transgender people".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problems often occur when one starts thinking in terms of rights rather than simply what is right. The latter is often clear where the former can cause a mess.


I bet that sounded good in your head. The idea that what is right is uncluttered is sort of not historically proven.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I bet that sounded good in your head. The idea that what is right is uncluttered is sort of not historically proven.


Ok, sarcy. It was a response to andysays. I didn't quote him as he wanted out. It can be very simple to see what the right thing to do is - and I think this is an example of such a case - while turning that into rights can be very tricky, and not necessarily all that useful even. 

That appeared to me at least to be part of andy's problem here.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> All that's just my opinion, and people can accept it or not as they see fit. I previously stepped away from this thread because I felt it was getting too fixated on and too polarised by this linguistic business to the detriment of other things. I only came back because VP replied to one of my earlier posts, and I wanted to respond to him.


 
if our language contains inherent discrimination, then that needs fixing. not pretending that a problem doesn't exist because we're not personally affected by it. the discrimination in our language was constructed to create and maintain powr4e structures and in order toi recognise and deconstruct the power structures fully, we also need to deconstruct the assumptions that they are normal or natural. and we cna't do that without recognising that the normality of the power structures is written into our language



and arguments about changing the definition of women to include other women being a bad thing because it changes how other women feel about being woman is as much bollocks as the broadly parallel arguments about gay marriage. 

i'm a woman. i fucking know this and including AuntiStella in the woman club doesn't change anything about who i am. im as much of a woman now as i was before stella said she was part of our club. but it sure as hell changes a lot for her. cause she gets to be publicly recognized as who she is. and that's more important, because it doesn't affect me.

and yes, i did make that personal, with apologies to stella, but as a reminder that this isn't something abstract, this is about a discussion where people are asking whether individuals who are actually here and part of this discussion have the right to be who they are, who they have always been rather than be forced to fit into something uncomfortable, because the dictionary says who they are and maintaining the integrity of a dictionary definition is more important than peole. 

so bollocks to that.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> We're not talking about anyone's right to exist, we're not talking about people's right to behave as they wish free of discrimination, we're not even talking about people's right to identify themselves personally or collectively the way they wish (all of those are important, and I fully support all those rights for everyone, in case that needs saying).
> 
> What we are talking about is people's right (or not) to insist that everyone else accepts their personal self-identification as being the only thing which matters, even when it contradicts the generally accepted and generally used meaning of the word "man" and "woman".
> 
> ...



Sorry to harp on about the linguistic issue - I think you're right that we can get too fixated on that - but to talk about words 'getting redefined' by some people against other people's wishes doesn't make any sense at all, because it ignores the fact that, in a literal sense, that's exactly how virtually *all *language change has *always *taken place: there's no referendum on it - meaning gradually morphs, expands, contracts, etc. depending on how some people at some times in some places use a word, as a result of non-linguistic changes in the wider world.

Of course that process may stir up some controversy if it's a word with any significant small-p political meaning. But that doesn't mean there's an alternative in which certain words can be collectively agreed by one group to mean 'A and not A plus B' and in which that can in any way prevent or discourage others from using it to mean not only 'A plus B' but P, Q and R too if they feel like it.

If we agree that trans people who identify as women have the right to exist, to behave as they wish free of discrimination, and to identify personally and collectively as they wish, then the shift in the meaning of words around gender identity is not a subsidiary but less universal right - it's an entirely inevitable result.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

toggle said:


> if our language contains inherent discrimination, then that needs fixing. not pretending that a problem doesn't exist because we're not personally affected by it. the discrimination in our language was constructed to create and maintain powr4e structures and in order toi recognise and deconstruct the power structures fully, we also need to deconstruct the assumptions that they are normal or natural. and we cna't do that without recognising that the normality of the power structures is written into our language
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if I could have liked that more then I would have done!


----------



## likesfish (Oct 26, 2015)

I think I'm going to start self identifying as a rad fem lesbian

just a really really  bad one


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 26, 2015)

by the way - this might be interesting to some of you. apparently TERF was a word coined by radical feminists who wanted to include trans people.

So TERF originated from within feminism, and was not made up by trans women to use as a slur against some women, as is often claimed.

TERF: what it means and where it came from


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I don't want to get too involved in this thread because I know I'll say the wrong thing, but surely wider society does get to label people in certain ways, at least as long as we have gendered bathrooms and changing rooms (something that won't change soon)?  Also putting a label on something isn't the same as judging...



Yes, wider society does get to "label" on the principle of the weight of (generally poorly-informed) opinion, but that doesn't mean that the labelling is accurate, fair or worthwhile - it's often the opposite.

And you're wrong. Labelling *is* judgement. It's the labeller either judging that an existing label is fine to use, or applying a new label that they judge is accurate - good practice if you're the person being labelled, but poor practice if you're merely using these labels (that you have decided are apposite) on others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> There do appear to be more than two genders. There are people who describe themselves as gender fluid, some as agender. What society calls them is a different matter.
> 
> None of that detracts from the fact that trans women are women and trans men are men.



I've only ever met one female-to-male transexual/trans man (way back in the late '80s) that I knew of. He hadn't had any hormone treatment or surgery at that time (although was partway through a counselling process), but there was absolutely no doubt in *my* mind that he was a man, even without the biological equipment. It was about the way he spoke about himself in relation to others, both socially and emotionally - it was a male perspective, and not just (IMHO) parroted, but a *felt* perspective.
I've had a similar but "vibe" from the handful of trans women I've met.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

sunnysidedown said:


> Does anyone have a rough figure for the percentage of mtf trans that define their new gender by wearing high heeled shoes?



0%

HTH


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I think that the radfems do bring up some valid points but as there is no marxist/class analysis and much of it seems based on an appeal to emotion and a kind of nationalism where the sex/gender becomes the 'nation' and not the race.



Perhaps it's more of an attempt at cultural hegemony/policing the parameters of discourse with regard to sex/gender, as opposed to being a "nationalism"? 



> In the transsexual empire raymond says that genital surgeries and the like should be restricted but i cant see how thats a solution at all and would only lead to more misery and suffering. Even in a communist society where everyone had the same life chances, access to wealth etc etc and gender differences were eliminated completely, you would still get people wanting to change their sex. And it seems to me that in focusing obsessively on this one issue a minority of radfems are going down very dark roads tbh. Its the stuff about lobbies and the idea that 'they' will have certain words be 'banned' and predictions that seem very far fetched on the lines of the 'britain will have sharia law by 2050' sort of model, the arguments are structured upon lines that are very over exaggerated and like anti immigration or 'rothschild banker' type arguments, even if some of the critiques about gender etc are sound.
> 
> I dont think that no platforming people like greer is an answer though, some of this stuff does need to be debated as keithy says. I don't think silencing her will convince people already half convinced by that sort of conspiratorialism



TBF, you find extreme currents in *every* politics, and some modes of radical feminism might be considered  to be analogues of Islamism in their narrow definitions of "what is what". There's also, unfortunately, certainly a mild current in rad fem of a male conspiracy to undermine the identities of so-called "born women".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why on earth are genders so important?   It seems to be getting worse as well with all the pink and blue toys marketed to little girls and boys that i dont remember when i was a kid, must be hell if you already feel like your body/brain already dont match up.   Not that that is trans peoples fault (quite the opposite tbh)



Genders categorise.
Our entire set of social structures are built around the assumptions made around certain categories. Those categorical assumptions have allowed patriarchy (another category!) to exert power through the hegemony of those categorical assumptions. There's the trope about the legal, moral and social "inferiority" of women, that feels like it has *always* been around, but there's also the trope that allowed us to destroy native populations, or enslave them. Genders are important because they're constructed to be important - to define you as A or B so that you can be "correctly" categorised and "operated upon" by power.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps it's more of an attempt at cultural hegemony/policing the parameters of discourse with regard to sex/gender, as opposed to being a "nationalism"?
> 
> 
> 
> TBF, you find extreme currents in *every* politics, and some modes of radical feminism might be considered  to be analogues of Islamism in their narrow definitions of "what is what". There's also, unfortunately, certainly a mild current in rad fem of a male conspiracy to undermine the identities of so-called "born women".



Tbh the type of radical feminism stuff that is coming from the states seems to be a very black and white apocalyptic conspiratorial sort of world-view, 'the ultimate patriarchal plan to wipe out women', 'the transgender lobby' etc and it seems to be influenced by survivalism and a 'the government coming to take our guns' type of mentality. 

You're right perhaps nationalism isnt the best way to understand it but that is what it reminds me of. I mean that stuff 'we owe it to our fore-mothers never, never to recognise a trans woman as a female' wtf is that all about? Its a populist appeal to myth making and a 'duty to your ancestors' its like saying 'my grandad didnt fight in the war to let all the muslims in'


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2015)

I mean sure debate gender/gender roles/'brain sex' etc as a social construct that harms everyone, but thats an entirely different matter to saying 'never, never call a transvestive she as he walks down the street' it is just the sort of thing you can imagine donald trump or someone saying, 'letting muslims in is an insult to those that died to Make America Great'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tbh the type of radical feminism stuff that is coming from the states seems to be a very black and white apocalyptic conspiratorial sort of world-view, 'the ultimate patriarchal plan to wipe out women', 'the transgender lobby' etc and it seems to be influenced by survivalism and a 'the government coming to take our guns' type of mentality.
> 
> You're right perhaps nationalism isnt the best way to understand it but that is what it reminds me of. I mean that stuff 'we owe it to our fore-mothers never, never to recognise a trans woman as a female' wtf is that all about? Its a populist appeal to myth making and a 'duty to your ancestors' its like saying 'my grandad didnt fight in the war to let all the muslims in'



It does come across a bit "blood and soil", doesn't it?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 26, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. One hell of a thing to change, though. I can't think of a European language that doesn't have gender deeply embedded in it. Would be interested to know if there are any languages that are not like that.



Sweden recently legally introduced a third gender neutral pronoun into language. It was so recent, however, that there's no way to see how it will change things in the long run.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2015)

How did the swedes go so long without it?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2015)

It seems Greer is no longer going to speak at Cardiff, but she has spouted loud in the media in support of her statement. Not for the faint hearted:
Germaine Greer defends 'offensive' comments about transgender women


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 27, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It seems Greer is no longer going to speak at Cardiff, but she has spouted loud in the media in support of her statement. Not for the faint hearted:
> Germaine Greer defends 'offensive' comments about transgender women



Neo-nazis are very fond of the phrase 'a dog can be born in a stable but that doesn't make it a horse' to explain why it is impossible for black people to be English.

This is the second time I've invoked Godwin's law on this thread but fuck it: she can dress up as a feminist but that doesn't mean her comments aren't borderline fascistic.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 27, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> This is the second time I've invoked Godwin's law on this thread but fuck it: she can dress up as a feminist but that doesn't mean her comments aren't borderline fascistic.


 
On a simplistic level, isn't a movement that is designed to fight oppression and exclusivity demonstrating exactly that in quite stark ways.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> On a simplistic level, isn't a movement that is designed to fight oppression and exclusivity demonstrating exactly that in quite stark ways.



On a simplistic level, yes.  It appears to be a sub-set of a large, relatively privileged group (cis women) asserting that privilege against a smaller, disadvantaged group (trans women).  But, that's becasue we see trans women as women.  However, many TERFs see trans women as men; and so, to them it appears to be a disadvantaged group (women) resisting male privilege and the colonisation and domination of not only the female body, but also the very notion of womanhood, by men.

And, although it's not a defnition of womanhood to which I subscribe (not least of all becasue of the harm it results in for trans people), the idea that women must have been born and socialised as girls and women is no less logical than the counter definition i.e. that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman.  In fact, the latter has some siginificant logical weanesses e.g. the idea that, in respect of almost everything else, just saying something doesn't make it true.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 27, 2015)

The whole notion of privilege generalisations has always been an anathema to me.

If you are a middle class woman, black person or gay you will always have had more privilege than a working class white male. NWBTCW and all that.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> On a simplistic level, isn't a movement that is designed to fight oppression and exclusivity demonstrating exactly that in quite stark ways.


These people aren't representative of feminism. They represent an extreme faction within feminism and have been driving women away ever since they managed to gain so much influence. I believe that feminism is in the process of being taken back by actual feminists.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> The whole notion of privilege generalisations has always been an anathema to me.
> 
> If you are a middle class woman, black person or gay you will always have had more privilege than a working class white male. NWBTCW and all that.


its about time that class was recognised as being a trait by which people are discriminated against. It's fairly obvious to me why it isn't, but it should be!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2015)

Didn't the Tories try to argue that the upper class are an oppressed minority?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Neo-nazis are very fond of the phrase 'a dog can be born in a stable but that doesn't make it a horse' to explain why it is impossible for black people to be English.


Ugh. I'd not heard that before. Horrible. 

I think Greer's comments are deeply ignorant, and wilfully so - she deliberately trivialises the process by reducing it to 'cutting your dick off and putting on a dress'. She's being deliberately crass, seems to me, but all that does is make her look stupid. 

But I don't really think the comparisons with racism are very useful. The above racist comment is a good example of one that is backed up by nothing other than the person's prejudices. Greer's position isn't really the same, and I don't think it can be dismissed in the same way.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Didn't the Tories try to argue that the upper class are an oppressed minority?


I see that a lot in arguments with right wingers - but it just doesn't hold up - they are so clearly not oppressed in any way!


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> its about time that class was recognised as being a trait by which people are discriminated against. It's fairly obvious to me why it isn't, but it should be!



In its draft stages there were plans to include a 'duty to promote socio-economic equality' in the overarching equalities act that replaced the old race/disability/sex discrimination legislation in (?) 2010 - which might have provided some legal levers to recognise discrimination on the basis of class alongside the 'protected characteristics' (albeit cloaked in anodyne New Labour-speak terminology).  Surprise surprise, it didn't make it into the final Act.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> These people aren't representative of feminism. They represent an extreme faction within feminism and have been driving women away ever since they managed to gain so much influence. I believe that feminism is in the process of being taken back by actual feminists.


I hope so because I think its been a bad couple of years for feminism. If you follow Metro on Facebook everytime a feminist story is posted the vast majority of comments from women are anti-feminism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> In its draft stages there were plans to include a 'duty to promote socio-economic equality' in the overarching equalities act that replaced the old race/disability/sex discrimination legislation in (?) 2010 - which might have provided some legal levers to recognise discrimination on the basis of class alongside the 'protected characteristics' (albeit cloaked in anodyne New Labour-speak terminology).  Surprise surprise, it didn't make it into the final Act.


I'd have been amazed if it hadn't been dropped. How do you produce a legal definition of class?


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ugh. I'd not heard that before. Horrible.
> 
> I think Greer's comments are deeply ignorant, and wilfully so - she deliberately trivialises the process by reducing it to 'cutting your dick off and putting on a dress'. She's being deliberately crass, seems to me, but all that does is make her look stupid.
> 
> But I don't really think the comparisons with racism are very useful. The above racist comment is a good example of one that is backed up by nothing other than the person's prejudices. Greer's position isn't really the same, and I don't think it can be dismissed in the same way.



I don't say that it's _exactly _the same, of course there's much more to it than that. But it reduces the complexities of identity ascription to a simplistic binary, and trivialises even the constituent parts of that binary distinction, in order to sneer at and try to exclude people who don't accord with her personal definition of a particular identity label, in a way that's pretty strongly reminiscent to me of the process going on in the dog/stable/horse comment.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd have been amazed if it hadn't been dropped. How do you produce a legal definition of class?



Well, yes - even harder because they were trying to produce a legal definition not of 'class' but of 'socio-economic exclusion' or some such euphemism.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> On a simplistic level, yes.  It appears to be a sub-set of a large, relatively privileged group (cis women) asserting that privilege against a smaller, disadvantaged group (trans women).  But, that's becasue we see trans women as women.  However, many TERFs see trans women as men; and so, to them it appears to be a disadvantaged group (women) resisting male privilege and the colonisation and domination of not only the female body, but also the very notion of womanhood, by men.
> 
> And, although it's not a definition of womanhood to which I subscribe (not least of all becasue of the harm it results in for trans people), the idea that women must have been born and socialised as girls and women is no less logical than the counter definition i.e. that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman.  In fact, the latter has some siginificant logical weanesses e.g. the idea that, in respect of almost everything else, just saying something doesn't make it true.



There's reams of evidence that trans people aren't just saying it. Try Googling for it. All of it ignored by the TERFs deliberately as they try to shore up their untenable version of femininity that around 95% (made up stat but it wouldn't surprise me!) women completely disagree with!

And please do not forget that there are also Trans men and non binary people who were assigned female. These people are defined as women by the TERFs even though they do not identify as women. and they also say Trans is real. I've spoken to plenty of trans men and our experiences are virtually identical.

When you consider that there are almost as many trans men as there are trans women it becomes impossible to see trans as being "male privilege and the colonisation and domination of ...the female body."

Some people are trans; get used to it! How can we all be making it up - inlcuding people like me who knew they were trans years before we even knew that such a thing existed, nor had the language to express it; and in scientific studies up to 16% of children - both boys and girls - exhibit transgender behaviour and express transgender ideas.

On the other hand the TERF notion of female is entirely built on castles in the air. It's typical dogma that does not stand up!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> I hope so because I think its been a bad couple of years for feminism. If you follow Metro on Facebook everytime a feminist story is posted the vast majority of comments from women are anti-feminism.


I see an ideological battle going on within feminism, and I'm very happy to see that the trans corner is being fought by largely younger women, while the old guard of influential TERFs mostly seem to be about my age or older making them the feminist equivalent to UKIP and definitely on their way out!


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> These people aren't representative of feminism. They represent an extreme faction within feminism and have been driving women away ever since they managed to gain so much influence. I believe that feminism is in the process of being taken back by actual feminists.



I really hope you're right. I fear that for a large number of people who are less politically switched on than people on this thread/forum (to judge purely from how much time we're spending discussing this, if nothing else), Germaine Greer is not seen as some barking outlier but as pretty much the archetype of what a feminist is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> On a simplistic level, isn't a movement that is designed to fight oppression and exclusivity demonstrating exactly that in quite stark ways.



Only if you believe that feminism is a unitary movement, which it isn't. This is a vocal minority within a minority. It isn't representative of "feminism" as a whole.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I really hope you're right. I fear that for a large number of people who are less politically switched on than people on this thread/forum (to judge purely from how much time we're spending discussing this, if nothing else), Germaine Greer is not seen as some barking outlier but as pretty much the archetype of what a feminist is.


I've had quite a few feminists I know messaging me over the Greer thing to both disassociate themselves from Greer's comments and to express their utter disappointment at her behaviour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Didn't the Tories try to argue that the upper class are an oppressed minority?



An argument that always falls apart when you ask "oppressed by what or whom?".


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> There's reams of evidence that trans people aren't just saying it. Try Googling for it. All of it ignored by the TERFs deliberately as they try to shore up their untenable version of femininity that around 95% (made up stat but it wouldn't surprise me!) women completely disagree with!
> 
> And please do not forget that there are also Trans men and non binary people who were assigned female. These people are defined as women by the TERFs even though they do not identify as women. and they also say Trans is real. I've spoken to plenty of trans men and our experiences are virtually identical.
> 
> ...



Just to reiterate: I define trans women as women.  My point was that TERFs don't.  And one of their arguments is about the logical endpoint of accepting trans women as women; they argue that it would require cis women to admit into women-only spaces anyone who simply says they're a women, even pre-op trans women who don't appear as stereotypical women (clothes make-up etc.).  The consequence of which would be that any man could enter a women-only space simply by saying they were a woman.  This is what I was getting at when I spoke about 'just saying so', not that idea that there's nothing more to transgenderism.

Nor am I saying that you're 'making it up.'  I have no doubt that you felt trans for years before you even knew what trans was; I don't think even TERFs would deny the existence of people who identify as transgend; rather, they deny that believing you're a woman makes it so.

Ultimately, it appears to me that there is not one generally accepted definition of 'woman.' There are many competing definitions, most of which have strengths and weaknesses; I have adopted one that includes trans women, not becasue of the compelling logic of so doing, but becasue of the harm that arises from excluding trans women.  But, I'm not sure that, as a man, I feel comfortable trying to force women to make the same choices as me.  This is not least of all becasue it's an easy choice for me; I don't know how I'd feel if I felt that my sense of self would be harmed by a redifinition of what I am, or, if, say, my life experiences were such that I was scared of the practical consequences of adopting a course that could allow men to 'infiltrate' women-only spaces.

I think that part of the problem is that people on both sides adopt extreme positions, and make little effort to attempt to empathise with those on the other side.  I can understand the pain it must cause trans women to be excluded by other women; I can also understand why some women become angry at the idea of being bullied by people they consider men.  I am hopeful that, in time, a more reasonable dialogue can take place, which ultimately results in all people accepting trans women as women.  I don't think Greer has helped with that; nor do I think have some of her opponents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> I hope so because I think its been a bad couple of years for feminism. If you follow Metro on Facebook everytime a feminist story is posted the vast majority of comments from women are anti-feminism.



If you tell women for long enough that feminism doesn't represent their interests, some will believe it. The same "that's bad for you" _schtick_ puts people off of trade unionism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I've had quite a few feminists I know messaging me over the Greer thing to both disassociate themselves from Greer's comments and to express their utter disappointment at her behaviour.



I can't really see why so much of the _commentariat_ still view Greer as representative of "feminism". She's a professional controversialist, so it's fairly apparent that her views will hardly ever be on the mainstream of any politics.
She *is* useful for the media to hang ideas off, and to get rent-a-gob quotes from, though. I wonder if she meditates at all on her personal morality, and what her outpouring cause, as she banks another media-sourced cheque.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> I can also understand why some women become angry at the idea of being bullied by people they consider men.


Who's doing that, though? Where are women being bullied by people they consider men? Can you give me an example of that happening?


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who's doing that, though? Where are women being bullied by people they consider men? Can you give me an example of that happening?



TERFs say that they are shouted down and abused by trans women (whom - wrongly, in my opinion - they consider men).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> TERFs say that they are shouted down and abused by trans women.


Can you quote me an example. Do you yourself believe that this is what is happening? I'd prefer something a bit more than an online spat - practical examples of it happening irl?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> Just to reiterate: I define trans women as women.  My point was that TERFs don't.  And one of their arguments is about the logical endpoint of accepting trans women as women; they argue that it would require cis women to admit into women-only spaces anyone who simply says they're a women, even pre-op trans women who don't appear as stereotypical women (clothes make-up etc.).  The consequence of which would be that any man could enter a women-only space simply by saying they were a woman.  This is what I was getting at when I spoke about 'just saying so', not that idea that there's nothing more to transgenderism.
> 
> Nor am I saying that you're 'making it up.'  I have no doubt that you felt trans for years before you even knew what trans was; I don't think even TERFs would deny the existence of people who identify as transgend; rather, they deny that believing you're a woman makes it so.
> 
> ...



I think the change will be that those women who want to exclude us will become more and more irrelevent and be eventually considered to be the bigoted dinosaurs they are.

The thing is - cis women can be bullying and abusive the same as any cis man. So the risks associated with accidentally letting men into women's spaces is already there and already dealt with.  If a cis man is claiming to be trans to gain entry to a women only space I also believe that it will become apparent very quickly, both to trans and cis women. If the TERFs were willing to let trans women police that side of things I believe that we would have a strong motivation to get it right.

Also, trans men are welcomed by TERFs into women's spaces. These are men with beards, and testosterone and penises, and they are welcomed into women's spaces by TERFs. Trans men are as likely to be aggressive/ abusive/ etc as cis men. So why the double standard? It just seems utterly dishonest to me and it seems that the decision to exclude trans women is an arbitrary one with a few problems that could be easily overcome.

The extrmeism is not equal I'm afraid. We mostly stand by our principle that we are women (there are trans women who buy into TERF arguments, but not many IME) and with that comes womanhood, complete and undiluted, or we're not women. The TERF position is that we are abusive men, in a state of constant sexual gratification, that we exploit or even "rape" women by stealing their bodies and culture, and that we CHOOSE to be like this. Also - they deny that trans men are men, contrary to what most trans men know to be true.And they have campaigned for 40 years against us having rights. There was even a TERF submission to the recent trans inquiry that was full of lies about Trans women. 

Where trans women are welcomed I've never heard of a cis man using it as an opportunity to gain unauthorised entry. I mean why would he want to?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you quote me an example. Do you yourself believe that this is what is happening? I'd prefer something a bit more than an online spat - practical examples of it happening irl?


I've seen some made up ones on a TERF website somewhere, but attempts to track down the source evidence met with nothing but brick walls.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> TERFs say that they are shouted down and abused by trans women (whom - wrongly, in my opinion - they consider men).


TERFs say a lot of things that aren't true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Also, trans men are welcomed by TERFs into women's spaces. These are men with beards, and testosterone and penises, and they are welcomed into women's spaces by TERFs.


Well yes, this is the logical inevitability of Greer's position. To be consistent, she would surely also be telling trans female-to-male that of course they are still women.

Almost as if she hasn't thought this thing through...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

Just what this debate needed. The wisdom of Richard Dawkins.  



> A university is not a ‘safe space’. If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy & suck your thumb until ready for university



link


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> If you are a middle class woman, black person or gay you will always have had more privilege than a working class white male.


but theres the old 'pulled over for being black in a nice car' followed by 'protested strongly at your treatment' followed by 'police kick 7 bells out of you'. Theres some situations where the privilege of money and class isn't going to help at all.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> but theres the old 'pulled over for being black in a nice car' followed by 'protested strongly at your treatment' followed by 'police kick 7 bells out of you'. Theres some situations where the privilege of money and class isn't going to help at all.


same with trans or homosexuality or being a woman - I think if you're rich and or powerful it can navigate you through the prejudice better (expensive lawyer, influential friends, media access, old school or uni network, etc) but it won't ever stop the oppression.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

The single biggest indicator of privilege in our society is your bank balance. Is a rich woman oppressed for being a woman? I think oppression is a big word that should be used more sparingly.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The single biggest indicator of privilege in our society is your bank balance.



I don't think its that simple. sure, having a lot of money helps but I've seen upper class people with no capital whatsoever getting on better in life using their connections, and family background than people who I would consider to be reasonably wealthy. 

Also - people can be excluded from the 'rich club' for not being the right sort - glass ceilings, institutionalised racism, not being from the right school, etc. 

Very wealthy people still need the right sort of connections to stay wealthy or to become more wealthy and prejudice does surely exist at every level of society.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you quote me an example. Do you yourself believe that this is what is happening? I'd prefer something a bit more than an online spat - practical examples of it happening irl?



Only what I've been told and read.  I can't say for definite whether they're true or not.  If pushed, I guess that some are, but most aren't.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I think the change will be that those women who want to exclude us will become more and more irrelevent and be eventually considered to be the bigoted dinosaurs they are.
> 
> The thing is - cis women can be bullying and abusive the same as any cis man. So the risks associated with accidentally letting men into women's spaces is already there and already dealt with.  If a cis man is claiming to be trans to gain entry to a women only space I also believe that it will become apparent very quickly, both to trans and cis women. If the TERFs were willing to let trans women police that side of things I believe that we would have a strong motivation to get it right.
> 
> ...



I hope things do change, and that the minority of women who don't welcome trans women will reconsider their views.  Whether or not that's helped by dismissing their concerns as bigotry, and misrepresenting their arguments - for instance, contrary to what you say here, not all those who'd seek to exsclude trans women from women-only spaces believe the things you say, here - I'm not convinced.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> Only what I've been told and read.  I can't say for definite whether they're true or not.  If pushed, I guess that some are, but most aren't.


If the TERFs believe that trans women pose a risk to other women in women only spaces then they really need to present the evidence for that. so far I've seen none.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> I hope things do change, and that the minority of women who don't welcome trans women will reconsider their views.  Whether or not that's helped by dismissing their concerns as bigotry, and misrepresenting their arguments - for instance, contrary to what you say here, not all those who'd seek to exsclude trans women from women-only spaces believe the things you say, here - I'm not convinced.


I haven't misrepresented any arguments here. I'm faced with this nonsense on a daily basis.

also I don't care if these women reconsider their views - I have enough faith in women that I feel TERF arguments are going to increasingly fail to gain any traction as we move forward. I can see it happening even in my little world. Unfortunately the trans exlusionary minority insist on making a nuisance of themselves and purposely use inflammatory language.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I haven't misrepresented any arguments here. I'm faced with this nonsense on a daily basis.



You have, becasue you've implied that all those who'd seek to exclude trans women from women-only spaces believe that all trans women are "are abusive men, in a state of constant sexual gratification, that we exploit or even "rape" women by stealing their bodies and culture, and that we CHOOSE to be like this."  That's simply not true, and it does a disservice to your argument.  I think a calmer, more empathetic dialogue would be more productive.  But, I suppose that's easy for me to say, since I'm not on the end of the hurtful stuff that you have suffered.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> You have, becasue you've implied that all those who'd seek to exclude trans women from women-only spaces believe that all trans women are "are abusive men, in a state of constant sexual gratification, that we exploit or even "rape" women by stealing their bodies and culture, and that we CHOOSE to be like this."  That's simply not true, and it does a disservice to your argument.  I think a calmer, more empathetic dialogue would be more productive.  But, I suppose that's easy for me to say, since I'm not on the end of the hurtful stuff that you have suffered.


I said those were the TERF arguments. I've had a whole website dedicated to describing me in exactly this way. 

You've clearly made the decision to not take any notice of my life experience and to believe the trans exclusionary arguments instead. so I'm putting you on ignore - I believe I've had to do that with you before.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella what is a TERF? and do you have a good definition of what a "cis" woman means?


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I said those were the TERF arguments. I've had a whole website dedicated to describing me in exactly this way.
> 
> You've clearly made the decision to not take any notice of my life experience and to believe the trans exclusionary arguments instead. so I'm putting you on ignore - I believe I've had to do that with you before.



They are not the only TERF arguments, though; they're merely some of the more obviously stupid and bigotted ones, which you've cherry-picked to give the impression that there are no more nuanced and persuasive arguments from women who would seek to exclude trans women.  It's dishonest and counterproductive; you'd be better off acknowledging those other issues and tackling them head-on, rather than trying to shout down those who disagree, or simply ignoring anything they say.  There's no better example than you suggesting I believe the trans-exclusionary arguments; I'm on record on this thread of saying that I do consider trans women to be women!  Nor have I failed to take into account your life experience; I just don't find it determinative on every point, I'm afraid - I'm able to see things from others' perspectives, too.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2015)

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, I think.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

weltweit said:


> AuntiStella what is a TERF? and do you have a good definition of what a "cis" woman means?


Here's an analysis of the origins of the term from within radical feminism. Hopefully it answers any questions you might have.
http://www.transadvocate.com/terf-what-it-means-and-where-it-came-from_n_13066.htm

instead of defining a cis woman - because it doesn't just apply to women, it applies to men and women - cis is just the opposite of trans, more or less. A transgender person is someone like me and a cisgender person is someone who identifies as the gender written on their original passport. It's greek I think and you find use of the prefix cis in science too.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just what this debate needed. The wisdom of Richard Dawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> link



Wonderful: People Who Once Wrote an Important Book but Are Now Smug Self-Important Gobshites flock together.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 27, 2015)

Further to what AuntiStella said about Cis, it started to be used in this context because saying "women" and "trans women" suggests trans women are not 'real' women, and "women" is the default, is what is 'normal.' Using Cis adds a descriptor to non-trans women as well, so as to level the playing field.

Obviously day-to-day neither descriptor is needed, and woman/women suffices, but in conversations such as this we have cis women and trans women instead of women and trans women. It makes a difference.

(Of course, sub in 'men' where appropriate when talking about cis/trans men.)


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 27, 2015)

"Cis people" is just a convenient linguistic shortcut for "people who aren't trans".

Of course that doesn't stop TERFS complaining about it - "I refuse to be labelled as a cis woman without my consent. I am a woman"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

Do any of these trans-exclusionary types ever have anything to say about trans-men? 

Is there a cross-over with female separatists?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do any of these trans-exclusionary types ever have anything to say about trans-men?


They say trans men are women, predictably, and that they can be included in women's spaces. My transgender male friend finds this hilarious!!

though when he came out he was living at the women's camp at Greenham Common and immediately found himself being disowned and attacked by the community that had previously been his entire life. Led to a breakdown and serious mental health issues.

I've seen all sorts written by TERFs - that trans men have been brainwashed by the trans cult, that most trans men choose to detransition (not true), and a new one yesterday that transgender is just "gay conversion" therapy!



littlebabyjesus said:


> Is there a cross-over with female separatists?


Yes - I believe so - in fact I think the TERF movement comes from within the female separatist community.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

I don't think there's any 'trans exclusionary types' here, so I suspect you're unlikely to get a decent overview of their arguments...


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> I don't think there's any 'trans exclusionary types' here, so I suspect you're unlikely to get a decent overview of their arguments...


you can find it all over the internet though - if that's what you want. Personally I try to avoid it as much as possible.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do any of these trans-exclusionary types ever have anything to say about trans-men?
> 
> Is there a cross-over with female separatists?



I doubt it.  For whom would trans men be a big issue?  Whether or not you buy the TERFs' arguments, you can understand feminists' fear of patriarchy.  There can be no corresponding concerns among cis men about the consequences of accepting trans men, can there?

ETA: obviously, this is from the perspective of cis men; I understand that many feminist TERFs still have strong views about trans men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> you can understand feminists' fear of patriarchy.


tbh I don't really understand the 'fear of patriarchy' involved in the issue of trans-gender people.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh I don't really understand the 'fear of patriarchy' involved in the issue of trans-gender people.



The fact that women need places where they can be safe from men (in which category they wrongly inclde trans women).  Nobody seriously thinks men need places where they can be safe from women, though.  So the argument over whether trans men are men or not doesn't have the same significance.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2015)

I think it's intellectualised bigotry about something people cannot understand and empathise with - just like resistance to gays in lesbians - and with similar arguments 

I remember people getting angry and refusing to define as straight, using much the same arguments as people who reject the term cis

I remember both gay men and lesbians being viewed as some kind of existential sexual threat, particularly towards children and arguments that they should be kept out of child spaces such as schools and for a long time gay people were kept out of the army this threat was thought so extreme

I remember people saying they don't care what people do in private, but to allow non-heterosexual sexualities to be normalised was dangerous for society

I remember it being argued that gays and lesbians defiled the sacredness of families/marriage/traditional relationships and therefore gay relationshipshould not be seen as equivalent to straight ones

There are echoes of all these arguments in the terfs position and they were all made by 'reasonable people' with all kinds of intellctual reasons to back them up at the time - looking back now however we can see they were based on bigotry and people finding it difficult to come to terms with things they couldn't themselves understand.  That's what I think's going on here by and large, and that's why the abuse so often slips into bullying, outing people etc - intellectually justified prejudice is very dangerous


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> The fact that women need places where they can be safe from men (in which category they wrongly inclde trans women).  Nobody seriously thinks men need places where they can be safe from women, though.  So the argument over whether trans men are men or not doesn't have the same significance.



There are obvious differences relating to the fact that it's acceptable for a woman to adopt 'male' things - it's even recommended in many things (act like a man to be successful at work; just like one of the lads; wearing trousers; I'm not like other girls). It's a crime of the worst kind for a man to do anything remotely 'girly' (you throw like a girl; don't be a big girl's blouse; that's gay; what, are you on your period or something?). So from that perspective it stands to reason that society is likely to be more understanding towards trans men than it is towards trans women, because they see trans women as crossing boundaries in the wrong direction.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> Nobody seriously thinks men need places where they can be safe from women, though.


Its called the shed, amirightfellas? 

Take my wife, please


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I think it's intellectualised bigotry about something people cannot understand and empathise with - just like resistance to gays in lesbians - and with similar arguments
> 
> I remember people getting angry and refusing to define as straight, using much the same arguments as people who reject the term cis
> 
> ...


Yep, I completely agree.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

and ironic now that much of the prejudice we face now comes from men and women who identify as gay and lesbian, echoing the prejudice that gay people faced twenty or thirty years ago.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> There are obvious differences relating to the fact that it's acceptable for a woman to adopt 'male' things - it's even recommended in many things (act like a man to be successful at work; just like one of the lads; wearing trousers; I'm not like other girls). It's a crime of the worst kind for a man to do anything remotely 'girly' (you throw like a girl; don't be a big girl's blouse; that's gay; what, are you on your period or something?). So from that perspective it stands to reason that society is likely to be more understanding towards trans men than it is towards trans women, because they see trans women as crossing boundaries in the wrong direction.



All true.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> You have, becasue you've implied that all those who'd seek to exclude trans women from women-only spaces believe that all trans women are "are abusive men, in a state of constant sexual gratification, that we exploit or even "rape" women by stealing their bodies and culture, and that we CHOOSE to be like this."  That's simply not true, and it does a disservice to your argument.  I think a calmer, more empathetic dialogue would be more productive.  But, I suppose that's easy for me to say, since I'm not on the end of the hurtful stuff that you have suffered.



So trans women are body stealing vampires???????


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> There are obvious differences relating to the fact that it's acceptable for a woman to adopt 'male' things - it's even recommended in many things (act like a man to be successful at work; just like one of the lads; wearing trousers; I'm not like other girls). It's a crime of the worst kind for a man to do anything remotely 'girly' (you throw like a girl; don't be a big girl's blouse; that's gay; what, are you on your period or something?). So from that perspective it stands to reason that society is likely to be more understanding towards trans men than it is towards trans women, because they see trans women as crossing boundaries in the wrong direction.


I'm relatively new to this and going up a huge learning curve, but it does seem odd to me that those who hold the TERF position also seem to hold masculinity up as strong and good and femininity as weak and bad. It has led to even feminine presenting cis women being excluded in the past.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 27, 2015)

D'wards said:


> Its called the shed, amirightfellas?
> 
> Take my wife, please



I was looking at some stuff on ebay the other day, and someone had listed something with 'MAN CAVE' and although I could have put it on my watch list I closed the tab immediately. I'm not giving that shit credence


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

likesfish said:


> So trans women are body stealing vampires???????


yeah, though the word i saw used was "rapists". which isn't extreme at all, oh no!


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I think it's intellectualised bigotry about something people cannot understand and empathise with - just like resistance to gays in lesbians - and with similar arguments
> 
> I remember people getting angry and refusing to define as straight, using much the same arguments as people who reject the term cis
> 
> ...



I'm sure there's some truth in a lot of this.  However, the analogy breaks down where power relations are considered.  Hetrosexuals were/are always privileged (at least with regards to sexuality) compared to homosexuals.  But the distinction is less clear (to some) when comparing cis women to trans women.  On one argument (which I find persuasive), cis women are privileged; on another i.e. the one which wrongly sees trans women as men, it is trans women who are relatively privileged.  It really does all come back to the definition of 'woman.'


----------



## trabuquera (Oct 27, 2015)

Ummm, nobody SENSIBLE still maintains that men need places where they are "safe from women" ... yet somehow they still exist (cf the Garrick, White's, Turfs, the Travellers Club, etc) - elite and still explicitly male-only spaces where decisions which matter still get made.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

likesfish said:


> So trans women are body stealing vampires???????



I certainly don't think so, but, in fairness, neither do all those feminists who reject trans women, which is why I thought AuntiStella's caricature of them was unhelpful.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm relatively new to this and going up a huge learning curve, but it does seem odd to me that those who hold the TERF position also seem to hold masculinity up as strong and good and femininity as weak and bad. It has led to even feminine presenting cis women being excluded in the past.



There's a whole bunch of mixed up shit. Like, just in feminist arguments in general with the stuff around the pinkification of kids toys and other things - rather than taking a nuanced approach by saying that prescribing pink for girls is a bad thing and girls and women should have a range of things that are acceptable for them, instead you end up getting people slagging off girls and women who just so happen to like pink and glitter. The idea that you should be free to choose is lost on them. Having nothing but pink and princesses in the kids aisles for 'girls toys' is bullshit and harmful because it tries to push one acceptable mode of being. But telling those same girls they're not allowed to like pink at all and they're a sell-out if they do is also bullshit. 

It's the same kind of thing going on with some rad fems. The nutty stuff about how we should all disavow marriage and kids because they're just a way to enslave us. Utter tripe. They ways in which marriage and kids have been used by the state and patriarchy are methods of control, but it's _that_ that we fight against, not the concept of those things themselves. The point is you fight to give people a choice.

Same with the whole "your ancestors fought wars and against laws so that you could have the vote, you will bloody well use it." No. They fought so we'd have the choice to vote. Anyone choosing not to vote is exercising the same hard-won freedom as someone who does vote (if you want to think of it in those terms).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> I But the distinction is less clear (to some) when comparing cis women to trans women.  '


This is where I think we're departing sharply from reality. The idea that trans-gender people are in any way privileged is ludicrous.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> There's a whole bunch of mixed up shit. Like, just in feminist arguments in general with the stuff around the pinkification of kids toys and other things - rather than taking a nuanced approach by saying that prescribing pink for girls is a bad thing and girls and women should have a range of things that are acceptable for them, instead you end up getting people slagging off girls and women who just so happen to like pink and glitter. The idea that you should be free to choose is lost on them. Having nothing but pink and princesses in the kids aisles for 'girls toys' is bullshit and harmful because it tries to push one acceptable mode of being. But telling those same girls they're not allowed to like pink at all and they're a sell-out if they do is also bullshit.
> 
> It's the same kind of thing going on with some rad fems. The nutty stuff about how we should all disavow marriage and kids because they're just a way to enslave us. Utter tripe. They ways in which marriage and kids have been used by the state and patriarchy are methods of control, but it's _that_ that we fight against, not the concept of those things themselves. The point is you fight to give people a choice.
> 
> Same with the whole "your ancestors fought wars and against laws so that you could have the vote, you will bloody well use it." No. They fought so we'd have the choice to vote. Anyone choosing not to vote is exercising the same hard-won freedom as someone who does vote (if you want to think of it in those terms).


agree completely!

I know a cis woman who goes to all the wimmin's festivals - where Trans women would not be allowed to go (she suggested I go and she would be my personal protector, but I really don't want to go and the idea of going just to cause trouble does not appeal to me).
And she tells me what she sees and hears there - much of it is utterly bonkers! But my friend has two young children. she can take her daughter, but not her son, who is a toddler. this too is bonkers, and hardly supportive of mothers!!

Also - apparently there are TERF events now that advertise as Trans friendly because they admit Trans men!! The dishonesty amazes me!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is where I think we're departing sharply from reality. The idea that trans-gender people are in any way privileged is ludicrous.


I'm glad I'm not seeing the other end of this convo, but I can imagine.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> I don't think there's any 'trans exclusionary types' here, so I suspect you're unlikely to get a decent overview of their arguments...


actually, I think there's at least one on here. Luckily I can't see what she's saying.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

You mean Thora? Yeah, its a good job you cant see all the hateful stuff she's posting.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It does come across a bit "blood and soil", doesn't it?



there's some interesting parallels with some of the societies that have taken on a siege mentality.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> I'm sure there's some truth in a lot of this.  However, the analogy breaks down where power relations are considered.  Hetrosexuals were/are always privileged (at least with regards to sexuality) compared to homosexuals.  But the distinction is less clear (to some) when comparing cis women to trans women. '



Trans women would have been arrested or beaten up if they went out in public only a few decades ago.  Nowadays this lack of privilege is reflected in the stats on suicides, violence, economic status, wherever you look, trans women, in their current lived experiences, are not privileged compared to cis women, to suggest they are, in the face of overwhelming evidence, just looks like another prejudicial myth - and there is never any shortage of those when trying to justify bigotry.  It might be argued that trans-women are men, who choose this oppression, the same argument used to be made against gays and lesbians who were believed to choose their sexual identity against god and nature.

Power relations do of course come in to it, but it is not uncommon for a marginalised group to turn on a group which has less power than them justified with a myth that they have more - gays and lesbians were often presented as decadent middle class elites in the tabloid press with the aim of exploiting this phenomena.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is where I think we're departing sharply from reality. The idea that trans-gender people are in any way privileged is ludicrous.



That's because you (and I) don't see trans women as men.  For those who have a different definition of 'woman' the question of privilege remains a live one.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm glad I'm not seeing the other end of this convo, but I can imagine.



Yeah, always the best way to engage in meaningful discussion, by putting your fingers in your ears, and responding to what you imagine (or hope) the other person is saying.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> You mean Thora? Yeah, its a good job you cant see all the hateful stuff she's posting.


it doesn't have to be hateful. The arguments themselves can send me into a spiral of depression. I've been warned not to let myself think too much about them. I understand them inside and backwards though, and the implications about me that arise from such arguments. I feel my very existence disproves TERF arguments but until science catches us up or the TERFs fade into history and people learn to just listen to us, trans women will need to protect ourselves psychologically.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2015)

Thora hasn't been posting; killer b was joking.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2015)

(And Athos is male I think).


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> (And Athos is male I think).



And, more importantly, considers trans women to be women.  And has said so here, at length!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

smokedout said:


> It might be argued that trans-women are men, who choose this oppression, the same argument used to be made against gays and lesbians who were believed to choose their sexual identity against god and nature.



Except we don't choose. Most of us try to choose otherwise and can't. And even before or without transitioning we still experience prejudice. I've been bullied from childhood and into adulthood for being trans, a long time before I came out. And all the lost opposrtunities from not being able to identify as male and not being allowed to be female. To put if mildly being trans has ruined my life! And it does that whether you transtion or not! At least now I'm happy!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Thora hasn't been posting; killer b was joking.


OK - I can't see and I don't know Thora.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Except we don't choose. Most of us try to choose otherwise and can't. And even before or without transitioning we still experience prejudice. I've been bullied from childhood and into adulthood for being trans, a long time before I came out. And all the lost opposrtunities from not being able to identify as male and not being allowed to be female. To put if mildly being trans has ruined my life! And it does that whether you transtion or not! At least now I'm happy!



sorry, I meant that is the argument a terf might make, an argument which was also used against gay people and which is bullshit


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> (And Athos is male I think).


Athos isn't the only person I've got on ignore for supporting the TERF line. He may well be male but he was using TERF arguments and decided at one point just to disregard anything I said.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

smokedout said:


> It might be argued that trans-women are men, who choose this oppression, the same argument used to be made against gays and lesbians who were believed to choose their sexual identity against god and nature.



You don't have to believe that trans women choose oppression to hold to a definition of women that excludes them.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> That's because you (and I) don't see trans women as men.  For those who have a different definition of 'woman' the question of privilege remains a live one.



I've heard immigrants get free cars and houses from the Jobcentre - do you take that argument seriously?


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Athos isn't the only person I've got on ignore for supporting the TERF line. He may well be male but he was using TERF arguments and decided at one point just to disregard anything I said.



This is complete bullshit.  Just becasue I can conceive of (if not subscribe to) an alternate view doesn't mean I have disregarded anything.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I've heard immigrants get free cars and houses from the Jobcentre - do you take that argument seriously?



No.  When up against such 'arguments', I believe in trying to undderstand what's at the root of people's fears, and egnaging with them positively, by addressing those concerns - some of which are legitimate.  Not merely dismissing them as bigots, and trying to shut down debate.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Athos isn't the only person I've got on ignore for supporting the TERF line. He may well be male but he was using TERF arguments and decided at one point just to disregard anything I said.



Fair enough. They're the only two posters coming from anything resembling a counter position on this thread though.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Fair enough. They're the only two posters coming from anything resembling a counter position on this thread though.


they're the two I'm ignoring


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Fair enough. They're the only two posters coming from anything resembling a counter position on this thread though.



I can't speak for Thora, but, essentially, mine is not a counter position: I beleive trans women are women.  The only respects in which I differ from the general consensus here are: first, that not every woman who seeks to exclude trans women from women-only spaces is motivated by hatred and bigotry; and, secondly, that taking extereme positions and slurring opponents (as happens on both sides of this issue) is counterproductive.


----------



## elbows (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> and ironic now that much of the prejudice we face now comes from men and women who identify as gay and lesbian, echoing the prejudice that gay people faced twenty or thirty years ago.



I feel the need to balance that sentiment with some different considerations.

Most importantly that a lot of the visible struggles that are being waged, including the very example this thread is about, involve campaigning by LGBT groups. A campaigning force to be reckoned with if ever there was one, one of the few areas of life where sizeable progress has been made in my lifetime so far. Given the vast progress made in various countries over issues ranging from the age of consent to marriage and eduction, many of the battles are won, and it doesn't surprise me that many trans issues now get more of a look in when such groups decide what to do with their voice.

Which brings me to my next point, regarding the quantity of prejudice coming from various directions. My last point referred to visible struggles and groups doing something with their voice. This is a subset of the wider prejudices faced, sometimes little more than a media bubble. And the UK media has been on a very interesting journey in regards to trans issues this century. They messed up and were shits on so many occasions, and faced various backlashes, and in many ways actually managed to get a bit better, sometimes even including the nastiest publications. In more recent years its actually been some of the most self-righteous publications and columnists who've fouled up on this, and in some ways this Greer saga has parallels with the Moore-Twitter-Burchill storm from a few years ago. Since then, and in a far wider cross-section the press, we had reasonably sensitive coverage of the transition of Kellie Maloney. Yes the media still make a spectacle of it all, but they do that with everything so even if the pinnacle of equality and acceptance is reached, this stuff will probably still feature.

It doesn't surprise me at all that some with a keen interest in feminism will be found to be out of step and stinking of shit on this. It's an ism so there is dogma. We can easily expect that those who end up with a particularly inflexible dogma, those that end up with far too much mental comfort and suffocation from the dogma, will be found wanting one day. The caution in this point is that fresh dogma that may one day lead to shit on another front could potentially be born during conflicts with this old guard of feminism.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> No.  When up against such 'arguments', I believe in trying to undderstand what's at the root of people's fears, and egnaging with them positively, by addressing those concerns - some of which are legitimate.  Not merely dismissing them as bigots, and trying to shut down debate.



yes, when it comes to anti-immigration some fears could be said to be legitimate, but some aren't, immigrants don't get free cars, trans women are oppressed (you don't even have to accept transsexuality to acknowledge that).  it is difficult to find any legitimate fears amongst the terfs whose arguments seems to be that men are trans to get into women only spaces to rape women, or that its a secret male plot to take over womens bodies.  There is no evidence for the former and it sounds absurd, particularly as a consequence of taking hormones makes raping anyone almost impossible, and the second is loonery.  So yes there are fears, just as there were with gay people, bigotry is fear, but those fears are not really legitimate and so should be robustly challenged, not apologised for.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

nobody on this thread has made anything close to those arguments though, so it's a bit odd they keep being brought up.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

smokedout said:


> yes, when it comes to anti-immigration some fears could be said to be legitimate, but some aren't, immigrants don't get free cars, trans women are oppressed (you don't even have to accept transsexuality to acknowledge that).  it is difficult to find any legitimate fears amongst the terfs whose arguments seems to be that men are trans to get into women only spaces to rape women, or that its a secret male plot to take over womens bodies.  There is no evidence for the former and it sounds absurd, particularly as a consequence of taking hormones makes raping anyone almost impossible, and the second is loonery.  So yes there are fears, just as there were with gay people, bigotry is fear, but those fears are not really legitimate and so should be robustly challenged, not apologised for.



Yes, those two TERF arguments are particularly unconvincing.  As are many arguments against immigration.

But what about a woman who simply defines womanhood as being woman-born?  Is that necessarily hateful?  She might well accept that trans women believe themselves to be women, accept that they are not simply trying to infiltrate women=only spaces, and feel sorry for the pain that trans people suffer, but, nonetheless, conceive of womanhood in those terms.  Is she a bigot?  Should she be forced to accept her gender being defined differently?  What if that impacts upon her sense of self-identity?  What if the consequences of that are to drive her out of women-only places?  Or to make her feel unsafe?

For my part, I think she's wrong (I consider trans women to be women), but I don't necessarily think shes a bigot or motivated by hate.  And I think there are more positive ways of engaging with her than those adopted by some.  To label her a bigot, and seek to silence her or drive her out doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> nobody on this thread has made anything close to those arguments though, so it's a bit odd they keep being brought up.



Well, this thread isn't about "what do people on urban thing of trans people" - it's about what goes on in the big Out There. And those arguments are some that are made. Are we restricting all discussion to things people on here have said?


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, this thread isn't about "what do people on urban thing of trans people" - it's about what goes on in the big Out There. And those arguments are some that are made. Are we restricting all discussion to things people on here have said?



No, but it's a bit of a strawman to keep suggesting that the only arguments on the other side of the debate are the extreme and ridiculous ones (albeit they do exist, of course).


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos and others are being accused of supporting some kind of 'terf line', which these arguments appear to be examples of. I'm sure there are some nutters out theres pushing them, but to use them in this debate is dishonest, as this isn't the 'terf line' being supported by anyone on this thread.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> Yes, those two TERF arguments are particularly unconvincing.  As are many arguments against immigration.
> 
> But what about a woman who simply defines womanhood as being woman-born?  Is that necessarily hateful?  She might well accept that trans women believe themselves to be women, accept that they are not simply trying to infiltrate women=only spaces, and feel sorry for the pain that trans people suffer, but, nonetheless, conceive of womanhood in those terms.  Is she a bigot?  Should she be forced to accept her gender being defined differently?  What if that impacts upon her sense of self-identity?  What if the consequences of that are to drive her out of women-only places?  Or to make her feel unsafe?



What about someone who simply thinks homosexuality is sinful or unnatural?  Is that hateful.  They might accept that people believe themselves to be gay, and feel sorry for the pain they suffer, but conceive that since being gay is unnatural they are wrong about how they feel.  Is that bigoted?  What are the impacts of people being queer on heterosexual identity?  What if the consequences are to drive people out of single sex spaces?  Or make them feel unsafe?


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> No, but it's a bit of a strawman to keep suggesting that the only arguments on the other side of the debate are the extreme and ridiculous ones (albeit they do exist, of course).



to be fair, it's the bizarre and illogical stuff that is getting shouted the loudest because most people inclined to being reasonable are trans inclusive.

i do find it hard to consider anyrthing trans exclusive as being reasonable, but perhaps groups like deep green resistance get cited as this, who view gender as a caste system and believe it requires dismantling not propegating and gender/sexuality issues aren't their primary remit. dosen't stop them having a lot of women only stuff, and imo, if you need a lot of women only meetings, then you're doing a good job of making sure that women feel the need for a separate space to be heard. so i reckon that a lot of the trans exclusive stuff tends to be somewhat illogically constructed and often hypocritical.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

For all the grand talk of rejecting binaries earlier in the thread, a binary is precisely what posters are being presented with here: two choices, hateful terf or ally. I don't think it's a very constructive way of discussing it - it doesn't work in any other similar discussions, so why would it here?


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> For all the grand talk of rejecting binaries earlier in the thread, a binary is precisely what posters are being presented with here: two choices, hateful terf or ally. I don't think it's a very constructive way of discussing it - it doesn't work in any other similar discussions, so why would it here?


is it so different to how we discuss racism or homophobia?


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2015)

There are various degrees of all kinds of social conservatism, or "isms". Some people reject the relevant "ism" in its entirety - people don't have to entertain a little bit nuanced exclusionism if they don't want to.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> is it so different to how we discuss racism or homophobia?


Exactly.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> is it so different to how we discuss racism or homophobia?


Shouting 'racist' at people who express disquiet at mass immigration is generally pretty counter-productive. While some insist on carrying on with that particular tactic, it's one I've argued against for some time. So, no. It isn't much different.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

in fact, the same kind of binary choices you're asking people to make here are what resulted in Lisa Mckenzie getting called a racist the other week, and Laurie Penny calling spiney a racist.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> Shouting 'racist' at people who express disquiet at mass immigration is generally pretty counter-productive. While some insist on carrying on with that particular tactic, it's one I've argued against for some time. So, no. It isn't much different.


nothing does work, though.  Most people who wish to exclude transwomen from the category "women" do not do so, ime, because they just haven't heard the debate.  People have heard all the reasoning and still reject it.  Ultimately, then, not sure why those people deserve to have their feelings tiptoed around.  If they say things that are offensive to transpeople having heard the full debate, then what's the value in making them feel that's ok?

I'd say, in the case of homophobia and racism, the fact that those examples of bigotry have been called out and are broadly now seen to be socially unacceptable has contributed to the somewhat diminished incidence of racism and homophobia in our society over the years.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2015)

smokedout said:


> What about someone who simply thinks homosexuality is sinful or unnatural?  Is that hateful.  They might accept that people believe themselves to be gay, and feel sorry for the pain they suffer, but conceive that since being gay is unnatural they are wrong about how they feel.  Is that bigoted?  What are the impacts of people being queer on heterosexual identity?  What if the consequences are to drive people out of single sex spaces?  Or make them feel unsafe?



The analogy is flawed.  Quite apart from there beiong no equivalence with the practical consequences of homosexuality on heterosexual people, the nature of the judgment is different: in your example, it's moral; in mine it's definitial.  Believing it's wrong to be gay is different from believing that womanhood is defined by particular characteristics.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> in fact, the same kind of binary choices you're asking people to make here are what resulted in Lisa Mckenzie getting called a racist the other week, and Laurie Penny calling spiney a racist.



No idea about either of those cases.  

Is it never acceptable to call szomeone a racist/homophobe?


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> nothing does work, though.  Most people who wish to exclude transwomen from the category "women" do not do so, ime, because they just haven't heard the debate.  People have heard all the reasoning and still reject it.  Ultimately, then, not sure why those people deserve to have their feelings tiptoed around.  If they say things that are offensive to transpeople having heard the full debate, then what's the value in making them feel that's ok?


But that isn't what's happening here is it? No-one on this thread is making any of the bigoted arguments that have been talked about, and yet posters have been dismissed as bigots. 


spanglechick said:


> Is it never acceptable to call szomeone a racist/homophobe?


of course it's acceptable in some cases. But in cases comparable to posts made on this thread?


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> But that isn't what's happening here is it? No-one on this thread is making any of the bigoted arguments that have been talked about, and yet posters have been dismissed as bigots.
> of course it's acceptable in some cases. But in cases comparable to posts made on this thread?


I didn't realise we were only talking about posts on this thread.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> But that isn't what's happening here is it? No-one on this thread is making any of the bigoted arguments that have been talked about, and yet posters have been dismissed as bigots.



Not by me. I've accused two posters of making TERF arguments and have had to block them to protect my state of mind. I don't need to see the arguments again as I know them backwards already, and they remain as flawed as they always did. People who continue to deny me the right to my own identity have no right to make me listen to them.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I didn't realise we were only talking about posts on this thread.


we weren't - this Thread is about TERF arguments - which only two posters are defending as far as I can tell.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I didn't realise we were only talking about posts on this thread.


I am - I thought I'd been pretty clear about that.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> I am - I thought I'd been pretty clear about that.


ah, ok.  you said there were no trans exclusionary types on here, thora was mentioned.  Thora has posted trans-exclusionary views in the past, hasn't she? That afaia she hasn't distanced herself from?

Has anyone attacked her on this thread?  I just see AuntiStella explaining why she has her on ignore, after you brought the matter up (edit - no, sorry - she brought it up, because she thought Thora was the ignored poster who was posting).


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

No, stella brought her up. She just didn't name her.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

I never mentioned Thora till you did. I don't know her and when I checked I don't have her on ignore. I seem to remember you mentioned her first.

I didn't name her because I don't know who she is and I wasn't talking about her.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> actually, I think there's at least one on here. Luckily I can't see what she's saying.


who were you talking about here?


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> No, stella brought her up. She just didn't name her.


yup - see my edit.

out of interest, whatls your own view on the inclusion of transwomen in the broad category "woman"?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> who were you talking about here?


not Thora - I don't know who because I have two people on ignore. It'll be one of them I expect.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> For all the grand talk of rejecting binaries earlier in the thread, a binary is precisely what posters are being presented with here: two choices, hateful terf or ally. I don't think it's a very constructive way of discussing it - it doesn't work in any other similar discussions, so why would it here?



should i be expected to be sensitive to those who are just a bit sexist, or racist, or those who think gays should just keep in the closet?

because an expectation to be sympathetic to a position that is exclusionary and bigoted and sets one group as proper people and another as second class citizens who can and should bge treated like crap, even though they are as a class more vulnerable....

tell me where else i'm supposed to be sympathetic to that kind of position. or are trans folk to be excluded from th club that deserve our full backup when they face shit and exclusion? or do i have to hug racists and mras as well as terfs?


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> out of interest, whatls your own view on the inclusion of transwomen in the broad category "woman"?


trans women are women as far as I'm concerned. Does that change anything?


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

toggle said:


> should i be expected to be sensitive to those who are just a bit sexist, or racist, or those who think gays should just keep in the closet?
> 
> because an expectation to be sympathetic to a position that is exclusionary and bigoted and sets one group as proper people and another as second class citizens who can and should bge treated like crap, even though they are as a class more vulnerable....
> 
> tell me where else i'm supposed to be sympathetic to that kind of position. or are trans folk to be excluded from th club that deserve our full backup when they face shit and exclusion? or do i have to hug racists and mras as well as terfs?


I'm not asking you to hug anyone.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> it doesn't have to be hateful. The arguments themselves can send me into a spiral of depression. I've been warned not to let myself think too much about them. I understand them inside and backwards though, and the implications about me that arise from such arguments.


Look I'm sorry if you've been upset by the comments either Thora or Athos have made but the very fact you're lumping what they've said into the same category as TERF arguments shows that you haven't understood what they've been saying.

I mean Athos has quite clearly differentiated between what he personally believes and the position that some feminists have but you're still claiming he's "supporting the TERF line". I appreciate that this is clearly a very emotional issue for you but people disagreeing with your position does not make them TERFs


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2015)

Athos said:


> The analogy is flawed.  Quite apart from there beiong no equivalence with the practical consequences of homosexuality on heterosexual people, the nature of the judgment is different: in your example, it's moral; in mine it's definitial.  Believing it's wrong to be gay is different from believing that womanhood is defined by particular characteristics.



The analogy is not exact, how could it be?  My point was that once a lot of people didn't believe being gay was wrong, they didn't believe 'gay' really existed.  They denied people the right to determine their own sexuality by erasing it from legitimate existence.  Even the most moderate terf belives that transsexuality doesn't exist, it can't exist, that's why trans-women can't be women.  Denial of transsexuality is what lies behind that belief.  That someone isnt really what they feel they are, and has no right to feel that way, even if someone to all intents and purposes is virtually identical to a cis woman - and dont forget there is now a generation of young people who are trans (women) who have never experienced male puberty, who may have lived and been raised as girls, who have primary and secondary female sexual characteristics, fucks sake give it a couple of decades and they might have wombs and ovaries.  To suggest they aren't women is nonsensical, bigoted and offensive, and unless you want to buy into patriachal ideas that femininity or beauty is what defines womanhood then this includes all trans-women, however they present and how far they decide to medically transition.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 27, 2015)

I take it the opposite of a TERF is a TILF? (Trans-Inclusive Liberal Feminist)?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

sunnysidedown said:


> I take it the opposite of a TERF is a TILF? (Trans-Inclusive Liberal Feminist)?


No - they're still radical - TIRF


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 27, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> is it so different to how we discuss racism or homophobia?


Well I don't think it's very helpful in those cases either.

Trying to divide the world up into racists and non-racists is often useless, see the Fat White Family thread for a perfect example. While ideological racists still exist in todays Britain they are a fraction of the population, writing off huge swathes of the population simply as racists as if it's some binary state helps no one. In fact it's precisely that type of nonsense that has help feed the rise in UKIP.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'm not asking you to hug anyone.



you are asking why i can't accept the validity of bigotry.......


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 27, 2015)

toggle said:


> you are asking why i can't accept the validity of bigotry.......


YES!!!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2015)

Edit: in fact I'm not getting involved in this again.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

toggle said:


> you are asking why i can't accept the validity of bigotry.......


No I'm not.


----------



## Odrade (Oct 27, 2015)

I guess this is just the reality of being not-really-new-but-still a new movement, but what baffles me is the number of inconsistencies in the trans discussion.


The first is the whole essentialist vs. anti-essentialist debate. The discussion itself will never be resolved, it goes back millennia, and as such must be, and is, present here. In the trans-movement these positions are living somewhat harmoniously side by side. The “I have a female/male brain in the wrong body” side-by-side with “gender is  a non-binary, experienced identity that is individually chosen”. Not always that harmoniously, re: truescum, but it seems like these diametrically opposing views are presented as a united front when it comes to any confrontation with opposition. And since the TERF position on this is in itself self-contradictory (gender is a social construct, but men are essentially men), the arguments against it are wildly squiggling in response.


Secondary is the insistence that being trans entails that the transpersons experiences are unique in a way anyone who is not trans can not comprehend. This is a totally valid argument for giving people with this life experience a privileged position when it comes to defining the reality of being trans, and how to frame political views in the political struggle. But at the same time the opposite claim, that being cis gives an unique life experience, seems to me to be dismissed as transphobic.


There are many more, I will limit myself to my third problem, which is not much of a problem, but still seems curious. We are against any binary categorisation of gender, but we will still introduce the binary cis/trans. I don´t have a problem with it, but it seems strangly self-contradictory to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2015)

Maybe not. But you've missed toggles point.


killer b said:


> I'm not asking you to hug anyone.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2015)

That appears to be a mutual issue.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> That appears to be a mutual issue.



i don't think so. i get your point quite clearly. i just don't accept it has any validity


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2015)

If you've understood me, then you've chosen to misrepresent my argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I don't think it's very helpful in those cases either.
> 
> Trying to divide the world up into racists and non-racists is often useless, see the Fat White Family thread for a perfect example. While ideological racists still exist in todays Britain they are a fraction of the population, writing off huge swathes of the population simply as racists as if it's some binary state helps no one. In fact it's precisely that type of nonsense that has help feed the rise in UKIP.


'Writing off', no, clearly not. But calling racism racism, yes. Always. Many people are not 'simply racists'. They are many other things as well, but in addition to those things, they also have racist ideas of one kind or another. And no, you should never be backward in saying that.

Thing is you yourself have fallen into the same trap here by identifying 'ideological racists' and contrasting them with everyone else.

I don't really get your point here. Are you saying that it should be ok to tolerate a little bit of racism? If not, then what exactly are you saying?


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> If you've understood me, then you've chosen to misrepresent my argument.



nah, i took the piss out of it.


----------



## Athos (Oct 28, 2015)

smokedout said:


> The analogy is not exact, how could it be?  My point was that once a lot of people didn't believe being gay was wrong, they didn't believe 'gay' really existed.  They denied people the right to determine their own sexuality by erasing it from legitimate existence.  Even the most moderate terf belives that transsexuality doesn't exist, it can't exist, that's why trans-women can't be women.  Denial of transsexuality is what lies behind that belief.  That someone isnt really what they feel they are, and has no right to feel that way, even if someone to all intents and purposes is virtually identical to a cis woman - and dont forget there is now a generation of young people who are trans (women) who have never experienced male puberty, who may have lived and been raised as girls, who have primary and secondary female sexual characteristics, fucks sake give it a couple of decades and they might have wombs and ovaries.  To suggest they aren't women is nonsensical, bigoted and offensive, and unless you want to buy into patriachal ideas that femininity or beauty is what defines womanhood then this includes all trans-women, however they present and how far they decide to medically transition.



I'm not sure I accept the idea that "even the most moderate terf belives that transsexuality doesn't exist."  Whilst some crackpots believe that it's a cover for perverted men wanting to infiltrate, many do accept that trans women sincerely believe that they are woman (and don't tell them they have no right to feel that); they just don't accept that believing it makes it so - they define their own gender in way that does not include trans women.  I don't think they're right, but I'm not sure the anology with homosexuality holds up, really.  Nor does the idea that their definition is "nonsensical"; I happen to subscribe to another definition, but that's becasue it seems to me to be unnecessarily harmful to deny that trans women are women, rather than because there is any logical imperative that requires us to admit it (albeit the argument about trans women who have not ben socialised as males and gone through male puberty comes closest).  After all, we don't extend the 'you are what you feel you are' logic to many other areas.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2015)

toggle said:


> nah, i took the piss out of it.


Sure.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

I'm out of this - its becoming petty and personal


----------



## D'wards (Oct 28, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm out of this - its becoming petty and personal


 Welcome to Urban75


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2015)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure I accept the idea that "even the most moderate terf belives that transsexuality doesn't exist."  Whilst some crackpots believe that it's a cover for perverted men wanting to infiltrate, many do accept that trans women sincerely believe that they are woman (and don't tell them they have no right to feel that); they just don't accept that believing it makes it so - they define their own gender in way that does not include trans women.  I don't think they're right, but I'm not sure the anology with homosexuality holds up, really.  Nor does the idea that their definition is "nonsensical"; I happen to subscribe to another definition, but that's becasue it seems to me to be unnecessarily harmful to deny that trans women are women, rather than because there is any logical imperative that requires us to admit it (albeit the argument about trans women who have not ben socialised as males and gone through male puberty comes closest).  After all, we don't extend the 'you are what you feel you are' logic to many other areas.



what it comes down to for me is that they aren't just defining their own identity, but are defining that of others. 

and while governments and other authorities don't extend the same logic, a lot of people do. to the point that the gatekeepuing behavior of terf groups seems not so much like a grouping, but another attempt to claim the position of an authority. a rather annoying more feminist than thou. that gives them and only them the ability to be right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

toggle said:


> what it comes down to for me is that they aren't just defining their own identity, but are defining that of others.
> 
> and while governments and other authorities don't extend the same logic, a lot of people do. to the point that the gatekeepuing behavior of terf groups seems not so much like a grouping, but another attempt to claim the position of an authority. a rather annoying more feminist than thou. that gives them and only them the ability to be right.


I find it slightly ironic, tbh, that such definitions are in reality amazingly crude. Greer's position is that you must have a vagina to be a woman, and that's that. It's a massively reductionist position.

There's also a sinister side to such gatekeeping behaviour. A friend of mine lived for a time in a female separatist community set up in a remote valley in Yorkshire. Many of the women there were aggressive sexual predators, ready to pounce on any 'fresh meat' that arrived. The idea that women providing male-free spaces are necessarily providing safe spaces is itself hugely questionable. This particular place struck me from my friend's stories as, in reality, a dangerous and controlling cult.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2015)

My god. The ironing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

I don't know how we would have coped on this thread without your crucial contributions, killer b.


----------



## Thora (Oct 28, 2015)

toggle said:


> what it comes down to for me is that they aren't just defining their own identity, but are defining that of others.
> 
> and while governments and other authorities don't extend the same logic, a lot of people do. to the point that the gatekeepuing behavior of terf groups seems not so much like a grouping, but another attempt to claim the position of an authority. a rather annoying more feminist than thou. that gives them and only them the ability to be right.


Do you not think that redefining gender as something essential, a feeling located in the brain/mind/soul rather than something that is socially constructed, is defining other people's identity though?  I think this is what many of the women (not radical feminists) whose views I have read on sites like mumsnet have as a concern.   Can you see that for many feminists, gender being an essential part of you, separate from either biology or lived experience/socialisation, feels like a backward step and some naturally are worried about it being accepted uncritically.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 28, 2015)

I think this gender essentialism will prove to be a bit of a red herring. I think biology will come to see trans people as having a biological sex of the body which does not correspond to the biological sex of their brain, so they choose to align their gender with the sex of their brain rather than the sex of their body.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

And


Thora said:


> Do you not think that redefining gender as something essential, a feeling located in the brain/mind/soul rather than something that is socially constructed, is defining other people's identity though?  I think this is what many of the women (not radical feminists) whose views I have read on sites like mumsnet have as a concern.   Can you see that for many feminists, gender being an essential part of you, separate from either biology or lived experience/socialisation, feels like a backward step and some naturally are worried about it being accepted uncritically.


Which is hardly justification for what has been happening to trans people. Trans people don't want to exclude TERFs, just want TERFs to stop excluding us.if we were accommodated as women it would not impact on TERFs one bit, except maybe for the ideological repercussions from accepting us for who we say we are. 
When a trans parliamentary candidate faces deselction proceedings for just saying she's a woman then there's a problem. And it's not a problem for trans its a problem for TERFs, because that is anti democratic.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 28, 2015)

Just seen this on FB and thought this would be the appropriate thread to post it: 



> Tara Hudson, a 26-year old transgender woman from Bath who has lived as a woman for her whole adult life and has undergone six years of gender reconstruction surgery, has been sent to an all-male prison.



Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol


----------



## Sirena (Oct 28, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just seen this on FB and thought this would be the appropriate thread to post it:
> 
> 
> 
> Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol


It has been the practice for decades to house post-operative transsexuals in prisons according to their acquired gender.

I think the problem here is that in this case, she had no documentation to show her status.  She has no passport and did not have one of those stupid 'certificates' that the law requires nowadays.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just seen this on FB and thought this would be the appropriate thread to post it:
> 
> 
> 
> Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol



There's  petition but I can't work out how to link with it on my phone. Please Google and sign!


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

I 


Sirena said:


> It has been the practice for decades to house post-operative transsexuals in prisons according to their acquired gender.
> 
> I think the problem here is that in this case, she had no documentation to show her status.  She has no passport and did not have one of those stupid 'certificates' that the law requires nowadays.


I think she may also be pre operative.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 28, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> There's  petition but I can't work out how to link with it on my phone. Please Google and sign!



The petition is in the link I posted.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 28, 2015)

According to the BBC, she's had reconstructive surgery, but in any case I don't see why that should be any part of the issue. She should be in a women's prison. It's an appalling situation.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> According to the BBC, she's had reconstructive surgery, but in any case I don't see why that should be any part of the issue. She should be in a women's prison. It's an appalling situation.


Surgery makes no difference whatsoever.

It's one of my big fears at the moment - why I'm not going to any protests at the moment - you never know.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 28, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Surgery makes no difference whatsoever.
> 
> It's one of my big fears at the moment - why I'm not going to any protests at the moment - you never know.


God, Stella. 

ETA: I confess I hadn't thought of that aspect.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> I think this gender essentialism will prove to be a bit of a red herring. I think biology will come to see trans people as having a biological sex of the body which does not correspond to the biological sex of their brain, so they choose to align their gender with the sex of their brain rather than the sex of their body.


The idea that the brain can have a biological sex _is_ a form of essentialism.  Note "brain/mind/soul" in Thora's post:


Thora said:


> Do you not think that redefining gender as something essential, a feeling located in the brain/mind/soul rather than something that is socially constructed, is defining other people's identity though?  I think this is what many of the women (not radical feminists) whose views I have read on sites like mumsnet have as a concern.   Can you see that for many feminists, gender being an essential part of you, separate from either biology or lived experience/socialisation, feels like a backward step and some naturally are worried about it being accepted uncritically.


Another way of considering this is the more basic question of what gender actually means _at all_.  It is a topic that has been frequently grappled with in this thread but I've yet to see a satisfactory result of that grappling.

What does it mean to "feel like a man"?  I'm pretty sure I don't feel much like the man sitting next to me, let alone one from a completely different social environment or background.  There are things I feel that are in common with (some) other men and there are other things I feel that are more in common with (some) women.

If we can't articulate what the statement truly means, how can anybody say they "feel like a man", regardless of their biological make-up?  It becomes a totally non-determinative statement.  You can certainly say that you feel aligned to the more common social expectations of what being a man means, but that is a response to external expectation, not internal imperative.  If that's what the statement means then I have every sympathy with it, but I think it's a shame that those social expectations exist in the first place, and it's an inherently reactionary position.  But if something else is meant, I am genuinely at a loss as to what that something is.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

Just to say, I don't feel like a woman, I am a woman and I know this like anyone knows who they really are. Won't discuss this aspect further. Surely discussion of this sort is actually off topic for this thread? The title merely asks why some feminists hate trans women, not please question a trans woman's gender. I've had to put it on ignore anyway. It will only make me ill to try to engage.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

It seems to me that some people, like Athos, are mostly trying to explain and understand how and why trans exclusionary folk think and say the things they do. And that is absolutely fine. In fact, it's essential. We should understand why people think the things they think, even when their views are vile. Athos has gone to great pains to also say he disagrees with their beliefs.

Where it crosses a line (this part is not specifically targeted at Athos but the discussion more widely) is when that argument starts suggesting that having tried to understand and explain the why, we should go further and accept a little bit of bigotry. 

No.

Understanding why trans exclusionary people feel the way they feel doesn't mean we don't go on to challenge their beliefs. Having _reasons_ for believing something doesn't exempt you from criticism for those beliefs, or exempt you from having those reasons argued with. While we try to understand why different forms of racism take hold in certain sections of society, we don't then say, "well, they've been shafted themselves in other ways, you can understand why they'd look for someone to scapegoat, and who can blame them with the media being what the media is... let them be racist, let's not try and challenge it, let's not work to educate, let's not try to fix the broken media, let's not try to fix the underlying power structures that foster and create this... leave them to it, eh?"

If we're talking specifically about people on this thread, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the people arguing against trans exclusionary positions have already been through the hows and the whys, and are moving on to challenging. Whereas those they are butting heads with aren't moving beyond the hows and the whys. That's why there seems to be an argument even though the hows and the whys keep insisting they personally are not trans exclusionary. Because when you're suggesting we should stop and only focus on understanding why trans exclusionary positions exist, you're telling us to not bother challenging it, which in turn can start to sound like you condone it, or perhaps think that the right to be trans exclusionary and to play a part in a world that is very fucking scary and shitty for trans people is more important than being able to live your life without feeling like you're going to harm yourself or be harmed for being who you are. For wanting to just be a person.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Which is hardly justification for what has been happening to trans people. Trans people don't want to exclude TERFs, just want TERFs to stop excluding us.if we were accommodated as women it would not impact on TERFs one bit, except maybe for the ideological repercussions from accepting us for who we say we are.
> When a trans parliamentary candidate faces deselction proceedings for just saying she's a woman then there's a problem. And it's not a problem for trans its a problem for TERFs, because that is anti democratic.


Is thora trying to justify all that? I've read her post several times, and I can't see anything of the sort.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> It's what TERFs do.


I'm sure. What's it got to do with the post you were replying to?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2015)

.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm shaking too much to continue. Please continue to question my identity without me!


If this conversation is a trigger for you, you should genuinely have nothing to do with it.  Nothing good can come of it for you.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Thora said:


> Do you not think that redefining gender as something essential, a feeling located in the brain/mind/soul rather than something that is socially constructed, is defining other people's identity though?  I think this is what many of the women (not radical feminists) whose views I have read on sites like mumsnet have as a concern.   Can you see that for many feminists, gender being an essential part of you, separate from either biology or lived experience/socialisation, feels like a backward step and some naturally are worried about it being accepted uncritically.



Your argument is with patriarchy and the tools it uses to exert control and further certain power relations. Your argument is not with trans men and women who have to try to navigate those systems along with you, as do non-binary people, agender people, gender fluid people, intersex people...

Essentialism is most often tied to ideas of biology, biological determinism, etc. I'm not sure I follow how you're separating essentialism out from biology here, I'd like to know more about what you mean.

An essentialist argument might be that because you have a vagina you must like pink things and be naturally maternal and like baking and must be a bad driver. While essentialist arguments can theoretically be based on gender (swap out 'because you have a vagina' to 'because you are a woman'), in reality they are _justified_ by biology.

Can you understand how your argument has essentialist elements to it? While you're saying people are justified in being trans exclusionary because to accept trans people is to give succour to essentialism, you're following with the argument that a trans woman cannot know what it is to _truly_ be a woman because there is something _essential_ to the experiences of cis women that trans women can't know. The logic is that cis women are positioned so as to be treated in a certain way by society from birth, _because of their biology_, and so they are able to wear the label of 'real woman' as a result. A trans woman isn't a real woman because she wasn't positioned as female from birth, _because of her biology_.

Of course, I must ask, if we accept this argument, what is the age cut-off for this? What of children who express that they are trans at a very early age and are allowed to live as their felt gender, and who transition medically as soon as they are able? What of a child who as soon as it can talk says "I'm not a boy, I'm a girl, mummy," and is allowed from that age to pick their own name, and is brought up as a girl from that point onwards? Have they had a sufficient amount of time being acted upon by society as a girl/woman to be accepted? If we agree that gender is all social construction, then if society has treated this child as a girl since she was very young, and let's say she passes very easily because her transition started young and she never went through male puberty... then by your logic she is a girl/woman, yes? Because it's not about the biology, it's about the way society constructs her and treats her, yes?

If we start talking about motherhood and sex being used as instruments of control... to a woman who has been living as female since they were very, very young, those things still apply in the same way, yes? If that person passes, and has no reason to announce to everyone and every institution they encounter "I'm trans" and instead does what every other woman does and just exists self-evidently as a woman (and previously as a girl), then the same expectations and social constructions apply. That she can't bear children means nothing - there are plenty of cis women who cannot either (and plenty more besides who simply never want to have children) but we know they are still women, and they are still victims of the system that grew out of using motherhood as a weapon of control. And we know trans women can still be raped. Some trans women are victims of sexual violence _because_ they are trans, but for those who pass from an early age, they are as much at risk of rape and other forms of sexualised and gender-based violence as any cis woman.

So they are 'real women' too, yes? I mean, they fit the rules laid out about it being how society constructs gender and acts on women in certain ways as a result, right?

So is there an age cut-off? And if there isn't, if _all_ trans women aren't 'real women' and threaten to undermine the position of cis women and all the desperately hard work they do to cast off the yoke of gender essentialism, then _why_ aren't those children included? Is it because there _is_ something 'essential' about being female?

This is a very long-winded (but important, I think, nevertheless) way of coming to the point that the debate around trans issues does itself no favours by focusing on ideas of essentialism versus social construction. Certainly, feminism in general does itself no favours by focusing on the zero sum game of black/white rather than doing the hard work of digging for nuance and understanding how power works.

We don't understand the brain, chemistry, or environmental factors properly. We make guesses based on the little bits of evidence we have, but those bits of evidence are regularly uprooted and replaced with different bits as we do another study, gain another advancement in medical science, and so on. We like to bluster and say "it's all social construction" or "it's all environmental factors" and some of us might say "you are what you are from the womb" - but the reality seems to be that it's a bit of everything, and what we don't yet understand is whether it's chicken first or egg. Just like with chicken and egg, we _can't_ know the extent to which biology has an effect on how we react to environment, or to what extent environment has on rewiring our brains. Not yet, anyway. We just know that the two _do_ interact, and it's messy and complicated.

I used to feel a bit uncomfortable with the "Born this way" thing in LGB stuff. Not because I doubt they've always known they were gay, but because of the implications about essentialism. I guess that's the same thing you're saying, right? But here's the thing: I understand the "born this way" thing has been used to counter the argument that LGB people can 'choose' to be gay or straight, where it's anything but a choice, it's just what you feel. How do you begin to dig down and uncover that exact moment you 'became' gay, bi or straight, and the reasons for feeling that way? And why should you? We have bits of information from twin and other sibling studies that suggest your placement as a sibling (e.g. middle child) sees you more likely to be gay if your mother only has sisters, and other such things (I can't remember the exact study I'm thinking of so the details are likely incorrect, but that's the gist of the thing it was showing). Is that nature or nurture? Couple it with the studies about extra bits biological and chemical junk (chromosomes, DNA, again, I'm sketchy on details, the one I'm thinking of had something to do with something turning on or turning off...) that were found in certain gay men, and we're none the wiser. We don't know enough to understand whether it was environmental factors acting on the mother that impacted the biological processes in the son that in turn made him more likely to feel a certain way when confronted with a particular environment growing up... but that right there is a big old mix of biology _and_ environment, all the while being confronted by social expectation and the construction of normative sexual orientation. So what's the _real_ answer? Dude's just gay, is all.

So instead of spending our lives blaming the gay guy for fucking with our attempts to show that gender roles and heteronormativity are social constructions every time he says "I was born this way," rather we understand that we _don't _understand, and it doesn't matter anyway, because the enemy is those who would police the boundaries of 'acceptable' sexual activity and attraction, and those who use heterosexual female sexuality as a means of control over women, and traditional ideas of what it is to be masculine as a means of control over both men and women. Likewise, instead of spending our lives blaming a trans woman for fucking with our attempts to show that society constructs gender roles in order to keep us in line because that trans woman has always known she was female, rather we direct our ire and our anger at a society that would create these false binary oppositions in an attempt to control us in the first place.

I repeat, trans women are not your enemy. Trans women are your allies in fighting against the systems of control and oppression that profits so well as we pit ourselves against each other in policing what we are allowed to be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> If this conversation is a trigger for you, you should genuinely have nothing to do with it.  Nothing good can come of it for you.


I'm inclined to agree.

I'm also not sure whether using this grouping 'terf' is so useful. Strikes me that it is polarising and not all that useful given the range of opinion among those who don't, or struggle to, accept trans-women as women. There are at one extreme female separatists or intellectuals like Greer who very definitely have an agenda. But there are also many with no agenda at all, simply mixed or confused feelings. 

Redsquirrel brought up earlier the problems with screaming 'racist', but imo that is slightly wrong. It's just that not all racism takes the form of BNP-style hatred. I think this is similar - I do think intolerance or prejudice should be called out as such, but not all intolerance or prejudice is the same.


----------



## Combustible (Oct 28, 2015)

The argument that accepting the self-identification of transwomen redefines or erases the experiences of other women is quite unsettling. It gives a licence for people who are not really directly affected by their identification to castigate or criticise them in a way which can really be harmful. It ends up looking a lot like the people who are against gay marriage. For them marriage is between a man and a woman and many genuinely believe that gay people getting married somehow devalues and lessens their marriage and this is their justification for telling other people they shouldn't get married when it really doesn't affect them. 

I can see that the idea that a transgender woman can intrinsically be a woman, contradicts gender being entirely a social construct. But I don't see why their identification stops women (or men) viewing their own gender in this way. And the link between biology and gender, along with so many other aspects of our brain and psychology is so complicated and poorly understood that I don't see why this contradiction should be a particular concern, certainly not when maintaining a dogmatic position about it demonstratably causes massive harm to transgendered people in everyday life.


----------



## Santino (Oct 28, 2015)

The existence of trans people challenges the whole notion of gender identity. To that extent, it does change what men and women have previously understood as a relatively fixed part of their identity. I think the issue may as well be confronted.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Santino said:


> The existence of trans people challenges the whole notion of gender identity. To that extent, it does change what men and women have previously understood as a relatively fixed part of their identity. I think the issue may as well be confronted.



It does. And it does so in a way that can be beneficial to the project of pointing out how gender roles are socially constructed. Which is why the arguments that the identity of trans people must be resisted because gender roles are socially constructed is so muddle-headed, quite apart from being downright dangerous to trans people themselves.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2015)

There are other world societies where the concept of gender identity differs from ours, also. For example native (first nation?) americans.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2015)

cesare said:


> There are other world societies where the concept of gender identity differs from ours, also. For example native (first nation?) americans.



eg. two spirit people. 

those who encompassed aspects of the male and female, in body and/or in mind. and could indicate intersex, transgender or gay people but was seen socially as more akin to a third (and fourth) gender. two spirit people often had highly respected spiritual roles.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2015)

toggle said:


> eg. two spirit people.
> 
> those who encompassed aspects of the male and female, in body and/or in mind. and could indicate intersex, transgender or gay people but was seen socially as more akin to a third (and fourth) gender. two spirit people often had highly respected spiritual roles.


Yes, that's what I was thinking of (just as an example, there are more). But because it's so closely aligned (intersected, oh dear *runs* ) with spiritual/religious beliefs it doesn't map too well as a direct comparison. But I do think that some western society/philosophy seems insular and narrow minded (socially conservative?) compared with other world societies past and present. I blame it on religion and capitalism working with patriarchy for control and extracting profit for the few.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

I was about to say the same. Theories on gender from a feminist PoV is steeped in criticisms of women's relationship to Capital / Patriarchy. I had this conversation with some friends and I think we struggled to find m/any examples of truly matriarchal / egalitarian societies so any reading suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## Mation (Oct 28, 2015)

I've read a lot of this thread, though not all of it. What I see is the same arguments as on other threads that I have read in full. Forgive me if this has been covered here, but I haven't seen it elsewhere on urban (or have missed it).

1) I think it's uncontroversial to say that babies are assigned a gender at birth, based on their external sex characteristics. Sometimes these are ambiguous and what happens next (surgery, deferred decision, assigning a gender anyway) will depend, but in the main, this is how gender assignment happens. I'm not glossing over what happens in ambiguous situations because they're unimportant - they're clearly very important, especially for the people affected - but because I want to see if we agree that the above is how gender assignment happens when there are unambiguous external sex characteristics.

2) I think it's also uncontroversial to say that there are differences between the genders in brain structure and function in childhood and in adulthood. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Do we agree?

3) It's more controversial to say, but possible for everyone to understand, *that gender-based brain differences in structure and function* in childhood and adulthood can be a product of the socialisation that results from the gender assignment in point 2. Note the deliberate omission of a definite article in front of the emboldened phrase in this point, 3.

4) Accepting that gender-based brain differences in structure and function exist demands the very important caveat, imo, that any conclusions on the 'moral' or 'natural' rightness of particular power structures (by this I mean patriarchy) need to be treated with _extreme_ caution.

5) Is everyone aware that some brain structures differ between babies depending on their external sex characteristics at birth? There is evidence. At birth being the salient information. Because unless we believe that gender conditioning begins in the womb, socialisation cannot account for these differences. Here's some evidence that differences are present at birth (key bits emboldened):




			
				http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/6/1255 said:
			
		

> Although there has been recent interest in the study of childhood and adolescent brain development, very little is known about normal brain development in the first few months of life. In older children, there are regional differences in cortical gray matter development, whereas cortical gray and white matter growth after birth has not been studied to a great extent. The adult human brain is also characterized by cerebral asymmetries and sexual dimorphisms, although very little is known about how these asymmetries and dimorphisms develop. We used magnetic resonance imaging and an automatic segmentation methodology to study brain structure in 74 neonates in the first few weeks after birth. We found robust cortical gray matter growth compared with white matter growth, with occipital regions growing much faster than prefrontal regions. *Sexual dimorphism is present at birth*, with males having larger total brain cortical gray and white matter volumes than females. In contrast to adults and older children, the left hemisphere is larger than the right hemisphere, and the normal pattern of fronto-occipital asymmetry described in older children and adults is not present. Regional differences in cortical gray matter growth are likely related to differential maturation of sensory and motor systems compared with prefrontal executive function after birth. These findings also indicate that *whereas some adult patterns of sexual dimorphism and cerebral asymmetries are present at birth, others develop after birth*.






			
				http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/jns.1999.91.4.0610 said:
			
		

> The goal of this study was to construct a model of normal changes in intracranial volume occurring throughout childhood from age 7 days to 15 years. Methods. Using the technique of segmentation on magnetic resonance images obtained in healthy children, intracranial volume was measured and plotted against age. Conclusions. *Intracranial volume in the first few months of life is on average 900 cm 3 in males and 600 cm 3 in females*. By the age of 15 years, it increases up to 1500 cm 3 in males and 1300 cm 3 in females, increased by factors of 1.6 and 2.1, respectively. By the time the child reaches 2 years of age, intracranial volume has reached 77% (1150 cm 3 in males and 1000 cm 3 in females) and, by 5 years, 90% (1350 cm 3 in males and 1200 cm 3 in females) of the volume observed at age 15 years. The change in intracranial volume that occurs with age is not linear, but there seems to be a segmental pattern. Three main periods can be distinguished, each lasting approximately 5 years (0-5, 5-10, and 10-15 years), during which the growth of intracranial volume is linear. Throughout childhood, males have higher intracranial volumes than females, with a similar growth pattern.



6) If these differences are present at birth is it not possible that they are the source of the knowledge that one's gender has been wrongly assigned and that one's body has come out all wrong?

Disclaimer: I'm a cis woman and so may be cisplaining; if so it's because I haven't read the thread in full (I think and hope!).

tl;dr: Some sex-based differences in the brain are present at birth which suggests it's possible to have a gender from birth that is different to external sex characteristics and independent of gender socialisation.


----------



## Athos (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> It seems to me that some people, like Athos, are mostly trying to explain and understand how and why trans exclusionary folk think and say the things they do. And that is absolutely fine. In fact, it's essential. We should understand why people think the things they think, even when their views are vile. Athos has gone to great pains to also say he disagrees with their beliefs.
> 
> Where it crosses a line (this part is not specifically targeted at Athos but the discussion more widely) is when that argument starts suggesting that having tried to understand and explain the why, we should go further and accept a little bit of bigotry.
> 
> ...



For the record, I specifically stated that the reason I think it necessarily to understand the positions of those who'd seek to exclude trans women is in the hope of a dialogue that will ultimately result in them reconsidering their views.


----------



## wtfftw (Oct 28, 2015)

Tbh Mation you may well be cisplaining but I'm needing to check my cis privilege. Clearly.  I've not wanted to engage with this thread particularly because clumsy. I'd come over as terf I reckon.. When actually not terf but very much gender as social construct.


----------



## Mation (Oct 28, 2015)

wtfftw said:


> Tbh Mation you may well be cisplaining but I'm needing to check my cis privilege. Clearly.  I've not wanted to engage with this thread particularly because clumsy. I'd come over as terf I reckon.. When actually not terf but very much gender as social construct.


This was what was behind my post. I think that our widely-used language is insufficient for this. I agree that gender is a social construct. I just think that we use the word gender to incorporate 2 different things and end up talking at cross-purposes. I agree that gender - as in gender socialisation - is a social construct, necessarily. But I also believe, based on what trans people say and the evidence from brain research, that there is a difference, present from birth, that comes before socialisation can happen, but that isn't about external characteristics - i.e. it's in the brain. In this scenario, brain overrules body and also overrules socialisation; it's the main arbiter (for everyone) of what makes us feel the gender we feel we are. Does that make sense?


----------



## wtfftw (Oct 28, 2015)

That does yeah.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Mation said:


> This was what was behind my post. I think that our widely-used language is insufficient for this. I agree that gender is a social construct. I just think that we use the word gender to incorporate 2 different things and end up talking at cross-purposes. I agree that gender - as in gender socialisation - is a social construct, necessarily. But I also believe, based on what trans people say and the evidence from brain research, that there is a difference, present from birth, that comes before socialisation can happen, but that isn't about external characteristics - i.e. it's in the brain. In this scenario, brain overrules body and also overrules socialisation; it's the main arbiter (for everyone) of what makes us feel the gender we feel we are. Does that make sense?



Which means then there's a spectrum, so cis/trans also becomes binary as someone mentioned earlier.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Which I guess is what Jack Monroe is on about, but it confuses me massively all of this. I'm still very cold on privilege theory.


----------



## Mation (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Which means then there's a spectrum, so cis/trans also becomes binary as someone mentioned earlier.


Yes, a spectrum. And where there's a spectrum, there are people at or towards either end of it. Which means we can take at face value the people who tell us that they're at one or other end of it. Except that it's not a linear spectrum. Three spectra (at least!) interact. 

Sex characteristics: female --> male
Brain at birth: female --> male
Gender socialisation: female --> male

Imo


----------



## Mation (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Which I guess is what Jack Monroe is on about, but it confuses me massively all of this. I'm still very cold on privilege theory.


That wasn't where I'm coming from. I'm not talking about privilege at all, and don't know Jack Monroe well enough to know how to counter (just that the bits I've come across seem dodgy)


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Mation said:


> That wasn't where I'm coming from. I'm not talking about privilege at all, and don't know Jack Monroe well enough to know how to counter (just that the bits I've come across seem dodgy)



No, sorry, I know you weren't. Just my previous comment about there being a spectrum reminded me of Jack Monroe recently claiming she's trans - but neither male nor female - and then I tie that in with her support for the ripper museum and her working class recipe 'advice' and then growl a bit.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Which means then there's a spectrum, so cis/trans also becomes binary as someone mentioned earlier.





Citizen66 said:


> Which I guess is what Jack Monroe is on about, but it confuses me massively all of this. I'm still very cold on privilege theory.



Trans doesn't have to be binary in the way that you are a trans woman or trans man in the traditional sense of a cis gender binary (i.e. that there are women and there are men and that is that).

If we say gender is a spectrum, it means there are cis men and women, there are trans men and women, and there are people who don't quite fit either of those positions. That seems to be where Monroe is coming from, that they are trans but they are not part of the traditional cis/trans binary that we've been shown in the media so far. Agender people fall somewhere along this spectrum, as does anyone who calls themselves gender fluid, genderqueer, people who are intersex, and so on.

I don't much like the idea of a spectrum for this particular subject, tbh, because it suggests cis is at one end and trans is at the other in some kind of 'opposite' position to one another. I don't think that's the case. I prefer thinking about it as a ball, I suppose: imagine a ball and you can draw a dot on it with a felt tip pen, and that is where you locate your gender. Someone else can draw a dot somewhere else on that ball and that is where they locate their gender. This ball can fill up with dots, and none of them have a more preferential position in relation to any of the others, they all just exist on this ball together, just not all in the same location. The metaphor isn't perfect, but it helps me to conceptualise gender locations in that way rather than a spectrum.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> No, sorry, I know you weren't. Just my previous comment about there being a spectrum reminded me of Jack Monroe recently claiming she's trans - but neither male nor female - and then I tie that in with her support for the ripper museum and her working class recipe 'advice' and then growl a bit.



I'm unsure what their gender has to do with their stance on those other issues. We can critique anyone's feminism, and anyone's class consciousness, but how does Monroe's coming out as non-binary trans impact on that in this discussion?

(Incidentally, they have requested the they/them/their pronouns, not he or she.)


----------



## Mation (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> No, sorry, I know you weren't. Just my previous comment about there being a spectrum reminded me of Jack Monroe recently claiming she's trans - but neither male nor female - and then I tie that in with her support for the ripper museum and her working class recipe 'advice' and then growl a bit.


Seriously? Support for the ripper museum? Ew. That's... vile. But not (solely) attributable to any place on that 3d specturm, I don't think.


----------



## Mation (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't much like the idea of a spectrum for this particular subject, tbh, because it suggests cis is at one end and trans is at the other in some kind of 'opposite' position to one another. I don't think that's the case. I prefer thinking about it as a ball, I suppose: imagine a ball and you can draw a dot on it with a felt tip pen, and that is where you locate your gender. Someone else can draw a dot somewhere else on that ball and that is where they locate their gender. This ball can fill up with dots, and none of them have a more preferential position in relation to any of the others, they all just exist on this ball together, just not all in the same location. The metaphor isn't perfect, but it helps me to conceptualise gender locations in that way rather than a spectrum.


That's why I like the non-linear, 3d (or 3d+) spectrum idea. It would let you do just that.


----------



## Santino (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Trans doesn't have to be binary in the way that you are a trans woman or trans man in the traditional sense of a cis gender binary (i.e. that there are women and there are men and that is that).
> 
> If we say gender is a spectrum, it means there are cis men and women, there are trans men and women, and there are people who don't quite fit either of those positions. That seems to be where Monroe is coming from, that they are trans but they are not part of the traditional cis/trans binary that we've been shown in the media so far. Agender people fall somewhere along this spectrum, as does anyone who calls themselves gender fluid, genderqueer, people who are intersex, and so on.
> 
> I don't much like the idea of a spectrum for this particular subject, tbh, because it suggests cis is at one end and trans is at the other in some kind of 'opposite' position to one another. I don't think that's the case. I prefer thinking about it as a ball, I suppose: imagine a ball and you can draw a dot on it with a felt tip pen, and that is where you locate your gender. Someone else can draw a dot somewhere else on that ball and that is where they locate their gender. This ball can fill up with dots, and none of them have a more preferential position in relation to any of the others, they all just exist on this ball together, just not all in the same location. The metaphor isn't perfect, but it helps me to conceptualise gender locations in that way rather than a spectrum.


You're saying gender is a load of balls.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Santino said:


> You're saying gender is a load of balls.



Yes, and it matters not one jot whether you own a pair of 'em or not.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm unsure what their gender has to do with their stance on those other issues. We can critique anyone's feminism, and anyone's class consciousness, but how does Monroe's coming out as non-binary trans impact on that in this discussion?
> 
> (Incidentally, they have requested the they/them/their pronouns, not he or she.)





Mation said:


> Seriously? Support for the ripper museum? Ew. That's... vile. But not (solely) attributable to any place on that 3d specturm, I don't think.



To address both points, more my annoyance at  privilege theory where Monroe can now lay claim at being oppressed (more than being merely female) whilst also positioning herself besides the oppressors. This hasn't happened btw, I just see it as the next logical step in her politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> No, sorry, I know you weren't. Just my previous comment about there being a spectrum reminded me of Jack Monroe recently claiming she's trans - but neither male nor female - and then I tie that in with her support for the ripper museum and her working class recipe 'advice' and then growl a bit.


I think you mean the cereal cafe rather than the ripper thing?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> To address both points, more my annoyance at  privilege theory where Monroe can now lay claim at being oppressed (more than being merely female) whilst also positioning herself besides the oppressors. This hasn't happened btw, I just see it as the next logical step in her politics.



You want to be careful how you phrase your concerns I think. It's dodgy ground to suggest someone might be trans in order to further their own political position. Like they chose it, or something. You know, like Caitlyn Jenner only 'became' trans to steal the limelight from the Kardashians.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I think you mean the cereal cafe rather than the ripper thing?



I thought she came out defending the Ripper Museum and then Class War revealed her links to the PR person of it and then the Cereal Cafe stuff is now because she has beef with Class War.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

Problem with any spectrum idea is that far from minimising gender, it maximises it, seems to me. It's possible to think about this in a different way, I think, which is, simply, that many of the things attributed to/ assigned to gender are wrongly attributed/assigned. 

'That's not manly, that's not womanly...' 'Well, I have my own idea of 'manly' or I have my own idea of 'womanly'. Or I think of myself as a mixture of the two or something.' 

Is it not better (and simpler) just to take each of those roles/expectations one by one and say 'balls to using gender, whether binary or a spectrum, to define me in this way'? Surely it is the very existence of gendered expectations that ought to be tackled. Rather than attempt to renegotiate them, is it not better, where they are destructive, to try to go beyond them?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem with any spectrum idea is that far from minimising gender, it maximises it, seems to me. It's possible to think about this in a different way, I think, which is, simply, that many of the things attributed to/ assigned to gender are wrongly attributed/assigned.
> 
> 'That's not manly, that's not womanly...' 'Well, I have my own idea of 'manly' or I have my own idea of 'womanly'. Or I think of myself as a mixture of the two or something.'
> 
> Is it not better (and simpler) just to take each of those roles/expectations one by one and say 'balls to using gender, whether binary or a spectrum, to define me in this way'? Surely it is the very existence of gendered expectations that ought to be tackled. Rather than attempt to renegotiate them, is it not better, where they are destructive, to try to go beyond them?



Yeah, I think we should. But that's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime why is it only trans people who have to 'transcend' gender while the rest of us get to keep our gender definitions until the hard work is done?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> You want to be careful how you phrase your concerns I think. It's dodgy ground to suggest someone might be trans in order to further their own political position. Like they chose it, or something. You know, like Caitlyn Jenner only 'became' trans to steal the limelight from the Kardashians.



True. Neo-Liberalism co-opts identity politics (gay pride being an example) so coming from a social class position makes me shrug a bit, rightly or wrongly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yeah, I think we should. But that's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime why is it only trans people who have to 'transcend' gender while the rest of us get to keep our gender definitions until the hard work is done?


Are trans people transcending gender, though? I certainly don't expect them to, and I'm not so sure they are trying to - they're swapping genders (going over to living as the gender they have always felt themselves to be), not transcending gender, no? 

I do know someone who feels conflicted about their gender, in a way that means they're still not always sure that they want to be called the new pronoun for the gender they might be transferring to. Sometimes they identify as one, sometimes the other at the moment. No idea where that will go, but even that I'm not sure I see as a case of 'spectrum', more a bouncing between two poles of a binary.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> True. Neo-Liberalism co-opts identity politics (gay pride being an example) so coming from a social class position makes me shrug a bit, rightly or wrongly.



Wrongly, I think. Because again the enemy is the system/state and not the people negotiating how to live within it. With some caveats of course: e.g. George Cunting Osborne. But you get my point I hope. When it comes to gender identity, rich people for example might have an easier time accessing psychological and medical therapies than poorer people, but they're just as likely to have the shit kicked out of them for 'not looking right' while walking down the street. That's just one rather crude example, of course. But this is a situation where -- and I know you all hate this so much and with a passion -- some of the things intersectionality goes on about is actually useful. We inhabit different spaces at different times, and being privileged in one respect doesn't mean we will receive the benefits of that privilege when we are inhabiting a space where we have less privilege than others in the same space. Hence a rich black person in America having more privilege in terms of wealth than a poor white person, but that same black person not having the same privileges as that same white person when it comes to their safety in the eyes of the police in a random altercation. And so on. Context is king.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I thought she came out defending the Ripper Museum and then Class War revealed her links to the PR person of it and then the Cereal Cafe stuff is now because she has beef with Class War.


Links to the PR person is not a very accurate way of putting it - that person ran some sort of award JM was up for or was on the judging panel (later removed). Nor 'is came out defending the museum' very accurate ("I haven't visited the museum & won't comment until I do."). The cereal cafe stuff is because she made some ridiculous comments about it months after any ripper stuff (by ripper stuff i mean false accusation of having shares in it, being involved in setting it up etc - this lie coming from firky, along with other lies about it from him).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Are trans people transcending gender, though? I certainly don't expect them to, and I'm not so sure they are trying to - they're swapping genders (going over to living as the gender they have always felt themselves to be), not transcending gender, no?
> 
> I do know someone who feels conflicted about their gender, in a way that means they're still not always sure that they want to be called the new pronoun for the gender they might be transferring to. Sometimes they identify as one, sometimes the other at the moment. No idea where that will go, but even that I'm not sure I see as a case of 'spectrum', more a bouncing between two poles of a binary.



No. I mean that the argument about 'let's just get rid of gender' comes up a lot when talking about trans issues, with the implication that trans people should just stop worrying about trying to be the gender they want, because gender is all bullshit anyway. But us cis people will keep our gender definition, thank you very much, until such a time as someone else has magically smashed it all down.

Cis people's gender identity isn't being stripped away from them in the same way trans people's is. Why should we ask them to accept that because the ideal is no gender? Why should they be the paragons lighting the way when all they want to do is get the fuck on with their lives?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Links to the PR person is not a very accurate way of putting it - that person ran some sort of award JM was up for or was on the judging panel (later removed). Nor 'is came out defending the museum' very accurate ("I haven't visited the museum & won't comment until I do."). The cereal cafe stuff is because she made some ridiculous comments about it months after any ripper stuff (by ripper stuff i mean false accusation of having shares in it, being involved in setting it up etc - this lie coming from firky, along with other lies about it from him).



Cheers for clarifying. I even remember now that the claim was dodgy  this is what happens when you read the net too much.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Wrongly, I think. Because again the enemy is the system/state and not the people negotiating how to live within it. With some caveats of course: e.g. George Cunting Osborne. But you get my point I hope. When it comes to gender identity, rich people for example might have an easier time accessing psychological and medical therapies than poorer people, but they're just as likely to have the shit kicked out of them for 'not looking right' while walking down the street. That's just one rather crude example, of course. But this is a situation where -- and I know you all hate this so much and with a passion -- some of the things intersectionality goes on about is actually useful. We inhabit different spaces at different times, and being privileged in one respect doesn't mean we will receive the benefits of that privilege when we are inhabiting a space where we have less privilege than others in the same space. Hence a rich black person in America having more privilege in terms of wealth than a poor white person, but that same black person not having the same privileges as that same white person when it comes to their safety in the eyes of the police in a random altercation. And so on. Context is king.



I'm always on the side of the oppressed or try to be. But back to Marx etc, I don't waste too much of my efforts on anything that exists without a class analysis. I'm all for getting rid of patriarchy as long as those fighting it with me want rid of hierarchy too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> No. I mean that the argument about 'let's just get rid of gender' comes up a lot when talking about trans issues, with the implication that trans people should just stop worrying about trying to be the gender they want, because gender is all bullshit anyway. But us cis people will keep our gender definition, thank you very much, until such a time as someone else has magically smashed it all down.
> 
> Cis people's gender identity isn't being stripped away from them in the same way trans people's is. Why should we ask them to accept that because they ideal is no gender? Why should they be the paragons lighting the way when all they want to do is get the fuck on with their lives?


Ok, fair enough. I'm not actually suggesting getting rid of gender entirely necessarily, merely the destructive bits, although I acknowledge that identifying and disentangling the destructive bits is far from easy. There is the great huge canard of sexual attraction to deal with, on both sides, where, to put it crudely, we live up to gender norms to get laid. Also there is a danger of being seen to be judging people who enjoy certain aspects of their gender role. 

imo lots of this stuff is addressed by indirect means - a fairer socialist society, for starters. As ever, thinking you can tackle things like gender stereotyping without also addressing social justice is, frankly, fatuous. The sort of stuff Toksvig's reactionary new political party would think.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Further to my rich/poor people thing, this is why Caitlyn Jenner is an interesting topic. Not for the things Greer talks about, but because she's being held up as a symbol while at the same time there are thousands of poorer trans people who will never have the privilege of passing as she may because they can't afford to. And they'll never have the privilege of expensive psychological help. Etc. 

I haven't really paid a great deal of attention to her since her coming out, but I believe she has mentioned that she is aware of and that it is a travesty that people without her privilege can't access the same kind of help. So that's something. But at the same time she supports a lot of Republican policies and beliefs that would further damage those same people. But in critiquing that, I'm not critiquing her gender or her being trans, I'm critiquing her political position and how she benefits from things that she would deny others. The same can be said of anyone, any gender, any race, any socio-economic background, when it comes to who they think is worthy and who is not.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm always on the side of the oppressed or try to be. But back to Marx etc, I don't waste too much of my efforts on anything that exists without a class analysis. I'm all for getting rid of patriarchy as long as those fighting it with me want rid of hierarchy too.



This is worded terribly. Better is: those whose struggles I support won't always support mine once theirs is won.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm always on the side of the oppressed or try to be. But back to Marx etc, I don't waste too much of my efforts on anything that exists without a class analysis. I'm all for getting rid of patriarchy as long as those fighting it with me want rid of hierarchy too.



I agree with you... with the exception that it almost sounds like you think women who don't have a developed class consciousness _deserve_ their patriarchy thank you very much. No.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Further to my rich/poor people thing, this is why Caitlyn Jenner is an interesting topic. Not for the things Greer talks about, but because she's being held up as a symbol while at the same time there are thousands of poorer trans people who will never have the privilege of passing as she may because they can't afford to. And they'll never have the privilege of expensive psychological help. Etc.
> 
> I haven't really paid a great deal of attention to her since her coming out, but I believe she has mentioned that she is aware of and that it is a travesty that people without her privilege can't access the same kind of help. So that's something. But at the same time she supports a lot of Republican policies and beliefs that would further damage those same people. But in critiquing that, I'm not critiquing her gender or her being trans, I'm critiquing her political position and how she benefits from things that she would deny others. The same can be said of anyone, any gender, any race, any socio-economic background, when it comes to who they think is worthy and who is not.


She's a Republican so she can fuck off, tbh. 

That's where any identity politics fails if it isn't attached to something else. Like welcoming Thatcher because she's a woman.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She's a Republican so she can fuck off, tbh.
> 
> That's where any identity politics fails if it isn't attached to something else. Like welcoming Thatcher because she's a woman.



Yes, she's a Republican and can fuck off for her politics, absolutely.

But there has to be a nuanced and intelligent way of talking about this. Because if a rich woman is raped I am not going to tell her I don't care because she is rich. Not standing up for a woman who is raped makes all women more vulnerable in the long run. Likewise, with Jenner, if she is attacked (in the media, wherever) for being trans, I'm not going to laugh and say "whatever, Republican bitch" because every public attack against a trans person normalises attacks against _all_ trans people. And while she may have the benefit of bodyguards (I don't know if she has, btw, but she can certainly afford them) most people do not, most people have to deal with the very bloody reality of it. This, to me, is where the critiques of identity politics without class politics fall short - they are all too happy to see everyone suffer ("everyone not like me" at least) because there isn't the right kind of class politics involved somewhere.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> I agree with you... with the exception that it almost sounds like you think women who don't have a developed class consciousness _deserve_ their patriarchy thank you very much. No.



Nah, I mean the opposite. That female equality for those without class analysis is Thatcher.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

We've had a female pm so we're post feminism.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She's a Republican so she can fuck off, tbh.
> 
> That's where any identity politics fails if it isn't attached to something else. Like welcoming Thatcher because she's a woman.



Beaten to it. Obvious yet correct example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yes, she's a Republican and can fuck off for her politics, absolutely.
> 
> But there has to be a nuanced and intelligent way of talking about this. Because if a rich woman is raped I am not going to tell her I don't care because she is rich. Not standing up for a woman who is raped makes all women more vulnerable in the long run. Likewise, with Jenner, if she is attacked (in the media, wherever) for being trans, I'm not going to laugh and say "whatever, Republican bitch" because every public attack against a trans person normalises attacks against _all_ trans people. And while she may have the benefit of bodyguards (I don't know if she has, btw, but she can certainly afford them) most people do not, most people have to deal with the very bloody reality of it. This, to me, is where the critiques of identity politics without class politics fall short - they are all too happy to see everyone suffer ("everyone not like me" at least) because there isn't the right kind of class politics involved somewhere.


I would never do anything other than condemn an attack on someone for being trans or being a woman. However, condemning the attack isn't quite the same thing as defending the person being attacked. That's where id politics can lead you down the wrong road, imo, as it sees people holding up examples of x or y in the public eye and saying 'progress'. But no. It matters not just what someone is but also who they are. Thatcher's election was not progress for women in Britain. It was progress for a woman - Thatcher - but the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. And if this trans woman is a Republican, the same thing applies.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 28, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would never do anything other than condemn an attack on someone for being trans or being a woman. However, condemning the attack isn't quite the same thing as defending the person being attacked. That's where id politics can lead you down the wrong road, imo, as it sees people holding up examples of x or y in the public eye and saying 'progress'. But no. It matters not just what someone is but also who they are. Thatcher's election was not progress for women in Britain. It was progress for a woman - Thatcher - but the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. And if this trans woman is a Republican, the same thing applies.



I agree with you to an extent, but I do disagree slightly because not all things are equivalent. For example, seeing LGB people normalised on TV and in politics has gone a long way to seeing LGB people normalised in everyday life. Some of those LGB people in TV and politics are right wing, all are likely more privileged in terms of class than the majority of other LGB people. And yet their visibility and acceptance (acceptance as being gay) has made acceptance easier for other LGB people. Same will be true of trans people. This is different to expecting all women to become powerful or rich or even have oppressive gender roles become a thing of the past once Thatcher came into power. The difference is what outcome we're expecting. One is saying a woman is PM, therefore any woman can achieve a position of power, huzzah no more sexism, post-feminism woo. The other is saying look, it's normal to be gay or trans, they're just like us, see how they can walk and talk and not be weird and stuff... maybe we shouldn't beat the shit out of them. I'm being facetious obviously, but it would only be an equivalence if we were saying "look, this gay person is on tv, now all gay people can be famous."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

I take the point, but I'm very skeptical about the power of the media in this regard. How much do the media and those in public life drive these kinds of social processes, and how much are they merely reflecting them? Hard question to answer, but I was always struck whenever Eastenders used to do 'issues' that a character would always adopt the most stereotypically reactionary position possible in order to be turned from it at some point as they recognised the humanity of their gay child, or whatever. Not sure whether that kind of thing has ever had much of an effect on people (and definitely not as much as I think many in the media would have us believe) - actually knowing people in your real life is way more influential.

And then there's the Joey Deacon effect.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 28, 2015)

Thought this thread was lively then I saw the one on Lisa Mckenzie's fb page


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 28, 2015)

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


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2015)

Mation said:


> I've read a lot of this thread, though not all of it. What I see is the same arguments as on other threads that I have read in full. Forgive me if this has been covered here, but I haven't seen it elsewhere on urban (or have missed it).
> 
> 1) I think it's uncontroversial to say that babies are assigned a gender at birth, based on their external sex characteristics. Sometimes these are ambiguous and what happens next (surgery, deferred decision, assigning a gender anyway) will depend, but in the main, this is how gender assignment happens. I'm not glossing over what happens in ambiguous situations because they're unimportant - they're clearly very important, especially for the people affected - but because I want to see if we agree that the above is how gender assignment happens when there are unambiguous external sex characteristics.
> 
> ...



The problem is that sex-based structural differences of brain don't necessarily map to gender at all. Our current state of knowledge on gender as it pertains to the interface between brain and mind is still mostly supposition. 
So yes, it's possible, but we're still too deep in theory rather than fact to advance beyond possibility, sadly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2015)

wtfftw said:


> Tbh Mation you may well be cisplaining but I'm needing to check my cis privilege. Clearly.  I've not wanted to engage with this thread particularly because clumsy. I'd come over as terf I reckon.. When actually not terf but very much gender as social construct.



In my opinion, an awful lot of problems reside in what people take "social construct" to mean. Many appear to believe that the concept means an idea constructed by society-at-large, for society-at large, in which case gender would map to "commonsense" perceptions based on already-established roles. Perhaps when we call something "socially-constructed", we need to bear in mind that it isn't merely a matter of the above, but that power - interest groups, historic precedent etc - also plays a part in social construction for its' own ends. It may be "commonsense" to accept binary gendering as predominant and even "right", but that doesn't mean there aren't influences at work for whom exploring gender multiplicity goes against their intentions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Which means then there's a spectrum, so cis/trans also becomes binary as someone mentioned earlier.



There's a spectrum, and while cis/trans *may* be binary opposites, it ain't necessarily so, any more than male/female is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem with any spectrum idea is that far from minimising gender, it maximises it, seems to me. It's possible to think about this in a different way, I think, which is, simply, that many of the things attributed to/ assigned to gender are wrongly attributed/assigned.
> 
> 'That's not manly, that's not womanly...' 'Well, I have my own idea of 'manly' or I have my own idea of 'womanly'. Or I think of myself as a mixture of the two or something.'
> 
> Is it not better (and simpler) just to take each of those roles/expectations one by one and say 'balls to using gender, whether binary or a spectrum, to define me in this way'? Surely it is the very existence of gendered expectations that ought to be tackled. Rather than attempt to renegotiate them, is it not better, where they are destructive, to try to go beyond them?



You shouldn't simplify until after you clarify, so a maximalist approach to gender would therefore make more sense.


----------



## Thora (Oct 28, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> 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


How long til she's getting death threats too?


----------



## D'wards (Oct 28, 2015)

I notice Laurie Penny has retweeted anti-Greer stuff. I have a feeling this whole incident may be the end for Greer as a force in feminism


----------



## wtfftw (Oct 28, 2015)

D'wards said:


> I notice Laurie Penny has retweeted anti-Greer stuff. I have a feeling this whole incident may be the end for Greer as a force in feminism


Yeah. No.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2015)

D'wards said:


> I notice Laurie Penny has retweeted anti-Greer stuff. I have a feeling this whole incident may be the end for Greer as a force in feminism


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You shouldn't simplify until after you clarify, so a maximalist approach to gender would therefore make more sense.



How does that work, though? I'm still not clear what a 'spectrum' gender identification would look like. And isn't the whole point that stella's been making that trans-gender people don't necessarily want a new gender classification for them, nor some spectrum idea, at all? They just want to be accepted as the *other* gender that they have moved over to. If anything, I could see the likes of Greer seeing spectrum-like gender identification as a good idea - she could then fit trans-people at somewhere on the spectrum other than alongside her concept of 'real' women.


----------



## Thora (Oct 28, 2015)

wtfftw said:


> Yeah. No.


Tbf Laurie Penny is the feminist voice of our times.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How does that work, though? I'm still not clear what a 'spectrum' gender identification would look like. And isn't the whole point that stella's been making that trans-gender people don't necessarily want a new gender classification for them, nor some spectrum idea, at all? They just want to be accepted as the *other* gender that they have moved over to. If anything, I could see the likes of Greer seeing spectrum-like gender identification as a good idea - she could then fit trans-people at somewhere on the spectrum other than alongside her concept of 'real' women.



It's more a case of "how *would* it work?", and I'd answer that with "by keeping an open mind to any claims of spectrum-based gender identity". In other words, *beyond* what classification AuntiStella might want/find acceptable for herself, we also need to think about those who locate themselves beyond or between the male-female binary *at the same time*, otherwise the current arguments with reference to cis/trans will just be recreated elsewhere on the gender spectrum - something that is, IIRC, already happening mildly with regard to "born" vs "made" intersex.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem is that sex-based structural differences of brain don't necessarily map to gender at all. Our current state of knowledge on gender as it pertains to the interface between brain and mind is still mostly supposition.
> So yes, it's possible, but we're still too deep in theory rather than fact to advance beyond possibility, sadly.



this is really important to this entire debate.  essentialism vs non-essentialism are both being held up as objective truths, as proved, and a further leap is being made that even if gender is entirely a social construct that precludes a biological basis for transsexuality.  The interplay between nurture, nature, gender, physical sex, identity, hormones, and things that might be considered also in the mix, such a body mapping dysphoria, aesthetics, sexuality, is so complex it looks verging on chaotic.  No-one can say they can present an absolute proof in the essentialism debate so all these arguments are largely being based in ideology, hunches and personal prejudices.

what we do have however is a phenomena that people experience in all times and cultures, that shares a great (diagnosable) commonality in how it is experienced and which has a huge impact on people's live.  How we respond to that ss society and individuals is largely a measure of  compassion, and whether we trust the lived experiences reported by probably millions of transsexuals now throughout history.  we have learnt to accept that non-heterosexual sexuality is a thing, despite no physical evidence of where it is under a microscope, we know less than fuck all about how or why it emerges, I'd suggest that the same courtesy is paid towards people's gender identity as well. That seems easier for some people to grasp when someone is noticeably physically intersex but claims a gendered identity, there isn't really much difference between doing that for someone who might be neurogically or genetically intersex in some way - or might even not be, i'm not sure it really matters or why nature should trump nurture in the hierarchy of what we deem acceptable.

and just as a by the way, researchers in this field do seem to be moving in the direction that transsexuality has some kind of biological driver.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's more a case of "how *would* it work?", and I'd answer that with "by keeping an open mind to any claims of spectrum-based gender identity". In other words, *beyond* what classification AuntiStella might want/find acceptable for herself, we also need to think about those who locate themselves beyond or between the male-female binary *at the same time*, otherwise the current arguments with reference to cis/trans will just be recreated elsewhere on the gender spectrum - something that is, IIRC, already happening mildly with regard to "born" vs "made" intersex.


I confess to ignorance generally to what and how intersex people feel. If some feel themselves to be neither male nor female, I see no problem with that. It doesn't so much negate the binary as say to me that there are people who sit outside it. Analogous perhaps to someone being asexual - not homo or hetero or bi, but rather not anywhere on any sexuality continuum (I do think sexuality is a better fit to a spectrum than gender). And here, surely, is where reducing the importance of gender, reducing the ideas associated with it, is only going to help - you're male, female or neither, but how you're treated isn't determined by that.


----------



## laptop (Oct 28, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> So is there an age cut-off?



We'll have to wait and see. As far as I know, there are few or no people who have been accepted as trans at an early age until very recently.

The argument as I see it is about *history*.




			
				Almost everyone said:
			
		

> TERF



Eh? Ah! I'm soo glad that an accident of birth means I can never be one of these 

I have known many feminists, almost all of them radical people. And some separatists - the world has been blurred for a while  Almost none of the separatists were radical-feminists (and almost no-one seems to be defining "radical-feminist" as a radical-feminist would do so: which is to place gender as the *root* cause of all oppression).

I find it very easy to see how a woman who has spent 40 years being attacked for demanding women-only spaces would be ticked off. Not hating: annoyed. 

She is confronted by a person who was *offered *the privileges of expecting to be heard everywhere that go with being male. Those privileges are her reason for wanting women-only spaces. Now this person is demanding to enter that space, to be heard about her experience as a woman... 

It seems to me that it must be instructive that - mention of Jack Monroe's non-binary position apart - this is all about m2f folk.

True, any space that an f2m seeks to gain entry is one that men have maintained by patriarchal priviledge. But it's not one that's been fought for this past century. But I fear there's something going on about right-to-be-heard too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2015)

smokedout said:


> How we respond to that ss society and individuals is largely a measure of  compassion, and whether we trust the lived experiences reported by probably millions of transsexuals now throughout history.


Good post. Completely agree with this bit. And again analogous to the treatment of homosexuals. In the end it _doesn't matter_ exactly what role nurture or nature has or hasn't played. That doesn't change how we should act at all.


----------



## Athos (Oct 28, 2015)

smokedout said:


> How we respond to that ss society and individuals is largely a measure of  compassion, and whether we trust the lived experiences reported by probably millions of transsexuals now throughout history.



I think this is pretty much spot on.  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.  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.


----------



## Mation (Oct 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem is that sex-based structural differences of brain don't necessarily map to gender at all. Our current state of knowledge on gender as it pertains to the interface between brain and mind is still mostly supposition.
> So yes, it's possible, but we're still too deep in theory rather than fact to advance beyond possibility, sadly.


Oh definitely; I wasn't saying they map or that anyone knows how. Just that there is something, at birth, that is brain-based, that isn't about conditioning or constructs, that (imo) probably has some (at the moment black box) effect on how people feel about their gender, given that other sex characteristics have some effect.


----------



## Mation (Oct 29, 2015)

Athos said:


> I think this is pretty much spot on.  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.  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.


Are you trolling?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

He's ever the contrarian.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2015)

Mation said:


> Are you trolling?



No, there's nothing in the post you quoted that's inconsistent with my position throughout.

From the outset, I explained that I consider trans women to be women, and that I hope all people will come to see things that way.  That's not lessened by the fact that I am reticent to force my opinion on all women, or that I try to understand the arguments of some women who would exclude trans women, if only because that seems to me to be the only positive way in which they could ultimately be overcome.

Sadly, in a discussion that generates more heat than light, it's often easier for others to try to shout down anything but the most extreme position on the same side of the debate as them.  In the cases of some who have suffered terribly, and to whom this is a very real and very personal issue, I suppose that's understandable, albeit not very helpful.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> He's ever the contrarian.



No I'm not.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

Boom tish!


----------



## lizzieloo (Oct 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I believe walking in high heels is the first skill m-f transexuals are required to learn in their quest to become a woman. If they fail at that hurdle, there's no chance of them ever being 'accepted'.



I'll never be accepted then


----------



## Mation (Oct 29, 2015)

Athos said:


> No, there's nothing in the post you quoted that's inconsistent with my position throughout.
> 
> From the outset, I explained that I consider trans women to be women, and that I hope all people will come to see things that way.  That's not lessened by the fact that I am reticent to force my opinion on all women, or that I try to understand the arguments of some women who would exclude trans women, if only because that seems to me to be the only positive way in which they could ultimately be overcome.
> 
> Sadly, in a discussion that generates more heat than light, it's often easier for others to try to shout down anything but the most extreme position on the same side of the debate as them.  In the cases of some who have suffered terribly, and to whom this is a very real and very personal issue, I suppose that's understandable, albeit not very helpful.


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.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 29, 2015)

obviously the answer to terf vs trans is a contest of womanly skills
walking in high heels
baking 
making sandwiches and tank combat


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

You even managed to shoehorn the military into this discussion?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2015)

I thought I would post this here:
Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol

I don't know what she did to deserve prison


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I thought I would post this here:
> Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol
> 
> I don't know what she did to deserve prison


It's in the article. 12 weeks for common assault in a pub fracas. Absurd sending anyone to jail for this kind of thing. 

Pretty chilling the stats in that. She has a more than evens chance of being sexually assaulted. Fucking judge who sentenced her is the one who should be in prison. Cunt.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Just heard that there's an appeal against her sentence to be heard tomorrow. There are now over 100,000 signatures to the petition. A facebook page here for a support rally.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

Seems there's some back pedalling happening.

Prison service considering removing transgender woman Tara Hudson from all-male jail


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 29, 2015)

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?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2015)

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...'


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> 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?



The _Metro_ version of the story as linked says "because passport".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2015)

laptop said:


> The _Metro_ version of the story as linked says "because passport".


Not to mention 'longstanding policy' as if that were some kind of justification. They've got this wrong for ever! Well done.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 29, 2015)

laptop said:


> 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...


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2015)

Here's info on gender recognition procedure: Applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate - GOV.UK


----------



## Sirena (Oct 29, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 29, 2015)

Sirena said:


> From 2004/5 they introduced the 'certificate' procedure and now you have to have the certificate before you get a passport.



A psych letter is (or at least was a couple of years ago) still good enough for a passport to be issued. You don't need a GRC.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 29, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> A psych letter is (or at least was a couple of years ago) still good enough for a passport to be issued. You don't need a GRC.


Yes, you're right.  You can either present the gender certificate, the amended birth certificate or a doctor letter.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ing_for_a_passport_additional_information.PDF


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2015)

Mation said:


> 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.


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2015)

surely patriarchy spurts rather than oozes?


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> surely patriarchy spurts rather than oozes?



That's what it'd like you to think...


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> surely patriarchy spurts rather than oozes?



I alway imagined it as 'reeking.'  Probably a musky sort of a smell.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Oh God, I can see this thread going the urban way.


----------



## toggle (Oct 29, 2015)

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.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Athos, I can't speak for others but hazard a guess that this:


Athos said:


> 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:


Athos said:


> 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.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 29, 2015)

"I think feminists should just calm down." - a man.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

Isn't he referring to TERFs though, rather than feminists of every stripe?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Isn't he referring to TERFs though, rather than feminists of every stripe?


Was it TERFs who took exception to what Athos said? I just can't keep up.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 29, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> 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?



I think it comes down to the judge. Whose obviously wrong in this case.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> I think it comes down to the judge. Whose obviously wrong in this case.


Magistrates. Need I say more?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Was it TERFs who took exception to what Athos said? I just can't keep up.



No, but you might agree that TERFs need to tone down the rhetoric?


----------



## Thora (Oct 29, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> 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


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.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Magistrates. Need I say more?



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.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> 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.


She's pre-op.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

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.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> I think it comes down to the judge. Whose obviously wrong in this case.


 


dylanredefined said:


> 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


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2015)

Thora said:


> 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.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> 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.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 29, 2015)

Sirena said:


> She's pre-op.


Thought the article said she had had 6 years of surgery so assumed the surgery was finished anyway if she lives as a woman send her to a female jail.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Sirena said:


> She's pre-op.


Do you know that? The press reports suggest otherwise. In any case, the bench before who she appeared can't have been in any doubt how she presented. 
More difficult are cases where someone who identifies as female but doesn't even attempt to pass (beard etc). What happens to them?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Thought the article said she had had 6 years of surgery so assumed the surgery was finished anyway if she lives as a woman send her to a female jail.


Even if she hadn't had the surgery.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Even if she hadn't had the surgery.



 She looks female enough to be at greater risk in a male prison than a female one. She is being punished by being locked up not being raped.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> She looks female enough to be at greater risk in a male prison than a female one. She is being punished by being locked up not being raped.


Completely agree. (As an aside, not a wot about the menz, why isn't there more outrage about prison rape? I hate the way people joke about it as if it were an understood part of the punishment.)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2015)

Her mum wasn't even expecting a prison sentence. I don't know the full details, but she pleaded guilty to a charge that often doesn't involve jail terms. Women form only a small part of the prison population, but it's well documented that they are often treated more harshly by courts than men where their actions are deemed 'unwomanly'. It may well be that Tara has been cunted over twice here for being transgender.

ETA:

The conviction was for common assault, the lowest level of assault. So she got into a drunken brawl of some kind in a pub (and possibly started it) but didn't actually injure anyone in any serious way. (And she owned up and was prepared to take some form of treatment.)

That really does have me asking: how likely is it that a man would have been jailed for that?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

That's how I read it, lbj.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

She doesn't need prison she needs help with emotional / alcohol problems. Fucking barbaric actions by the state here.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Completely agree. (As an aside, not a wot about the menz, why isn't there more outrage about prison rape? I hate the way people joke about it as if it were an understood part of the punishment.)


My understanding is that it is much more of a significant problem in the states.  Otoh, I am led to believe that violent sexual assaults are endemic in some women's prisons in the uk.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 29, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> My understanding is that it is much more of a significant problem in the states.  Otoh, I am led to believe that violent sexual assaults are endemic in some women's prisons in the uk.


which is not to say that it isn't a concern.  all rape is horrific, and clearly when there is no escape from the environment it is a particular problem.  Just that our perception of the scale of the problem comes from US culture.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

It's a problem in the UK too.
Ministers urged to investigate prison rape - The Howard League for Penal Reform


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Seems there's some back pedalling happening.
> 
> Prison service considering removing transgender woman Tara Hudson from all-male jail



and the reasons the Metro had to publish pictures of her naked are?

(not a pop at you c66, just an observation)


----------



## Sirena (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Do you know that? The press reports suggest otherwise.



"Last night Tara’s mother, 48, said that her daughter still had the vestige remains of a penis, despite having 34EE breasts.

She said the hormone treatment had shrunken Tara’s ‘manhood’ and she was due to have it removed ‘at some point’ and was still taking hormone treatment she has been receiving for some years."


Read more: Transgender woman sent to an all-male prison despite safety fears
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 29, 2015)

I rather suspect her mother didn't quite say that. But the press were going to write it like that anyway as they utterly obsessed over trans people and what surgery they've had or not.


----------



## toggle (Oct 29, 2015)

Sirena said:


> She's pre-op.



 it's the lack of paperwork. op status is irrelevent to that


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

TMI, Sirena. Not convinced that any of that is relevant to which kind of prison she should be in (if she should be in prison at all, which I seriously doubt).


----------



## Sirena (Oct 29, 2015)

toggle said:


> it's the lack of paperwork. op status is irrelevent to that


I was replying to the question about how did they even know she was a transsexual.....


----------



## toggle (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> TMI, Sirena. Not convinced that any of that is relevant to which kind of prison she should be in (if she should be in prison at all, which I seriously doubt).



innit. considering it's irrelevent to whether she would be granted gender recognition paperwork. it's definately not anyhting i need to know about her.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> TMI, Sirena. Not convinced that any of that is relevant to which kind of prison she should be in (if she should be in prison at all, which I seriously doubt).


Maybe not but I was just answering your question...


----------



## toggle (Oct 29, 2015)

Sirena said:


> I was replying to the question about how did they even know she was a transsexual.....




all that needs to be said is - because her paperwork does not match her presentation


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2015)

What kind of complete idiot couldn't see that they were doing the wrong thing sending her to a male jail? Yet they all hid behind the paperwork and did it anyway. Fuck me.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Maybe not but I was just answering your question...


OK. God what a mess.
ETA: not sure which of my crass questions you were answering but this certainly wasn't the sort of answer I've ever sought.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 29, 2015)

Still all very reassuring that they rarely manage to send to prison, let alone catch and convict, the many people who attack and sexually assault trans people all the time, whilst they're clearly able to do this


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Athos, I can't speak for others but hazard a guess that this:
> is what gets people's backs up before they read this:
> 
> 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.
> ...



Whilst I'm well aware that some feminists don't share my view about contemporary feminist discourse, I know that some do.  Is it wrong for me to venture an opinion, at all?  Literally just that: venturing an opinion, not trying to foist it on anyone.

To be honest, the definition of 'woman' that any of us adopts is a choice.  It's not as though there some compelling scientific or logical argument that can conclusively define womanhood once and for all, beyond all doubt, is it?  We might as well be honest about that.  And, if we're chooing, we might as well choose for the right reasons, eh?  I don't really see that as having reservations.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Athos said:


> To be honest, the definition of 'woman' that any of us adopts is a choice.  It's not as though there some compelling scientific or logical argument that can conclusively define womanhood once and for all, beyond all doubt, is it?  We might as well be honest about that.  And, if we're chooing, we might as well choose for the right reasons, eh?  I don't really see that as having reservations.


And you seriously don't understand why that is triggering? TBH I didn't get it at first. It's not about choice, it's about acceptance. Maybe continue this discussion backchannel.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

smokedout said:


> and the reasons the Metro had to publish pictures of her naked are?
> 
> (not a pop at you c66, just an observation)



Good point. The Mail (especially online) love (and loathe) the female body so no change there. 

Just remembered it wasn't the mail online  but isn't the metro the same news org?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Gross though it is, it may even help persuade the knuckledraggers.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> And you seriously don't understand why that is triggering? TBH I didn't get it at first. It's not about choice, it's about acceptance. Maybe continue this discussion backchannel.



I understand that some people are upset by things they disagree with, yes.

I choose to be accepting, becasue it's the right thing to do.  Why are you accepting?

No need to go backchannel - this sort of stuff is what this thread is about.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Good point. The Mail (especially online) love (and loathe) the female body so no change there.
> 
> Just remembered it wasn't the mail online  but isn't the metro the same news org?



yep, was going to question if they would publish a picture of a naked non-trans woman to accompany a story about someone potentially at risk of sexual abuse, but tbh I think they probably would.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2015)

Athos, I accept because I trust people to tell the truth about themselves.  
*because it's the right thing to do* suggests some more general imposition, doesn't say what you really mean. 
I suggested going backchannel because talking about this stuff in any kind of abstract philosophical way is bloody inconsiderate to anyone who is living these realities. 
TBH it's bloody inconsiderate even to think about talking behind closed doors.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2015)

smokedout said:


> yep, was going to question if they would publish a picture of a naked non-trans woman to accompany a story about someone potentially at risk of sexual abuse, but tbh I think they probably would.



They trawl social media for the most salivating material. The context probably doesn't cross their minds when they do this

E2a- I mean that as a criticism not an excuse.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Athos, I accept because I trust people to tell the truth about themselves.
> *because it's the right thing to do* suggests some more general imposition, doesn't say what you really mean.
> I suggested going backchannel because talking about this stuff in any kind of abstract philosophical way is bloody inconsiderate to anyone who is living these realities.
> TBH it's bloody inconsiderate even to think about talking behind closed doors.



You choose to define as women people who identify as such (as opposed to adopting any other definition of womanhood you might have chosen).  Then there's no difference between us on that point.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 29, 2015)

A poll has found two thirds of people would be happy with a transgender Prime Minister.

Proving most people really don't give a shit and we can argue around the edges (and indeed bigotry needs to be confronted, it's an essential part of the march forwards) but people like Greer are on their way out. And good riddance.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 29, 2015)

Britain's a shithole in so many respects, but we're actually one of the most progressive countries in the world. We should hold onto that and fight to keep it so.


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Britain's a shithole in so many respects, but we're actually one of the most progressive countries in the world. We should hold onto that and fight to keep it so.





Vintage Paw said:


> people like Greer are on their way out. And good riddance.



And yet Greer is a part of the reason for the UK being progressive...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 29, 2015)

Yeah, people are complex. Sometimes they do good things, sometimes they do bad things. Even if they've done good things you call them out on their shit.


----------



## UK subversive (Oct 30, 2015)

Thank god that Germaine Greer spoke sense. I agree with everything she says on this issue. I'm not a hater, but don't ask me to believe the unbelievable. 
An opinion is not a prescription. 
I also don't buy this sex/gender binary. frankly, biology cannot disappear that easily. the high rates of suicide are probably due to the drugs,hormones, operations etc that people undergo, which frankly must fuck people up. Look at that as well. 

Greer made her arguments well, there is no need to repeat them. I've said my bit.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 30, 2015)

So subversive.


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> Thank god that Germaine Greer spoke sense. I agree with everything she says on this issue. I'm not a hater, but don't ask me to believe the unbelievable.
> An opinion is not a prescription.
> I also don't buy this sex/gender binary. frankly, biology cannot disappear that easily. the high rates of suicide are probably due to the drugs,hormones, operations etc that people undergo, which frankly must fuck people up. Look at that as well.
> 
> Greer made her arguments well, there is no need to repeat them. I've said my bit.


0/10

Katie Hopkins' job is safe.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2015)

oh gawds not this one again


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 30, 2015)

i can feel a  coming on


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Good though, that a troll defending Greer should appear so absurd. 

Note to Greer: _this is how you sound_.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 30, 2015)

On the subject of Greer and her defenders:

"On why I'm starting to get why #fuckcispeople is a thing - A response to Helen Lewis."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

The need to own the definition of a thing. She clearly feels that need. I've never felt it, but then I've not experienced what she has. But this strikes me a bit of a turf war (a terf war?). There's a certain arrogance to asserting the ownership of anything, no, especially when many of those you would claim to share ownership with clearly disagree?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> On the subject of Greer and her defenders:
> 
> "On why I'm starting to get why #fuckcispeople is a thing - A response to Helen Lewis."


Why does he mention that he is white? I can't see anything relating to race in anything he says.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 30, 2015)

I think it's to highlight his 'privilege' - the idea that cis white men do an awful lot of explaining on the internet, on all manner of things, and acknowledging you understand your privilege goes a long way in a short number of words to say you're not trying to do that "here, let me explain to you lesser people" thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Ok. I find it a little depressing whenever I see mention of race where it isn't relevant, as it doesn't seem to be here.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why does he mention that he is white? I can't see anything relating to race in anything he says.


He's showing he's a right-on dude by checking his privilege. He doesn't say whether he's able-bodied, though.

But he doesn't get that many women view the penis as a weapon because it has been wielded against them personally. I guess most penis-havers will never understand that, but I suspect it is behind a lot of the bigotry.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 30, 2015)

And before you all leap in to tear me down, no - I don't think it's right or reasonable, just that it may be an explanation.


----------



## xenon (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> Thank god that Germaine Greer spoke sense. I agree with everything she says on this issue. I'm not a hater, but don't ask me to believe the unbelievable.
> An opinion is not a prescription.
> I also don't buy this sex/gender binary. frankly, biology cannot disappear that easily. the high rates of suicide are probably due to the drugs,hormones, operations etc that people undergo, which frankly must fuck people up. Look at that as well.
> 
> Greer made her arguments well, there is no need to repeat them. I've said my bit.



You are a reactionary conservative at heart.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> And before you all leap in to tear me down, no - I don't think it's right or reasonable, just that it may be an explanation.



in think its one of the most difficult to understand and accept areas of the terf wars. but it's something that has become a political football for screamers, self appointed spokes-arseholes and controversialists. which guarantees that its going to remain difficult and unadressed and people will remain vulnerable. and the focus on penis is not only unnecessary, but i think hides that the problem is more likely to be for those who dont - for want of a better term- pass.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 30, 2015)

I agree with that, especially that the main victims are trans women. But I'm not sure that avoiding the issue is the answer, however much it serves the rhetoric of 'screamers, self appointed spokes-arseholes and controversialists'. It is there, even it is not polite to talk about it. TBH, I think it's more of an issue with acceptance of trans women who don't seek to pass (beards etc).


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> I agree with that, especially that the main victims are trans women. But I'm not sure that avoiding the issue is the answer, however much it serves the rhetoric of 'screamers, self appointed spokes-arseholes and controversialists'. It is there, even it is not polite to talk about it. TBH, I think it's more of an issue with acceptance of trans women who don't seek to pass (beards etc).



while it has become that political football, it's hard to have that discussion without ending up becoming part of that slanging match. 

as for beards......

These Bridal Photos Of 'Bearded Dame' Harnaam Kaur Are Simply Stunning

to highlight that it's never even that obvious.....


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 30, 2015)

She's inspirational.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 30, 2015)

But that is precisely because she's an outlier. Everyone knows that she is AFAB, and her religion sustains her against what a stereotypical woman would regard as a nightmare. She's a million miles away from Conchita Wurst who, as I understand, is a performance rather than an identity - let alone the dude who tells the world she is a woman without changing a single dudely thing, even beard, not even wanting to 'pass'. (OK, maybe sometimes a bit of lippy.) I do find the latter hard to understand but have to take them at their word.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think it's to highlight his 'privilege' - the idea that cis white men do an awful lot of explaining on the internet, on all manner of things, and acknowledging you understand your privilege goes a long way in a short number of words to say you're not trying to do that "here, let me explain to you lesser people" thing.


An attempt to minimise the drooze-effect


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> the high rates of suicide are probably due to the drugs,hormones, operations etc that people undergo, which frankly must fuck people up. Look at that as well.



The high rates of suicide isn't helped by the rest of society being cunts and not allowing trans people simply to get on with their lives -  whether it be attacking them on the street, ripping apart who they are on the internet, or the lengthy hoops that have to be jumped through to get treatment. 

You fucking clueless twat.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

Anyway, as someone who isn't cis, its always illuminating to read discussion both here and elsewhere. Its heartening that in the more mainstream of concious, trans and intersex people are becoming much more understood and accepted, whilst sadly and especially on the internet, the positions of both some feminists, trans activists and 'commentators' become ever more entrenched, and commonalities of experience/living in a world of patriarchy and capital and class are overshadowed by an ever increasing war of words over some facets of 'identity'.

Having got on my high horse about a lot of trans/sex/gender stuff here a few years ago when this place felt a bit hostile, it's pleasing to see how discussion has moved on a lot here too. But for that reason, and that for the first time in my life during the last year or so, I've finally become confident enough myself to ultimately not give much of a shit whether cis people consider me to be a man/woman based on their numerous privileged reasons, I've mostly sat back during this and other recent threads.

That doesn't mean that this stuff isn't important, especially to trans and intersex people who are on the receiving end as an oppressed minority, but sometimes you have to carve out your own space and leave some of this behind before it consumes you.


----------



## UK subversive (Oct 30, 2015)

so, if one agrees with GGreer, one must be a reactionary conservative? hmmm... 
having an operation if you are not ill, and you simply 'feel' like you've got the wrong body is not a right. in fact, its a waste of resources. I hope the NHS doesn't provide for gender reassignment out of the public purse.


----------



## UK subversive (Oct 30, 2015)

trans issues seem to me to be 'first world problems'. 
i suspect the west is at an advanced stage of decadence, frankly. 
i wouldn't want a transgender PM, because most of the rest of the world will never take he/she seriously.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> so, if one agrees with GGreer, one must be a reactionary conservative? hmmm...
> having an operation if you are not ill, and you simply 'feel' like you've got the wrong body is not a right. in fact, its a waste of resources. I hope the NHS doesn't provide for gender reassignment out of the public purse.


You're trying too hard now. But I'm pleased to be able to dash your hopes. It does.


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> trans issues seem to me to be 'first world problems'.
> i suspect the west is at an advanced stage of decadence, frankly.
> i wouldn't want a transgender PM, because most of the rest of the world will never take he/she seriously.



Wow.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, as someone who isn't cis, its always illuminating to read discussion both here and elsewhere. Its heartening that in the more mainstream of concious, trans and intersex people are becoming much more understood and accepted, whilst sadly and especially on the internet, the positions of both some feminists, trans activists and 'commentators' become ever more entrenched, and commonalities of experience/living in a world of patriarchy and capital and class are overshadowed by an ever increasing war of words over some facets of 'identity'.
> 
> Having got on my high horse about a lot of trans/sex/gender stuff here a few years ago when this place felt a bit hostile, it's pleasing to see how discussion has moved on a lot here too. But for that reason, and that for the first time in my life during the last year or so, I've finally become confident enough myself to ultimately not give much of a shit whether cis people consider me to be a man/woman based on their numerous privileged reasons, I've mostly sat back during this and other recent threads.
> 
> That doesn't mean that this stuff isn't important, especially to trans and intersex people who are on the receiving end as an oppressed minority, but sometimes you have to carve out your own space and leave some of this behind before it consumes you.


Good post.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

Lol, who's this bellend?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not to mention 'longstanding policy' as if that were some kind of justification. They've got this wrong for ever! Well done.



Back when I worked in the '90s for the Prisons Dept of the Home Office, detaining trans women in male prisons was already established practice, so for "longstanding policy" read "at least 35 years". 
The (almost inevitable) result of such a policy is that the inmate is sexually assaulted, and has to be placed in the "Vulnerable Prisoner Unit". The problem with this is that the VPU is also where many of the worst rapists seek refuge from the part of the general prison population that hate "sex cases".
Detention in a women-only prison isn't just intellectually and morally right, it's also much safer for the trans woman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Magistrates. Need I say more?



I don't like the magistracy, but I don't envy them either. In the last 10 or so years they've had to weather so many changes in criminal justice policy, in sentencing policy and in sheer volume of work that we've become more and more dependent on retirees - as they often have the "free" time to assimilate the new data that someone who's 9-5ing may not - and that dependence is often at the expense of creative sentencing. Tara *could* have been given a community sentence commensurate with her crime, but the bench, for reasons best known to themselves, decided on a short custodial sentence. They failed in terms of taking Tara's gender into account with regard to mitigation of sentence.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Detention in a women-only prison isn't just intellectually and morally right, it's also much safer for the trans woman.


The two objections I've seen raised to this is that women in a women's prison may not be/feel safer incarcerated with a male-bodied person, and also that if a precedent is set that you can opt for prison for either sex regardless of whether you are male-bodied or your legal gender, wouldn't most people be safer in a women's prison?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> 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



IIRC they do have the discretion to direct that trans people are assigned to *a* prison consonant with their lived gender. They rarely exercise it. 
What is needed is amendment to primary criminal justice legislation, but given that trans isn't a "cut and dried" set of distinctions, that won't happen. Well thought out and socially-useful legislation seldom does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> The two objections I've seen raised to this is that women in a women's prison may not be/feel safer incarcerated with a male-bodied person, and also that *if a precedent is set that you can opt for prison for either sex regardless of whether you are male-bodied or your legal gender, wouldn't most people be safer in a women's prison*?


This isn't a serious point, surely. You make it sound like men are dragging up to get themselves a softer time of it. This trivialisation of the matter is the same crap Greer is coming out with. It's not based on anything in reality.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This isn't a serious point, surely. You make it sound like men are dragging up to get themselves a softer time of it. This trivialisation of the matter is the same crap Greer is coming out with. It's not based on anything in reality.


I think your flat out dismissal of genuine points of concern that women have doesn't really do anything to advance your argument.


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This isn't a serious point, surely. You make it sound like men are dragging up to get themselves a softer time of it. This trivialisation of the matter is the same crap Greer is coming out with. It's not based on anything in reality.



As I read it, it's noting that *if* it were easy to choose, men *would* drag up. Men who are convicted criminals, after all...

Not everything is about trans folk! Their challenge to the existing definitions is bound to have side-effects that are unpleasant for them...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> The two objections I've seen raised to this is that women in a women's prison may not be/feel safer incarcerated with a male-bodied person, and also that if a precedent is set that you can opt for prison for either sex regardless of whether you are male-bodied or your legal gender, wouldn't most people be safer in a women's prison?



I think you'd need to stipulate qualifiers, most definitely. 
Would I want to see a male who decides to call themselves trans but hasn't even begun to transition, detained in a womans' prison? Definitely not. I do think that a transitioning trans person who retains the genitalia but has, say, undergone counselling and hormone therapy, should be considered for a "gender-appropriate" prison, provided the counselling and/or hormone therapy continues during detention.
As for fully-transitioned trans persons, I mentioned earlier about detention practices which meant that post-surgical trans women were detained in male prisons, with the outcome that the trans woman would end up suffering the entire spectrum of sexual assault, along with the accompanying physical and mental trauma. To me it seems obvious that the place for a post-surgical trans inmate is in a prison that reflects their current gender.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> The two objections I've seen raised to this is that women in a women's prison may not be/feel safer incarcerated with a male-bodied person, and also that if a precedent is set that you can opt for prison for either sex regardless of whether you are male-bodied or your legal gender, wouldn't most people be safer in a women's prison?





Thora said:


> I think your flat out dismissal of genuine points of concern that women have doesn't really do anything to advance your argument.


i am curious about the extent to which you agree with the objections you have seen raised.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Thought the article said she had had 6 years of surgery so assumed the surgery was finished anyway if she lives as a woman send her to a female jail.



*If* she still has a fully-functioning penis, sending her to a womens' prison wouldn't be considered.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

laptop said:


> As I read it, it's noting that *if* it were easy to choose, men *would* drag up. Men who are convicted criminals, after all...


I still don't see how it is a serious point. A few genuine trans-women should be thrown under the bus on the basis of a purely hypothetical fear of men abusing the system? It's setting up a false dichotomy in any case - either you have rigid rules: no certificate, off to male prison, whatever else; or you have a system that is wide open to abuse by chancers. There is a third position: a system that will not do a horrendous thing to a person on the basis of lack of paperwork and will take the effort to evaluate individual cases.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i am curious about the extent to which you agree with the objections you have seen raised.


I wonder why she felt it necessary to couch the question in such neutral terms?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I still don't see how it is a serious point. A few genuine trans-women should be thrown under the bus on the basis of a purely hypothetical fear of men abusing the system? It's setting up a false dichotomy in any case - either you have rigid rules: no certificate, off to male prison, whatever else; or you have a system that is wide open to abuse by chancers. There is a third position: a system that will not do a horrendous thing to a person on the basis of lack of paperwork and will take the effort to evaluate individual cases.


and i take it you're a third positionist


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> My understanding is that it is much more of a significant problem in the states.


It is. That doesn't mean it isn't growing problem here, especially with some gangs in UK prisons using sexual assault on members of other gangs as "initiation" ritual.



> Otoh, I am led to believe that violent sexual assaults are endemic in some women's prisons in the uk.



Inmate on inmate isn't quite endemic yet, but it is a significant issue among those inmates serving longer sentences. 

Officer on inmate is also a growing problem across the entire detention system.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i am curious about the extent to which you agree with the objections you have seen raised.


I can see both sides.  I don't think having a penis automatically makes Tara Hudson a danger to women, while being in a men's prison does put her in danger.  But I also think often sex segregation is there for a good reason, and saying anyone who says they're a women should be able to access them is not an adequate solution.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 30, 2015)

taras got 8 previous convictions including battery so at some point you run out of options .
 obviously not getting bladdered and punchy isnt something taras considered as an option


----------



## Sirena (Oct 30, 2015)

likesfish said:


> taras got 8 previous convictions including battery so at some point you run out of options .
> obviously not getting bladdered and punchy isnt something taras considered as an option


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> saying anyone who says they're a women should be able to access them is not an adequate solution.


Who's saying that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2015)

likesfish said:


> taras got 8 previous convictions including battery so at some point you run out of options .
> obviously not getting bladdered and punchy isnt something taras considered as an option


could have stuck her on tag plus court ordered anger managment and substance abuse classes and a hefty fine. 8 previous is not good but the alternative- jail- doesn't bear thinking about in this womans case. Shit with an ASBO thing they could have banned her from specific boozers and streets. There were a lot of other option as far as I can see.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

toggle said:


> all that needs to be said is - because her paperwork does not match her presentation



What the whole detention story boils down to is that because Tara still has a penis (although if she's been on hormone therapy for years,it'll only be useful for pissing through), then for "risk management" purposes (i.e. managing the very small risk that in a womens' prison Tara's masculinity might reassert itself and she might rape or otherwise sexually assault other inmates), she's been detained in a mans' prison - something that *doesn't* manage the SIGNIFICANT risk of her being multiply sexually assaulted in the course of her sentence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> so, if one agrees with GGreer, one must be a reactionary conservative? hmmm...
> having an operation if you are not ill, and you simply 'feel' like you've got the wrong body is not a right. in fact, its a waste of resources. I hope the NHS doesn't provide for gender reassignment out of the public purse.



I think you'll find it wasn't so much your "agreement" with Greer as your other comments that got you tagged as a "reactionary conservative", dicksplash.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> trans issues seem to me to be 'first world problems'.
> i suspect the west is at an advanced stage of decadence, frankly.
> i wouldn't want a transgender PM, because most of the rest of the world will never take he/she seriously.



And you know that they wouldn't be taken seriously because...?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you'll find it wasn't so much your "agreement" with Greer as your other comments that got you tagged as a "reactionary conservative", dicksplash.


On this particular issue, Greer is acting like a reactionary conservative, though. And she seems to be revelling in it, too, making her argument deliberately crass.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> Wow.



Possible returned poster. My money is on flimsier. He used to fantasise about being Young Stalin.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Possible returned poster. My money is on flimsier. He used to fantasise about being Young Stalin.


you'll have missed his maoist third worldist leanings from previous threads then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> On this particular issue, Greer is acting like a reactionary conservative, though. And she seems to be revelling in it, too, making her argument deliberately crass.



Greer is acting like Greer always has - assuming a contrarian stance to generate attention. Deliberate crassness and over-simplification of issues go hand in hand with the self-serving iconoclasm.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you'll have missed his maoist third worldist leanings from previous threads then.



Nope, I just didn't find them credible, frankly. It was like reading the political fartings of a 6th-former Swappie - all rhetoric and no knowledge or soul.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> trans issues seem to me to be 'first world problems'.
> i suspect the west is at an advanced stage of decadence, frankly.



Well apart from all the trans people that exist in various forms across the World regardless of differences in societal, economic and cultural norms. You fucking clueless twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Well apart from all the trans people that exist in various forms across the World regardless of differences in societal, economic and cultural norms. You fucking clueless twat.



Aren't the _Hijra_ of India a couple of million-strong? Hardly "decadent Westerners".


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> trans issues seem to me to be 'first world problems'.
> i suspect the west is at an advanced stage of decadence, frankly.
> i wouldn't want a transgender PM, because most of the rest of the world will never take he/she seriously.


where do you stand on eunuchs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Aren't the _Hijra_ of India a couple of million-strong? Hardly "decadent Westerners".


or the famous thai ladyboys

Gender identities in Thailand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## likesfish (Oct 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> could have stuck her on tag plus court ordered anger managment and substance abuse classes and a hefty fine. 8 previous is not good but the alternative- jail- doesn't bear thinking about in this womans case. Shit with an ASBO thing they could have banned her from specific boozers and streets. There were a lot of other option as far as I can see.



your probably right 12 weeks so out in 6 is a hardly a draconian punishment in the normal scheme of things so tagging and a properly supervised asbo would be more effective.

1st world problem fair one but as uk isn't starving torn by civil war etc may be dealing with problems that effect some peoples lives are important cancer treatment 1st world problem?


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who's saying that?


Is there another way of deciding if someone is a woman?  Maybe I have misunderstood your position.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who's saying that?


it's either that or have some kind of assessment criteria that results in some trans women being excluded isn't it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> Is there another way of deciding if someone is a woman?  Maybe I have misunderstood your position.


There are plenty of ways of seeing that a person is serious about their gender dysphoria. In the case we're discussing, it's completely clear that she is serious about it. I think you're setting up a straw man to blow down when you characterise this as 'anyone getting to go where they choose'.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

What would be your assessment criteria?


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A few genuine trans-women should be thrown under the bus on the basis of a purely hypothetical fear of men abusing the system?



You've had even less contact with prisoners, their complaints, their appeals and their Bright Ideas than I have, haven't you?

I'm not arguing that anyone *should *be "thrown under the bus". I'm inquiring *why* it may have happened.  



littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a third position: a system that will not do a horrendous thing to a person on the basis of lack of paperwork and will take the effort to evaluate individual cases.



Without access to the neccessarily very private papers submitted to the court, we'll never know whether that was done. As someone noted, no person with a penis is going to be admitted to a women's prison as an inmate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's either that or have some kind of assessment criteria that results in some trans women being excluded isn't it?


Currently it would appear that if you haven't received the official recognition of your position before going to court, it's too late to get that assessment done. That's what happened with this case we're discussing - the home office statement made it clear: long-standing policy to send everyone to the jail of their legal gender without assessment. So you might have been off to get your certificate finalised tomorrow, but if you're being sentenced today, you're out of luck.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> could have stuck her on tag plus court ordered anger managment and substance abuse classes and a hefty fine. 8 previous is not good but the alternative- jail- doesn't bear thinking about in this womans case. Shit with an ASBO thing they could have banned her from specific boozers and streets. There were a lot of other option as far as I can see.



And if she broke her ASBO? Then what? If she nutted some other poor sod in some other pub? Or worse?

As far as I can see, the woman hasn't demonstrated any obvious remorse for her crimes nor any respect for her punishments thus far. 

FWIW, I reckon she should be sent to a women's prison ... but in all honesty I've got more sympathy with the various victims of her assaults than with whatever consequences she faces for assaulting them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> As far as I can see, the woman hasn't demonstrated any obvious remorse for her crimes nor any respect for her punishments thus far.


so what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2015)

I've just always been a great believer that sexual assault and the risk of should not be a punishment. Theres a lot of what ifs and the answer to none of them is mans jail in this case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

laptop said:


> As someone noted, no person with a penis is going to be admitted to a women's prison as an inmate.


Any kind of penis, even one that is withered after years of hormone treatment? What if you were born with ambiguous genitalia? A 'micro-penis'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

laptop said:


> As someone noted, no person with a penis is going to be admitted to a women's prison as an inmate.


quite right too. only as screws with authority over inmates.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Currently it would appear that if you haven't received the official recognition of your position before going to court, it's too late to get that assessment done. That's what happened with this case we're discussing - the home office statement made it clear: long-standing policy to send everyone to the jail of their legal gender without assessment. So you might have been off to get your certificate finalised tomorrow, but if you're being sentenced today, you're out of luck.


Ok, so if legal status isn't the criteria, what is?


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Any kind of penis, even one that is withered after years of hormone treatment? What if you were born with ambiguous genitalia? A 'micro-penis'?


Is this the criteria you're suggesting then? a thorough genital examination before admittance?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> Is this the criteria you're suggesting then? a thorough genital examination before admittance?


No. I was questioning the statement.

It clearly isn't easy to deal with people who don't fit neatly into pre-made boxes. But given that difficultly, the one way you don't deal with it is by having inflexible rules. The result of that is what we see here - a person thrown under the bus by the system.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> Ok, so if legal status isn't the criteria, what is?


I'd say that, in the case of people who have not yet, or who have chosen not to surgically transition, evidence of the person's history of gendered identity, plus psychological evaluation on a case by case basis would weed out any 'chancers'.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> so what?



So that's maybe why they have ordered a custodial sentence this time rather than, say, an ASBO.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

Thing is, it's not like it's even an easy and quick process if you're a trans person. It takes fucking years to get through it all, get the appropriate psych assessments, referrals, and legal paperwork, regardless of surgery, even privately.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> So that's maybe why they have ordered a custodial sentence this time rather than, say, an ASBO.


maybe it's because an asbo is the result of civil proceedings while she was in court on a criminal matter.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 30, 2015)

.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Thing is, it's not like it's even an easy and quick process if you're a trans person. It takes fucking years to get through it all, get the appropriate psych assessments, referrals, and legal paperwork, regardless of surgery, even privately.



If you are going through the NHS and you travel from first psych appointment to full surgery in fewer than (say) 6 years, you are doing well.

Of course, if you have money, then you could get the job done privately in Thailand (or wherever) the day after tomorrow.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe it's because an asbo is the result of civil proceedings while she was in court on a criminal matter.
> 
> View attachment 78787



I was originally replying to DotCommunist's post. Thanks, though 



DotCommunist said:


> could have stuck her on tag plus court ordered anger managment and substance abuse classes and a hefty fine. 8 previous is not good but the alternative- jail- doesn't bear thinking about in this womans case. *Shit with an ASBO thing they could have banned her from specific boozers and streets*. There were a lot of other option as far as I can see.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

A potentially very scary proposition that any trans person who hasn't legally completed the transition faces the danger of being sent to the *wrong* prison. That's the kind of thing people kill themselves over.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Of course, if you have money, then you could get the job done privately in Thailand (or wherever) the day after tomorrow.


You still need the psych assessments and referrals before you can get surgery quicker and privately in somewhere like Thailand.

And, as per this case, that won't help if you're legal paperwork hasn't been completed. The GRC is a reasonably weighty and costly document where you have to prove that you've transitioned for 2 years, have psych and doctors letters to back it all up. And it has to be assessed and sanctioned through an external panel (the GRP).


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> I was originally replying to DotCommunist's post. Thanks, though


i'd like to believe you but i can't


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A potentially very scary proposition that any trans person who hasn't legally completed the transition faces the danger of being sent to the *wrong* prison. That's the kind of thing people kill themselves over.


No one is proposing that though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> No one is proposing that though.


That is the current position. It's what Tara in this case faces, and others have faced.

The Home Office issued a statement saying exactly that. So I would say that anyone objecting to the idea of introducing flexibility into the system that acknowledges that legal status is an incomplete thing *is* proposing that.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it does help if you quote the right person.



Where did I quote the wrong person?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Where did I quote the wrong person?


you say you were replying to someone else but you quoted me


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I'd say that, in the case of people who have not yet, or who have chosen not to surgically transition, evidence of the person's history of gendered identity, plus psychological evaluation on a case by case basis would weed out any 'chancers'.


What does history of gendered identity mean?


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is the current position. It's what Tara in this case faces, and others have faced.
> 
> The Home Office issued a statement saying exactly that. So I would say that anyone objecting to the idea of introducing flexibility into the system that acknowledges that legal status is an incomplete thing *is* proposing that.


Yeah, and it's inadequate - but the other methods of assessment proposed on the thread would also result in similar (if not so visibly acute) miscarriages. It's not as if people's lives (especially those ending up in the justice system) aren't messy and poorly documented.

Nobody is objecting to introducing flexibility into the system.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> What does history of gendered identity mean?


That through conversations the person may have had with family/friends/employers/colleagues/partners/doctors/whoever, there may be evidence that the person has not felt cisgendered prior to the current situation. A history of choosing a non-cisgendered name, clothing choices and so on would lend weight to the case, though should not be the be all and end all.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> What does history of gendered identity mean?



In a practical sense and as it stands, this is often the route trans people have to take:

It means many hours of someone going through their entire life history and specifically their personal issues where that persons relationship to their birth assigned gender/body has massively conflicted, to multiple doctors and psychiatrists. Then if someone passes the initial psych stuff, they get accepted on a care pathway where hormones are provided officially around 6-12 months into transition, but many have already self-medicated before that.

Either having entered a GIC (Gender Identity Clinic), or before they do so, a person renounces their previous name and identity and changes this through stat dec/deed poll, and then lives as their chosen/self-identified gender for at least 2 years (usually with work, etc. also providing supporting evidence of this being the case). After that, if that persons wants sex surgery, they then go through the entire life history stuff with another psychiatrist to get onward referrals.

Often trans people will have already transitioned socially before they enter a GIC - because if going through the NHS, the waiting lists can be around a further 2-3 years.

To get a birth certificate amended, as mentioned above, also requires all of this to be applied for through a process with the GRP (Gender Recognition Panel) where they review all of the history and whether to grant a GRC (which allows the new birth certificate to be made). This does not have requirements for someone to have had surgery but needs further documented evidence of all the above.

All in all, it's a pretty long set of hoops to jump through and which weeds out 'chancers', even if not failsafe.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Where did I quote the wrong person?



Not only did you quote the wrong person, you also cannot spell your own name properly. It should be 
"umop episdn"


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> In a practical sense and as it stands, this is often the route trans people have to take:
> 
> It means many hours of someone going through their entire life history and specifically their personal issues where that persons relationship to their birth assigned gender/body has massively conflicted, to multiple doctors and psychiatrists. Then if someone passes the initial psych stuff, they get accepted on a care pathway where hormones are provided officially around 6-12 months into transition, but many have already self-medicated before that.
> 
> ...


So is this the same as the current legal process?


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you say you were replying to someone else but you quoted me



So what?


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Not only did you quote the wrong person, you also cannot spell your own name properly. It should be
> "umop episdn"



* Hits AltGr - DownArrow *

No it shouldn't.

* Rapidly hits AltGr - UpArrow *


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> So is this the same as the current legal process?



Sorry, not sure what you're asking here tbh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> So what?


it is easier and avoids confusion if  your reply is aimed at the person you quote


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Not only did you quote the wrong person, you also cannot spell your own name properly. It should be
> "umop episdn"



The 'a' in my name loosely resolves to an 'e' when turned upside down. In your version, my name would be 'upsida down', which is not what I'm intending.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it is easier and avoids confusion if  your reply is aimed at the person you quote



Which is why I attempted to clear up your confusion by multi-quoting in a previous reply.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Sorry, not sure what you're asking here tbh?


I thought the suggestion was that there should be new criteria different to the current legal criteria?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Which is why I attempted to clear up your confusion by multi-quoting in a previous reply.


yeh. a quick apology instead of trying to worm your way out of it would have been better.

anyway back to those feminists who allegedly hate transgender people...


----------



## Sirena (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it is easier and avoids confusion if  your reply is aimed at the person you quote


I quoted Stethoscope and got someone saying 'Meh!' as the quote, when I wasn't answering to that word at all (nor can I find anywhere where Stetoscope said 'Meh!'), so I think there was a little hiccup on the boards.....


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> I thought the suggestion was that there should be new criteria different to the current legal criteria?



Sorry, not been following the thread particularly closely, I was just stating how it stands at the moment (the current practical and legal criteria) mainly in response to some of the stuff earlier about weeding out 'chancers'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

Sirena said:


> I quoted Stethoscope and got someone saying 'Meh!' as the quote, when I wasn't answering to that word at all (nor can I find anywhere where Stetoscope said 'Meh!'), so I think there was a little hiccup on the boards.....


a little hiccup?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

Sirena said:


> I quoted Stethoscope and got someone saying 'Meh!' as the quote, when I wasn't answering to that word at all (nor can I find anywhere where Stetoscope said 'Meh!'), so I think there was a little hiccup on the boards.....



Sorry, I edited my original post you quoted to 'Meh' (but reverted it back having seen you had done so) because I was losing the fucking will at one point on this thread


----------



## hiccup (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> a little hiccup?



I'm 5' 9", which I think you'll find makes me of average height in the UK. 




OK,  5' 8.5"


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

I don't think it is as simple as saying genitals are irrelevant on this subject either, as clearly many women are wary of being in a vulnerable position with male bodied people - especially if that person had been convicted of violent crimes - and that's not penis bigotry but the result of life experience.  Female bodied people are at risk of violence from male bodied people (and yes before anybody says it, I know not all men etc).  So basically I do agree with those posters who have mentioned criteria for being accepted to a particular prison, but also see the point that other posters have made about people with penises not being housed in women's prisons.  I wonder if both those positions could be considered exclusionary though?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 30, 2015)

.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. a quick apology instead of trying to worm your way out of it would have been better.



You're right. Really sorry.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> I don't think it is as simple as saying genitals are irrelevant on this subject either, as clearly many women are wary of being in a vulnerable position with male bodied people - especially if that person had been convicted of violent crimes - and that's not penis bigotry but the result of life experience.  Female bodied people are at risk of violence from male bodied people (and yes before anybody says it, I know not all men etc).  So basically I do agree with those posters who have mentioned criteria for being accepted to a particular prison, but also see the point that other posters have made about people with penises not being housed in women's prisons.  I wonder if both those positions could be considered exclusionary though?



If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.


What ever her convictions she should still be kept safe too.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> What ever her convictions she should still be kept safe too.



Oh, I don't dispute that, but as I said up-thread somewhere I have more sympathy with her victims than with her -- rightly or wrongly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.


Yeah, totally. She'll be the hardest fuck there whatever prison she's sent to, what with her conviction for common assault.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.


you've not seen prisoner cell block h, have you.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, totally. She'll be the hardest fuck there whatever prison she's sent to, what with her conviction for common assault.



Huge amount of previous, magistrates don't imprison lightly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Anyway, she lost her appeal. It appears that they do have some flexibility in the system, which only makes the decision even more mystifying.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, totally. She'll be the hardest fuck there whatever prison she's sent to, what with her conviction for common assault.



Convictions. Multiple.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you've not seen prisoner cell block h, have you.



I have, although not recently. What point are you trying to make?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Convictions. Multiple.


yes. what's your point?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. what's your point?



That she's a danger to the public and the kind of person who it's sensible to lock up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> I have, although not recently. What point are you trying to make?


there are people in prison with convictions for things like murder and gbh beside whom someone with convictions, even multiple ones, for assault and battery, will not appear anywhere near 'top dog'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That she's a danger to the public and the kind of person who it's sensible to lock up?


no, that's your point. i wondered what umop apisdn's point was.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

She has eight previous, including for battery, according to the BBC. That may well be disingenuous, however, if some or most of the other convictions are for, say, drug possession or some other non-violent thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That she's a danger to the public and the kind of person who it's sensible to lock up?


Couple of months in jail. As we all know, this is the way to set someone on the straight and narrow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She has eight previous, including for battery, according to the BBC. That may well be disingenuous, however, if some or most of the other convictions are for, say, drug possession or some other non-violent thing.


and...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and...


And, those attempting to make out that she's some kind of career crim or thug are very wide of the mark. The idea that her conviction history singles her out as someone who would be a danger to other prisoners is laughable.


----------



## JimW (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and...


There's men in here done awful crimes
And others fallen on hard times.
But all of them are better than,
The stinking judge and the polis man.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 30, 2015)

she sounds like a punchy drunk more of an irritant or annoyance to the public than a danger I for one feel so much safer this idiot is off the streets for 6 weeks.

don't think she deserves 6 weeks of extreme risk of rape though .
theres probably a spare cell at colly its unisex and very unlikely to be assaulted then nobody has the energy what with running or cleaning all the time so I've been told


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> there are people in prison with convictions for things like murder and gbh beside whom someone with convictions, even multiple ones, for assault and battery, will not appear anywhere near 'top dog'.





littlebabyjesus said:


> And, those attempting to make out that she's some kind of career crim or thug are very wide of the mark. The idea that her conviction history singles her out as someone who would be a danger to other prisoners is laughable.



Not a danger to other prisoners. A danger to randoms whenever she decides to have a skinful


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

JimW said:


> There's men in here done awful crimes
> And others fallen on hard times.
> But all of them are better than,
> The stinking judge and the polis man.



Nonsensical, whether you sing it or type it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Not a danger to other prisoners. A danger to randoms whenever she decides to have a skinful.


Pleaded guilty, was prepared to undergo court-ordered treatment.

But no, a couple of months in a man's prison is what she's got. Very likely to leave her with a whole new bunch of stuff to get drunk over. You think that's protecting the 'randoms'? Few people who actually work in prisons see them as anything other than a way of making bad or troubled people worse.

And right now, all I hear from the authorities is furious buck-flinging. Somehow, this is a decision for which no one person or body is responsible.


----------



## JimW (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Nonsensical, whether you sing it or type it.


Thought you'd like that.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pleaded guilty, was prepared to undergo court-ordered treatment.
> 
> But no, a couple of months in a man's prison is what she's got. Very likely to leave her with a whole new bunch of stuff to get drunk over. You think that's protecting the 'randoms'? Few people who actually work in prisons see them as anything other than a way of making bad or troubled people worse.



She's being imprisoned as punishment for her crimes, not to protect the randoms. And I think it's totally wrong to send her to a man's prison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> I think it's totally wrong to send her to a man's prison.


a fact the judiciary doubtless took into account when considering sentencing.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

Anyway, she's now in a women's prison, so all is fine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> a fact the judiciary doubtless took into account when considering sentencing.


Nah, they just passed the buck. 



> The Recorder of Bristol, Llewelyn Sellick, said Hudson had a "worrying criminal record" which contained "numerous offences".
> 
> "It is for the prison service and not the court to establish where a sentence should be served," he added.



"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, they just passed the buck.



To the prison service, which has now placed her in a women's nick. I know it must be distressing for you, but there isn't actually anything to rail against here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> To the prison service, which has now placed her in a women's nick. I know it must be distressing for you, but there isn't actually anything to rail against here.


Good. 

Great, in fact.

You think that would have happened if nobody had railed against it?????


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Anyway, she's now in a women's prison, so all is fine.


Let's hope they protect the other inmates from her '7 inch surprise hiding in her panties' that she talks about on her Adultwork profile then


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You think that would have happened if nobody had railed against it?????



Yes.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

trashpony said:


> Let's hope they protect the other inmates from her '7 inch surprise hiding in her panties' that she talks about on her Adultwork profile then



Her mother claimed that she had nothing more than a vestigial cock. Isn't Adultwork rather a _caveat emptor_ environment?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Her mother claimed that she had nothing more than a vestigial cock. Isn't Adultwork rather a _caveat emptor_ environment?


Her punters seem to be quite happy with it. I'd imagine they know more about the current state of her cock than her mother does


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, they just passed the buck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i was being sarcastic wheen i suggested they took umop apisdn's views into account.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

trashpony said:


> Her punters seem to be quite happy with it. I'd imagine they know more about the current state of her cock than her mother does



Hmm. She's still more likely to be at risk in a men's prison than she is likely to be a predatory rapist if held in a controlled environment in a women's one, though. I guess. I suspect that HMPS is better able to make a call on all this than the combined weight of the Internets and of prurient hacks, and that it has done so, and would have done so in their absence. There wouldn't have been anything like the coverage if she wasn't so photogenic.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Hmm. She's still more likely to be at risk in a men's prison than she is likely to be a predatory rapist if held in a controlled environment in a women's one, though. I guess. I suspect that HMPS is better able to make a call on all this than the combined weight of the Internets and of prurient hacks, and that it has done so, and would have done so in their absence. There wouldn't have been anything like the coverage if she wasn't so photogenic.


Let's hope you're right


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> There wouldn't have been anything like the coverage if she wasn't so photogenic.


I'm sure this is true. However, I think you have a faith in the system that I don't share if you are confident that this decision would have been changed anyway. Courts and the prison service are both very bad at changing decisions, which is why, as linked to earlier, around 30 transwomen are being held in male prisons at any one time in the UK.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

trashpony - kind of surprised that the Adultwork profile didn't surface at all in the media coverage of this case. It's the sort of thing, surely, that tabloids would have loved. How did you encounter this, if I may ask? I assume you're not a regular browser of disintermediating pimpage platforms.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> trashpony - kind of surprised that the Adultwork profile didn't surface at all in the media coverage of this case. It's the sort of thing, surely, that tabloids would have loved. How did you encounter this, if I may ask? I assume you're not a regular browser of disintermediating pimpage platforms.


I think there's lots linking her twitter account and adult work.  I assume the press got the nude photos from there?


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2015)

I think the media sometimes decide to treat trans stories more carefully these days, perhaps thats why they haven't gone for the sex worker angle in a big way (yet). Perhaps there were legal/justice reasons not to discuss some of her history before her appeal today, or just a cautious approach tied to the timing of that. Personally I suspect some of them were trying to hint at the fact via the range of raunchy pics they used unashamedly in articles.


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2015)

And she's been moved. (Most unusual that she wasn't kept in tonight and woken at 5 to be moved?)

Transgender woman Tara Hudson moved to female prison - BBC News 



> The BBC understands she has now been taken to HM Prison Eastwood Park in South Gloucestershire.
> 
> Earlier, she lost an appeal against her sentence, but a judge asked for consideration to be made about where she serves her sentence.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

elbows said:


> I think the media sometimes decide to treat trans stories more carefully these days, perhaps thats why they haven't gone for the sex worker angle in a big way (yet). Perhaps there were legal/justice reasons not to discuss some of her history before her appeal today, or just a cautious approach tied to the timing of that. Personally I suspect some of them were trying to hint at the fact via the range of raunchy pics they used unashamedly in articles.



Yes, that all makes sense.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> trashpony - kind of surprised that the Adultwork profile didn't surface at all in the media coverage of this case. It's the sort of thing, surely, that tabloids would have loved. How did you encounter this, if I may ask? I assume you're not a regular browser of disintermediating pimpage platforms.


So am I. Sloppy journalism is all I can think. She's linked to her adultwork profile in a recent tweet (I'm really not a very good investigator). Her 'handle' is tia x star (no spaces) - I'm not linking to her profile

ETA - or what elbows said.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

trashpony said:


> So am I. Sloppy journalism is all I can think. She's linked to her adultwork profile in a recent tweet (I'm really not a very good investigator). Her 'handle' is tia x star (no spaces) - I'm not linking to her profile
> .


I understand your concerns after reading that.


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2015)

> disintermediating pimpage platform



Whose tagline is this going to be?

(Ooops. Thread NOT going Urbanz way. No.)


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I understand your concerns after reading that.


Does it make a difference that she is a sex worker?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> Does it make a difference that she is a sex worker?


No. But it does make a difference that she boasts of maintaining an erection. (I am taking it seriously when people post their concerns about that.) Still doesn't mean she wouldn't be in a whole heap of shit in a male prison.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. But it does make a difference that she boasts of maintaining an erection. (I am taking it seriously when people post their concerns about that.) Still doesn't mean she wouldn't be in a whole heap of shit in a male prison.


I would hope the prison service would keep her safe. In the same way as I now hope they keep her female cell mates safe from her tendency to violently assault people (leaving aside her fully functional 7 inch cock)


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

I was wondering whether Hudson should have had her own thread. On the other hand, perhaps it's much more relevant and important when talking about "women's only spaces" and "safe spaces" and all the rest of it, to think about places where women are compulsorily locked up, rather than niche conferences and web forums and the like.

It's definitely relevant to a discussion about women's safety that Hudson is not only violent but has a functioning cock, in a way that it wouldn't be if we were arguing the toss over campus politics.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

trashpony said:


> I would hope the prison service would keep her safe.


The prison service does not have a good record of keeping people safe in prison. In particular transgender people. This RT article quotes a recent report from the Howard League. 



> The Prison and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) told the commission that the prevalence of sexual abuse was “_a hidden issue in a hidden world,”_ adding that staff did not always take complaints of rape seriously, leaving the levels of abuse largely underreported.



In other words, don't rely on the screws giving a shit.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, totally. She'll be the hardest fuck there whatever prison she's sent to, what with her conviction for common assault.


Way back in the days when the Charing Cross Hospital gender unit was the only such unit outside (probably) of the USA, the psychiatrist was Dr JB Randell.  No-one could come to the surgeon except through him.

And he had a trick that he tried at least once on every m-f transsexual.  He tried to goad them, provoke them, to anger, to see what they would do.  If they responded violently or stormed out, their case was doomed.  If they burst into tears, that was OK.

It may seem primitive but that's how it was.

It made me wonder whether Ms Hudson has not progressed with her surgery because every psych finds her to be a violent nutter.....


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

Sirena said:


> It made me wonder whether Ms Hudson has not progressed with her surgery because every psych finds her to be a violent nutter.....



Or, perhaps, because she is making a good living out of having a working knob? She says scornful things on her adultwork pages about competitors who lack her versatility and ability to switch.

This does look rather like a successful media manipulation campaign from someone who has been rather disingenuous. And when you look at the press coverage less sympathetically, there are some unpleasant things about it. It has suggested, rather, that Hudson is particularly vulnerable to rape because she is a looker - as if rape is something that men are vulnerable to committing when faced with prettiness, an aesthetic response rather than a violent one.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 30, 2015)

Wherever she serves her time she'll have to go on Rule 43 segregation I think. She has a long history of violence so will either be in danger or a danger.
In my experience of the justice system, the more violent and longer a record you have the less of a fuck the authorities give about you, so if it wasn't for the petition she would have stayed in a men's prison


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I was wondering whether Hudson should have had her own thread. On the other hand, perhaps it's much more relevant and important when talking about "women's only spaces" and "safe spaces" and all the rest of it, to think about places where women are compulsorily locked up, rather than niche conferences and web forums and the like.
> 
> It's definitely relevant to a discussion about women's safety that Hudson is not only violent but has a functioning cock, in a way that it wouldn't be if we were arguing the toss over campus politics.



Is it really relevant to discuss her genitals? Women get sexually assaulted in women's prisons including being violated with physical objects. There is no evidence this women is more likely to be a threat than any other prisoner in a women's prison.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Is it really relevant to discuss her genitals? Women get sexually assaulted in women's prisons including being violated with physical objects. There is no evidence this women is more likely to be a threat than any other prisoner in a women's prison.



It's relevant to the extent that other women feel sexually threatened by her, surely?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I was wondering whether Hudson should have had her own thread. On the other hand, perhaps it's much more relevant and important when talking about "women's only spaces" and "safe spaces" and all the rest of it, to think about places where women are compulsorily locked up, rather than niche conferences and web forums and the like.
> 
> It's definitely relevant to a discussion about women's safety that Hudson is not only violent but has a functioning cock, in a way that it wouldn't be if we were arguing the toss over campus politics.


I think it belongs on this thread. None of this stuff is simple. Hudson hasn't done women any favours - whether they're trans or cis


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's relevant to the extent that other women feel sexually threatened by her, surely?



Do they?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Is it really relevant to discuss her genitals? Women get sexually assaulted in women's prisons including being violated with physical objects. There is no evidence this women is more likely to be a threat than any other prisoner in a women's prison.


Why don't we have mixed prisons then?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Do they?



I'm not saying that they do, I'm saying it's reasonable to assume that they might.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 30, 2015)

trashpony said:


> Why don't we have mixed prisons then?



How is that relevant? She is not a man.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> How is that relevant? She is not a man.



Would you really say to a woman who didn't want to be forced to shower with a naked cock owner that she was being transphobic? That's the thing - this is very different from a dispute over the right to participate in voluntary spaces.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Way back in the days when the Charing Cross Hospital gender unit was the only such unit outside (probably) of the USA, the psychiatrist was Dr JB Randell.  No-one could come to the surgeon except through him.
> 
> And he had a trick that he tried at least once on every m-f transsexual.  He tried to goad them, provoke them, to anger, to see what they would do.  If they responded violently or stormed out, their case was doomed.  If they burst into tears, that was OK.
> 
> ...



reminds me how far we needed to come when anger was considered so unacceptable for a woman.

oh, what was that article i read last week?



but she's obviously confident, attractive and looks female and has a cock. and talks about sex a lot. im not having to jump too far to see how many people will see her as a target for abuse.

we can see convictions for assault as someone who is dangerous, or consider the other possibilities in light of cases such as cece mcdonald. too much blustering to know.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

trashpony said:


> I think it belongs on this thread. None of this stuff is simple. Hudson hasn't done women any favours - whether they're trans or cis


I agree that this is not simple. Far from it. But I'm reluctant to judge Tara Hudson the person for that. If her website is to be believed, she revels in her ambiguity - and why not? Still doesn't mean she wouldn't be fucked in a men's prison.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Would you really say to a woman who didn't want to be forced to shower with a naked cock owner that she was being transphobic? That's the thing - this is very different from a dispute over the right to participate in voluntary spaces.



Are they planning on forcing women to shower with "a naked cock owner" then?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Are they planning on forcing women to shower with "a naked cock owner" then?



Why the facepalm? Prisons, as far as I know, have fairly primitive - and communal - shower facilities. It's why they do so badly on tripadvisor.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Why the facepalm? Prisons, as far as I know, have fairly primitive - and communal - shower facilities. It's why they do so badly on tripadvisor.



The choice is not between housing her in a male prison and forcing her genitals onto other women is it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> The choice is not between housing her in a male prison and forcing her genitals onto other women is it?


tbh the main thing I take from any case like this one is that it is a pretty barren society that locks people with problems up for short stretches because, well, basically they can't think of or be bothered to find something that might actually help them. 

So she'll be kept safe, probably, now that there's been this media attention, which means that she'll have a thoroughly miserable,  empty, isolated couple of months followed by what? Who knows, and in the case of the judiciary, who cares? They know that prison is about the least rehabilitative thing they could possibly do, yet keep on doing it again and again. 

What's that definition of madness again?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 30, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> The choice is not between housing her in a male prison and forcing her genitals onto other women is it?



One would hope not. But it's not obvious that women's prisons have the sort of segregration facilities that would be needed if it was appropriate for one particular inmate to carry out all her ablutions in private. Why are you so confident that no women in the same prison as Hudson would ever see her genitals?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I was wondering whether Hudson should have had her own thread. On the other hand, perhaps it's much more relevant and important when talking about "women's only spaces" and "safe spaces" and all the rest of it, to think about places where women are compulsorily locked up, rather than niche conferences and web forums and the like.
> 
> It's definitely relevant to a discussion about women's safety that Hudson is not only violent but has a functioning cock, in a way that it wouldn't be if we were arguing the toss over campus politics.


I think your right, this gets to the real heart of the matter: how do we define women. There has been a suggestion that if someone identifies as a women then they should be considered a women. But I think everyone agrees that when it comes to the question of imprisonment something more is needed. So the question is at what point does someone transition, where should the line be drawn between being a man and being a women? I'm of the opinion that drawings lines is not very helpful and each case a should be considered individualy. And I think we need to accept that there will be some cases that don't have an obvious solution, and all that can be done us to make the descion which seems to have the least chance of causing harm, and sometimes that decision will be wrong. This is an unfortunate consequence of retaining a commitment to a 2 gender ideology, when real people are more complex.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. But it does make a difference that she boasts of maintaining an erection. (I am taking it seriously when people post their concerns about that.) Still doesn't mean she wouldn't be in a whole heap of shit in a male prison.


I'm not sure what difference maintaining an erection makes - does it make her less woman?  Would erections be one of your criteria?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> I'm not sure what difference maintaining an erection makes - does it make her less woman?  Would erections be one of your criteria?


I am listening to concerns raised, including those raised by you, that's all.


----------



## Thora (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I am listening to concerns raised, including those raised by you, that's all.


OK, and what does that mean   Are you just informing me that you are reading posts?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> OK, and what does that mean   Are you just informing me that you are reading posts?


I'm saying that I don't have all the answers to everything. I've already said as much about the fact that when people don't fit into neat premade boxes, it is hard to have hard-and-fast rules.

Am I not allowed to say that I understand concerns? You asked if her being a sex worker changed things. I said no, and tried to explain what 'understand concerns' meant. I'm not sure why you're trying to polarise this.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> One would hope not. But it's not obvious that women's prisons have the sort of segregration facilities that would be needed if it was appropriate for one particular inmate to carry out all her ablutions in private. Why are you so confident that no women in the same prison as Hudson would ever see her genitals?



There are some guidelines on that in the official guidance for prisons in relation to gender issues. For example If there is no other way to segregate showering, they can use scheduling. i.e. simply have her use a designated shower facility at a specific time when nobody else is allowed to use it.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure why you're trying to polarise this.


incredible.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 30, 2015)

emanymton said:


> . This is an unfortunate consequence of retaining a commitment to a 2 gender ideology, when real people are more complex.




except they are not, not  really trans exist but are a tiny minority if they weren't these problems would have been solved.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> a fact the judiciary doubtless took into account when considering sentencing.



That's such a lazy answer.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i was being sarcastic wheen i suggested they took umop apisdn's views into account.


Tell me ... what makes your views more important than mine?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

Thora said:


> OK, and what does that mean   Are you just informing me that you are reading posts?


tbh not sure lbj even doing that


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Tell me ... what makes your views more important than mine?


pls point to where i say that


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 30, 2015)

Who tagged this thread with lulz? I can't remember any. It's teetered in the direction of urban entropy a couple of times but only briefly. There has been a Poe, so perhaps that counts.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree that this is not simple. Far from it. But I'm reluctant to judge Tara Hudson the person for that. If her website is to be believed, she revels in her ambiguity - and why not? Still doesn't mean she wouldn't be fucked in a men's prison.





> If her website is to be believed



The sex industry is designed to pander to the sexual fantasies of men.  Many men fetishise what they see as the ambiguity of trans gender sexuality, so transgender sex workers, if they want to make any money, play up to that.  What do you expect her website to say, floppy cock, fake tits, and most punters make me want to puke?

How she actually plays up to it is probably by going off dangerously script with her hormones and taking huge doses of viagra.  For money.  That this is being used against her is pretty repellant.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2015)

I think I just understood intersectionality, its when being a women intersects with being trans and also intersects with her being a sex worker who intersects with being a convicted criminal which leads to right on people on a right on message boards having a discussion about whether the alleged tumescence of her genitals makes her a potential rapist or not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I think I just understood intersectionality, its when being a women intersects with being trans and intersects with being a sex worker leading to right on people on a right on message board having a discussion about whether the alleged tumescence of her genitals makes her a potential rapist or not.


Yep. Fair points. You're right.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> pls point to where i say that


Here:


Pickman's model said:


> i was being sarcastic wheen i suggested they took umop apisdn's views into account.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.



At risk of physical violence - it's a possibility.
At risk of sexual violence - it's a much smaller possibility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Huge amount of previous, magistrates don't imprison lightly.



Bag of arse. Some do, some don't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Nonsensical, whether you sing it or type it.



Magistrate are you, Maurice?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> At risk of physical violence - it's a possibility.
> At risk of sexual violence - it's a much smaller possibility.


What do we know? If she's not going to get kalied she's not likely to be violent, is she? As for the rest, it's mere conjecture.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> At risk of physical violence - it's a possibility.
> At risk of sexual violence - it's a much smaller possibility.


Why are you more concerned about the aggressor than her victims?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

Isn't it wrong to be discussing a particular individual as an exemplar, both because of the lack of respect for the individual and because of the nonsense that any individual could be representative?


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Why are you more concerned about the aggressor than her victims?



Because she shouldn't be thrown to the wolves because of her circumstances.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Because she shouldn't be thrown to the wolves because of her circumstances.



Thrown to the wolves? Come on.

She threw herself onto the wolves by assaulting people. Because she can't handle her drink.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Thrown to the wolves? Come on.
> 
> She threw herself onto the wolves by assaulting people. Because she can't handle her drink.


It's been a terrible - near shameful - last few pages. You've got nothing to say on this thread. Don't make it worse.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

I think there has to be some sensitivity towards someone who lives and dresses as a woman. To put them into a men's _prison. Really? _That would be reckless.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It's been a terrible - near shameful - last few pages. You've got nothing to say on this thread. Don't make it worse.


Please explain how my comments have degraded this thread.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

don't pull away from the point.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> don't pull away from the point.


I don't intend to. But what is your point?


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> I don't intend to. But what is your point?



You need to be more sympathetic to someone who has just monstered by the media.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> You need to be more sympathetic to someone who has just monstered by the media.



Thanks for the heads up. Please explain the 'monstered by the media' bit


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Please explain the 'monstered by the media' bit



She assaulted someone, she ended up top Bbc story. Why? YOU came out with the I feel more for her victims than her safety in prison bollocks. Thats a nasty shit reactionary attitude.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> She assaulted someone, she ended up top Bbc story. Why? YOU came out with the I feel more for her victims than her safety in prison bollocks. Thats a nasty shit reactionary attitude.


Yes, I feel more for her victims. Of course. Her victims are the victims after all.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Yes, I feel more for her victims. Of course. Her victims are the victims after all.



Terrible post


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> She assaulted someone, she ended up top Bbc story. Why? YOU came out with the I feel more for her victims than her safety in prison bollocks. Thats a nasty shit reactionary attitude.


Nasty shit reactionary attitude? Please explain.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Terrible post


Go on then. Excuse her behaviour.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Nasty shit reactionary attitude? Please explain.



She pushed someone or perhaps even chinned someone who was harrassing her? Intimidating her or insulting her? To say she should be put in a men's prison is very reactionary given her circumstances. I don't want to take over the thread as there are a lot more intelligent people here but you are a fat swollen sweaty dick.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 31, 2015)

I don't think it will be exactly plain sailing for her in the women's prison either. From what I've heard the bullying can be worse that in the men's. She is quite the aggressive arsehole by all accounts, so can probably hold her own in an environment where violence lives just under the surface.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> there are a lot more intelligent people here but you are a fat swollen sweaty dick.



I don't doubt there are more intelligent folks here, but there's no need to resort to such base insults :-(



Humberto said:


> She pushed someone or perhaps even chinned someone who was harrassing her? Intimidating her or insulting her? To say she should be put in a men's prison is very reactionary given her circumstances. I don't want to take over the thread as there are a lot more intelligent people here but you are a fat swollen sweaty dick.



I've got ...wow ... lots of things to say about this.

1. "She pushed someone or perhaps even chinned someone who was harrassing her?" :: she was doing the harassment and the chinning.

2. "Intimidating her or insulting her?" :: and the intimidating.

3. "To say she should be put in a men's prison is very reactionary given her circumstances" :: I don't think you'll find many people who think she belongs in a men's prison. 

4. "I don't want to take over the thread as there are a lot more intelligent people here but you are a fat swollen sweaty dick." :: have, not are.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> She pushed someone or perhaps even chinned someone who was harrassing her? Intimidating her or insulting her?


To be fair she was refused service at a bar for being too pissed so she headbutted the bar manager smashing his teeth out, a pretty despicable crime. She has eight previous convictions with a few for battery.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> I don't doubt there are more intelligent folks here, but there's no need to resort to such base insults :-(
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1 point is all it boils down to. A woman shouldn't be put in a men's prison. Unless you think people should be assaulted, punched or even raped at her 'majesties pleasure'.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> 1 point is all it boils down to. A woman shouldn't be put in a men's prison. Unless you think people should be assaulted, punched or even raped at her 'majesties pleasure'.



Gosh, Humberto mate ... I totally agree .... 

As I said earlier:




			
				umop apisdn said:
			
		

> FWIW, I reckon she should be sent to a women's prison ... but in all honesty I've got more sympathy with the various victims of her assaults than with whatever consequences she faces for assaulting them.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Gosh, Humberto mate ... I totally agree ....
> 
> As I said earlier:



Thats the opposite of totally agreeing you pathetic wank.

Dismal shit.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 31, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Thats the opposite of totally agreeing you pathetic wank.
> 
> Dismal shit.


Sorry mate


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

....no worries


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It's been a terrible - near shameful - last few pages. You've got nothing to say on this thread. Don't make it worse.



You haven't replied.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

No one, man or woman, should endure rape in prison.The Howard League reckons it's as least as bad here in the UK, though (and because) it's less acknowledged than in the US.
Ministers urged to investigate prison rape - The Howard League for Penal Reform


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> No one, man or woman, should endure rape in prison.The Howard League reckons it's as least as bad here in the UK, though (and because) it's less acknowledged than in the US.
> Ministers urged to investigate prison rape - The Howard League for Penal Reform



Of course no one should be raped in prison. 

As if it needs saying, no one should be raped outside of prison either.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Of course no one should be raped in prison.
> 
> As if it needs saying, no one should be raped outside of prison either.


Way to generalise something into meaninglessness. When someone is in prison they are in the care of the state. By definition they have very little control over their circumstances. The state has a duty to look after them and bloody doesn't.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Way to generalise something into meaninglessness. When someone is in prison they are in the care of the state. By definition they have very little control over their circumstances. The state has a duty to look after them and bloody doesn't.


I wasn't trying to sum up any kind of argument.
Way to miss the point of my post! 
Remind me again why I should care more about the prisoner than the victims?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 31, 2015)

How does caring about Tara's fate in prison stop you from caring about the person/people she assaulted in the past?

You seem to be suggesting it's one or the other.

Do you have a finite amount of shits to give?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

I was trying to steer the conversation away from the particular person.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> I was trying to steer the conversation away from the particular person.


... to an important general subject, which is admittedly off-topic


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> How does caring about Tara's fate in prison stop you from caring about the person/people she assaulted in the past?
> 
> You seem to be suggesting it's one or the other.
> 
> Do you have a finite amount of shits to give?



I think she should serve her sentence in a women's prison. I've said this several times in this thread.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 31, 2015)

So what's this 'care more about the prisoner than the victims' thing? I really don't understand what you're saying? She should serve her sentence in a women's prison, you agree. Where's the bit about not caring about her victims? What on earth does anything to do with where or how she serves out her punishment have to do with her victims being put in danger? I'm afraid I'm completely lost on why this is even a thing you're talking about.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> So what's this 'care more about the prisoner than the victims' thing? I really don't understand what you're saying? She should serve her sentence in a women's prison, you agree. Where's the bit about not caring about her victims? What on earth does anything to do with where or how she serves out her punishment have to do with her victims being put in danger? I'm afraid I'm completely lost on why this is even a thing you're talking about.


Good points well made. I'll answer shortly.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

FFS, please remember you're talking about real people, not just debating points.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> So what's this 'care more about the prisoner than the victims' thing? I really don't understand what you're saying? She should serve her sentence in a women's prison, you agree. Where's the bit about not caring about her victims? What on earth does anything to do with where or how she serves out her punishment have to do with her victims being put in danger? I'm afraid I'm completely lost on why this is even a thing you're talking about.



Vintage Paw,

In my opinion, folks in this thread have been more concerned with Tara's well-being than that of her victims.

What if Tara was a guy who assaulted women : would you or anyone else here feel so worried about his well-being during his time in prison?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

What if Santa Claus was a real person who came down chimneys into children's bedrooms? eh? eh?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

It's not a question of being more concerned with the perp than the victims. It's a question of whether the perp will be humanely treated in prison. Unsubstantiated assumptions about the perp's likely behaviour don't help in the slightest.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> What if Santa Claus was a real person who came down chimneys into children's bedrooms? eh? eh?





bluescreen said:


> It's not a question of being more concerned with the perp than the victims. It's a question of whether the perp will be humanely treated in prison. Unsubstantiated assumptions about the perp's likely behaviour don't help in the slightest.



I'll level with you: I'm a law-abiding person.

It's not a difficult life. It mostly revolves around treating others how you want to be treated.

Since when has the "perp's" feelings been more important than their victims?

How about this thought: If the "perp" hadn't "perpetrated" their crime, you wouldn't have to worry about their well-being...


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

Are you possibly a religious American person?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

Or possibly a regular contributor below the DM line?


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Are you possibly a religious American person?





bluescreen said:


> Or possibly a regular contributor below the DM line?



No. I'm from Romford. Lol.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

Oh well, that gives you free pass to the Daily Mail comments section.	Except, not. Not all Romfordians will share your views.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Here:


don't talk such tosh


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

The prison issue is a good example of much of the wider trans discussion. It quickly descends into polarisation and false dichotomies (as if it's impossible to care for the victim and perpetrator), and then name calling, with little attempt by either side to see things from the other perspective.  Of course, it's ridiculous to say that the fact she has a dick means she should go to a male prison.  But it's also ridiculous to say that any woman who has concerns about sharing a cell with a violent nutter who has boasted online about the ability to maintain an erection is a bigoted TERF.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> The prison issue is a good example of much of the wider trans discussion. It quickly descends into polarisation and false dichotomies (as if it's impossible to care for the victim and perpetrator), and then name calling, with little attempt by either side to see things from the other perspective.  Of course, it's ridiculous to say that the fact she has a dick means she should go to a male prison.  But it's also ridiculous to say that any woman who has concerns about sharing a cell with a violent nutter who has boasted online about the ability to maintain an erection is a bigoted TERF.



You've just done what you said others are doing. Presented the argument about 'any woman having concerns about sharing a cell with a violent nutter' when she'll almost certainly be segregated.


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

What's the difference between between being segregated in a men's prison and a women's prison?


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 31, 2015)

There are lots of women in women's prisons with female genitalia who are 'violent nutters'.  What is the point of this?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Thora said:


> What's the difference between between being segregated in a men's prison and a women's prison?



Which would you prefer to be locked up in?


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> You've just done what you said others are doing. Presented the argument about 'any woman having concerns about sharing a cell with a violent nutter' when she'll almost certainly be segregated.



Quite possibly, but that's not to say that some women might have concerns about the prospect of sharing a cell with her, until such time as her segregation is confirmed.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> Quite possibly, but that's not to say that some women might have concerns about the prospect of sharing a cell with her, until such time as her segregation is confirmed.



Is that what happens? You get put in a shared cell while the governor decides what to do with you?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> There are lots of women in women's prisons with female genitalia who are 'violent nutters'.  What is the point of this?


So it would be OK to put a man with a history of violence in a women's prison, assuming he had no history of sexual violence?


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> There are lots of women in women's prisons with female genitalia who are 'violent nutters'.  What is the point of this?



Women in prison are extremely vulnerable.  Many have suffered horrific sexual abuse.  And in the overwhelming majority of those cases, the perpetrator has had (and often used) a dick.  To find themselves trapped in a room with someone with a dick (who is also a violent nutter) is likely to be very upsetting to some of those women.


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 31, 2015)

emanymton said:


> So it would be OK to put a man with a history of violence in a women's prison, assuming he had no history of sexual violence?



No, but we aren't discussing putting a man into a women's prison.  We're discussing putting a woman into a women's prison.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Is that what happens? You get put in a shared cell while the governor decides what to do with you?



No.  But, on learning that she's coming to the prison, the women already there might not know the Governer's plans for her, and so might be concerned about the prospect of sharing a cell with her, on her arrival.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> No, but we aren't discussing putting a man into a women's prison.  We're discussing putting a woman into a women's prison.


In this specific case, yes. But a lost of the discussion hinges on the issue of at what point someone transitions. Not all cases will be as clear cut as this one.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> No.  But, on learning that she's coming to the prison, the women already there might not know the Governer's plans for her, and so might be concerned about the prospect of sharing a cell with her, on her arrival.



So you're saying the problem lies with the possibility of unfounded fears?


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> So you're saying the problem lies with the possibility of unfounded fears?



The problem lies with the fears of vulnerable women.  Whether or not they're unfounded or not depends upon how convinced one is of your assertion that she'll "almost certainly be segregated."


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> The problem lies with the fears of vulnerable women.  Whether or not they're unfounded or not depends upon how convinced one is of your assertion that she'll "almost certainly be segregated."



She's in the news. What governor isn't going to take every precaution plus some to ensure the story doesn't explode further?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 31, 2015)

It's lucky that it's a short sentence really. Difficult to belive that segregation is ever 100% effective or achieveable, but it might be managed for just four weeks. One pragmatic suggestion would be that HMPS establishes a dedicated unit attached to a women's nick to handle transitioning prisoners from all over the country. Imprisoning people close to their family is a good thing, but outweighed by the benefits of having a facility for cases like Hudson's - and as emanymton suggests, other cases where the transition is less advanced. That would also mean that the medical staff would be au fait with hormone provision and so on.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> She's in the news. What governor isn't going to take every precaution plus some to ensure the story doesn't explode further?



Prison Governors take decisions for many different reasons.  And, whilst I agree with you that it's likely she will be segregated (albeit that under rule 45 she's unlikely to have no contact with other prisoners), it's by no means certain (as you acknowledged).  As such, it's quite possible that other vulnerable women could be fearful of the prospect of sharing a cell with her.  In my opinion, they ought not to be dismissed as bigots for those fears.  Do you disagree?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Difficult to belive that segregation is ever 100% effective or achieveable


its doable, it regularly fails in the case of particularly heinous nonces because of complicity.

the suggestion of an attatched unit is a worthwhile one. Realistically its not going to be handling vast numbers is it


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> There are lots of women in women's prisons with female genitalia who are 'violent nutters'.  What is the point of this?


Most women in women's prisons aren't there for violent offences though, are often very vulnerable and have female bodies.  So I think the question of whether people with male bodies and violent convictions are housed in women's prisons is a legitimate one.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 31, 2015)

emanymton said:


> In this specific case, yes. But a lost of the discussion hinges on the issue of at what point someone transitions. Not all cases will be as clear cut as this one.



Well they usually would because you'd normally need your birth certificate amended (through a GRC) to go to the prison of your gender, which requires not only transitioning but a lot more besides. This case has really only come about because of that issue.

Whether, as some rad fems I read last night were suggesting, this would now set a precedent for that to change I don't know.


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> No, but we aren't discussing putting a man into a women's prison.  We're discussing putting a woman into a women's prison.


Aren't prisons sex segregated rather than gender segregated?


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 31, 2015)

Thora said:


> Aren't prisons sex segregated rather than gender segregated?



I suppose so, yes.  Perhaps that needs re-examining.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 31, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its doable, it regularly fails in the case of particularly heinous nonces because of complicity.
> 
> the suggestion of an attatched unit is a worthwhile one. Realistically its not going to be handling vast numbers is it



Wonder if it's less easy to do these days though. Budgets and staffing in HMPS are of course as pressurised as in any other public service, and probably much more so. No one ever lost an election because they made prisons grimmer.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Well they usually would because you'd normally need your birth certificate amended (through a GRC) to go to the prison of your gender, which requires not only transitioning but a lot more besides. This case has really only come about because of that issue.
> 
> Whether, as some rad fems I read last night were suggesting, this would now set a precedent for that to change I don't know.



This is dangerous ground though, becasue it raises the question of vulnerable women in other women-only spaces, and whether trans women should need a certificate to enter.  And, if not, why not?  In my opinion, they oughtn't.  But the parallels are there.


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> I suppose so, yes.  Perhaps that needs re-examining.


Do you not think there are good reasons for sex segregation in some circumstances?


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

Where should transmen go?  Surely they would be at risk in a men's prison too?


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 31, 2015)

Thora said:


> Do you not think there are good reasons for sex segregation in some circumstances?



I think there are good reasons for men and women to have separate spaces, absolutely.  I'm not so sure using the genitalia we are born with is an effective way of doing this anymore.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> Prison Governors take decisions for many different reasons.  And, whilst I agree with you that it's likely she will be segregated (albeit that under rule 45 she's unlikely to have no contact with other prisoners), it's by no means certain (as you acknowledged).  As such, it's quite possible that other vulnerable women could be fearful of the prospect of sharing a cell with her.  In my opinion, they ought not to be dismissed as bigots for those fears.  Do you disagree?



Has anybody dismissed them as bigots? It would have been daft of me to claim to know what will happen with any kind of certainty; not least because I'm not fully versed in the internal mechanisms of British prisons, that can often appear to work on spite rather than any rigid guidelines at times.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Wonder if it's less easy to do these days though. Budgets and staffing in HMPS are of course as pressurised as in any other public service, and probably much more so. No one ever lost an election because they made prisons grimmer.


How do you square this with your earlier naivety about all concerned being sure to do the right thing if only left alone?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Thora said:


> Where should transmen go?  Surely they would be at risk in a men's prison too?



Cis men are at risk in men's prison also coincidentally enough. Surely the argument here is that she was more at risk.


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Cis men are at risk in men's prison also coincidentally enough. Surely the argument here is that she was more at risk.


Isn't a transman at least as much at risk?


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Has anybody dismissed them as bigots?



Yes, many trans activists dismiss as bigots (and thereby seek to silence) any woman who does not always react to trans women in exactly the same way as they react to cis women, no matter what their reasons for so doing might be.  They maintain that there is no scope for legitimate debate, and that the issue of self-identification alone is determinative.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> How do you square this with your earlier naivety about all concerned being sure to do the right thing if only left alone?



Completely different. I trust NOMS and HMPS more than I do Urban, Fleet St and Twitter to make the right judgement about risk and reassurance to all prisoners affected. Expertise and judgement isn't going to be affected all that much by the current level of resource. Separately, there's the operational question of how segregation practices are affected by reduced staffing. It might mean it is less reliable than in Dottie's day; it might mean that segregated imprisonment is more like solitary confinement and therefore unsuitable for a sentence of any significant length. Again, HMPS managers are better placed to make a call on that than posters who are trying to maintain their doctrinal purity on gender issues rather than accepting that this is a pragmatic issue of balancing multiple risks and concerns, with no easy or attractive answers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Completely different. I trust NOMS and HMPS more than I do Urban, Fleet St and Twitter to make the right judgement about risk and reassurance to all prisoners affected. Expertise and judgement isn't going to be affected all that much by the current level of resource. Separately, there's the operational question of how segregation practices are affected by reduced staffing. It might mean it is less reliable than in Dottie's day; it might mean that segregated imprisonment is more like solitary confinement and therefore unsuitable for a sentence of any significant length. Again, HMPS managers are better placed to make a call on that than posters who are trying to maintain their doctrinal purity on gender issues rather than accepting that this is a pragmatic issue of balancing multiple risks and concerns, with no easy or attractive answers.


I get it,  under resourced,  over pressured, ill experienced authorities can be trusted to do the right thing when it suits your argument. Any attempts to address the first three problems are just lefty meddling that will make the situation worse. 

Any do you bother? What do you get out of this?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Thora said:


> Isn't a transman at least as much at risk?



Most probably. Being trans places both at higher risk.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> Yes, many trans activists dismiss as bigots (and thereby seek to silence) any woman who does not always react to trans women in exactly the same way as they react to cis women, no matter what their reasons for so doing might be.  They maintain that there is no scope for legitimate debate, and that the issue of self-identification alone is determinative.



I thought you were talking about this (recent) discussion specifically?


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I thought you were talking about this (recent) discussion specifically?



No, I spoke about the prison issue and the wider discussion of trans issues.  That's here and elsewhere, in the immediate past, and further back.

By the way, do you think women in such circumstances are bigots for feeling that way?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> I think there are good reasons for men and women to have separate spaces, absolutely.  I'm not so sure using the genitalia we are born with is an effective way of doing this anymore.


how would you have the nhs do it?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2015)

Thora said:


> Aren't prisons sex segregated rather than gender segregated?



there are mixed gender prisons all over the world, do you really think it is beyond the capacity of the UK penal system to accommodate this situation whilst minimising the risk - prisons carry out risk assessments, there will be far more frightening and dangerous prisoners than Tara to worry about.  this is a bit like when you warned letting trans women into women's refuge's would terrify the non-trans residents and make them unsafe spaces and then we found out that trans women have been accepted into womens refuges for a long time without anyone particularly giving a shit except you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Why are you more concerned about the aggressor than her victims?



Because in the case of the findings of common assault, and of battery, the degree of physical violence necessitating the charge is low, and doesn't warrant detention in an environment that could likely* see the aggressor violently sexually-assaulted multiple times in a mens' prison in the 6 weeks she was due to serve there. 

*I say "likely" as during my time working for the Prisons Dept, violent sexual assault happened to *every* transexual detained, and the only "safe place" for them to go is to be detained in isolation on the punishment block, which has its' own problems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> What do we know? If she's not going to get kalied she's not likely to be violent, is she? As for the rest, it's mere conjecture.



It's conjecture based on having worked within the prisons system, and knowing prior outcomes.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

Fair enough. (It still bothers me that we are talking about a real person while we indulge in mediaeval disputations.)


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

smokedout said:


> there are mixed gender prisons all over the world, do you really think it is beyond the capacity of the UK penal system to accommodate this situation whilst minimising the risk - prisons carry out risk assessments, there will be far more frightening and dangerous prisoners than Tara to worry about.  this is a bit like when you warned letting trans women into women's refuge's would terrify the non-trans residents and make them unsafe spaces and then we found out that trans women have been accepted into womens refuges for a long time without anyone particularly giving a shit except you.


Yes, I do think women should be able to access sex segregated spaces, especially when they are vulnerable or have already suffered male violence.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

Thora, that begs the question of how you define 'women'.


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Thora, that begs the question of how you define 'women'.


I don't think that's something we're likely to reach a consensus on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> She's in the news. What governor isn't going to take every precaution plus some to ensure the story doesn't explode further?



You're presupposing that there are extra precautions that can be taken. There aren't any beyond isolation, which would require Tara to spend 6 weeks, 24/7, in a cell or a postage-stamp "exercise yard", surrounded by Prison Officers who will not communicate except to give orders. Even a couple of weeks has been known to have severe psychological effects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> Quite possibly, but that's not to say that some women might have concerns about the prospect of sharing a cell with her, until such time as her segregation is confirmed.



She'd be detained in an induction cell on arrival. No sharing until dispersal within the prison is finalised.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> She'd be detained in an induction cell on arrival. No sharing until dispersal within the prison is finalised.



I know.  But my point was that, until her segregation was confirmed, other women already in that prison might be fearful of the prospect of having tio share with her (not that they would have to share with her until segregation).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Well they usually would because you'd normally need your birth certificate amended (through a GRC) to go to the prison of your gender, which requires not only transitioning but a lot more besides. This case has really only come about because of that issue.
> 
> Whether, as some rad fems I read last night were suggesting, this would now set a precedent for that to change I don't know.



More likely that issues will continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis (apart from anything else, it leaves the Prisons Minister and the Home Secretary less open to hostages-to-fortune, than a  sensible policy would  ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> I know.  But my point was that, until her segregation was confirmed, other women already in that prison might be fearful of the prospect of having tio share with her (not that they would have to share with her until segregation).


Except that other women would be aware that given the publicity, the place most likely that Tara to be detained in would be either the VPU or the "punishment block", both of which are one-to-a-cell.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> No, I spoke about the prison issue and the wider discussion of trans issues.  That's here and elsewhere, in the immediate past, and further back.
> 
> By the way, do you think women in such circumstances are bigots for feeling that way?



You know I don't, from the previous discussion.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that other women would be aware that given the publicity, the place most likely that Tara to be detained in would be either the VPU or the "punishment block", both of which are one-to-a-cell.



Most likely, yes.  But that wouldn't necessarily allay the fears of some of the mist vulnerable women prisoners, if, for instance, they have a history of sexual abuse.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> You know I don't, from the previous discussion.



TERF!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's lucky that it's a short sentence really. Difficult to belive that segregation is ever 100% effective or achieveable, but it might be managed for just four weeks. One pragmatic suggestion would be that HMPS establishes a dedicated unit attached to a women's nick to handle transitioning prisoners from all over the country. Imprisoning people close to their family is a good thing, but outweighed by the benefits of having a facility for cases like Hudson's - and as emanymton suggests, other cases where the transition is less advanced. That would also mean that the medical staff would be au fait with hormone provision and so on.



Unfortunately, there's barely enough money to construct accessible prison facilities to deal with the rising prison population of geriatrics and disabled people - supply hasn't met demand at any time in the last 25 years - let alone to construct an extra facility to deal solely with trans prisoners. Add to that the fact that few Conservative ministers or MPs would stand behind such a proposal, and along with no money, you can say there's little government political will behind such a scheme.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, there's barely enough money to construct accessible prison facilities to deal with the rising prison population of geriatrics and disabled people - supply hasn't met demand at any time in the last 25 years - let alone to construct an extra facility to deal solely with trans prisoners. Add to that the fact that few Conservative ministers or MPs would stand behind such a proposal, and along with no money, you can say there's little government political will behind such a scheme.



You could perhaps repurpose an existing facility and move everyone else around, as you wouldn't incur as many conversion costs as you would for accessibility. The staff costs of maintaining segregation must be pretty high, so - depending on the number of trans prisoners - the business case might stack up. You're probably right, though, any major change programme is probably a stretch for HMPS right now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You could perhaps repurpose an existing facility and move everyone else around, as you wouldn't incur as many conversion costs as you would for accessibility. The staff costs of maintaining segregation must be pretty high, so - depending on the number of trans prisoners - the business case might stack up. You're probably right, though, any major change programme is probably a stretch for HMPS right now.



Or perhaps they could stop locking people up?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

smokedout said:


> there are mixed gender prisons all over the world, do you really think it is beyond the capacity of the UK penal system to accommodate this situation whilst minimising the risk - prisons carry out risk assessments, there will be far more frightening and dangerous prisoners than Tara to worry about.  this is a bit like when you warned letting trans women into women's refuge's would terrify the non-trans residents and make them unsafe spaces and then we found out that trans women have been accepted into womens refuges for a long time without anyone particularly giving a shit except you.



We had mixed gender jails/local prisons in the UK into the first quarter of the 20th century. What is currently the Vulnerable Prisoners' Unit at Wandsworth Prison, for example, was originally the 3-winged Womens' Prison at Wandsworth,separated from the Mens' Prison by a narrow "sterile area and a pair of 12ft mesh fences with a double set of doors between them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> Or perhaps they could stop locking people up?



Right-wing governments (I include new Labour govts in this designation on the subject of penal policy) rarely promulgate progressive criminal justice policy. Even the switch to community punishments for juveniles was almost entirely motivated by a) costs, and b) bad publicity regarding the sheer scale of violence in YOIs.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Right-wing governments (I include new Labour govts in this designation on the subject of penal policy) rarely promulgate progressive criminal justice policy. Even the switch to community punishments for juveniles was almost entirely motivated by a) costs, and b) bad publicity regarding the sheer scale of violence in YOIs.



Maybe we don't need right-wing governments, then?


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2015)

Looking at Twitter, I see that "TERF" is being applied as a pure term of abuse for anyone the Twitter disagrees with.

But... is it a pure term of abuse - or has it unsurprisingly morphed into an attack on feminism of all kinds (except perhaps the most neoliberal kind)?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> Maybe we don't need right-wing governments, then?



Or governments at all.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2015)

laptop said:


> Looking at Twitter, I see that "TERF" is being applied as a pure term of abuse for anyone the Twitter disagrees with.
> 
> But... is it a pure term of abuse - or has it unsurprisingly morphed into an attack on feminism of all kinds (except perhaps the most neoliberal kind)?



that's not what I see when I look at twitter, I see lots of people defending Greer,  lots of people discussing wider problems with identity poltics and a few snide comments in both directions.  I haven't seen it used as an attack on feminism of all kinds anywhere, ever, it's a term that most people who aren't feminists have probably never heard of.  Why is feminism that recognises trans people more neo-liberal than feminism which excludes them btw?


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2015)

smokedout said:


> that's not what I see when I look at twitter, I see lots of people defending Greer,  lots of people discussing wider problems with identity poltics and a few snide comments in both directions.  I haven't seen it used as an attack on feminism of all kinds anywhere, ever, it's a term that most people who aren't feminists have probably never heard of.



I'm not bothered about your perception of the generality of what's being Tweeted.

I'm bothered by a specific use of the "TERF" meme.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2015)

so perhaps you can provide some examples of the term being used to attack feminism of all kinds ?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

TERF is a slur.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 31, 2015)

Athos said:


> Or perhaps they could stop locking people up?






 What do you do with criminals if they keep breaking the law?


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> TERF is a slur.



Homophobe is a SLUR


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> TERF is a slur.



TERF - Twitter Search


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

I get the point, thanks.

ETA: bi0boy


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 31, 2015)

'TERF is a slur' is on the bingo card.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2015)

I've learned something today - apparently Gender Critical Feminists is how Trans-Exclusionary Reactionary Feminists prefer to be termed.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> TERF is a slur.



no agenda on that site then. they seem to be largely attacks on those perceived as terfs though, not an attack on feminism completely


----------



## iona (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> We had mixed gender jails/local prisons in the UK into the first quarter of the 20th century. What is currently the Vulnerable Prisoners' Unit at Wandsworth Prison, for example, was originally the 3-winged Womens' Prison at Wandsworth,separated from the Mens' Prison by a narrow "sterile area and a pair of 12ft mesh fences with a double set of doors between them.



We still do have mixed prisons (in Scotland at least, not sure about the rest of the UK).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 31, 2015)

cesare said:


> I've learned something today - apparently Gender Critical Feminists is how Trans-Exclusionary Reactionary Feminists prefer to be termed.



Which is a sad state of affairs because you can be critical of gender and still support trans people and recognise the need for us all to be allies together.


----------



## umop apisdn (Nov 1, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> don't talk such tosh


Explain yourself then.


----------



## umop apisdn (Nov 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because in the case of the findings of common assault, and of battery, the degree of physical violence necessitating the charge is low, and doesn't warrant detention in an environment that could likely* see the aggressor violently sexually-assaulted multiple times in a mens' prison in the 6 weeks she was due to serve there.
> 
> *I say "likely" as during my time working for the Prisons Dept, violent sexual assault happened to *every* transexual detained, and the only "safe place" for them to go is to be detained in isolation on the punishment block, which has its' own problems.



IMO Tara should be in a women's prison. 

I think she deserves to go to prison. 

I also think that everyone, everywhere has a right to be safe.


----------



## umop apisdn (Nov 1, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Oh well, that gives you free pass to the Daily Mail comments section.	Except, not. Not all Romfordians will share your views.



Which views?


----------



## bluescreen (Nov 1, 2015)

This. It has a simplistic logic but misses the entire point of prison reform:





umop apisdn said:


> How about this thought: If the "perp" hadn't "perpetrated" their crime, you wouldn't have to worry about their well-being..


----------



## umop apisdn (Nov 1, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> This. It has a simplistic logic but misses the entire point of prison reform:



Occam's razor, innit. 

Please show me where I was making a case -- simplistic or otherwise -- for prison reform.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 1, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> This. It has a simplistic logic but misses the entire point of prison reform:


how then do we deal with the classist and racist nature of our judicial sytem? 'Don't do the crime, don't do the time' sounds *great* *untill you look at prison stats.

*it doesn't sound great. Babylon must fall then we can police ourselves rather than being policed by agencies of wider capital


----------



## bluescreen (Nov 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> how then do we deal with the classist and racist nature of our judicial sytem? 'Don't do the crime, don't do the time' sounds *great* *untill you look at prison stats.
> 
> *it doesn't sound great. Babylon must fall then we can police ourselves rather than being policed by agencies of wider capital


I was replying to umop apisdn. His logic on this one is fatuous and you're right, the problems with the statement of his extend beyond washing its hands of prison reform.


----------



## umop apisdn (Nov 1, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> I was replying to umop apisdn. His logic on this one is fatuous and you're right, the problems with the statement of his extend beyond washing its hands of prison reform.


You're the one who's trying to turn my comments into a discussion about prison reform.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Explain yourself then.


which part of 'don't talk such tosh' did you have difficulty with? do you think the authorities took my views into account?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Occam's razor, innit.
> 
> Please show me where I was making a case -- simplistic or otherwise -- for prison reform.


might as well as him to show you where you've made a case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Which views?


your views


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> how then do we deal with the classist and racist nature of our judicial sytem? 'Don't do the crime, don't do the time' sounds *great* *untill you look at prison stats.
> 
> *it doesn't sound great. Babylon must fall then we can police ourselves rather than being policed by agencies of wider capital



"Criminal justice" is currently (and will remain, under our present system of governance) something that is exercised on people "top-down". Although we don't have incidences as egregious as transportation for 7 years for stealing a loaf of bread because some JP thinks that the poor need to be taught a lesson, we do still have institutionally-classist and racist attitudes that mean poor women are more likely to get custodial sentences for crimes their middle-class sisters would be fined for, and if you're poor and non-white,then you're fucked.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2015)

I sense that I may be criticised for posting this, but I've had a few tonight and I'm rather taken with this story..
Britain's oldest tree appears to be undergoing a sex change after 3,000 years
Wonder what Germaine would make of it?


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 12, 2015)

Athos said:


> I understand that some people are upset by things they disagree with, yes.
> 
> I choose to be accepting, becasue it's the right thing to do.  Why are you accepting?
> 
> No need to go backchannel - this sort of stuff is what this thread is about.


I try to understand you I really do. I can see you're not against me but I can;t bear to read your Tweets on this subject, and not because I disagree with you. I disagree with people all the time. I actually struggle with internal turmoil when I read what you write. you write in the most insensitive way imaginable.

no need to reply, just saying. I won't be returning here again for a while. already reached the limit of what I can deal with.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

Why does it matter that some feminists might not like transgenders? Everybody everywhere dislikes something or somebody


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Why does it matter that some feminists might not like transgenders? Everybody everywhere dislikes something or somebody



because they actively campaign to deny the existence of trans folk.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

toggle said:


> because they actively campaign to deny the existence of trans folk.


So?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2015)

Are you going to tell transwomen to 'get over it', JT?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Are you going to tell transwomen to 'get over it', JT?


No, why would I?


----------



## killer b (Nov 12, 2015)

he's not going to make it til teatime is he?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> he's not going to make it til teatime is he?


Suits me. Wouldn't want to get soup splashes on my laptop.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> No, why would I?


It's effectively what you have done already, tbh.


----------



## Sirena (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Why does it matter that some feminists might not like transgenders? Everybody everywhere dislikes something or somebody


I think it is because there is an oldskool (and really puritanical) tendency within the women's movement (going back to some American feminist writers of the 70s) which has always found the whole transgender thing unacceptable.  And the clash is between that tendency and the transgender community which in the last few years has found a common voice.

If it was just Germaine Greer mouthing off, people could take that as her just being a controversialist and you could accept it or argue it as you see fit.

When it comes to the thing that caused the explosion ('Glamour' magazine nominating Caitlyn Jenner as 'woman of the year'), I would have been on Germaine Greer's side.  But Germaine Greer has always been part of this tendency and the problem lies there.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's effectively what you have done already, tbh.


I think you'll find I haven't said anything about transgenders.

The point is how can anybody campaign to deny the existence of something that does indeed exist?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> I think you'll find I haven't said anything about transgenders.
> 
> The point is how can anybody campaign to deny the existence of something that does indeed exist?


You've not read the thread, eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> he's not going to make it til teatime is he?


from the first post it was obvious. He's not even glued a tash on


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've not read the thread, eh?


Actually no. I've no strong opinion on the subject. I'm just a bit bored. Got a cold.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> from the first post it was obvious. He's not even glued a tash on


How do you know I haven't?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> I think you'll find I haven't said anything about transgenders.
> 
> The point is how can anybody campaign to deny the existence of something that does indeed exist?



Welcome to planet earth will you be staying long?
Because they hate them as if people can swap sex it kinda defeats men are men and women are women and the two are different things need to stay different or else.
 Also letting trans people into  narrative diminishes women some how.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Welcome to planet earth will you be staying long?
> Because they hate them as if people can swap sex it kinda defeats men are men and women are women and the two are different things need to stay different or else.


The things that preoccupy some people.


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> So?



can you not see a problem with people who have decided to speak for others using what power they have to attack those more vulnerable than themselves?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

toggle said:


> can you not see a problem with people who have decided to speak for others using what power they have to attack those more vulnerable than themselves?


Yes, but like I said, it's inevitable.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Yes, but like I said, it's inevitable.



Can you see the inherent problem in only joining a conversation in order to say that it's pointless even talking about it?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Can you see the inherent problem in only joining a conversation in order to say that it's pointless even talking about it?


Maybe.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> The things that preoccupy some people.



 The thing is trans people go through hell to get to the state where they think they will be accepted and then they find they face bigotry from people preaching tolerance. I'd be upset as well


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> The thing is trans people go through hell to get to the state where they think they will be accepted and then they find they face bigotry from people preaching tolerance. I'd be upset as well


It's a mad, crazy world.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> It's a mad, crazy world.


In fact when you think about it all those who preach tolerance are pretty intolerant much of the time.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> In fact when you think about it all those who preach tolerance are pretty intolerant much of the time.



"All" those?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> "All" those?


All those I know. Bit of a pain in the arse, some of 'em.


----------



## JimW (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> In fact when you think about it all those who preach tolerance are pretty intolerant much of the time.


Deep, man.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

JimW said:


> Deep, man.


I can get a bit like that off work with a cold. Brings out the best in me, adversity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> All those I know. Bit of a pain in the arse, some of 'em.


Your mum?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> All those I know. Bit of a pain in the arse, some of 'em.



So, in fact, not all those who preach tolerance are intolerant.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> So, in fact, not all those who preach tolerance are intolerant.


Don't know. Most just seem it. Especially those who constantly pull people up on some imaginary prejudice or some example of 'thinking the wrong things.'


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Don't know. Most just seem it. Especially those who constantly pull people up on some imaginary prejudice or some example of 'thinking the wrong things.'



I see no examples.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> I see no examples.


I didn't give any.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your mum?


From the grave.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> I didn't give any.



Correct; no examples, facts or otherwise. Just musings.

What's your agenda here, caller?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> Correct; no examples, facts or otherwise. Just musings.
> 
> What's your agenda here, caller?


Agenda? Jesus.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Agenda? Jesus.



Not today, thanks.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> Not today, thanks.


 Too busy finding people to put right about something?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Too busy finding people to put right about something?



Seems like you're trying to put people "right", "Jimmy".


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> Seems like you're trying to put people "right", "Jimmy".


Yes it does, doesn't it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2015)

whoever it is, fuck me it's dull.

lose your rag already.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Yes it does, doesn't it?



Not very tolerant of you, is it?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> whoever it is, fuck me it's dull.
> 
> lose your rag already.


Says the dullest liberal on the internet.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> Not very tolerant of you, is it?


I'm not tolerant.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Says the dullest liberal on the internet.



How would you know? You're brand new here.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> I'm not tolerant.



Yes, that's crystal clear.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes, that's crystal clear.


No it isn't.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> How would you know? You're brand new here.


No I'm not.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> No I'm not.



Staying long, this time round?


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> Staying long, this time round?


Can't see it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2015)

Jimmy Turr said:


> Can't see it.



But you'll try again and again, right?


----------



## panpete (Nov 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> I believe walking in high heels is the first skill m-f transexuals are required to learn in their quest to become a woman. If they fail at that hurdle, there's no chance of them ever being 'accepted'.


Not every woman wears high heels though.
I'm a woman, and even though I don't wear high heels, and I sometimes dress in clothes that are ok for both blokes and women, ie hoodys, sweat-trousers etc, I am still very feminine.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

krtek a houby said:


> But you'll try again and again, right?


Getting less and less lately. Have trouble finding the enthusiasm.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 12, 2015)

How do people feel about the various universities banning Greer from speaking? I've no time for her weird ideas but it seems bizarre to me that someone like her can be prevented from speaking when all kinds of religious speakers or mainstream politicians will be coming in and out freely to address various meetings.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> How do people feel about the various universities banning Greer from speaking? I've no time for her weird ideas but it seems bizarre to me that someone like her can be prevented from speaking when all kinds of religious speakers or mainstream politicians will be coming in and out freely to address various meetings.


has anywhere actually banned her?  There is a difference between calling for (a) specific meeting(s) to be cancelled, and a general ban. I think it's fair enough to ask for an invitation (especially from a supposedly progressive institution like a university, and when the subject is on the lines of What it is to be a Woman) to be withdrawn after her making grossly reactionary remarks. It wouldn't be okay to demand she be 'no platformed' tho.  
I'm not at all sure I have seen anyone actually demanding the latter, tho.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> has anywhere actually banned her?  There is a difference between calling for (a) specific meeting(s) to be cancelled, and a general ban. I think it's fair enough to ask for an invitation (especially from a supposedly progressive institution like a university, and when the subject is on the lines of What it is to be a Woman) to be withdrawn after her making grossly reactionary remarks. It wouldn't be okay to demand she be 'no platformed' tho.
> I'm not at all sure I have seen anyone actually demanding the latter, tho.



I've seen plenty of people demand she be no platformed (I've seen one person demand she be no platformed and describe Prevent as an attack on academic freedom in the same breadth) but not sure if she actually has been.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> has anywhere actually banned her?  There is a difference between calling for (a) specific meeting(s) to be cancelled, and a general ban. I think it's fair enough to ask for an invitation (especially from a supposedly progressive institution like a university, and when the subject is on the lines of What it is to be a Woman) to be withdrawn after her making grossly reactionary remarks. It wouldn't be okay to demand she be 'no platformed' tho.
> I'm not at all sure I have seen anyone actually demanding the latter, tho.


In what ways are universities 'progressive,' and why should they be?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 13, 2015)

They're not but it's a weird hangover of the British left that they believe them to be - probably something to do with spending the best years of their youth there.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 13, 2015)

I'd prefer it if they were truly reactionary places still, and students could be relied upon to drive buses and shit in general strikes. You knew where the fuck you were in those days. Probably.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 13, 2015)

Mind you, now the twats would probably be causing traffic chaos taking selfies while trying to drive a big vehicle while unqualified.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2015)

Very poor indeed.


----------



## Jimmy Turr (Nov 13, 2015)

We could sneak up behind them while they're posting the selfies onto facebook, take the bus back and write on Twitter about how exciting it's all been.

We'd be trending all day long.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2015)

Anyway she decided she was going to speak at Cardiff after all, and this piece looks at that and some issues of free speech, along with talking about trans stuff very positively.

Don't gag Germaine Greer Germaine Greer should not be gagged for views on transgender


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 14, 2015)

And this comment is very good:



> You've created a false equivalence between two things: the right to free speech and the right to a platform for that speech. You have the former, it's a negative right like all natural rights. The later is not and you don't have it.
> 
> If I own a soapbox and megaphone for people to use while they express views to a crowd I am not 'censoring' anyone by not allowing them to use my soapbox or megaphone. If you believe I am, may I please have your address so I can come round and recite the complete poems of John Milton everyday? You wouldn't want to support censorship, right?
> 
> Cardiff University is not a publicly owned institution, it has no obligation, legal or moral, to provide a platform and it has no place using the lofty values of free speech to defend itself from judgement when offering a platform to a bigot.



Whether you should provide a platform to someone is one thing, and talk about censorship is quite another. Last time I looked, Greer had more opportunities to have her opinions heard than most of us -- being in the public eye as she is -- and she isn't under threat of being arrested or otherwise deprived of her liberty and freedom for saying the things she says. She can say whatever she wants, but she can also expect to face backlash if people don't like them, and she can also be expected to be 'disinvited' from places if they don't want to hear it. Whether she should be or not, as I said, is one matter, but dressing it up as an attack on freedom of speech is something else entirely, and is not helpful in any way.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 14, 2015)

And god, she's not being 'gagged'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2015)

I agree with that, VP. However, there would still be an issue at a university about where the boundary lies between students inviting speakers and the university authorities vetoing them.


----------



## cesare (Nov 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with that, VP. However, there would still be an issue at a university about where the boundary lies between students inviting speakers and the university authorities vetoing them.


If the students are that keen on hearing her, they can organise it for themselves in a different venue.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> And this comment is very good:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if drawing some kind of equivalence between the rights and duties of an educational institution and the rights and duties of a private individual really works - that kind of scaling is rightly criticised when comparisons are made between between household and national budgets.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

I'm surprised there's been no comment on this thread about yesterday's story concerning the eight-year prison sentence given to a woman for posing as a man and having sex with someone who believed that she was a man.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> I'm surprised there's been no comment on this thread about yesterday's story concerning the eight-year prison sentence given to a woman for posing as a man and having sex with someone who believed that she was a man.



And the police that had babies with activists are still walking around free. Disgusting.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> I'm surprised there's been no comment on this thread about yesterday's story concerning the eight-year prison sentence given to a woman for posing as a man and having sex with someone who believed that she was a man.



Why? Unless you are trying to make some sort of comparison to trans people 'duping' others. Trans people already have to put up with the accusations of 'deception' when it comes to to tell/not to tell potential partners and there's the whole 'trans panic' thing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2015)

I believe the defendant claimed the her victim knew she was a woman, and the sex was carried out while exploring their gender identity. Other than that (which sounds like fairly desperate bollocks when the rest of the evidence is considered) I don't think it has any relevance at all to this thread, other than to muddy the waters.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Why? Unless you are trying to make some sort of comparison to trans people 'duping' others. Trans people already have to put up with the accusations of 'deception' when it comes to to tell/not to tell potential partners and there's the whole 'trans panic' thing.



What bothers me is the possibility that, by treating deception regarding gender differently from that regarding other things e.g. income, marital status, the law becomes uncertain, potentially exposing trans people to prosecution (particularly where their transition hasn't been legally recognised).  What is to stop some bloke saying that the consent he gave to having sex with a woman was vitiated by the fact that she was born with a male body.  Where's the line drawn?  What about a blowy from a pre-op transexual?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2015)

Heard this stuff a million times before. Fuck off.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> And the police that had babies with activists are still walking around free. Disgusting.



Innit.  Bizarre to single out one aspect in regard to which 'deception' should be criminalised, but not other, seemingly more significant, ones.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Heard this stuff a million times before. Fuck off.



Errr... you do realise that my objection to this law is that it might be used unfairly against trans people?  Why the hostility?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> Errr... you do realise that my objection to this law is that it might be used unfairly against trans people?  Why the hostility?



Sorry Athos, perhaps an unfair and hostile reaction but I've been here a million times with these positions in various places over the years. All manner of devils advocate and comparisons and what ifs come out and they rarely help trans people.

I'll leave y'all to it because I think this stuff is to close to me.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Sorry ethos, perhaps an unfair reaction but I've been here a million times with these positions.



No problem.


----------



## cesare (Nov 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Sorry Athos, perhaps an unfair and hostile reaction but I've been here a million times with these positions in various places over the years. All manner of devils advocate and comparisons and what ifs come out and they rarely help trans people.
> 
> I'll leave y'all to it because I think this stuff is to close to me.


Innit. Often it's concern trolling.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> Innit. Often it's concern trolling.



Just to be clear, is that what you're suggesting I'm doing - concern trolling?


----------



## cesare (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> Just to be clear, is that what you're suggesting I'm doing - concern trolling?


On balance of probabilities, yes.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> On balance of probabilities, yes.



Fair enough.  You're wrong, though.  I do think it's a genuine cause for concern.

For the record, where do you think this decision (and similar ones in recent years) leaves a pre-op transexual woman whose new gender hasn't been legally recognised, and who describes herself as as a woman to a man with whom she subsequently has sexual contact (e.g. a blowjob), if he later claims that he didn't consent to sex with someone who was, in the eyes of the law, a man?


----------



## cesare (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> Fair enough.  You're wrong, though.  I do think it's a genuine cause for concern.
> 
> For the record, where do you think this decision (and similar ones in recent years) leaves a pre-op transexual woman whose new gender hasn't been legally recognised, and who describes herself as as a woman to a man with whom she subsequently has sexual contact (e.g. a blowjob), if he later claims that he didn't consent to sex with someone who was, in the eyes of the law, a man?


For which "record"?


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> How do people feel about the various universities banning Greer from speaking? I've no time for her weird ideas but it seems bizarre to me that someone like her can be prevented from speaking when all kinds of religious speakers or mainstream politicians will be coming in and out freely to address various meetings.


I think the only people who should be prevented from public speaking or performance are those who actively advocate violence or death for a particular group. Everybody else should be debated. I thought Greer made a right idiot of herself and her vile statements should be opposed but in public debate. Shutting someone down doesn't change anything and only entrenches hostile feelings towards a particular group and its not like Greer was there to talk about trans issues. I get increasingly worried about the culture of outrage, fostered by social media, which is meant to shut down everybody whose opinions a particular group doesn't agree with and which actively seeks to look to get offended.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> For the record, where do you think this decision (and similar ones in recent years) leaves a pre-op transexual woman whose new gender hasn't been legally recognised, and who describes herself as as a woman to a man with whom she subsequently has sexual contact (e.g. a blowjob), if he later claims that he didn't consent to sex with someone who was, in the eyes of the law, a man?



History shows that it usually ends up with the trans woman assaulted or dead if it helps. Again, see 'trans panic defence'.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> For which "record"?



Thriller.  Any record.  Whatever.  What do you think?


----------



## cesare (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> Thriller.  Any record.  Whatever.  What do you think?


I agree with stethoscope


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> History shows that it usually ends up with the trans woman assaulted or dead if it helps. Again, see 'trans panic defence'.



And this is made even worse by the possibilty that the trans woman may also be exposed to the threat that she might be prosecuted!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2015)

Athos said:


> And this is made even worse by the possibilty that the trans woman may also be exposed to the threat that she might be prosecuted!



If she's still alive.

See 'trans panic defence'.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> I agree with stethoscope



No, specifically with regrd to the question I asked you:

... where do you think this decision (and similar ones in recent years) leaves a pre-op transexual woman whose new gender hasn't been legally recognised, and who describes herself as as a woman to a man with whom she subsequently has sexual contact (e.g. a blowjob), if he later claims that he didn't consent to sex with someone who was, in the eyes of the law, a man?


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> If she's still alive.



Indeed.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 19, 2015)

Transgender woman Vicky Thompson found dead in Leeds male prison
A transgender woman has been found dead in a male prison

(Trans Day of Remembrance tomorrow too) 

(will not be posting/replying any further on this thread)


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 19, 2015)

Shit! RIP


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2015)




----------



## elbows (Nov 19, 2015)

RIP.

What a bloody disgrace. It shouldn't take a death to change the system but if often does  I wonder if there will be momentum to change now, given this is the first high-profile uk trans prison suicide since the big outcry over trans prison arrangements.

I read the full prison guidance after the last case that caused a storm, and although some bits of it are actually quite good (can't treat very basic make-up and other stuff required to maintain appropriate image of gender as privileges that can be removed) the thing is a mess. Even some of the positive stuff can end up giving cause for other prisoners to resent and hassle the trans inmate. Most obvious example is that because female prisoners don't have a prison uniform, neither do the trans prisoners, but the males have to.


----------



## cesare (Nov 20, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2015)

poor woman  rip


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> What a bloody disgrace. It shouldn't take a death to change the system but if often does  I wonder if there will be momentum to change now, given this is the first high-profile uk trans prison suicide since the big outcry over trans prison arrangements..



Sadly, I would guess that this only made the news because it happened soon after the big outcry.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sadly, I would guess that this only made the news because it happened soon after the big outcry.



I don't know about that. It could just as likely be in the news because someone, in this case her boyfriend, spoke to the media about it so it wasn't just a statistic or dry press release by the prison service. But there can still be a link on that front in theory - maybe he felt more confident speaking to the media about it after witnessing the tone of respect and support that was demonstrated in many spheres during the last outcry.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 20, 2015)

82 people committed suicide in British prisons last year. It's a fucking disgrace


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 20, 2015)

trashpony said:


> 82 people committed suicide in British prisons last year. It's a fucking disgrace



Indeed. And we should provide more support to those who need it. Including ensuring people are in the right place.


----------



## __steve__ (Nov 20, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Indeed. And we should provide more support to those who need it. Including ensuring people are in the right place.


Are you saying prison is a "cry for help"?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 20, 2015)

__steve__ said:


> Are you saying prison is a "cry for help"?


Hang on, you're the same person as umop apisdn who is banned. So you are still banned.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 21, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Indeed. And we should provide more support to those who need it. Including ensuring people are in the right place.


Absolutely


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Indeed. And we should provide more support to those who need it. Including ensuring people are in the right place.



Unfortunately, our last half-dozen Home Secretaries have seen inmate "listener" schemes as a replacement for - rather than an adjunct to - psychological services for inmates, so the listeners get inundated with problems that range from the mundane to the horrific.


----------



## gosub (Nov 23, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Transgender woman Vicky Thompson found dead in Leeds male prison
> A transgender woman has been found dead in a male prison
> 
> (Trans Day of Remembrance tomorrow too)
> ...


shit like that needs addressing.  Benddict Cummabund in Zoolander, not so much


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, our last half-dozen Home Secretaries have seen inmate "listener" schemes as a replacement for - rather than an adjunct to - psychological services for inmates, so the listeners get inundated with problems that range from the mundane to the horrific.


And those same half-dozen home secretaries have presided over continual rises in the prison population. Doubling since 1990. Yet the vast majority of prison governors are of the opinion that prisons do nothing but harm to everyone who passes through them. How and why are people being sent to prison? Who needs to be there, and who should not be there? It's a big debate that just doesn't happen. Gordon Brown even _boasted_ of increasing the number of prisoners in election debates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And those same half-dozen home secretaries have presided over continual rises in the prison population. Doubling since 1990. Yet the vast majority of prison governors are of the opinion that prisons do nothing but harm to everyone who passes through them. How and why are people being sent to prison? Who needs to be there, and who should not be there? It's a big debate that just doesn't happen. Gordon Brown even _boasted_ of increasing the number of prisoners in election debates.



Fear of crime is a big issue with regard to rising prison populations. Successive Home Secretaries have legislated to criminalise actions that once came under the rubric of "antisocial behaviour", for example, because once they generate the folk devil (in, tandem with their friend - the media) they know they can then be "seen to be doing something" when they criminalise antisocial behaviour (as with the recent switch from ASBOs to Community Protection Orders and the like). In effect they're feeding the (to borrow Angela Davis's term) "prison-industrial complex" - an industry which many politicians past and present have ties to.

Fear of crime, of course, doesn't reflect actuality of crime. A 2014 survey on the council estate I live on, showed we have one of the lowest instances of crime in the entire Borough of Lambeth. The same survey showed that fear of crime impinged on the lives of over half the residents of the estate. Keep people tense and afraid, keep them atomised and they're malleable individuals, rather than members of a self-confident community.


----------



## RubyBlue (Nov 23, 2015)

Would be interested as to the criteria some would use to assign a prison place for Vicky Thomson after the lengthy discussion regarding Tara Hudson given that Vicky, who had lived most of her life as a woman, had not undergone any surgery. I'm not sure if she was taking hormones or not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fear of crime is a big issue with regard to rising prison populations. Successive Home Secretaries have legislated to criminalise actions that once came under the rubric of "antisocial behaviour", for example, because once they generate the folk devil (in, tandem with their friend - the media) they know they can then be "seen to be doing something" when they criminalise antisocial behaviour (as with the recent switch from ASBOs to Community Protection Orders and the like). In effect they're feeding the (to borrow Angela Davis's term) "prison-industrial complex" - an industry which many politicians past and present have ties to..


Yep. It is also the case that certain violent crimes attract much longer sentences now - rape, for instance. That's got to be right - losing your liberty for a hefty stretch not least to get you off the streets and away from others. But this only accounts for a small part of the increase. The absurdity is the plethora of short sentences for much more minor offences. What use is it to anybody to send a person to prison for six months, say? All it does is fuck up their lives – losing jobs, homes, families – and so fuck up society that bit more as their lives are a mess when they get out. It's bad for all of us, and at the very least it ought to be subject to vigorous debate. Take prison-sentencing powers away from magistrates entirely - that would be a start. If a crime only merits six months in jail, then it doesn't merit jail at all. 

Vicky Thompson is a good example. She stole a phone and shoplifted some stuff. Sending her to prison for a year - what good does that do her or us? She wasn't a danger to anyone. It just shows a shocking lack of imagination, above all - seems to me that judges don't really have much idea _why_ they are sending people to prison. They're just sleepwalking through a process.


----------



## laptop (Nov 23, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Vicky Thompson is a good example. She stole a phone and shoplifted some stuff. Sending her to prison for a year...



I think we can infer from this that she had previous. 

Doesn't invalidate your argument about the uselessness of short sentences. 

But it leaves a policy question: as things are, it seems inevitable that there will be some kind of "escalation" for repeat offenders.

What?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2015)

laptop said:


> I think we can infer from this that she had previous.


not just previous, these crimes - phone theft plus shoplifting - triggered an unspent suspended sentence. Doesn't change the fact that she changed from being someone who doesn't deserve any jail time into someone who deserves one year due to these two minor, non-violent offences.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2015)

laptop said:


> But it leaves a policy question: as things are, it seems inevitable that there will be some kind of "escalation" for repeat offenders.
> 
> What?



I'm no fan of prison, full stop. The number of prisoners is an index of a society's failure. But other countries have various measures designed to punish but not to fuck up lives. Weekend prison, for example - you keep your job but you lose your days off.

Thing is, we now live in a place where you are attacked from the off as soon as you lose your job and dare to claim benefits. It is _your fault_ that you don't have a job. This is among a whole range of things that would need to be changed alongside penal reform. It can't be addressed in isolation.

Way too many people living chaotic lives for whatever reason, but not *evil* or dangerous in any way, wind up in jail, which just continues the spiral into chaos. And it happens almost by default, like society can't be bothered to try to think of something better.


----------



## laptop (Nov 23, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> not just previous, these crimes - phone theft plus shoplifting - triggered an unspent suspended sentence.



D'oh! Forgot that. 

But one _might _infer previous to the previous from the suspended sentence... not just a fine...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2015)

laptop said:


> D'oh! Forgot that.
> 
> But one _might _infer previous to the previous from the suspended sentence... not just a fine...


I don't want to overstate the case here - she wasn't sent to jail _just_ for nicking a few cosmetics and a phone. These were the tipping point at the end of a process. But my question remains, and it's a general one not just for this case: does throwing her in jail do her or society any good? Was she a danger to the rest of us who needed to be locked up? Does locking her up for a bit make her less of a problem when she gets out? My answer to all these points is an emphatic 'no', and I know that many people working in prisons have the same answer, yet nothing is done, the wheels continue to turn.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 1, 2015)

Dear god, another transgender woman found dead in a male prison. 
Transgender inmate found dead in Woodhill prison cell - BBC News


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2015)

Earlier in the thread, there was a link to some awful stats regarding trans suicides in prison.

It _could be_ a coincidence that there have been a couple of suicides so soon after the issue became a media concern.

Or, it could be that, as per the stats in the earlier link, this is normal, these are regular occurrences. It's just that the media is now paying each death attention.


----------



## elbows (Dec 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Earlier in the thread, there was a link to some awful stats regarding trans suicides in prison.
> 
> It _could be_ a coincidence that there have been a couple of suicides so soon after the issue became a media concern.
> 
> Or, it could be that, as per the stats in the earlier link, this is normal, these are regular occurrences. It's just that the media is now paying each death attention.



Yes. With the previous case I suggested there was additional media interest because someone that was very closed to the deceased was prepared to speak to the media. They prefer it when they can 'add colour' to a story that way. But clearly there is also an interest in covering these deaths now, even when there is only a dry press release from the prison service to go on.


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2016)

Here's a mind-blowing rights contradiction for the weekend:

A transgender woman, convicted of carrying out a rape when she was a man, has been remanded to a male prison.

Nope. There's no right answer to that.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

laptop said:


> Here's a mind-blowing rights contradiction for the weekend:
> 
> A transgender woman, convicted of carrying out a rape when she was a man, has been remanded to a male prison.
> 
> Nope. There's no right answer to that.



What is the contradiction of rights?  Presumably one is her right to have her gender recognised?  What is the other that's in conflict with that?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> What is the contradiction of rights?  Presumably one is her right to have her gender recognised?  What is the other that's in conflict with that?


Presumably the right(s) of other women prisoners not to be incarcerated with a convicted rapist?


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> What is the contradiction of rights?  Presumably one is her right to have her gender recognised?  What is the other that's in conflict with that?



In fine point of legal theory it may be arguable whether the woman *he* raped has a "right" to see *that man* suffer the consequences. Even if that man is now living as a woman.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Presumably the right(s) of other women prisoners not to be incarcerated with a convicted rapist?



Definitely.


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Presumably the right(s) of other women prisoners not to be incarcerated with a convicted rapist?



That's a third. 

(As it happens in this case the person seems to have undergone no medical or surgical procedures.)


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Presumably the right(s) of other women prisoners not to be incarcerated with a convicted rapist?



Do prisoners have the right to choose their fellow inmates?


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> Do prisoners have the right to choose their fellow inmates?



They most definitely have the right to life (if not a private life) and the right not to be assaulted or put in fear.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

laptop said:


> In fine point of legal theory it may be arguable whether the woman *he* raped has a "right" to see *that man* suffer the consequences. Even if that man is now living as a woman.



If he no longer exists, no.  And, in any event, the punishement is imprisonment itself, which still applies.  And that's overlooking the dodgy assumption that vistins have a right to see perpetrators suffer.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> Do prisoners have the right to choose their fellow inmates?


I doubt it but, presumably, the prison service owes some duty of care to those that it incarcerates.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

laptop said:


> They most definitely have the right to life (if not a private life) and the right not to be assaulted or put in fear.



They have a right to life, yes, and a right not to be assaulted.  Those rights can be upheld without the need to imprison this woman alongside men.  I'm not convinved they have a right not to be in fear.  Many inmates fear fellow inmates.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I doubt it but, presumably, the prison service owes some duty of care to those that it incarcerates.



Yes, they have rights and she has rights.  The question is whether they can be accommodated.  I suspect taht could be done better than by putting her in a male prison.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> They have a right to life, yes, and a right not to be assaulted.  Those rights can be upheld without the need to imprison this woman alongside men.  I'm not convinved they have a right not to be in fear.  Many inmates fear fellow inmates.


True, but increased movement towards degendering might allow the state more flexibility in decisions about where to imprison trans-prisioners?


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> True, but increased movement towards degendering might allow the state more flexibility in decisions about where to imprison trans-prisioners?



I'm not really interested in allowing the state more flexibility in its incarceration decisions!

But, yes, you're right.  Degendering in prisons (and elsewhere) would be a good thing.  Ironically, it's arguable that trans people play a part in preventing that by consciously reinforcing gender stereotypes (albeit they are, at the same time, victims of them).


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not really interested in allowing the state more flexibility in its incarceration decisions!
> 
> But, yes, you're right.  Degendering in prisons (and elsewhere) would be a good thing.  Ironically, it's arguable that trans people play a part in preventing that by consciously reinforcing gender stereotypes (albeit they are, at the same time, victims of them).


Me neither; I was merely making the point that they may be unforeseen consequences, that play into the hands of reactionary state agencies, from successful pressure to degender.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2016)

What if one of the female inmates ends up pregnant (consensually or otherwise)? Not really a good answer to this tbh.


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> What if one of the female inmates ends up pregnant (consensually or otherwise)? Not really a good answer to this tbh.



Which is where I came in: there is probably no good answer to this one.


----------



## Thora (Jan 8, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> What if one of the female inmates ends up pregnant (consensually or otherwise)? Not really a good answer to this tbh.


The obvious answer is not putting men, especially rapists, in female prisons.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> What if one of the female inmates ends up pregnant (consensually or otherwise)? Not really a good answer to this tbh.



You don't need to put her in a male prison to avoid that.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2016)

But if this person raped someone and still has that part of the anatomy? The only thing i can think of is a special segregated wing. People (male and female) have the right not to get dressed etc and be locked up with a convicted rapist and if there's the risk of getting pregnant that also makes things a bit more complex. I just think prisons are fucking horrible places for the majority of inmates that havent done things like that.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 8, 2016)

I think each case should be decided on its merits. I have no issue with a transgender prisoner usually being placed in the prison they feel most appropriately placed in, less so a rapist.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> But if this person raped someone and still has that part of the anatomy? The only thing i can think of is a special segregated wing.



Seems the most sensible compromise to me.


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2016)

Individual prisons are where it's going.

Penal ramekins


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 8, 2016)

Presumably men who rape men go to male prisons - I believe they segregate sex offenders to some extent...  but perhaps not on remand / in all prisons.  Essentially I'm saying that the prison system already has to deal with prisoners who are put in orison for raping people of their own gender.  Surely this woman can be dealt with in the same way.

Btw - it's interesting that no one seems too concerned about ethnic minorities who are put inside alongside people guilty of racially motivated GBH etc.  Clearly rape is more terrible a crime for the person attacked, than assauly would generally be, but the risk would be of GBH becoming manslaughter/murder... and being killed is as bad as it gets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2016)

laptop said:


> Which is where I came in: there is probably no good answer to this one.


Exactly. We're looking at a system of forced incarceration and trying to work out an equitable way to do it. There isn't one. There's no reason why there should be. In fact, it would be surprising if there were.

We need to be asking far more basic questions, imo. Why do we have prisons? What do we hope to achieve through forced incarceration? For whose benefit, for whose protection, is this being done? The whole penal system appears to me to be sleepwalking through the entire process most of the time.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Presumably men who rape men go to male prisons


Yes, but this is someone who has been convicted of child-rape of a 15 year-old girl as a man, being incarcerated with women.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2016)

The trans woman who raped a 15 yr old girl and admitted to being a paedophile (when found with indecent images of children), and who hasn't undergone any treatment or physical changes, will no doubt be put in a nonce wing.  It feels to me like s/he should be in a male prison, he's still a man isn't he?  Is it enough just to say, I feel like I'm a woman, and then to 'become' a woman?  I suspect I'll get slaughtered for this post, but these are genuine questions.  Sorry if they cause offence to anyone.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Presumably men who rape men go to male prisons - I believe they segregate sex offenders to some extent...  but perhaps not on remand / in all prisons.  Essentially I'm saying that the prison system already has to deal with prisoners who are put in orison for raping people of their own gender.  Surely this woman can be dealt with in the same way.
> 
> Btw - it's interesting that no one seems too concerned about ethnic minorities who are put inside alongside people guilty of racially motivated GBH etc.  Clearly rape is more terrible a crime for the person attacked, than assauly would generally be, but the risk would be of GBH becoming manslaughter/murder... and being killed is as bad as it gets.



I remember the dreadful case of a young Asian man made to share a cell with a known racist violent bastard, who ended  up killing him.  The fucking screws were, imo, in part responsible for his murder.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2016)

shygirl said:


> I remember the dreadful case of a young Asian man made to share a cell with a known racist violent bastard, who ended  up killing him.  The fucking screws were, imo, in part responsible for his murder.


Robbie Stewart - later ended up begging anarchists to support him (and got himself a good rep as a prisoners lawyer). No one done for the choices made.


----------



## LDC (Jan 8, 2016)

Indeed, I've just had (another) very long discussion about rape survivor services (among other things) being open to anyone that identifies as a women. Should this be _whoever_ says they're a woman, at any stage, even if it their presence is triggering to those people in the group? And what about (the very very rare now) women only spaces that exclude trans women? Is that ever OK? What about in groups of survivors of sexual abuse who can't talk in front of people they think of as men?


----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Robbie Stewart - later ended up begging anarchists to support him (and got himself a good rep as a prisoners lawyer). No one done for the choices made.



Swines, they knew the risks to that poor lad.  I seem to recall the family had asked that he be moved, to no avail.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2016)

shygirl said:


> Swines, they knew the risks to that poor lad.  I seem to recall the family had asked that he be moved, to no avail.


There was a really bad dramatisation made of it last year. Stewart said he was going to be the first to kill inside in the new millennium. Not sure if he got his record.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2016)

How can a man, who identifies as a woman, really, truely understand some of the issues faced by a life-time of being female?  As much as he identifies as female, he is unlikely to have faced the same experiences/oppression as girls/women.   Wouldn't it better if trans women/men formed trans support groups for really sensitive issues such as sexual abuse, rather than joining gender specific groups where they might inhibit people's ability to share/discuss their experiences?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 8, 2016)

Probably if you had a prison system based on small scale rehabilitative communities than on the mass production lines you have now it might be possible to tailor them to individual prisoners instead of trying to come up with rules which will work in any situation.




shygirl said:


> The trans woman who raped a 15 yr old girl and admitted to being a paedophile (when found with indecent images of children), and who hasn't undergone any treatment or physical changes, will no doubt be put in a nonce wing.  It feels to me like s/he should be in a male prison, he's still a man isn't he?  Is it enough just to say, I feel like I'm a woman, and then to 'become' a woman?  I suspect I'll get slaughtered for this post, but these are genuine questions.  Sorry if they cause offence to anyone.



I don't think what you're saying is offensive at all but maybe its important to recognise this as a specific case rather than draw up any generalisable rules from it.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2016)

Of course, that goes without saying.


----------



## Reno (Jan 8, 2016)

shygirl said:


> How can a man, who identifies as a woman, really, truely understand some of the issues faced by a life-time of being female?  As much as he identifies as female, he is unlikely to have faced the same experiences/oppression as girls/women.   Wouldn't it better if trans women/men formed trans support groups for really sensitive issues such as sexual abuse, rather than joining gender specific groups where they might inhibit people's ability to share/discuss their experiences?


Most transwomen don't claim to "truly understand" all of the issues faced by a life-time of being female and they generally don't all rush out to join women's groups. However one problem they face is that there aren't that many of them so unless they are in a large city, there wouldn't be enough of them to form trans support groups for specific issues like for instance a rape or a domestic abuse support group. So where are they supposed to go if they get raped or assaulted ? Transwomen come in for a lot of discrimination, violence and abuse. There also have been cases where transwomen have been excluded from all women spaces like music festivals which does strike me as discriminatory and petty.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

And again, I'm curious to know what we do about women who have been victims of serios sexual assualt ad child sexual abuse at the hands of other women.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

shygirl said:


> How can a [trans woman], really, truely understand some of the issues faced by a life-time of being female?  As much as [she] identifies as female, [she] is unlikely to have faced the same experiences/oppression as girls/women.   Wouldn't it better if trans women/men formed trans support groups for really sensitive issues such as sexual abuse, rather than joining gender specific groups where they might inhibit people's ability to share/discuss their experiences?


Sorry, but if you don't intend to cause offense - and I believe you don't - the corrections above are really important.

Trans people are no longer their birth gender.  It is not at all acceptable to refer to a trans woman as a man, or call her "he".

E2A - However,the rest of your question is interesting.  I suppose i'd say that i don't think it matters very much, unless you're imagining a situation in which trans women started telling cis women that they were wrong about their experiences of growing up a cis female child.  

I also would be mindful that no  matter what oppression cis women like myself have experienced, it likely is in many ways outweighed by terrible experiences common to the childhoods, adolescences, and adulthoods of almost all trans women.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> And again, I'm curious to know what we do about women who have been victims of serios sexual assualt ad child sexual abuse at the hands of other women.


Who is is this curiosity directed at? Is it a general question or one directed at someone making a case on here? It sounds like the latter.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Who is is this curiosity directed at? Is it a general question or one directed at someone making a case on here? It sounds like the latter.


sorry, you're quite right - lazy lack of quoting. It was addressed primarily to LynnDoyleCooper above.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but this is someone who has been convicted of child-rape of a 15 year-old girl as a man, being incarcerated with women.


Two things -if she's  a paedophile, my understanding is that the adult women in prison are in not particular danger. 

But my previous  point still stands - how is it different to a man convicted of raping a 15 year old boy being sent to prison with men? In terms of risk to other inmates?


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> And again, I'm curious to know what we do about women who have been victims of serios sexual assualt ad child sexual abuse at the hands of other women.


Sounds like the usual "what about" derailing of any discussion of women's issues - women murdered by their partners? "But what about women who commit domestic violence".  Male rapists/violent offenders in female prisons? "But what about women who are rapists?" etc etc etc


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> And again, I'm curious to know what we do about women who have been victims of serios sexual assualt ad child sexual abuse at the hands of other women.



I honestly don't know, but I do think there are some really difficult and complex questions.

But I do know that the vast majority of sexual offences are committed by men against women, so asking what happens to the minority of women who have sexual offenses committed against them by other women is at best not that relevant, and at worst could be seen as derailing and marginalizing the other issues.


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> But my previous  point still stands - how is it different to a man convicted of raping a 15 year old boy being sent to prison with men? In terms of risk to other inmates?



Structurally deep seated and unequal power relations between women and men that are different between men?


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

Genuine question spanglechick, what's your opinion on people being treated (legally as in this case) as a different gender to the one they were born as...

Do you think we should treat a man that says they're a woman as a woman from the first point they say that's the gender they now identify as, or do you think there needs to be some period of transition before that happens?


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Sounds like the usual "what about" derailing of any discussion of women's issues - women murdered by their partners? "But what about women who commit domestic violence".  Male rapists/violent offenders in female prisons? "But what about women who are rapists?" etc etc etc





LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I honestly don't know, but I do think there are some really difficult and complex questions.
> 
> But I do know that the vast majority of sexual offences are committed by men against women, so asking what happens to the minority of women who have sexual offenses committed against them by other women is at best not that relevant, and at worst could be seen as derailing and marginalizing the other issues.



I'm not saying "what about" in the sense of "well this happens to those people too, so let's dismisss these other people's problem" - it's just, we're looking for a solution to a difficult problem. We can't just pretend abused trans women don't exist, or pretend they are men. Equally, we can't pretend that some cis women who have been abused by men might not feel inhibited or scared by the presence of trans women in refuges or shelters.  

When a problem with no easy solution presents itself, it's surely wise to look at how that problem is resolved in its closest analogous situations?  What do refuges do to allay those similar fears and inhibitions of women abused by other women? Can that help us here? Can we learn from those women's experiences of dealing wth a similar situation?

Unless you have a better way of trying to solve the problem so that all women, trans and cis, are respected n their fears and needs?


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

And we can't pretend that women aren't actually at risk from male bodied people.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Genuine question spanglechick, what's your opinion on people being treated (legally as in this case) as a different gender to the one they were born as...
> 
> Do you think we should treat a man that says they're a woman as a woman from the first point they say that's the gender they now identify as, or do you think there needs to be some period of transition before that happens?


It's complex, because some people identify as gender fluid, or as neither gender, so it's not just a binary situation.

As I understand it (and being cisgendered, I can't speak from experience, nor can anyone claim to speak for all trangendered people) being transgendered is not ever an out of the blue choice. Even if the trans person is naming their real gender for the first time, they will have a history of that gender identity which goes back to childhood.  They will be able to articulate (those some may need the support of therapy to feel able to do so) a near lifelong existance of their gender being at odds to their biology.  Although of course, this stuff is as persona as it gets, and have no obligation to tell that stuff to all and sundry. That person is trans gender. It is not necessary for biological transformation to occur (and woud be inappropriate for non-binary people). 

A period of transition is a difficult concept, because that person has been their trans gender for pretty much their whole life. The transition is into publically taking on the labelling of their trans gender.


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> It's complex, because some people identify as gender fluid, or as neither gender, so it's not just a binary situation.
> 
> As I understand it (and being cisgendered, I can't speak from experience, nor can anyone claim to speak for all trangendered people) being transgendered is not ever an out of the blue choice. Even if the trans person is naming their real gender for the first time, they will have a history of that gender identity which goes back to childhood.  They will be able to articulate (those some may need the support of therapy to feel able to do so) a near lifelong existance of their gender being at odds to their biology.  Although of course, this stuff is as persona as it gets, and have no obligation to tell that stuff to all and sundry. That person is trans gender. It is not necessary for biological transformation to occur (and woud be inappropriate for non-binary people).
> 
> A period of transition is a difficult concept, because that person has been their trans gender for pretty much their whole life. The transition is into publically taking on the labelling of their trans gender.



Thanks for your answer.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> And we can't pretend that women aren't actually at risk from male bodied people.


Yes. That too.  Perhaps i'm wrong though, but my understanding is that there is a very low risk of trans women sexually assaulting / raping other women.  Statistically the same sort of risk as any woman sexually assaulting other women.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Yes. That too.  Perhaps i'm wrong though, but my understanding is that there is a very low risk of trans women sexually assaulting / raping other women.  Statistically the same sort of risk as any woman sexually assaulting other women.


It would be interesting to see where those stats come from.  I have seen written elsewhere that transwomen offend at the same rate as men.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

How are the statistics on rapists raping women?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Yes. That too.  Perhaps i'm wrong though, but my understanding is that there is a very low risk of trans women sexually assaulting / raping other women.  Statistically the same sort of risk as any woman sexually assaulting other women.


What is your source for this?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Yes. That too.  Perhaps i'm wrong though, but my understanding is that there is a very low risk of trans women sexually assaulting / raping other women.  Statistically the same sort of risk as any woman sexually assaulting other women.





Thora said:


> It would be interesting to see where those stats come from.  I have seen written elsewhere that transwomen offend at the same rate as men.



Would be interesting to know the truth about this.  Do either of you have any evidence to support?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

The only thing I can see is this:

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

It suggests that trams women's criminality is more akin to that of men than to that of cis women, this includes violent crime, though does not seem to refer specifically to sexual offending.

'Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.'

That said, I would attach no weight to the study at this stage, without knowing a lot more about what was done, by whom, how and for what purpose.

Furthermore, I'm not sure decisions about how prisoners should be accommodated ought to be made on a statistical basis, anyway.

And, let's not forget that the statistics show much more clearly how vulnerable trains women are to becoming victims of crime.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> It would be interesting to see where those stats come from.  I have seen written elsewhere that transwomen offend at the same rate as men.





crossthebreeze said:


> What is your source for this?


I have no source - and apologise if i presented a general understanding as a verified fact.  My understanding was as a result of the reaction to the study published a year or so back, which was used by a lot of terf sites to claim that trans women are all out to infiltrate female spaces for nefarious purposes.

As I remember (and forgive me if i'm wrong) the study said oonly that trans women offend at the same rate as cis men, but did not break those stas down into comparing crimes aginst women, or sexual crimes - and to imagine that someone for whom gender was such a germaine issue would respond to gender dynamics in the same way as cis men seems iike an awfully big leap.  If there's other research which does actually prove the idea, i'm surprised the TERF aren't all over it.

What there is lots of data on, is that trans women are mch more likely to expeerience sexual assault and rape than cis women, so the matter of how we provide for these women is ver important.


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> It would be interesting to see where those stats come from.  I have seen written elsewhere that transwomen offend at the same rate as men.



Transwomen get into trouble with the law at a higher rate than women but not because of the same type of crimes men commit, especially not sex crimes. There is a disportionately high number of sex workers among transwomen. That's because gender realignment treatment and surgery is tremendously expensive and in many places there is no financial support for it. The only way to make the money is via prostitution or pornography and for many transwoman it's either that or suicide.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> As I remember (and forgive me if i'm wrong) the study said oonly that trans women offend at the same rate as cis men, but did not break those stas down into comparing crimes aginst women, or sexual crimes - and to imagine that someone for whom gender was such a germaine issue would respond to gender dynamics in the same way as cis men seems iike an awfully big leap.  If there's other research which does actually prove the idea, i'm surprised the TERF aren't all over it.


I'd like to have a look at that research, and see how it factors in socio-ecomonic factors. As Reno points out, many transwomen find themselves on the margins of society, and on the margins of legality, just in order to survive. You're not comparing like with like if you compare a group skewed in this direction with the general population. It's meaningless.


----------



## toggle (Jan 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Presumably the right(s) of other women prisoners not to be incarcerated with a convicted rapist?


this assuming that women can't be sexual predators.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd like to have a look at that research, and see how it factors in socio-ecomonic factors. As Reno points out, many transwomen find themselves on the margins of society, and on the margins of legality, just in order to survive. You're not comparing like with like if you compare a group skewed in this direction with the general population. It's meaningless.


But, if the statistics are being used to assess the risk to cis women of being locked up with trans women, then the socio economic causes for trans women's offending is neither here nor there, in the immediate term.  That said, I don't think the statistics should be used that way, even if they were sufficient (which, from what I've seen, they're not).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> But, if the statistics are being used to assess the risk to cis women of being locked up with trans women, then the socio economic causes for trans women's offending is neither here nor there, in the immediate term.  That said, I don't think the statistics should be used that way, even if they were sufficient (which, from what I've seen, they're not).


It is both here and there. 'offending' isn't some homogeneous whole.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is both here and there. 'offending' isn't some homogeneous whole.



Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that if the statistics were sufficient to point towards an increased risk of sex offending against women by trans women, then the cause of that offending is neither here nor there, from an immediate risk assessment perspective. (Whilst saying I'm not sure the figures show that, or should be used in that way, even if they did.) I don't deny your point that trans women are more likely to be forced into crime by their situation, and that this increase in numbers doesn't show the pattern of offending as compared to that of men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that if the statistics were sufficient to point towards an increased risk of sex offending against women by trans women, then the cause of that offending is neither here nor there, from an immediate risk assessment perspective. (Whilst saying I'm not sure the figures show that, or should be used in that way, even if they did.) I don't deny your point that trans women are more likely to be forced into crime by their situation, and that this increase in numbers doesn't show the pattern of offending as compared to that of men.


ok fair dos. I misunderstood.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Ironically, it's arguable that trans people play a part in preventing that by consciously reinforcing gender stereotypes (albeit they are, at the same time, victims of them).



How is it arguable that trans people consciously reinforce gender stereotypes any more than non-trans people do?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> But if this person raped someone and still has that part of the anatomy? The only thing i can think of is a special segregated wing. People (male and female) have the right not to get dressed etc and be locked up with a convicted rapist and if there's the risk of getting pregnant that also makes things a bit more complex. I just think prisons are fucking horrible places for the majority of inmates that havent done things like that.



I hate to tell you this but prisoners are routinely locked up with sex offenders, nonces, even murderers and many cases of sexual abuse in prison have involved male (and female) screws, not transgender inmates.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> How is it arguable that trans people consciously reinforce gender stereotypes any more than non-trans people do?


By explicitly embracing the binary distinction.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> By explicitly embracing the binary distinction.



Not all of them do though do they? Plenty of non binary trans people around


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Not all of them do though do they? Plenty of non binary trans people around


Yes, you're right. I should have said female-to-male or male-to-female trans people.

Worth repeating that, at the same time, they're victims of that distinction.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

And the many trans people I've met and encountered over the years are just as diverse in their gender expression as cis people. 

No double standards from cis privileged people. Oh noes.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> By explicitly embracing the binary distinction.



take a walk down the street and see how many people don't do that.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I hate to tell you this but prisoners are routinely locked up with sex offenders, nonces, even murderers and many cases of sexual abuse in prison have involved male (and female) screws, not transgender inmates.



Yeah I know, maybe I am wrong but I thought those prisoners were usually segregated from 'normal' prisoners, don't see why this can't be done here with this rapist


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> take a walk down the street and see how many people don't do that.



Fair enough. Maybe would have been fairer to say that they are equally responsible for perpetuating that system, notwithstanding that they suffer most as a result of it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Fair enough. Maybe would have been fairer to say that they are equally responsible for perpetuating that system, notwithstanding that they suffer most as a result of it.



Yeah the minority of trans people are _equally_ responsible for perpetuating that system than the majority of cis people.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Yeah the minority of trans people are _equally_ responsible for perpetuating that system than the majority of cis people.


At the level of individuals within each group.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah I know, maybe I am wrong but I thought those prisoners were usually segregated from 'normal' prisoners, don't see why this can't be done here



well it could, thats the point really, and she'll probably end up segregated in a male prison anyway


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Fair enough. Maybe would have been fairer to say that they are equally responsible for perpetuating that system, notwithstanding that they suffer most as a result of it.



interesting how often this has come up on this thread though, almost as if gender is so embedded and comfortable for non-trans people that they don't even notice that they also reproduce it, it's only when it is transcended it becomes visible.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah I know, maybe I am wrong but I thought those prisoners were usually segregated from 'normal' prisoners, don't see why this can't be done here with this rapist


Probably go to a men's prison, then housed on the nonce wing for her own protection.  Whilst this seems the best pragmatic solution, it's conceptually very different from her going to a woman's prison, and whether she should then be segregated for the protection of the other women.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> interesting how often this has come up on this thread though, almost as if gender is so embedded and comfortable for non-trans people that they don't even notice that they also reproduce it, it's only when it is transcended it becomes visible.


True enough. Though there's arguably a difference between the unconscious reinforcement of gender, and the explicit embracing of it.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> True enough. Though there's arguably a difference between the unconscious reinforcement of gender, and the explicit embracing of it.



tell me again how trans people explicitly embrace gender more than non trans people?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> tell me again how trans people explicitly embrace gender more than non trans people?


You acknowledged yourself that, for cis people, it's 'embedded.' I took that to mean unconscious. My point was simply that there's a qualitative difference between unconscious and conscious action.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> You acknowledged yourself that, for cis people, it's 'embedded.' I took that to mean unconscious. My point was simply that there's a qualitative difference between unconscious and conscious action.



embedded doesn't mean unconscious, you consciously choose your clothes in the morning despite having an articulate criticism of gender don't you?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> embedded doesn't mean unconscious, you consciously choose your clothes in the morning despite having an articulate criticism of gender don't you?


I don't consciously dress to express my gender, no.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't consciously dress to express my gender, no.


(assuming you're not a cross-dresser) you are consciously aware that you dress in men's rather than women's clothes, though. You are consciously aware that you shop in Top Man, not Dorothy Perkins, say.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't consciously dress to express my gender, no.



I presume you'll be wearing a dress then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Presumably men who rape men go to male prisons - I believe they segregate sex offenders to some extent...  but perhaps not on remand / in all prisons.  Essentially I'm saying that the prison system already has to deal with prisoners who are put in orison for raping people of their own gender.  Surely this woman can be dealt with in the same way.



Segregation is mostly at the request of individual inmates - a relative few are segregated for their own safety by prison authorities - and usually results in the inmate being taken out of the general population and stuck in the prison's "vulnerable prisoners unit". Not all prisons have them, but most Category A and B prisons do, and remand prisoners *can* request segregation to a VPU. 



> Btw - it's interesting that no one seems too concerned about ethnic minorities who are put inside alongside people guilty of racially motivated GBH etc.  Clearly rape is more terrible a crime for the person attacked, than assauly would generally be, but the risk would be of GBH becoming manslaughter/murder... and being killed is as bad as it gets.



One of the reason there's little concern about that in penal circles is that the hard right are in a tiny minority in English and Welsh prisons - except among the staff (seriously) - so BaME inmates tend to be able to look after themselves. They shouldn't *have* to, but tend to.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

It has never occurred to me to wear anything other than stereotypically male clothes; that's the point of my choice of those clothes being unconscious, in the sense that I haven't consciously selected them for the purpose of conforming with, and thereby perpetuating a gender stereotype (albeit that I am perpetuating it unconsciously).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> What if one of the female inmates ends up pregnant (consensually or otherwise)? Not really a good answer to this tbh.



Happens already in womens' prisons, sadly.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Anyway, next time I'm out with my (trans women) mates I'll let them know they're doing it wrong with their jeans and tops. Now we have some men 'plaining stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> *It has never occurred to me to wear anything other than stereotypically male clothes*; that's the point of my choice of those clothes being unconscious, in the sense that I haven't consciously selected them for the purpose of conforming with, and thereby perpetuating a gender stereotype (albeit that I am perpetuating it unconsciously).


You're aware of the existence of the possibility, though. Only a small child thinks it's _impossible_ for a man to dress in women's clothes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2016)

shygirl said:


> I remember the dreadful case of a young Asian man made to share a cell with a known racist violent bastard, who ended  up killing him.  The fucking screws were, imo, in part responsible for his murder.



Feltham. Violent shit-hole staffed by sexual inadequates (don't ask) and amoral right-wing scumbags.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Probably if you had a prison system based on small scale rehabilitative communities than on the mass production lines you have now it might be possible to tailor them to individual prisoners instead of trying to come up with rules which will work in any situation.



Where such ideas have been tried, they generally have a lower recidivism rate. The problem is that governments such as we've had in the UK for the last 36 years are loath to support such initiatives for fear of being represented as "soft on crime", so instead they follow a media agenda which is, in turn, an Establishment agenda, and we're left with "warehouses", plus the occasional rarity like HMP Grendon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> And again, I'm curious to know what we do about women who have been victims of serios sexual assualt ad child sexual abuse at the hands of other women.



In a perfect world, a judge would take such issues into consideration when sentencing. In the real world, that doesn't happen nearly often enough, and people get thrown to the wolves.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, next time I'm out with my (trans women) mates I'll let them know they're doing it wrong with their jeans and tops. Now we have some men 'plaining stuff.



Or you could ask them whether making visible changes in order to conform to a sterotype perpetuates that stereotype.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Would be interesting to know the truth about this.  Do either of you have any evidence to support?



IIRC Human Rights Watch did research into male-on-male rape in US prisons that established (at least across their admittedly small sample) that such rapes were slightly more likely to be carried out by inmates convicted of raping women. I'd love to such a study repeated once every 5 years or so to see whether the original data pans out as a trend. if so, it'd certainly reinforce the "rape is more about power than about sex" position very strongly.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're aware of the existence of the possibility, though. Only a small child thinks it's _impossible_ for a man to dress in women's clothes.



Of course.  But that doesn't undermine the point I was making, at all.  I know it's possible to wear clothes to express a particular stereotypical gender identity; I have never consciously done that.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> IIRC Human Rights Watch did research into male-on-male rape in US prisons that established (at least across their admittedly small sample) that such rapes were slightly more likely to be carried out by inmates convicted of raping women. I'd love to such a study repeated once every 5 years or so to see whether the original data pans out as a trend. if so, it'd certainly reinforce the "rape is more about power than about sex" position very strongly.



Interesting, but not evidence of either of the assertions I was questioning.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Of course.  But that doesn't undermine the point I was making, at all.  I know it's possible to wear clothes to express a particular stereotypical gender identity; I have never consciously done that.


really? How is it that you've avoided wearing dresses, skirts or blouses by accident, then? (assuming that you have)

It may be that you have never reflected on the meaning of what you're doing. But that's not quite the same as doing it un- or sub-consciously.


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Of course.  But that doesn't undermine the point I was making, at all.  I know it's possible to wear clothes to express a particular stereotypical gender identity; I have never consciously done that.


What is the ongoing point of this reasoning ?


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> its important to recognise this as a specific case rather than draw up any generalisable rules from it.


Apparently there is an overall trans prison population of around 80 people. I think with such a small number of people - who will have a huge variation in how they see themselves, how they present, what crimes they're incarcerated for, what risks they present and what things they're at risk from etc, there can't be a generalisable rule.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> really? How is it that you've avoided wearing dresses, skirts or blouses by accident, then? (assuming that you have)
> 
> It may be that you have never reflected on the meaning of what you're doing. But that's not quite the same as doing it un- or sub-consciously.



It's about conscious motivation.  I have never been consciously motivated to dress for the purpose of expresing my gender.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> What is the ongoing point of this reasoning ?



It is ongoing becasue myself and others are responding to one another.


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> It is ongoing becasue myself and others are responding to one another.


It's very repetitive and says nothing of value about trans people.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> It's about conscious motivation.  I have never been consciously motivated to dress for the purpose of expresing my gender.



Oh come off it. Stop playing the 'I'm so much more insightful than trans people in regards to my gender expression' cis posturing. Seen it all before. Fucking middle class male lawyer aren't you? Really.

Reno's right. I'm out of this toss.


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

Be interesting to know how many of those stated 80 are in for anything involving anything remotely serious. If it's anything like reasons for the imprisonment for most women generally they'll all be in for TV license avoidance, shoplifting, and minor drugs offenses. So basically they shouldn't even be locked up (accepting some liberal criminal justice as a basis for this discussion ).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're aware of the existence of the possibility, though. Only a small child thinks it's _impossible_ for a man to dress in women's clothes.



Seems a bit back to front that, I'd say small children are the least likely to have an issue with a man dressing in "womens" clothes. I think most small children would be less taken aback at that than my nan for example.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Oh come off it. Stop playing the 'I'm so much more insightful than trans people in regards to my gender expression' cis posturing. Seen it all before. Fucking middle class male lawyer aren't you? Really.
> 
> Reno's right. Out of this toss.



I'm not playing any game; in the post you've quoted, I've stated that I've never dressed with the conscious motivation to express my gender.  DO you presume to know better than me my own expression (or not) of my gender?

I'm neither middle class, nor a lawyer (any more).


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> It's very repetitive and says nothing of value about trans people.



It's repetitive becasue I've been asked to clarify/challanged.


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

I love it when little kids are dressed as a random crazy animal like a dinosaur and nobody bats an eye, and then someone sees them wearing something pink/blue (delete according to boring and predictable gender stereotype) and people start freaking out that the kid is going to grow up with a confused gender identity.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Oh come off it. Stop playing the 'I'm so much more insightful than trans people in regards to my gender expression' cis posturing. Seen it all before. Fucking middle class male lawyer aren't you? Really.
> 
> Reno's right. I'm out of this toss.



Chill out.

Think what Athos is trying to say is that trans people _could_ generally be understood as rejecting the gender binary they were assigned at birth in favour of the opposite gender binary, which doesn't neccessarily always marry very well with a conception of gender as a spectrum. He's not denying anyone their right to define their own gender or claiming to understand how trans people feel or owt. You can disagree with him if you like but give it a page or two before you accuse him of being a lawyer, that's a bit harsh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Seems a bit back to front that, I'd say small children are the least likely to have an issue with a man dressing in "womens" clothes. I think most small children would be less taken aback at that than my nan for example.


Kids tend to have very rigid ideas about gender. They're trying to work this stuff out, and start off with rather inflexible notions.


----------



## cesare (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Chill out.
> 
> Think what Athos is trying to say is that trans people _could_ generally be understood as rejecting the gender binary they were assigned at birth in favour of the opposite gender binary, which doesn't neccessarily always marry very well with a conception of gender as a spectrum. He's not denying anyone their right to define their own gender or claiming to understand how trans people feel or owt. You can disagree with him if you like but give it a page or two before you accuse him of being a lawyer, that's a bit harsh.


He is a qualified lawyer - he's just not practising atm. He gives legal advice on the boards and disputes legal points with practising lawyers;  it's not unreasonable for stethoscope to describe him as a lawyer.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Chill out.
> 
> Think what Athos is trying to say is that trans people _could_ generally be understood as rejecting the gender binary they were assigned at birth in favour of the opposite gender binary, which doesn't neccessarily always marry very well with a conception of gender as a spectrum. He's not denying anyone their right to define their own gender or claiming to understand how trans people feel or owt. You can disagree with him if you like but give it a page or two before you accuse him of being a lawyer, that's a bit harsh.



I've seen this all before, including on this thread from Athos. And as someone who isn't cis (which I realise is a clumsy way of writing it but it's a bit complicated), I'm fucked right off with this bullshit.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

cesare said:


> He is a qualified lawyer - he's just not practising atm. He gives legal advice on the boards and disputes legal points with practising lawyers;  it's not unreasonable for stethoscope to describe him as a lawyer.



Whoops, fair! Sorry.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

cesare said:


> He is a qualified lawyer - he's just not practising atm. He gives legal advice on the boards and disputes legal points with practising lawyers;  it's not unreasonable for stethoscope to describe him as a lawyer.



But I explicity identify as a non-lawyer.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> I've seen this all before, including on this thread from Athos. And as someone who isn't cis (which I realise is a clumsy way of writing it but it's a bit complicated), I'm fucked right off with this bullshit.



Fair enough, if its a continuation of summat I've missed you have at it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> I've seen this all before, including on this thread from Athos. And as someone who isn't cis (which I realise is a clumsy way of writing it but it's a bit complicated), I'm fucked right off with this bullshit.



The fact that you've seen it before, and that it fucks you off, doesn't say anything about its value.


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> I've seen this all before, including on this thread from Athos. And as someone who isn't cis (which I realise is a clumsy way of writing it but it's a bit complicated), I'm fucked right off with this bullshit.



Why? It's a discussion about gender. It affects all of us. All of us have the capacity to observe its effects (and some more than others the capacity to analyse those observations interestingly).

There are* trans people whose conscious expression of binary roles outdoes almost everyone else's.

(*In the spirit of Athos' analysis, I could say "there exists at least one" and "I'm looking at you, Jan Morris". But that would be misunderstood by those who don't want anyone to analyse.)


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Think what Athos is trying to say is... He's not denying anyone their right to define their own gender or claiming to understand how trans people feel or owt.



But it's much easier to cast someone as a hater, then dismiss what they have to say, than it is to engage with the substance.


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

Anyway, while this topic is being discussed this project is relevant, and always needs support of all kinds...

Home | Bent Bars Project
The Bent Bars Project is a letter-writing project for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, gender-variant, intersex, and queer prisoners in Britain. The project was founded in 2009, responding to a clear need to develop stronger connections and build solidarity between LGBTQ communities inside and outside prison walls.


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

laptop said:


> Why? It's a discussion about gender. It affects all of us. All of us have the capacity to observe its effects (and some more than others the capacity to analyse those observations interestingly).
> 
> *There are* trans people whose conscious expression of binary roles outdoes almost everyone else's.*
> 
> (*In the spirit of Athos' analysis, I could say "there exists at least one" and "I'm looking at you, Jan Morris". But that would be misunderstood by those who don't want anyone to analyse.)



...and there are cis people for whom the same is true:


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> ...and there are cis people for whom the same is true:



Hence my deliberate use of the word "almost".


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> I've stated that I've never dressed with the conscious motivation to express my gender.  DO you presume to know better than me my own expression (or not) of my gender?



I don't presume to know your gender expression better than you, but I still call bullshit that 'you've never dressed with the conscious motivation to express your gender'. Everybody does at some point, and most cis people do all the time, regardless of whether that dress matches the usual expected/norms of gender based upon your assigned sex (or not). It's just cis posturing from those that hold trans people up to higher scrutiny.

And I certainly didn't think I was painting you as a 'hater'? I was calling you out that's all where I think you're privilege is showing. So, will leave it there.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

Talking of dressing, has anyone read this article about Jaden Smith?  Why Jaden Smith as the face of LV womenswear is threatening transgender territory
I can't tell if it is a spoof or not


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

laptop said:


> Hence my deliberate use of the word "almost".


In the end even with the "almost" in place, what is the point of your statement ? Both cis and trans people are on a wide spectrum when it comes to gender expression.

At least be honest and just say what you mean, the old prejudice that trans women are caricatures of real women. You are carefully veiling an insidious stereotype. Of course you are going to act all innocent next and pretend that this isn't what you meant.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Talking of dressing, has anyone read this article about Jaden Smith?  Why Jaden Smith as the face of LV womenswear is threatening transgender territory
> I can't tell if it is a spoof or not



The piece is a load of shit that's for sure.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kids tend to have very rigid ideas about gender. They're trying to work this stuff out, and start off with rather inflexible notions.


They don't start out with them. They are pushed into them.


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> You are carefully veiling an insidious stereotype. Of course you are going to act all innocent next and pretend that this isn't what you meant.



Er, OK, you know what's in my mind better than I do 

You, on the other hand, probably unconsciously, propagate the myth and prejudice that "trans people" are exclusively those who now identify as women


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> I don't presume to know your gender expression better than you, but I still call bullshit that 'you've never dressed with the conscious motivation to express your gender'. Everybody does at some point, and most cis people do all the time, regardless of whether that dress matches the usual expected/norms of gender based upon your assigned sex (or not). It's just cis posturing from those that hold trans people up to higher scrutiny.
> 
> And I certainly didn't think I was painting you as a 'hater'? I was calling you out that's all where I think you're privilege is showing. So, will leave it there.


Your argument turns entirely on you purporting to know my motivations better than I do.


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Talking of dressing, has anyone read this article about Jaden Smith?  Why Jaden Smith as the face of LV womenswear is threatening transgender territory
> I can't tell if it is a spoof or not



Jaden Smith has been in the media for dressing in women's clothes for a couple of years now. Why that is is really up to him. He could be doing it for many reasons, including eventually coming out as transgender (or being a transvestite, or being just fashion conscious)  He is privileged, he is attractive, he is in the public eye so his experimenting with gender fluidity will be very public and can be monetised.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

laptop said:


> Er, OK, you know what's in my mind better than I do


Reno has a point, though. Why say this? Isn't it just liable to sound like it's conflating transwomen with drag queens? Drag queens _are_ generally caricatures of feminine stereotypes. But they are also generally gay men, not transwomen.


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

laptop said:


> Er, OK, you know what's in my mind better than I do
> 
> You, on the other hand, probably unconsciously, propagate the myth and prejudice that "trans people" are exclusively those who now identify as women


Considering I have a good mate who is a transman, I don't think so.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> Jaden Smith has been in the media for dressing in women's clothes for a couple of years now. Why that is is really up to him. He could be doing it for many reasons, including eventually coming out as transgender (or being a transvestite, or being just fashion conscious)  He is privileged, he is attractive, he is in the public eye so his experimenting with gender fluidity will be very public and can be monetised.


Are you saying the author's concern is reasonable?


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

What kind of prison should transmen go to?  Are there any transmen in the prison system?


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Are you saying the author's concern is reasonable?


I don't think it is reasonable because experimenting with gender fluidity isn't exclusive to transpeople. People do it for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Your argument turns entirely on you purporting to know my motivations better than I do.



One can only assume that you unconciously go the men's section of clothes shops all the time then, and unconciously buy men's stuff you like which you then unconciously wear. Why not buy and wear some nice ladieswear if you like it and its an unconscious decision?

(Perhaps you do of course)


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Reno has a point, though. Why say this? Isn't it just liable to sound like it's conflating transwomen with drag queens? Drag queens _are_ generally caricatures of feminine stereotypes. But they are also generally gay men, not transwomen.



Neither of you read my footnote, with an actual example. I used to know Jan Morris. An actual trans person.


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Talking of dressing, has anyone read this article about Jaden Smith?  Why Jaden Smith as the face of LV womenswear is threatening transgender territory
> I can't tell if it is a spoof or not



I don't _think_ it is a spoof:



> The danger for trans women is that if wearing what are traditionally women’s clothes becomes the norm for men too, then trans women will no longer be able to rely on these props to help them display a female gender identity - and for many, that could be a serious problem.
> 
> Of course it will take time - a long, long time even - for things to change to the extent where men wearing skirts and girly stuff will be totally acceptable.
> 
> But trans people should be aware that well-known faces like Jaden Smith are starting to encroach on our territory.  They’re starting to wear the trans uniform without actually stating that they are transgender, and they’re claiming it for themselves under the guise of gender-neutral fashion. All of which begs the question: where does that leave us?


----------



## Reno (Jan 9, 2016)

laptop said:


> Neither of you read my footnote, with an actual example. I used to know Jan Morris. An actual trans person.


So fucking what ? Being queer I'm around transgender people all the time.

What is the point in making the statement you made other than perpetuating a stereotype ? Nobody is saying stereotypes can't be true, but they don't grasp the wide spectrum of gender expression which is the case for all genders and sexualities. I may know a "real" woman who could be described as hyper feminised. But so what ? She doesn't represent all women and it's not something I bring up on every thread about "women" or feminism. And the same is true for Jan Morris.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> One can only assume that you unconciously go the men's section of clothes shops all the time then, and buy men's stuff you like which you then wear. Why not buy and wear some nice ladieswear if you like it and its an unconscious decision?
> 
> (Perhaps you do of course)



To be honest, I've only been clothes shopping a handful of times in the last 20 years; the Mrs buys my clothes.  I'll ask her if she's ever made a conscious decision not to dress me as a woman.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

laptop said:


> Neither of you read my footnote, with an actual example. I used to know Jan Morris. An actual trans person.



Because no one else on this thread knows an actual trans person?

(I know who Jan Morris is btw)


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> To be honest, I've only been clothes shopping a handful of times in the last 20 years; the Mrs buys my clothes.  I'll ask her if she's ever made a conscious decision not to dress me as a woman.



Alright, whatever


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> What kind of prison should transmen go to?  Are there any transmen in the prison system?


Male prisons. I'm not sure why that would be in question either.  Trans men are men.  Trans women are women.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Kids (smaller children, rather than teens) can be remarkably laid back about seeing/perceiving visibly trans people and enquiring, my experience/observations are that adults find it more concerning than their children.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Male prisons. I'm not sure why that would be in question either.  Trans men are men.  Trans women are women.


That would be my starting point. Then, within that estate, the question of whether they need to be segregated (for their safety, or that of the other prisoners) can be decided on a case by case basis (and not based on statistics). In this case, that'd mean a woman's prison, and then segregated to protect the other women from a rapist.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> So fucking what ? Being queer I'm around transgender people all the time.
> 
> What is the point in making the statement you made other than perpetuating a stereotype ? Nobody is saying stereotypes can't be true, but they don't grasp the wide spectrum of gender expression which is the case for all genders and sexualities. I may know a real woman who could be described as hyper feminised. But so what ? She doesn't represent all women and it's not something I bring up on every thread about "women" or feminism. And the same is true for Jan Morris.



This this this Reno!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> I don't presume to know your gender expression better than you, but I still call bullshit that 'you've never dressed with the conscious motivation to express your gender'. Everybody does at some point, and most cis people do all the time, regardless of whether that dress matches the usual expected/norms of gender based upon your assigned sex (or not). It's just cis posturing from those that hold trans people up to higher scrutiny.



Eh?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Eh?



Eh? What?! Consciously expressing your gender doesn't mean going to some sort of extreme/stereotyped dress, but everybody does it regardless - we mostly look, buy and wear clothes daily based on stuff that is for our gender, and at times we are expected to adhere to (work dress codes, formal evenings, etc). We consciously go shopping for clothes in the sections that correspond to our gender, we decide what we like and we consciously decide to wear stuff before we go out. Well, unless everybody wears loincloths and I missed it. If it was unconscious, why not, as say a man just see the first thing you see in a shop (that might be a dress), buy it and wear it? (and I don't mean in a cross dress or trans sense). Something is stopping a man doing this and it's not because its unconscious.

My only criticism is when cis people seem to think they have somehow exempted themselves from this ritual, or hold trans people to higher scrutiny with their dress/gendered expectations (policing).


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Or you could ask them whether making visible changes in order to conform to a sterotype perpetuates that stereotype.



So on the one hand you've got people who are trans - which when used correctly as an umbrella term means people changing gender, fucking with gender, rejecting gender, playing with gender or varying their gender - and on the other hand you've got non-trans people like you, accidentally or 'unconsciously' reproducing gender in every deed whilst pointing at the trans people and going look at you, you're doing gender, that's terrible, gender's bad.

No-one can guess your motivations, but it looks to me as if you're actually policing the very gender system that as a man benefits you.  But you're probably doing that unconsciously as well, like when you wear trousers.

By the way - if gender reproduction is unconscious, then that is a very strong argument for gender being inherent, natural, essential and even biological. See how reactionary your position looks from outside your head.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> So on the one hand you've got people who are trans - which when used correctly as an umbrella term means people changing gender, fucking with gender, rejecting gender, playing with gender or varying their gender - and on the other hand you've got non-trans people like you, accidentally or 'unconsciously' reproducing gender in every deed whilst pointing at the trans people and going look at you, you're doing gender, that's terrible, gender's bad.
> 
> No-one can guess your motivations, but it looks to me as if you're actually policing the very gender system that as a man benefits you.  But you're probably doing that unconsciously as well, like when you wear trousers.
> 
> By the way - if gender reproduction is unconscious, then that is a very strong argument for gender being inherent, natural, essential and even biological. See how reactionary your position looks from outside your head.



Yes, in my reply to Frogwoman, I acknowledged that 'trans' covers a wider range than I meant; that I should have been clear that I was talking about people who move from one binary state to the 'opposite' one. 

I've also acknowledged my role in reinforcing gender binary, albeit unconsciously. And, of course, as a man, I benefit from the current conception of gender. 

I don't know how you go from that to me 'policing' gender.  Or how any of it detracts from the points I made above. 

I don't accept your contention that the unconscious reproduction of gender stereotypes is essential; it could just s early be a product of socialisation.


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> if gender reproduction is unconscious, then that is a very strong argument for gender being inherent, natural, essential and even biological. See how reactionary your position looks from outside your head.



It's not even a weak argument for that. The reproduction of capitalist relations is also largely unconscious. You are arguing.... ?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

laptop said:


> It's not even a weak argument for that. The reproduction of capitalist relations is also largely unconscious. You are arguing.... ?



yes, the reproduction of capitalist relations is based in real material conditions (unlike gender) and policed, consciously, with violence.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

Is gender not policed violently?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> yes, the reproduction of capitalist relations is based in real material conditions (unlike gender) and policed, consciously, with violence.


Do you think the subjugation of women is nothing to do with material conditions?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, in my reply to Frogwoman, I acknowledged that 'trans' covers a wider range than I meant; that I should have been clear that I was talking about people who move from one binary state to the 'opposite' one.
> 
> I've also acknowledged my role in reinforcing gender binary, albeit unconsciously. And, of course, as a man, I benefit from the current conception of gender.



but you seem to think your role in reinforcing gender isn't as bad as those who are trans, because you're doing it by accident, not choice, despite the fact you very clearly have a choice.



> I don't know how you go from that to me 'policing' gender.  Or how any of it detracts from the points I made above.



I was just suggesting an unconscious motivation, you are criticising people for transcending a gender binary you maintain and benefit from.  You might be criticising them for not transcending it enough, but you don't transcend it at all, which is a curious position.  That's why I wondered about an unconscious motivation.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is gender not policed violently?



yes, though less formally


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Do you think the subjugation of women is nothing to do with material conditions?



yes to be fair, although again less formally.  that's why it's conscious, people own stuff, and know they own stuff, including owning people.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> but you seem to think your role in reinforcing gender isn't as bad as those who are trans, because you're doing it by accident, not choice, despite the fact you very clearly have a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> I was just suggesting an unconscious motivation, you are criticising people for transcending a gender binary you maintain and benefit from.  You might be criticising them for not transcending it enough, but you don't transcend it at all, which is a curious position.  That's why I wondered about an unconscious motivation.



Where have I criticised trans people for doing that? Where have I suggested they are any worse than me for so doing? In fact I explicitly stressed that people are equally responsible (in responding to you). I just pointed out that there is a qualitative difference between the conscious and unconscious reproduction of gender stereotypes. I attached no moral judgement to that fact. I think you're arguing against what you though (or hoped) my position was, rather than what I said.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Where have I criticised trans people for doing that? Where have I suggested they are any worse than me for so doing? In fact I explicitly stressed that people are equally responsible (in responding to you). I just pointed out that there is a qualitative difference between the conscious and unconscious reproduction of gender stereotypes. I attached no moral judgement to that fact. I think you're arguing against what you though (or hoped) my position was, rather than what I said.



And yet as the discussion was talking about prisons, it was you in posts 1099 and 1141 that took it down a 'gender stereotype' route again.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Where have I criticised trans people for doing that? Where have I suggested they are any worse than me for so doing? In fact I explicitly stressed that people are equally responsible (in responding to you). I just pointed out that there is a qualitative difference between the conscious and unconscious reproduction of gender stereotypes. I attached no moral judgement to that fact. I think you're arguing against what you though (or hoped) my position was, rather than what I said.



I don't believe the re[roduction of gender stereotypes on unconscious.  it may be a habit, like smoking, and it may be socially enforced, like not shitting in the street, but it's conscious, people know what's going on and whether they are presenting as a man or a woman - to the point where misgendering their conscious identity is seen as a grave insult and personal smear.

you said by the way: 





> Ironically, it's arguable that trans people play a part in preventing that by consciously reinforcing gender stereotypes (albeit they are, at the same time, victims of them).



Why say that if you don't think it is worse than you, why not say "Ironically, it's arguable that *I* play a part in preventing that by consciously reinforcing gender stereotypes"


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> And yet as the discussion was talking about prisons, it was you in posts 1099 and 1141 that took it down a 'gender stereotype' route again.


It's a thread about lots of things. I didn't say what is being suggested, or anything that isn't germane (pun intended) to the topic.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 9, 2016)

Cis people are most definitely consciously aware of how clothing and behaviour relate to gender roles. They generally act to conform to those. I don't see how this is "unconscious". I may not make the decision every day "do I wear these trousers or go and buy a skirt?" but I'm perfectly aware that by dressing in male-approved clothing I am taking a particular position, and that I could do otherwise but there would be consequences.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> but you seem to think your role in reinforcing gender isn't as bad as those who are trans, because you're doing it by accident, not choice, despite the fact you very clearly have a choice.



That seems a valid point to me.



smokedout said:


> I was just suggesting an unconscious motivation, you are criticising people for transcending a gender binary you maintain and benefit from.  You might be criticising them for not transcending it enough, but you don't transcend it at all, which is a curious position.  That's why I wondered about an unconscious motivation.



This I'm not so sure about - I think Athos is suggesting that some trans people embrace a gender binary rather than transcend it. The point that Athos probably also embraces a gender binary (consciously or unconsciously) I agree with, but I'm not sure its possible for somebody to "transcend" gender binaries within the context of a socio-economic system premised on gender binaries.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I don't believe the re[roduction of gender stereotypes on unconscious.  it may be a habit, like smoking, and it may be socially enforced, like not shitting in the street, but it's conscious, people know what's going on and whether they are presenting as a man or a woman - to the point where misgendering their conscious identity is seen as a grave insult and personal smear.
> 
> you said by the way:
> 
> Why say that if you don't think it is worse than you, why not say "Ironically, it's arguable that *I* play a part in preventing that by consciously reinforcing gender stereotypes"



Because there's no irony in people who benefit from the idea of gender binary perpetuating it; there is an irony in it being perpetuated by those who suffer the most from it. 

So, as you can see, I didn't say (or even imply) the criticisms of trans people (over and above those I accepted of myself and other cis people) of which you accused me.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Cis people are most definitely consciously aware of how clothing and behaviour relate to gender roles. They generally act to conform to those. I don't see how this is "unconscious". I may not make the decision every day "do I wear these trousers or go and buy a skirt?" but I'm perfectly aware that by dressing in male-approved clothing I am taking a particular position, and that I could do otherwise but there would be consequences.



This is the thing I don't get about the 'Cis' word - does it mean someone who consciously identifies positively with their assigned gender identity or someone who conforms to their assigned gender identity because they know there will be consequences if they don't?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> This I'm not so sure about - I think Athos is suggesting that some trans people embrace a gender binary rather than transcend it. The point that Athos probably also embraces a gender binary (consciously or unconsciously) I agree with, but I'm not sure its possible for somebody to "transcend" gender binaries within the context of a socio-economic system premised on gender binaries.



Many trans people embrace the gender binary, some don't. Many cis people embrace the gender binary, some don't. So, I'm glad that's cleared up then. And yet, here we are…


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Many trans people embrace the gender binary, some don't. Many cis people embrace the gender binary, some don't. So, I'm glad that's cleared up then. And yet, here we are…



It's not cleared anything up for me like but I'm glad you understand what you just said.


----------



## toggle (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's not cleared anything up for me like but I'm glad you understand what you just said.



that's sort of the point. that these things are complicated.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

Athos said:


> Because there's no irony in people who benefit from the idea of gender binary perpetuating it; there is an irony in it being perpetuated by those who suffer the most from it.
> 
> So, as you can see, I didn't say (or even imply) the criticisms of trans people (over and above those I accepted of myself and other cis people) of which you accused me.



Ok, so it was just something you felt you had to point out, like when people say its ironic that some African tribal leaders benefitted from the African slave trade, just something we should all remember when talking about gender and transgender rights.  Got you.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is the thing I don't get about the 'Cis' word - does it mean someone who consciously identifies positively with their assigned gender identity or someone who conforms to their assigned gender identity because they know there will be consequences if they don't?


In that instance it would have been better if I'd used some word meaning people who dress based on the gender role generally assigned to their physically displayed sex. I don't really know what the word is for that. It does cover a lot of people though.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

toggle said:


> that's sort of the point. that these things are complicated.



I know they're complicated, I thought that's why we were discussing them?



stethoscope said:


> Many trans people embrace the gender binary, some don't. Many cis people embrace the gender binary, some don't. So, I'm glad that's cleared up then. And yet, here we are…



If the word 'Cis' can include a person who positively identifies with every aspect of their assigned gender as well as somebody who totally rejects all aspects of their assigned gender but feels unable to express an alternative gender identity and all points in 
between then it seems to me to be a useless word.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> If the word 'Cis' can include a person who positively identifies with every aspect of their assigned gender as well as somebody who totally rejects all aspects of their assigned gender but feels unable to express an alternative gender identity and all points in
> between then it seems to me to be a useless word.



Cis simply means that someone's assigned gender is aligned to their sense of gender identity/sexed body. Trans is where there is a deep mismatch. It's not about gender stereotypes and dress.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> This I'm not so sure about - I think Athos is suggesting that some trans people embrace a gender binary rather than transcend it. The point that Athos probably also embraces a gender binary (consciously or unconsciously) I agree with, but I'm not sure its possible for somebody to "transcend" gender binaries within the context of a socio-economic system premised on gender binaries.



well it transcends a key element within gender which is that your gender expression should be based on the genitals you were born with


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

I though 'cis' was just used to mean people who identify as the gender they were born as? Nothing more than that.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I though 'cis' was just used to mean people who identify as the gender they were born as? Nothing more than that.


What does "identify as a gender" mean though?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kids tend to have very rigid ideas about gender. They're trying to work this stuff out, and start off with rather inflexible notions.


but the inflexible notions are learned socially , and only kick in at a certain age (a minority of kids continue to ignore them regardless) - and plenty of adults are happy to enforce gender norms on their kids


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> What does "identify as a gender" mean though?


Do you think of yourself as a girl or as a boy? 

I think most people have an opinion about that.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Cis simply means that someone's assigned gender is aligned to their sense of gender identity/sexed body. Trans is where there is a deep mismatch. It's not about gender stereotypes and dress.



But you just said some Cis people don't embrace a gender binary. Or is the difference that there is a "deep" mismatch as opposed to a "shallow" mismatch?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Ok, so it was just something you felt you had to point out, like when people say its ironic that some African tribal leaders benefitted from the African slave trade, just something we should all remember when talking about gender and transgender rights.  Got you.



Nothing any of us says here 'has' to be said. It was true, but was a very minor point; it only became an issue when you (and others) latched onto it, and misrepresented -  deliberately or otherwise -  what I actually wrote. And, when being confronted with that undeniable fact, rather than apologise you have preferred to go with some implied smear. One that withstands no scrutiny given my repeated comments on this thread and others, in which I have been at pains to stress that I consider trans women to be women with a right to define their own gender.


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> What does "identify as a gender" mean though?


 
My understanding (totally might be wrong) was that someone born as a man, identifies as a man, and lives as a man, would be called a cis man with this terminology.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

Many millions of female bodied women reject the gender identity that society imposes on them and actively fight against gender constructs.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

smokedout said:


> well it transcends a key element within gender which is that your gender expression should be based on the genitals you were born with



I thought we came up with the concept of gender in the first place to differentiate between sex and gender?


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you think of yourself as a girl or as a boy?



Woman or man please.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> but the inflexible notions are learned socially , and only kick in at a certain age (a minority of kids continue to ignore them regardless) - and plenty of adults are happy to enforce gender norms on their kids


Yes and no. I would argue that kids actively look for gender and a host of other things. A bit like language acquisition - they are not passively absorbing, but are active in the process of acquiring the ideas, trying stuff out, formulating their own rules based on what they find around them as they try to work it out.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you think of yourself as a girl or as a boy?
> 
> I think most people have an opinion about that.


I am female.  If you're talking about the construct of "girl" or "woman" as a set of behaviours, and outward expressions of gender then that is something society puts on female bodied people.


----------



## LDC (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Many millions of female bodied women reject the gender identity that society imposes on them and actively fight against gender constructs.



Most I know would say they're fighting against gender roles rather than against being identified or considered a woman I'd have thought?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Many millions of female bodied women reject the gender identity that society imposes on them and actively fight against gender constructs.


Millions reject the label 'woman'?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Many millions of female bodied women reject the gender identity that society imposes on them and actively fight against gender constructs.



Rejecting gender constructs isn't your 'self' of being a woman/female though is it? Gender identity isn't imposed by society, gender role based on sex is (under patriarchy).


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2016)

To identify as a gender would be to fit comfortably within a bell curve of the social, cultural and biological determinants (and maybe some other -als) of that gender.

Just like being straight isn't simple.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes and no. I would argue that kids actively look for gender and a host of other things. A bit like language acquisition - they are not passively absorbing, but are active in the process of acquiring the ideas, trying stuff out, formulating their own rules based on what they find around them as they try to work it out.


They look for social rules and modes of behaviour. Gender is strongly presented as one of those from day one. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

8115 said:


> To identify as a gender would be to fit comfortably within a bell curve of the social, cultural and biological determinants (and maybe some other -als) of that gender.
> 
> Just like being straight isn't simple.


Not sure I agree. I am male. I identify as male. Doesn't mean I live comfortably with the gender expectations of society. I don't, but that doesn't make me doubt my gender label.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Rejecting gender constructs isn't your 'self' of being a woman/female though is it? Gender identity isn't imposed by society, gender role based on sex is (under patriarchy).


I don't believe that "gender" is an innate thing I'm afraid.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure I agree. I am male. I identify as male. Doesn't mean I live comfortably with the gender expectations of society. I don't, but that doesn't make me doubt my gender label.


That's why I put in the bit about the bell curve.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Millions reject the label 'woman'?


By "women" do you mean "adult females" or "a set of behaviours and appearance adult females should conform to"?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

8115 said:


> That's why I put in the bit about the bell curve.


But I think we're talking about two different things. One is a very simple binary: you're a girl or a boy, woman or a man. The other is a whole set of values, expectations, etc, that are placed on top of those binaries in a rather crude way. There is certainly a continuum there wrt the extent to which you are comfortable with what sits on top of the binaries, but that's not the same thing as feeling that you're sitting in entirely the wrong column.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> By "women" do you mean "adult females" or "a set of behaviours and appearance adult females should conform to"?


Just in terms of the answer to the question: Are you a woman or a man?


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just in terms of the answer to the question: Are you a woman or a man?


I'm an adult female who has been socialised as a girl and woman.  HTH.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> But you just said some Cis people don't embrace a gender binary. Or is the difference that there is a "deep" mismatch as opposed to a "shallow" mismatch?



Quite - some cis people don't embrace a gender binary (rad fem lesbian separatists, for example). Just as some trans people don't. Yet, many cis and trans people do. 'Deep' wasn't very helpful really, as clearly individuals are immensely complex - they have different sense of how their sexed and their outward gender stuff either aligns or mismatches with their assigned gender. After all, some trans people it's very much about being perceived as the gender they identify with, but may not particularly 'hate' their body/or seek surgeries. Others have a deep problem with their physical body, but don't particularly embrace the gender expression for the gender associated with their sex.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But I think we're talking about two different things. One is a very simple binary: you're a girl or a boy, woman or a man. The other is a whole set of values, expectations, etc, that are placed on top of those binaries in a rather crude way. There is certainly a continuum there wrt the extent to which you are comfortable with what sits on top of the binaries, but that's not the same thing as feeling that you're sitting in entirely the wrong column.


Even biological gender isn't binary, even less so if you start thinking about the brain maybe.

I think we mean the same thing but maybe I don't accept the primacy of biology in determining gender here and you do.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Quite - some cis people don't embrace a gender binary (rad fem lesbian separatists, for example). Just as some trans people don't. Yet, many cis and trans people do. 'Deep' wasn't very helpful really, as clearly individuals are immensely complex - they have different sense of how their sexed and their outward gender stuff either aligns or mismatches with their assigned gender. After all, some trans people it's very much about being perceived as the gender they identify with, but may not particularly 'hate' their body/or seek surgeries. Others have a deep problem with their physical body, but don't particularly embrace the gender expression for the gender associated with their sex.



So what is the utility of the word 'Cis'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

8115 said:


> Even biological gender isn't binary, even less so if you start thinking about the brain maybe.
> 
> I think we mean the same thing but maybe I don't accept the primacy of biology in determining gender here and you do.


There's a lot of crap spoken and written about 'male' and 'female' brains. I'm not really asserting a biological determinism, merely describing what is, or attempting to: 

The accepted norm is that there are two genders (accepted in such a deep way that in many languages, including English, it's impossible not to use it without bending the language). My understanding would be that this is the 'cis' bit: if you don't feel it's wrong when you're identified by 'he' or 'she' as determined in the conventional way by certain biological facts, you're cis; if you do, you're not cis. After that, all kinds of things are up for grabs, I would think.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a lot of crap spoken and written about 'male' and 'female' brains. I'm not really asserting a biological determinism, merely describing what is, or attempting to:
> 
> The accepted norm is that there are two genders (accepted in such a deep way that in many languages, including English, it's impossible not to use it without bending the language). My understanding would be that this is the 'cis' bit: if you don't feel it's wrong when you're identified by 'he' or 'she' as determined in the conventional way by certain biological facts, you're cis; if you do, you're not cis. After that, all kinds of things are up for grabs, I would think.


We basically agree but I think it's a bit more complicated than that.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> I'm an adult female who has been socialised as a girl and woman.  HTH.



Is that the same as being a woman?  Or is the definition of the latter different - wider, or narrower?  If so, how?


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a lot of crap spoken and written about 'male' and 'female' brains. I'm not really asserting a biological determinism, merely describing what is, or attempting to:
> 
> The accepted norm is that there are two genders (accepted in such a deep way that in many languages, including English, it's impossible not to use it without bending the language). My understanding would be that this is the 'cis' bit: if you don't feel it's wrong when you're identified by 'he' or 'she' as determined in the conventional way by certain biological facts, you're cis; if you do, you're not cis. After that, all kinds of things are up for grabs, I would think.


No, wait! We were discussing what it means to identify as a certain gender and disagreeing and then you changed the goalposts.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a lot of crap spoken and written about 'male' and 'female' brains. I'm not really asserting a biological determinism, merely describing what is, or attempting to:
> 
> The accepted norm is that there are two genders (accepted in such a deep way that in many languages, including English, it's impossible not to use it without bending the language). My understanding would be that this is the 'cis' bit: if you don't feel it's wrong when you're identified by 'he' or 'she' as determined in the conventional way by certain biological facts, you're cis; if you do, you're not cis. After that, all kinds of things are up for grabs, I would think.



I think there is a lot of crap of things being either A or B. Sometimes its more a scale from A to Z and people place at various places along the scale be that sexuality identity, sexual preferences, personality traits , how much they like chocolate, whatever... .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2016)

8115 said:


> No, wait! We were discussing what it means to identify as a certain gender and disagreeing and then you changed the goalposts.


Not consciously. At its most basic, it's a question of 'do you think of yourself as "she" or "he", or something else?' All the various gendered stereotypes/expectations are built on top of that, and it's possible not to be happy with some, most, or even all of what society expects of the gender you identify with without that making you doubt the identification itself. And surely that brings us back to what stethoscope was saying: that within a group of transwomen or transmen you will find a wide spectrum of gender expression; that's not really what being trans is about.

Maybe I'm expressing this clumsily. And I'm open to correction, but that's about how I understand things.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> I don't believe that "gender" is an innate thing I'm afraid.



If 'gender' is defined as expectations of someone's behaviour, role, presentation in society, based on their sex, then that's not an innate thing. 'Gender' is therefore primarily a social construct under which a majority of patriarchal societies makes women the oppressed class. 

That can be different to a person's sense of their 'gender' in relation to their assigned gender/sex* (and whether they match, and to how match) surely? Sure, in such gendered societies it's very difficult to escape such an incredibly strong and ubiquitous pressure from gender and gender roles even as a social construct (cis and trans people), but 'Gender identity' as it relates to someone's sense of their degree of match with their assigned gender/sexed body doesn't proscribe gender role/other gendered stereotypes.


* Bearing in mind that assigning gender is historically based on cursory glances of primary sex characteristics that themselves aren't always clear. Even chromosomes aren't always clearly matched with primary sex characteristics.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not consciously. At its most basic, it's a question of 'do you think of yourself as "she" or "he", or something else?' All the various gendered stereotypes/expectations are built on top of that, and it's possible not to be happy with some, most, or even all of what society expects of the gender you identify with without that making you doubt the identification itself. And surely that brings us back to what stethoscope was saying: that within a group of transwomen or transmen you will find a wide spectrum of gender expression; that's not really what being trans is about.
> 
> Maybe I'm expressing this clumsily. And I'm open to correction, but that's about how I understand things.


But isn't that the point about making a distinction between sex and gender?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a lot of crap spoken and written about 'male' and 'female' brains.



Personally, I think the whole 'male/female brain' stuff is incredibly problematic - at least if its used any more than merely sexual dimorphism. Some parts of trans activism (but also society as a whole - 'why men lie, and women can't read maps', etc.) seem very invested in 'proving' this stuff, and when it's used as some sort of validation for how men/women act/think, etc. when actually they are talking about socially constructed gender.


----------



## toggle (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Many millions of female bodied women reject the gender identity that society imposes on them and actively fight against gender constructs.



gender roles are not the same thing as gender identity.


i don't question my gender identity. i'm female. and i really do know that

that became more certain when i realised that i could challenge the gender roles and expression society had chosen for me without challenging my underlying gender identity. i'm female whether i'm wearing swing dresses or mens shirts and suits. i'm female whether i choose to go to a craft group or discuss the history of mine engineering and railway architecture. (to give actual examples) female isn't equal to feminine.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> So what is the utility of the word 'Cis'?



Littlebabyjesus I think has made some points about this, but it should be noted that 'cis' really started off as something only used within trans and feminist politics - and in the same way as much older, more established terms when trying to discuss power dynamics and privilege between groups of people (e.g. 'straight privilege' in relation to LGB people, 'white privilege' in relation to black/minority people, 'male privilege' in relation to women/feminism). It was conceived in the same way to talk about the dynamics, oppression and issues facing trans people (or increasingly intersex, non-binary) in relation to those that weren't trans (majority of society). The aforementioned terms are much more widely understood, whilst 'cis' reflects the comparatively immature age of trans political discourse which has only gained traction in wider public in the last few years.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Quite - some cis people don't embrace a gender binary (rad fem lesbian separatists, for example). Just as some trans people don't. Yet, many cis and trans people do. 'Deep' wasn't very helpful really, as clearly individuals are immensely complex - they have different sense of how their sexed and their outward gender stuff either aligns or mismatches with their assigned gender. After all, some trans people it's very much about being perceived as the gender they identify with, but may not particularly 'hate' their body/or seek surgeries. Others have a deep problem with their physical body, but don't particularly embrace the gender expression for the gender associated with their sex.



Its interesting to me what you've written here because of someone i was talking to last week in a very trans friendly place.
I didn't know that they were trans till about half way through the night when they mentioned they couldn't wait to grow facial hair.

Upon spotting my obvious puzzlement they explained they were transitioning from female to male and were currently taking hormones to that effect. (then made a self depreciating joke to feel free to run away now i knew, which sadly i recognize as a self defense mechanism no doubt developed from previous adverse reactions, which is  when you think about it).

Anyhow, I was quite surprised because they were dressed very female and when I asked did they want me to switch from using she to he forms of address was told they didn't give mind either (her friends said it out loud the same time as her). Yes i stuck to her which i'll no doubt get criticized for but honestly it made the most sense at the time. And before i'm told i should use the person's name and avoid he and she altogether i was in that awkward situation where you've forgotten the name but don't dare ask again as you've been talking for hours and it would be embarrassing to ask etc.

The reason i mention all this is that thats the first time i've met a trans person who didn't firmly want to be perceived as the gender they personally identify as in both dress and vocab. So i guess that not necessarily hating their body that you mention above applied in this instance.

We didn't go into any depth talking about it any further. Why should we for one and Game of Thrones chat was far more interesting to both us for two.


----------



## Thora (Jan 9, 2016)

toggle said:


> gender roles are not the same thing as gender identity.
> 
> 
> i don't question my gender identity. i'm female. and i really do know that
> ...


Female is surely your sex, not your gender.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Personally, I think the whole 'male/female brain' stuff is incredibly problematic - at least if its used any more than merely sexual dimorphism. Some parts of trans activism (but also society as a whole - 'why men lie, and women can't read maps', etc.) seem very invested in 'proving' this stuff, and when it's used as some sort of validation for how men/women act/think, etc. when actually they are talking about socially constructed gender.



I saw some brain chemistry tv documentary once and they weren't going that route they were measuring spacial awareness and they claimed it was linked to the amount of male hormones effecting the brain. They tried to back this up with a female engineer with good spacial awareness but who had more male hormones than most women.

Could have been bullshit but it seemed interesting and plausible at the time.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Female is surely your sex, not your gender.



I think that's mainly come from sex and gender being used interchangeably as terms to mean the same thing over the years in many day to day interactions (whilst obviously from feminist-political, and biological science discourse, sex and gender aren't the same).


----------



## Gromit (Jan 9, 2016)

Thora said:


> Female is surely your sex, not your gender.



You are correct, i've edited my brain typo.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> I think that's mainly come from sex and gender being used interchangeably as terms to mean the same thing over the years in many day to day interactions (whilst obviously from feminist-political, and biological discourse, sex and gender aren't the same).



The wiki entry says this which seems right:

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2] In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender,[1] or intersex.

The sex and gender distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.[3][4] Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 9, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Personally, I think the whole 'male/female brain' stuff is incredibly problematic - at least if its used any more than merely sexual dimorphism. Some parts of trans activism (but also society as a whole - 'why men lie, and women can't read maps', etc.) seem very invested in 'proving' this stuff, and when it's used as some sort of validation for how men/women act/think, etc. when actually they are talking about socially constructed gender.


It's been pretty thoroughly debunked anyway I'd thought, with plenty of studies like The brains of men and women aren’t really that different, study finds


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> I don't believe that "gender" is an innate thing I'm afraid.


and by this statement you deny the realities and experiences of every trans person in existence.


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's been pretty thoroughly debunked anyway I'd thought, with plenty of studies like The brains of men and women aren’t really that different, study finds


this study is being so misinterpreted its untrue. I've had it tweeted at me - I've seen TERFs bandying it about.
Unfortunately the report itself is locked away behind a pay wall but in every article i've read it says around 6% of brains were determined to be "fully gendered" by the terms assumed in the study. 6% easily encompasses every trans person, estimated at around 2% of the population.



> The researchers combed through more than 1,400 magnetic resonance images (MRI) from multiple studies of male and female brains, focusing on regions with the largest gender differences. In the first analysis, using brain scans from 169 men and 112 women, the researchers defined "malelike" and "femalelike" as the 33 percent most extreme gender-difference scores on gray matter from 10 regions. Even with this generous designation of "male" and "female" scores, the researchers found little evidence of the consistency they would need to prove brain dimorphism. Only 6 percent of brains were internally consistent as male or female, meaning all 10 regions were either femalelike or malelike, the researchers found. Another analysis of more than 600 brains from 18- to 26-year-olds found that only 2.4 percent were internally consistent as male or female, while substantial variability was the rule for more than half (52 percent).
> 
> In other words, there were very few individuals whose brain regions were all malelike or femalelike. And there was no clear continuum between the two endpoints. Instead, across both gray and white matter and in connectivity patterns, brains are so overlapping that calling a particular form male or female is meaningless, Joel and her colleagues wrote. [Men vs. Women: Our Key Physical Differences Explained]



I also understand that at least one of these "fully female" brains in the study was in the body of someone assigned male at birth.
This report actually seems to corroborate the trans experience including the fact that some people don;t feel gendered at all and that most people fit somewhere in between the extremes.

I don't actually consider myself to be fully gender normative as I exhibit many traits that others might consider to be male - such as being good at spacial stuff, engineering etc, but then I never bought into the whole gender role thing. I just know myself to be female and now, finally, live and present accordingly because it is closest to who i am. Living any other way would be dishonest and damaging to me as a person. I don't follow any kind of gender role, I merely make the choices that make me feel happiest. 

Also, I'm not entering into a discussion. I'm physically shaking now just typing this. But I had to say something about this important study.


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> and by this statement you deny the realities and experiences of every trans person in existence.



i think some of the problems come from how we use terms. as in gender in terms of identity versus expectations/socialisation/roles/etc


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

toggle said:


> i think some of the problems come from how we use terms. as in gender in terms of identity versus expectations/socialisation/roles/etc


Probably. 

While Googling I also found this summary of research that might shed light on why transgender people feel the way we do. 
The Transgender Brain


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Probably.
> 
> While Googling I also found this summary of research that might shed light on why transgender people feel the way we do.
> The Transgender Brain



thankyou.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 18, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Also, I'm not entering into a discussion. I'm physically shaking now just typing this. But I had to say something about this important study.



You should have left this paragraph off. 

Acting like a drama queen doesn't add any weight to your argument y'know. 
If anything I think it robs it of weight. 

Don't reply. I'm not discussing it with you. I've made my point. That it. /conceit


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> ... Acting like a drama queen ...


----------



## Thora (Mar 18, 2016)

.


----------



## Thora (Mar 18, 2016)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You should have left this paragraph off.
> 
> Acting like a drama queen doesn't add any weight to your argument y'know.
> If anything I think it robs it of weight.
> ...


the only point you ever make on threads like this is how much of a wanker you are


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You should have left this paragraph off.
> 
> Acting like a drama queen doesn't add any weight to your argument y'know.
> If anything I think it robs it of weight.
> ...




you fucking what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

yes there is a female and a male brain: morphology versus functionality: Yes, there is a female and a male brain: Morphology versus functionality


----------



## Thora (Mar 18, 2016)

.


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> So there aren't really female and male brains, very few people display stereotypical gendered behaviour, and yet one can "feel like a woman" separate from being a woman or being treated as a woman.  I guess transgender women are truly the most womeny women there are.



i don't think gender roles and identity are the same thing. 


and i don't think the sneering helps either


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> Gromit's choice of wording might not be great due to the subject matter, but tbf all this I'm posting/I can't discuss this/you're on ignore/you're off ignore stuff is really annoying.



Then don't wind her up. You know how important trans related topic are to her, surely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> Gromit's choice of wording might not be great due to the subject matter, but tbf all this I'm posting/I can't discuss this/you're on ignore/you're off ignore stuff is really annoying.


it's not so much his choice of wording as the message he is giving


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> Gromit's choice of wording might not be great due to the subject matter, but tbf all this I'm posting/I can't discuss this/you're on ignore/you're off ignore stuff is really annoying.



oh dear.

poor, poor you for being so terribly annoyed by the person who is trying to have a conversation they find hugely triggering. managing your irritation clearly trumps her anxiety over this


----------



## bimble (Mar 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes there is a female and a male brain: morphology versus functionality: Yes, there is a female and a male brain: Morphology versus functionality


Well that was very disappointing, was hoping to be given a good solid excuse for why I have no sense of direction and quite like kittens.


----------



## Thora (Mar 18, 2016)

.


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> How about not bumping a months old thread to post something no-one can challenge because it's "triggering"?



i thought the study was interesting. and i am glad that she put that up. 

i'm also not supprised, going by past discussion that she's asked people not to lay into her over it. 

clearly, and unfortunately, such requests are still appearing to be necessary


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> How about not bumping a months old thread to post something no-one can challenge because it's "triggering"?


afaics it is what she sees as the insubstantial nature of your argument with which AuntiStella is taking issue, so unless you've something more weighty to post maybe you should leave it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 18, 2016)

toggle said:


> i thought the study was interesting. and i am glad that she put that up.
> 
> i'm also not supprised, going by past discussion that she's asked people not to lay into her over it.
> 
> clearly, and unfortunately, such requests are still appearing to be necessary


the thread was bumped specifically to have a go at thora. Can't really expect her not to respond tbf.


----------



## Thora (Mar 18, 2016)

Fine.  I'm not going to get drawn in to any more of this attention seeking bullshit.  I'm putting you ALL on ignore.


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

always accusations against trans women - how convenient that we have male bodies is the charge. We MUST be lying. We MUST be angling to get something. What is our devious motivation? I'm in no mood to take this bullshit. I will not discuss my gender identity either - any more than someone who is LGB would allow their sexuality to be questioned. 

Fuck you!! Cis privilege!


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> Fine.  I'm not going to get drawn in to any more of this attention seeking bullshit.  I'm putting you ALL on ignore.



If someone was throwing about attitude like this in a thread that you deemed feminist, you'd be right in there telling them to stfu. 

why is it wrong to tone police cis women but not trans women?


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> the thread was bumped specifically to have a go at thora. Can't really expect her not to respond tbf.


I was actually responding to something she had said - but chiefly I wanted to say something about that study. I think I have that right. But no-one can make me discuss my gender identity either. And abuse hurled at me for my gender identity is not a discussion. She said nothing that challenged what i said in any valid way, and neither have you.


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

Thora said:


> Fine.  I'm not going to get drawn in to any more of this attention seeking bullshit.  I'm putting you ALL on ignore.


how dare anyone challenge your dogma you mean.


----------



## killer b (Mar 18, 2016)

No, that's right. I haven't said anything to challenge you. I don't have any problem with your gender identity.


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> No, that's right. I haven't said anything to challenge you. I don't have any problem with your gender identity.


But without hesitation you back up anyone who does.


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 18, 2016)

Even the title of this thread is transphobic. We are not transgenders. We are people. People who are transgender!


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> No, that's right. I haven't said anything to challenge you. I don't have any problem with your gender identity.



just a problem that she can find discussion of it triggering


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 18, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Unfortunately the report itself is locked away behind a pay wall but in every article i've read it says around 6% of brains were determined to be "fully gendered" by the terms assumed in the study. 6% easily encompasses every trans person, estimated at around 2% of the population..


I think you've misunderstood the study, tbh. Having defined 'male/female' in such a nebulous, non-functional way, that 6 percent is then very low, and the 2.4 % among younger people even more so, and suggests that there may well be something else entirely going on to explain the differences. It says absolutely nothing about what those so-called gendered bits of the brain are actually doing, what differences they suggest in terms of brain function, and also, crucially, how the brains developed like that - what environmental factors have resulted in those brain differences.

tbh my extremely tentative suggestion regarding these findings, especially the finding of less 'genderisation' among younger people, would be that this has nothing to do with your gender at birth and everything to do with how you're brought up.

This isn't intended as an attack on trans people, btw, but you're reaching conclusions here that I don't see as merited in any way at all. Your lived experience is surely your strongest argument, and remains so whatever brain imaging might say.


----------



## Casually Red (Mar 18, 2016)




----------



## Gromit (Mar 18, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Then don't wind her up. You know how important trans related topic are to her, surely?


She was refuting / disputing / interpreting / whatever scientific studies. 
Great, good. She's entitled to her opinion and welcome to it. 

But surely we are entitled to call her up on it when she includes 'Fallacious arguments.'  
A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Such as:
Appeal to authority - I'm trans so I'm right and your all phobic if you disagree with my arguments
Appeal to pity - I get so upset by all this I show visible signs of distress. 

Surely we can call bullshit if someone joins an argument and say this is what I think but it's not up for debate because I say so, with an oh so convenient because it upsets me. 

If you truly believe in a viewpoint have the conviction to defend it if you think it's that important to state it. 

A moderator disagrees because I've been given a warning. Which is ridiculous imo.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 18, 2016)

As to my view on the studies etc. 

I've heard it argued so many times on this board that gender behaviour is 100% nurture and fuck all to do with nature. 

I've never believed that. 

I think genetically it's a slightly random sliding scale (usually weighted more one way or the other) and that nurture can slide that scale further one way or the other.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I think genetically it's a slightly random sliding scale (usually weighted more one way or the other) and that nurture can slide that scale further one way or the other.


tbh this sentence suggests to me that you don't understand the way nurture interplays with genes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 18, 2016)

toggle said:


> i thought the study was interesting. and i am glad that she put that up.
> 
> i'm also not supprised, going by past discussion that she's asked people not to lay into her over it.
> 
> clearly, and unfortunately, such requests are still appearing to be necessary


So people aren't allow to challenge what her assertions? Look I appreciate AS finds this issue very personal but I don't think that means that people shouldn't be allowed to challenge what she says. Clearly they should respond sensitively but the idea that they can't respond at all is just nonsense.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 18, 2016)

You were given a warning because you accused somebody who posts that they are distressed by particular lines of argument that affect them personally of "acting like a drama queen". It is perfectly possible to disagree and criticise someone's approach without doing this sort of thing.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh this sentence suggests to me that you don't understand the way nurture interplays with genes.


The way I see it nature can and does assign gender roles and behaviours. 

Look at lions for instance. The females are the hunters. Are people going to tell me that's because of centuries of social pressure and Lion Cosmo telling them they should be the hunters?

The thing about humans though is that we are more adaptable and can overwrite, rewrite, amend our genetic programming. People seem to think that this therefore means because we can override the original programs don't exist. 

Like believing a video tape was never one of a thousand copies of Fight Club  because it now has a copy of the Sound of Music on it.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 18, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You were given a warning because you accused somebody who posts that they are distressed by particular lines of argument that affect them personally of "acting like a drama queen". It is perfectly possible to disagree and criticise someone's approach without doing this sort of thing.


Drama queen. A definition from Websters: a person given to often excessively emotional performances or reactions. 

That visibly shaking reference was an excessive emotional performance and had nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument. 

It's perfectly possible to post without doing that sort of thing. 

I've been called a fuck lot worse many times. I've never seen you worry about that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> The thing about humans though is that we are more adaptable and can overwrite, rewrite, amend our genetic programming.


We have very plastic brains throughout our lives - but it's not helpful to think of that as 'amending our genetic programming'. Rather, it is _part of_ our genetic programming.


----------



## co-op (Mar 18, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You were given a warning because you accused somebody who posts that they are distressed by particular lines of argument that affect them personally of "acting like a drama queen". It is perfectly possible to disagree and criticise someone's approach without doing this sort of thing.



And yet it was you who linked to the ?transphobic? study that led to AS claiming triggering. What's your responsibility here? Don't you owe an apology to AS?


----------



## toggle (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> The way I see it nature can and does assign gender roles and behaviours.



so you were born to play the muppet?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 18, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You were given a warning because you accused somebody who posts that they are distressed by particular lines of argument that affect them personally of "acting like a drama queen". It is perfectly possible to disagree and criticise someone's approach without doing this sort of thing.


I think that's fair enough. I also think it's fair enough to be able to question those lines of argument without being accused of being triggering which is a way of shutting discussion down. Triggering is something that affects someone suffering from PTSD. It doesn't mean 'I don't like what you're saying and it upsets me so you shouldn't say it'.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 18, 2016)

co-op said:


> And yet it was you who linked to the ?transphobic? study that led to AS claiming triggering. What's your responsibility here? Don't you owe an apology to AS?


Oh come on, if you can't see the difference between FM posting a link to a to study questioning brain dimorphism and a well know misogynistic poster calling a trans woman a drama queen then you're as much of a dick as Gromit.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 18, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh come on, if you can't see the difference between FM posting a link to a to study questioning brain dimorphism and a well know misogynistic poster calling a trans woman a drama queen then your as much of a dick as Gromit.


Nothing misogynistic about it. The fact they are trans or a woman is also irrelevant. Act like a drama queen and I'll call you a bloody drama queen too.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Nothing misogynistic about it. The fact they are trans or a woman is also irrelevant. Act like a drama queen and I'll call you a bloody drama queen too.



To be fair, he's the very opposite of a drama queen, whatever that is. An insipid peasant maybe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You should have left this paragraph off.
> 
> Acting like a drama queen doesn't add any weight to your argument y'know.
> If anything I think it robs it of weight.
> ...



People get upset/disturbed discussing some things they care about. So fucking what, you smug cunt?


----------



## Gromit (Mar 18, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> People get upset/disturbed discussing some things they care about. So fucking what, you smug cunt?


Reported.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Reported.



Aren't you a "smug cunt", then?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 18, 2016)




----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 18, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Reported.


Thanks for the six or so frivolous reported posts. Have a temp ban.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2016)

I wrote this in another thread a couple of weeks ago. I'm not editing it for the context of this thread because I'm ill at the moment and don't have the energy. Anyway:

I saw a thing a while back, talking about the science that shows identifiable differences between male and female brains. Rather than saying "HA! told you there's a biological difference" it looked at how we know brains to be plastic, and how brains change due to the things we do -- they're not set in stone when we come out of the womb, they develop over time. Specifically it looked at how boys are encouraged to engage in certain types of play, and girls in others. Encouraged not just through one specific thing, like a teacher saying "you're a boy, you go play with that" but rather a whole host of things from familial reinforcement, branding and marketing, peer pressure, etc. It's never just one thing, it's a huge messy web of many.

Anyway, boys were seen to be doing more things like block work, and girls were doing more stuff around dolls. (This is broadly - there will have been overlap, differences, outliers, etc, as well as other activities, I'm just mentioning two in particular.) As a result, brains will develop in relation to those tasks and activities. It's not hard to see how from that we get the idea that boys are good with spatial awareness and girls are good at creativity. They well might be, generally - but because their brains were trained to be like that. But that tendency towards being good at certain things gets used as essentialist proof that boys and girls are biologically hardwired to be different from the get-go.

We don't understand the extent to which -- to use simplistic terms but ones that everyone understands -- nature and nurture interact, but it becomes increasingly clear year after year that it's not a simple either/or, but a complex interaction between the two.

It's not enough for feminists to say "gender is a construct" because it oftentimes ignores the biological reality of brains seemingly being wired in different ways within gendered groups. And likewise it's disingenuous to say "boys and girls are inherently different, the science says so" because it ignores the feedback loop of nature-nurture influencing each other.

I understand (don't agree with, but understand) the fear some feminists have around trans issues because of how it makes 'gender is a construct' far more difficult to talk about, especially when that has been the primary argument against sexism. But that isn't solved by telling trans people they're wrong, or by holing yourself up in some essentialist notion of gender -- because not only are you throwing an entire group of people under the bus, you're misrepresenting the science, and you're undermining your own bloody arguments about gender construction to begin with (gender is a construct; I as a woman have a unique experience that men can't understand; my body codes me in a certain way and I am disadvantaged in society because of that; there's nothing inherent about being a woman; I am a woman and you are not).

Far better to be open about how there's a lot we don't understand, and find better ways to tackle sexism that embrace everyone rather than clinging desperately to one argument that doesn't actually fully realise the ways biology and society interact and constitute each other. Even if it means having to do the very hard work of developing a more nuanced and complex understanding of something that has worked quite well for feminism so far.

---

The important bit is the last two paragraphs. In this context you can even substitute "essentialist notion of gender" with "essentialist notion of sex" because they are both constructed positions. 

When Thora or whoever says there's nothing innate about gender but I am a woman and you are not, that's shaky ground. Premising it all on the body means nothing, because we code men and women's bodies according to patriarchal notions of gender. 

This is an excellent article (that I actually read after I'd first posted the above): Get mad and get even

I'll quote part of it in length:



> A few weeks before I went to the conference, a student petition emerged from Cardiff University calling for the cancellation of a lecture on twentieth-century feminism to be given by Germaine Greer. The petition’s author, Rachael Melhuish, objected to Greer’s beliefs concerning transgender people: ‘Greer has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether,’ it reads.
> 
> Greer responded to the petition on BBC Newsnight: ‘Apparently people have decided that because I don’t think that post-operative transgender men are women, I’m not to be allowed to talk,’ she said. ‘I’m not saying that people should not be allowed to go through that procedure, what I’m saying is it doesn’t make them a woman.’
> 
> ...



This is one of the reasons feminism is in trouble. Parts of it are refusing to expand to include more of what we understand to be shared struggles, things that bind us together. And why? Because doing so would mean having to rethink some tactics and strategies that actually worked quite well in the past. But they were shortcuts. They didn't address the totality of what happens when we engage with gender and sex. And to some extent, that's fair enough - you can't arrive at a final enlightened point before you've been through the work of getting there... but we're making strides towards getting closer now. Why resist? Fear? I can understand fear. But that excuses none of this. Especially not the vitriol and hate that is spewed at trans and other non-binary people. Because they threaten the apple cart? No. What threatens to undermine the fight against patriarchy is refusing to engage with ALL the ways patriarchy acts on all types of gender expression, all gender identities, all biological sexes, and to understand a shared struggle.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2016)

That article isn't all about Greer, btw. 

It's a very good piece on the limits of and problems with liberal feminism in general. Long but worthwhile read.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 19, 2016)

Knotted said:


> I think Greer's position is rather seductive. If I thought that gender identity was purely a product of social conditioning then I too would not be able to take gender dysphoria seriously. I might well think that people are free to do what they want with their bodies and that they should be treated equally (which I think is Greer's position anyway). But I would think that either transgender people have been brought up atypically (possibly "wrongly" if you want to be judgemental) or that they are motivated by superficial desires such as attention seeking. You can't fault her consistency.
> 
> I just reject the idea that gender identity is *purely* a product of social conditioning.
> 
> Same with sexual identity.



What utter drivel, firstly not all trans people agree with the gender dysphoria narrative, rejecting the idea of "being trapped in the wrong body" as regressive and fundamentally a cop out that functions to actually reinforce gender typing and determinism, basically it's easier for a brutally gendered society to accept someone transgressing those divisions if it can be put down to some sort of medical condition, which is a large part of the reason Iran performs so many sex change ops.

The second point is that it is totally possible to reject gender dysphoria as a  "medical" condition and to take seriously those who are experiencing it but understand it is a fundamentally social condition, brought about by a transgressive disconnect between your identity and the identity your body is expected to map to. To argue against medicalisation models is not to make the experience any less real, you wouldn't argue that depression is any less real just because it is brought on my social factors.  The idea that rejecting such a model leads to the assumption those experiencing it are faking it or looking for attention is ridiculous, there is more to this world than things being a whimsy free choice or biological, unfortunately our society hanging on the threadbare ideology of an impoverished individualism finds itself yo-yoing between determinism and deliberate rational choices. You can see it in the response to depression, in order to accept it as a real thing but protect our alienated social relations from any kind of critique it instead jumps to medicalise it, to make it an illness in a biological sense, the "alternative" position being the "snap out of it" type, as such it's hardly surprising that those suffering will seek solace in the medical approach in so much as it absolves them of guilt and blame. Apparently the idea that depression is real but in large socially produced must remain off the shelf.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 19, 2016)

oh and it's also perfectly reasonable to oppose medicalisation models and support the right of individuals to have "gender realignment" (a misnomer in my opinion) as perfectly rational response that can help them navigate a heavily gendered world.

again it's rather like opposing the medicalisation of huge swathes of depression and the pushing of anti depressants as the answer and at the same time recognising that anti depressants can also be of great help to individuals in getting through a depressing world.

Why some rad fems are so brutally opposed to trans folk is beyond me, it certainly goes beyond intellectual disagreement, and frankly the idea that trans women are just wolves in sheeps clothing out to colonise women's space is batshit. On the otherhand the shrill outrage at the likes of Greer is fucking daft, as is the willingness of some third wavers to embrace gender as some self affirmitive thing is just shitting on over a century of feminist struggle and theory.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 19, 2016)

revol68 said:


> What utter drivel, firstly not all trans people agree with the gender dysphoria narrative, rejecting the idea of "being trapped in the wrong body" as regressive and fundamentally a cop out that functions to actually reinforce gender typing and determinism, basically it's easier for a brutally gendered society to accept someone transgressing those divisions if it can be put down to some sort of medical condition, which is a large part of the reason Iran performs so many sex change ops.
> 
> The second point is that it is totally possible to reject gender dysphoria as a  "medical" condition and to take seriously those who are experiencing it but understand it is a fundamentally social condition, brought about by a transgressive disconnect between your identity and the identity your body is expected to map to. To argue against medicalisation models is not to make the experience any less real, you wouldn't argue that depression is any less real just because it is brought on my social factors.  The idea that rejecting such a model leads to the assumption those experiencing it are faking it or looking for attention is ridiculous, there is more to this world than things being a whimsy free choice or biological, unfortunately our society hanging on the threadbare ideology of an impoverished individualism finds itself yo-yoing between determinism and deliberate rational choices. You can see it in the response to depression, in order to accept it as a real thing but protect our alienated social relations from any kind of critique it instead jumps to medicalise it, to make it an illness in a biological sense, the "alternative" position being the "snap out of it" type, as such it's hardly surprising that those suffering will seek solace in the medical approach in so much as it absolves them of guilt and blame. Apparently the idea that depression is real but in large socially produced must remain off the shelf.



Don't disagree but I think it is reasonable to judge people who are affected by social conditions. Actually not just reasonable but necessary.


----------



## toggle (Mar 19, 2016)

revol68 said:


> oh and it's also perfectly reasonable to oppose medicalisation models and support the right of individuals to have "gender realignment" (a misnomer in my opinion) as perfectly rational response that can help them navigate a heavily gendered world.



nods 



the terf position is absolutely not about the rejection of gender roles, but also the willingness to sacrifice a group of vulnerable people on the altar of their own power structures (the more feminist than thou shall be the speaker for all women and this crap they spout that somehow i'm going to learn how to aggree with them if i just read the right text - catch the religious parallels there. they are the self appointed ecclesiastic of feminism)

but yes. even if they are right in their perception that trans existence would go away if all gender differentiation went away, what happens to those folk in the meantime? sacrifice their right to find their own peace with the world on the alter of a goal that none of us have a chance to ever see happen in our lifetimes and is probably not possible without doing away with sex differentiations. reading some of the criticisms of white feminism and this shit exemplifies the reason that so many spent so long believing feminism was not for them. the one size fits all doctrine, the solidarity for those whose face fits. 


if we as feminists can't engage with the idea of protecting people that as a group are more vulnerable than us, people who ID as women (because their argument is always about trans women, not any other forms of trans) then we need to pack up and go the fuck home. because we're not worth shit if we do that.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 19, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Don't disagree but I think it is reasonable to judge people who are affected by social conditions. Actually not just reasonable but necessary.



Well that's a stupidly broad statement, I mean I can't disagree with it but it's pitched at such a level as to make it meaningless in regards to this discussion. 

I mean I oppose restrictive gender roles and arguments that seek to reify them yet at the same time I clearly have to navigate the world as a socialised individual and not a living political tract, that means that with all the best will in the world I can't help but be part of their reproduction to some extent, much as a worker I clearly an involved in reproducing capitalism, whilst I'm obviously opposed to it.

This is half the problem with the whole debate, it is personalised to the point where disagreement is seen as invalidating peoples very being, there is no recognition of the necessary gap between the political discussion and judgement of individuals. Personally I'm not interested in asking people to justify themselves and how they choose to live. I don't think it anymore appropriate to question a trans person about their decision to transition than I do to start lecturing men who watch football or do other "gender normative" things, it's fucking rude for a start. On the otherhand if some guy in a pub started going on about how he was naturally born to like football or that it's cos "that's what men do innit" or someother essentialist shit, then yeah I'd take issue with their argument because the argument isn't about the reality of their love for football it is about them essentialising that in a reactionary manner.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 19, 2016)

Hello revol!


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

revol68 said:


> Why some rad fems are so brutally opposed to trans folk is beyond me, it certainly goes beyond intellectual disagreement, and frankly the idea that trans women are just wolves in sheeps clothing out to colonise women's space is batshit.



I think the argument in the article above & what Vintage Paw is saying is solid, and is the way forward, but also think there's an obvious problem with it that might explain why some feminists (including me) might struggle in this area.

The argument is that this whole gender thing is nothing but a class issue.

Ok. But if you agree with that (and I do) then isn't there an obvious difficultly that comes along with that?
Remember the outrage and loathing about Rachel Dolezal ?
It's not a million miles away far as i can see.
Basically, what if some members of a long oppressed group / class are naturally going to struggle with the full acceptance of people who are apparently choosing to leave their position as part of the oppressor class in order to join it?

It's something I've been pondering in a different but maybe not entirely irrelevant way:
I grew up as a Jew in an environment where that was a very oppressive difficult shitty thing to be (I was the only one at my school & suffered lots of serious antisemitism). Now, decades later, I know a guy who grew up in a C of E english family and for reasons which he can't explain to me converted to judaism a few years ago.
It's not easy to do that - he went through circumcision, as an adult (ouch) and he did the exams you have to do, it obviously means a lot to him. Possibly it means more to him than it does to me but in a totally different way.

Anyway, instead of just being happy for him that he's found this thing that feels right for him, and even though I am the most rubbish Jew you could ever meet (am totally disconnected from anything at all to do with the religion or the community) I will probably never be able to accept him as part of my imagined community / class of oppressed jews, of which I had no choice but to be a part. Because he's chosen to join what I perceive as an oppressed class, and I didn't choose it (and neither did my grandparents who were rounded up into the camps etc)-  I just can't accept him as 'one of us', whatever that means.

So if gender is a class issue, as that article says it is, as in fact feminism says it is, then maybe it's understandable that some women will feel the need, right or wrong, to police the borders.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 19, 2016)

revol68 said:


> On the otherhand the shrill outrage at the likes of Greer is fucking daft, as is the willingness of some third wavers to embrace gender as some self affirmitive thing is just shitting on over a century of feminist struggle and theory.



I liked this post up to this point. Greer's history does not excuse her for now being wrong.  This is not being 'shrill', it is calling out nonsense on stilts.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 19, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I liked this post up to this point. Greer's history does not excuse her for now being wrong.  This is not being 'shrill', it is calling out nonsense on stilts.



I don't think she is wrong per se, I think she has a point, I think she doesn't articulate it very well and it's stupidly personalised but there is a kernel of reason in it and screaming transphobe at her is a dumb response. She is atleast vaguely consistent in her feminist politics, the thirdwavers who embrace gender as a self affirmitive thing are a bigger issue, they are the neo liberal face of gender essentialism.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 19, 2016)

also I hate the pathetic safe space student twats more than Greer who can atleast make an impassioned rant rather than a passive aggressive whinge.


----------



## toggle (Mar 19, 2016)

yep. by that logic, i'm a shrill to criticise Fawcett's imperialism, pro militarism,  racism and classism, because she was a figurehead in the suffrage campaigns. it is entirely possible for us to consider that someone who achieved something interesting in one facet of feminism can be talking out of their arse in others. i know that there's a belief that by opening up the door to criticism of the ideas of influential feminists, we negate their achievements, that we also open the door to discussion of rolling back feminism, but we don't have to set up heroes on pedastals who can do no wrong. and i think that we loose a great deal by rejecting critical discourse.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 19, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hello revol!


 hey!


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

It's shit that all discussion ends up being all about Greer herself / free speech instead of actually talking about the issues raised.
As Vintage Paw 's link says

"Greer’s belief that surgery can’t ‘turn a man into a woman’ and the biological essentialism to which this commits her, is not just a hallmark of Second Wave feminism, but the very basis on which it sought to build a common movement. . .

Get mad and get even


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 19, 2016)

revol68 said:


> also I hate the pathetic safe space student twats more than Greer who can atleast make an impassioned rant rather than a passive aggressive whinge.


I'm not defending them. Dunno if you saw in this thread or another the attack that was made on Peter Tatchell merely for signing a thing in support of the right for Greer to speak. No that's crap - the right to a 'safe space' being translated into the right 'not to be challenged'. They can fuck off with that.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think the argument in the article above & what Vintage Paw is saying is solid, and is the way forward, but also think there's an obvious problem with it that might explain why some feminists (including me) might struggle in this area.
> 
> The argument is that this whole gender thing is nothing but a class issue.
> 
> ...


I don't think you can equate what Dolezal or your Jewish friend have done with people who are trans.  You keep using the word "choice". Trans isn't choice.  Even revol's argument doesn't claim that.


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I don't think you can equate what Dolezal or your Jewish friend have done with people who are trans.  You keep using the word "choice". Trans isn't choice.  Even revol's argument doesn't claim that.


Yep I was expecting that riposte at the very least. 
I didn't use the word choice as in 'they just felt like it, like a consumer choice or voluntary thing. That bloke whom I can't accept as a jew underwent painful surgery, and lives according to strict rules, it wasn't like he just chose something off a shelf for a laugh. 
My point was simple: If women are an oppressed class, and have been for 99 % of forever, then it may be understandable that the borders for those born into the oppressor class joining that oppressed class are policed.


----------



## toggle (Mar 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> It's shit that all discussion ends up being all about Greer herself / free speech instead of actually talking about the issues raised.
> As Vintage Paw 's link says
> 
> "Greer’s belief that surgery can’t ‘turn a man into a woman’ and the biological essentialism to which this commits her, is not just a hallmark of Second Wave feminism, but the very basis on which it sought to build a common movement. . .
> ...



wheras to counter greer, it's entirely possible to have lived through second wave feminism and have come out of it trans positive or to change their minds.



The TERFs




			
				steinman said:
			
		

> So now I want to be unequivocal in my words: I believe that transgender people, including those who have transitioned, are living out real, authentic lives. *Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned.* *Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make.* And what I wrote decades ago does not reflect what we know today as we move away from only the binary boxes of “masculine” or “feminine” and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression



wre can then move onto




			
				Dworkin}

[B said:
			
		

> Work with transsexuals, and studies of formation of gender identity in children provide basic information which challenges the notion that there are two discrete biological sexes.[/B] That information threatens to transform the traditional biology of sex difference into the radical biology of sex similarity… *Every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions.*



or




			
				mackinnon said:
			
		

> Male dominant society has defined women as a discrete biological group forever. If this was going to produce liberation, we’d be free.… To me, *women is a political group*. I never had much occasion to say that, or work with it, until the last few years when there has been a lot of discussion about whether transwomen are women… I always thought *I don’t care how someone becomes a woman or a man*; it does not matter to me. It is just part of their specificity, their uniqueness, like everyone else’s. *Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I’m concerned, is a woman.*




so we have women who changed their minds, or who say they were never anti trans, but just it wasn't discussed for a long time, or who were talking openly about gender as a continuum not a binary in the 70s. but somehow greer's (and other terf) fundamentalism is what becomes representational of what is very clearly a much more diverse group of women.


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

^ "*women is a political group*. ..*I don’t care how someone becomes a woman or a man*..*Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I’m concerned, is a woman."
*
yep. I like that, and agree with it. I was just trying to say that if we are going with that - the idea that being a woman is nothing to do with having a womb -  its about being a member of a political group, an oppressed class, then it is totally understandable that there will be some resistance and confusion at the borders.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep I was expecting that riposte at the very least.
> I didn't use the word choice as in 'they just felt like it, like a consumer choice or voluntary thing. That bloke whom I can't accept as a jew underwent painful surgery, and lives according to strict rules, it wasn't like he just chose something off a shelf for a laugh.
> My point was simple: If women are an oppressed class, and have been for 99 % of forever, then it may be understandable that the borders for those born into the oppressor class joining that oppressed class are policed.


But your friend did make a choice. A conscious decision, no matter how seriously felt or severe in its consequences.  Transgender people are no more making a choice to be their gender than you are.  

Yes, they may seek medical transitioning, but ieven that isn't much of a choice - any more than taking medication for a chronic coNdition would be.


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Transgender people are no more making a choice to be their gender than you are.



I am struggling with that, exactly. A couple of weeks ago I learnt that one of my cousin's kids (aged 14, americans) is just starting out on transitioning from female to male. I know I've got confusion in this area but still feel this thing, that she (what's the word for cousin's kid?) is now a he is totally fine and unproblematic for me but that the other way around is confusing. I know it's not totally coherent but I think if you're going with the gender is nothing but class oppression stance then you might to well to acknowledge it as an issue, at least just now, at this time of unprecedented change.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> I am struggling with that, exactly. A couple of weeks ago I learnt that one of my cousin's kids (aged 14, americans) is just starting out on transitioning from female to male. I know I've got confusion in this area but still feel this thing, that she (what's the word for cousin's kid?) is now a he is totally fine and unproblematic for me but that the other way around is confusing. I know it's not totally coherent but I think if you're going with the gender is nothing but class oppression stance then you might to well to acknowledge it as an issue, at least just now, at this time of unprecedented change.


Issue? Arguably. Choice? Nope.  That was my point.   People insisting on using the word choice to refer to the state of being transgender are bigots, imo.  And bigotry should always be challenged.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 19, 2016)

Also, the child in question is your second cousin. And ffs, is not a "she".


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Also, the child in question is your second cousin. And ffs, is not a "she".


Ok. I'm a bigot. I asked my second cousin (thanks for that) about that on the phone last week and they said that "she' is correct / preferred for now, btw.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ok. I'm a bigot. I asked my second cousin (thanks for that) about that on the phone last week and they said that "she' is correct / preferred for now, btw.


In that case "he" from your post is the incorrect.  You said "she is now a he".  The grammar of that suggests to me "she" also is the present tense state.  Since you already had the knowledge that he still prefers feminine identifiers, I'm at a loss as to why you brought "he" into it at all.  

And imo, it's only bigotry if you insist on using the word choice after knowing its offensive and not grounded in any evidence.


----------



## killer b (Mar 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ok. I'm a bigot. I asked my second cousin (thanks for that) about that on the phone last week and they said that "she' is correct / preferred for now, btw.


bit of a snide trap to lay, that.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 19, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> In that case "he" from your post is the incorrect.  You said "she is now a he".  The grammar of that suggests to me "she" also is the present tense state.  Since you already had the knowledge that he still prefers feminine identifiers, I'm at a loss as to why you brought "he" into it at all.



Why is it incorrect? She is transitioning to a he, but prefers to be referred to as she for the time being.


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> bit of a snide trap to lay, that.


I wasn't doing a cunning plan.  My point is kind of the opposite, that my difficulty is entirely one way, given that if the category of women is now that of an oppressed class, nothing to do with how for 99.9% of forever, people with wombs have constituted that class. Do you see what I mean?


----------



## bimble (Mar 19, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> In that case "he" from your post is the incorrect.  .


Yes that was a mistake, you're right. Just proof of my confusion really, or bigotry as you will.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 19, 2016)

I suppose the alternative would be he is transitioning to a he, but prefers to be known as she for the time being. Far less confusing.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 19, 2016)

goldenecitrone said:


> I suppose the alternative would be he is transitioning to a he, but prefers to be known as she for the time being. Far less confusing.


"She is beginning the process of transitioning" is enough, isn't it?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

revol68 said:


> Well that's a stupidly broad statement, I mean I can't disagree with it but it's pitched at such a level as to make it meaningless in regards to this discussion.
> 
> I mean I oppose restrictive gender roles and arguments that seek to reify them yet at the same time I clearly have to navigate the world as a socialised individual and not a living political tract, that means that with all the best will in the world I can't help but be part of their reproduction to some extent, much as a worker I clearly an involved in reproducing capitalism, whilst I'm obviously opposed to it.
> 
> This is half the problem with the whole debate, it is personalised to the point where disagreement is seen as invalidating peoples very being, there is no recognition of the necessary gap between the political discussion and judgement of individuals. Personally I'm not interested in asking people to justify themselves and how they choose to live. I don't think it anymore appropriate to question a trans person about their decision to transition than I do to start lecturing men who watch football or do other "gender normative" things, it's fucking rude for a start. On the otherhand if some guy in a pub started going on about how he was naturally born to like football or that it's cos "that's what men do innit" or someother essentialist shit, then yeah I'd take issue with their argument because the argument isn't about the reality of their love for football it is about them essentialising that in a reactionary manner.



I suspect Germaine Greer would agree with that. I don't think she is being personal. (edit: my apologies she was being personal, I'd forgotten.)

I don't understand this dogmatic insistence that things have to have social explanations. The whole nature versus nurture debate is old and stale. Being dogmatic one way or the other makes you look like a 70's throwback.

On the question of medicalising, this was not my intent. Illness and cure was not on my mind at all when I wrote what you replied to. Regardless of how much or how little you think there is a biological component to gender dysphoria there is no need to medicalise it.

By the welcome back.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 20, 2016)

Your Jewish thing is a bit weird, bimble. Am I less Jewish than you because I did not experience antisemitism in school and wasn't bullied for being so? It's a but shitty to not fully accept converts on the basis that you had a shit time as a kid. 

It's an odd example. We choose our religion but a trans person no more chooses their gender than I have chosen to be gay.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

^ Ye, i know it's a bit shitty of me, and a bit weird too. Don't want to derail into a whole thing about whether jewishness is a choice (I don't think it is, certainly wasn't for my grandparents etc). But anyway, I have absolutely no problem with calling people by whatever pronoun they want to be called, I honestly don't, but do get confused when I try to understand what the category of women means: If we're saying its got nothing to do with your genitalia and also that there's no such thing as an essential 'womanly' type brain or way of being, then what is it?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh my extremely tentative suggestion regarding these findings, especially the finding of less 'genderisation' among younger people, would be that this has nothing to do with your gender at birth and everything to do with how you're brought up.



Why do you think a study into "male" and "female" mental tendancies say anything about the nature of gender identity.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Also, the child in question is your second cousin. And ffs, is not a "she".


First cousin once removed, actually.  Second cousin means you share great grandparents.


----------



## laptop (Mar 20, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> Your Jewish thing is a bit weird, bimble. Am I less Jewish than you because I did not experience antisemitism in school and wasn't bullied for being so? It's a but shitty to not fully accept converts on the basis that you had a shit time as a kid.
> 
> It's an odd example. We choose our religion but a trans person no more chooses their gender than I have chosen to be gay.



Think again. I think it's an illuminating example.

In what sense did bimble choose to be Jewish - or "Jewish"?

Which reminds me. When it comes to genocidal oppression, there is masses of academic work demonstrating that it's the oppressor group that gets to choose who counts as a member of the oppressed group. In Rwanda people were killed because of how the killers identified them - obvious when put like that. I'm not aware of any work asking whether and how that extends to more everyday oppression.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

laptop said:


> Which reminds me. When it comes to genocidal oppression, there is masses of academic work demonstrating that it's the oppressor group that gets to choose who counts as a member of the oppressed group.


Of course. That's kind of what I meant about the jewish thing - my grandparents who survived the concentration camp were put there due entirely to the definitions used by their oppressors, not their own.
And by the same token, sort of, we've been saying for a generation now that the category of woman is a fiction imposed by patriarchy, right?
But then it gets confusing, because - if you want to do more than just pay lip service to respecting everybody's right to self-define, to choose their own pronoun etc-  then you have to somehow accept that, even if only for trans people (?) an essential real thing called 'woman-ness' does apparently exist again?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> And by the same token, sort of, we've been saying for a generation now that the category of woman is a fiction imposed by patriarchy, right?


It is?


----------



## laptop (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is?



_In what ways_ is the category "woman" a thing-in-the-world in the sense that, say, "water" is?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

revol68 said:


> Well that's a stupidly broad statement, I mean I can't disagree with it but it's pitched at such a level as to make it meaningless in regards to this discussion.



Just to change tack a bit. One thing I think we can all agree is that racial identity is what you call a social condition. Only lunatics think we are born with an innate racial identity. So how do we understand someone like Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who tried to pass herself off as a black woman. I've no doubt that she was experiencing something that could be called "racial dysphoria as a social condition" and that this social condition has its own reality. But I would still say that the whole thing is fucked up and undermines anti-racism. I feel quite judgey about this.

Now I don't think that what might be termed "transracialism" is analagous to transgenderism. I think there is something else going on other than social factors.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Just to change tack a bit. One thing I think we can all agree is that racial identity is what you call a social condition. Only lunatics think we are born with an innate racial identity. So how do we understand someone like Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who tried to pass herself off as a black woman. I've no doubt that she was experiencing something that could be called "racial dysphoria as a social condition" and that this social condition has its own reality. But I would still say that the whole thing is fucked up and undermines anti-racism. I feel quite judgey about this.
> 
> Now I don't think that what might be termed "transracialism" is analagous to transgenderism. I think there is something else going on other than social factors.



There was a 1248714 page thread on that already. I think that's enough.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

There's a lot of interesting stuff out there, about the difficult overlaps where trans activism meets gender essentialism.
Here's one: On the butchering of “essentialism”
("This trans and patriarchy asserted belief, that men and women are innately, biologically different, cannot be reconciled with the feminist position that this idea comes from sexism..")
& an example of the response to that:
No, The Existence of Trans People Doesn’t Validate Gender Essentialism


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> There was a 1248714 page thread on that already. I think that's enough.



It's very relevant though. If you are going to say that transgenderism is a social condition then you are saying that a trans woman does not want to be a woman as such but a woman as society sees women (the idea of feminity is purely socially conditioned on this view). This is the core accusation from Greer and other feminists. Rachel Dolezal provides us with a case study. She has a socially conditioned different identity to her physical body (incidentally she herself uses the phrase "socially conditioned") and her blacking up is a result of her falling in love with certain stereotypes of black women.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> It's very relevant though. If you are going to say that transgenderism is a social condition then you are saying that a trans woman does not want to be a woman as such but a woman as society sees women (the idea of feminity is purely socially conditioned on this view). This is the core accusation from Greer and other feminists. Rachel Dolezal provides us with a case study. She has a socially conditioned different identity to her physical body (incidentally she herself uses the phrase "socially conditioned") and her blacking up is a result of her falling in love with certain stereotypes of black women.


It's about as relevant as bimble's Jewish convert example. She didn't feel herself to be black from before she even knew race existed. By blacking up, she isn't aligning her external reality with an internal feeling that has always been there.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Now I don't think that what might be termed "transracialism" is analagous to transgenderism. I think there is something else going on other than social factors.


So you're saying there is an innate essential thing called woman-ness which some people have & some don't? What does that thing consist of do you reckon?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's about as relevant as bimble's Jewish convert example. She didn't feel herself to be black from before she even knew race existed. By blacking up, she isn't aligning her external reality with an internal feeling that has always been there.



Of course. That's why it's relevant. The point of comparisons can be to contrast and my point was that there is a contrast.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> So you're saying there is an innate essential thing called woman-ness which some people have & some don't? What does that thing consist of do you reckon?



If I meant to say that there is an innate essential thing called woman-ness then I would have said it.


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's about as relevant as bimble's Jewish convert example. She didn't feel herself to be black from before she even knew race existed. By blacking up, she isn't aligning her external reality with an internal feeling that has always been there.


Is there a time before children know gender exists?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> So you're saying there is an innate essential thing called woman-ness which some people have & some don't? What does that thing consist of do you reckon?


Does it matter? 

Gender is a construct built on certain biological realities, but it produces anomalies - the construct doesn't fit some even if their biology suggests it should. Frankly who cares exactly what that consists of? You don't have to fully understand the feeling that some have that they have been assigned the wrong gender, whether it's male or female, to accept that the feeling is real and deserves to be respected.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> Is there a time before children know gender exists?


There's certainly a time before they are able to express what it is, no? You might know something but not know that you know it, and yes, I think there is a time before children know that they know it. There's a time before children properly know that others exist as individuals separate from them, after all.

And if someone says that, for as long as they can remember, they have felt something to be wrong, you have to take their word for that, no?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 20, 2016)

I do wish someone would edit the title of this thread


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's certainly a time before they are able to express what it is, no? You might know something but not know that you know it, and yes, I think there is a time before children know that they know it. There's a time before children properly know that others exist as individuals separate from them, after all.


I'm not sure I understand your example that Rachel Dolezal is different because "She didn't feel herself to be black from before she even knew race existed."  I'm not sure how you know this?  And are you saying it's different to being transgender because a transgender baby does feel themself to be the other gender before they know gender exists?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> I'm not sure I understand your example that Rachel Dolezal is different because "She didn't feel herself to be black from before she even knew race existed."  I'm not sure how you know this?  And are you saying it's different to being transgender because a transgender baby does feel themself to be the other gender before they know gender exists?


We're not conditioned to _be_ a certain race from the moment we're born. That doesn't even mean anything - what does 'being' a particular race even mean? We are conditioned in various ways into our gender assignation from the moment we're born.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Does it matter?
> 
> Gender is a construct built on certain biological realities, but it produces anomalies - the construct doesn't fit some even if their biology suggests it should. Frankly who cares exactly what that consists of? You don't have to fully understand the feeling that some have that they have been assigned the wrong gender, whether it's male or female, to accept that the feeling is real and deserves to be respected.



But are we to respect Rachel Dolezal's black identity?

Of course I think there is a difference and you think there is a difference, but you are saying that we shouldn't care about what the identity construct consists of. This is why political correctness is shit.


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're not conditioned to _be_ a certain race from the moment we're born. That doesn't even mean anything - what does 'being' a particular race even mean? We are conditioned in various ways into our gender assignation from the moment we're born.


I would imagine babies/young children are treated differently due to their perceived/assigned race.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> But are we to respect Rachel Dolezal's black identity?


No. One reason being because she herself doesn't respect it. She didn't say, 'oh, I was born white but I feel myself to be black, so I've blacked up'. No, she just lied about it. Why? Because she must have known that nobody would have taken her seriously. 

And yes, I think there is a difference, one that is more comparable to sexual orientation - 'for as long as I can remember, I've been gay'. If Dolezal says 'for as Iong as I can remember, I've felt myself to be black', a. that doesn't mean anything, and b. she's lying.


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If Dolezal says 'for as Iong as I can remember, I've felt myself to be black', a. that doesn't mean anything, and b. she's lying.


Why?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> I would imagine babies/young children are treated differently due to their perceived/assigned race.


Not by their parents, and depending on where they grow up, not by anyone else either for quite some time. Many young children only become aware of race as a thing at an older age, while they are beginning to become aware of gender right from the start.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. One reason being because she herself doesn't respect it. She didn't say, 'oh, I was born white but I feel myself to be black, so I've blacked up'. No, she just lied about it. Why? Because she must have known that nobody would have taken her seriously.
> 
> And yes, I think there is a difference, one that is more comparable to sexual orientation - 'for as long as I can remember, I've been gay'. If Dolezal says 'for as Iong as I can remember, I've felt myself to be black', a. that doesn't mean anything, and b. she's lying.



Agreed. So what the construct consists of does matter.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? Because she must have known that nobody would have taken her seriously.



Do you think people have always taken transgendered people seriously? The point about her lying is not very significant.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Agreed. So what the construct consists of does matter.


I am interested in what it consists of, yeah. But thing is, if I met a cis man or cis woman who told me they believe that innate essential gender differences exist, men are like this women are like that etc, then I'd feel free to question them about what they mean, why they think that. 
But I wouldn't feel it's ok to question a trans person about this though, because that would probably come across as a personal attack on them and their right to self define, which would not be my intention at all.


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not by their parents, and depending on where they grow up, not by anyone else either for quite some time. Many young children only become aware of race as a thing at an older age, while they are beginning to become aware of gender right from the start.


That's a very sweeping statement.  I'm sure some children, especially in families with members of different perceived races, may well be treated differently from birth (I remember reading an article a while ago by a white mother about how differently she felt about her white children vs. her black child).  Young babies are often in childcare where they may well be treated differently depending on their perceived race.  Is a 6 or 12 month old baby in nursery aware they are a different race to other children or the carers?  Are they aware they are of a particular gender?  Does a black toddler growing up with a white mother and siblings feel they are black or white?

ETA: I also think babies and toddlers can experience racism just as they can experience sexism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Do you think people have always taken transgendered people seriously? The point about her lying is not very significant.


Fair enough. It seems to me that stella, for instance, is determined to find a scientific proof that she was born different, and so is jumping on any shred of evidence to show that. But she is all the proof she needs - if she has felt this to be the case from as long as she can remember, that's her evidence. The nature vs nurture debate is mostly outdated anyhow - it's always nurture of nature, and the two are normally impossible to separate in a satisfactory way. 

That doesn't mean we have to also accept things such as Dolezal as equivalent, when they're clearly not.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> I am interested in what it consists of, yeah. But thing is, if I met a cis man or cis woman who told me they believe that innate essential gender differences exist, men are like this women are like that etc, then I'd feel free to question them about what they mean, why they think that.
> But I wouldn't feel it's ok to question a trans person about this though, because that would probably come across as a personal attack on them and their right to self define, which would not be my intention at all.



I would be the same. And yet I would question Rachel Dolezal about her black identity. This is because there are certain assumptions about the Dolezal case that are safe to make. And that's that she is immitating being black and that immitation derives from stereotypes (albeit liberal, positive stereotypes) of blackness. I don't think you could make similar assumptions about transgendered people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> That's a very sweeping statement.  I'm sure some children, especially in families with members of different perceived races, may well be treated differently from birth (I remember reading an article a while ago by a white mother about how differently she felt about her white children vs. her black child).  Young babies are often in childcare where they may well be treated differently depending on their perceived race.  Is a 6 or 12 month old baby in nursery aware they are a different race to other children or the carers?  Are they aware they are of a particular gender?  Does a black toddler growing up with a white mother and siblings feel they are black or white?
> 
> ETA: I also think babies and toddlers can experience racism just as they can experience sexism.


I think you're reaching, tbh. Gender is something that gets reinforced in subtle ways from the moment you're born. Race isn't.

It's also quite possible - and in many cases normal - to grow up not feeling any kind of racial identity at all.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> It's shit that all discussion ends up being all about Greer herself / free speech instead of actually talking about the issues raised.
> As Vintage Paw 's link says
> 
> "Greer’s belief that surgery can’t ‘turn a man into a woman’ and the biological essentialism to which this commits her, is not just a hallmark of Second Wave feminism, but the very basis on which it sought to build a common movement. . .
> ...



see that's just it, Greer is not the essentialist here, she is holding that man and woman are gender constructs based on socialisation from birth and as such surgery can't change a man into a woman, the argument that it could is in fact a form of medically augmented biological essentialism in so much as it's responses to issues with people not fitting within their imposed gender is to realign the body to map to the gender they more closely identify with.			  
This the valid point that gets lost among the accusations and shouting down. I mean I'm not a terf but I find it hard to celebrate 12 year olds being given hormone blockers as some sort of liberation, it's not it's a reinforcement of gender norms under a neo liberal ideology.


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're reaching, tbh. Gender is something that gets reinforced in subtle ways from the moment you're born. Race isn't.


I don't know enough about how racial identity develops to say one way or the other.  But lets say most children have an awareness of their "race" by 4.  Most children have an awareness of their gender by 4.  Personally I don't remember very much before then anyway, so that is "for as long as I can remember".  I don't find it unbelievable that a person could feel they were a different race to their perceived race for as long as they could remember.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That doesn't mean we have to also accept things such as Dolezal as equivalent, when they're clearly not.



But you've just said "who cares what the construct is based on". So for you it shouldn't matter that the Dolezal case is not an equivalent. I pick the Dolezal case because it is a clear cut case of nurture not nature.


----------



## toggle (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're reaching, tbh. Gender is something that gets reinforced in subtle ways from the moment you're born. Race isn't.
> 
> It's also quite possible - and in many cases normal - to grow up not feeling any kind of racial identity at all.



which is generally associated with your race being considered the normal(as opposed to other) thing to be where you live. 

now if we follow that analogy, are girls/women more gendered than men, because of the way society treats male as normal and women as other?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're reaching, tbh. Gender is something that gets reinforced in subtle ways from the moment you're born. Race isn't.
> 
> It's also quite possible - and in many cases normal - to grow up not feeling any kind of racial identity at all.



Of course race gets reinforced in subtle ways. And some not so subtle ways.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> I don't know enough about how racial identity develops to say one way or the other.  But lets say most children have an awareness of their "race" by 4.  Most children have an awareness of their gender by 4.  Personally I don't remember very much before then anyway, so that is "for as long as I can remember".  I don't find it unbelievable that a person could feel they were a different race to their perceived race for as long as they could remember.



I don't think in many ways the comparison between trans race and trans gender holds, but the one vital area it does is that many of the left have moved from being gender critical to embracing it as personal affirmation, no longer a structural formation but a celebratory expression of some innate self. If you reduce gender to a subjective affirmation then why can't you do the same with race? The celebration of racial diversity and self affirming gender ends up only further cementing race and gender, it basically is a means of allowing the discourses enough to slack as to not break under their own weight.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> But you've just said "who cares what the construct is based on". So for you it shouldn't matter that the Dolezal case is not an equivalent. I pick the Dolezal case because it is a clear cut case of nurture not nature.


There is growing evidence that we are born with a propensity to look for certain things in certain kinds of ways. Often these are based on dualities - a morality with two categories 'right' and 'wrong', for instance, which we do appear to be primed to look for right from birth. Gender would fit this, and given the ubiquity of gender across human societies, it would be surprising if some kind of selection for looking for it hadn't happened. 

The same does not apply at all to race.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Of course race gets reinforced in subtle ways. And some not so subtle ways.


By parents from birth?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By parents from birth?



Sometimes yes. Absolutely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Sometimes yes. Absolutely.


Perhaps. But you're stretching - I would say mostly not. They're not equivalent kinds of thing.


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. But you're stretching. They're not equivalent kinds of thing.


I don't think the argument is about whether they are strictly equivalent - your claim was a young child cannot have an internal sense of their race.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

toggle said:


> which is generally associated with your race being considered the normal(as opposed to other) thing to be where you live.
> 
> now if we follow that analogy, are girls/women more gendered than men, because of the way society treats male as normal and women as other?


Don't know. I don't think the analogy works, tbh.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. But you're stretching - I would say mostly not. They're not equivalent kinds of thing.



Really? I'm actually quite astonished you are saying this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> I don't think the argument is about whether they are strictly equivalent - your claim was a young child cannot have an internal sense of their race.


My argument would be a lot stronger than that. If a young child is unfortunate enough to be made aware of race as a thing at a very early age and treated differently for it, the most likely outcome will be a sense of internalised contradiction - this external thing says I'm different for this reason, but I don't feel that difference at all. That's one of the evils of racism - it fucks people up.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 20, 2016)

let's not be silly gender is much more insidious than race in how it is reinforced and imposed from birth, even at the height of slavery and the racism that justified it, it was much more an externally imposed matter, whereas gender is much more internalised. That's not to say there isn't internalised aspects to racial subjugation nor external impositions to gender but by in large gender is much less questioned, seen more as a natural expression of biological differences than a violently imposed ideology. I mean I've had arguments with women who've argued women don't like sport because of their biology, you'd have to go a long way these days to find say a Jewish person arguing the same and that's because largely racism as a biological ideology is dead in the water, a taboo in the sciences, whilst genderist shit still rides high, so much so that serious scientists will talk shit about gendered brains.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

toggle said:


> which is generally associated with your race being considered the normal(as opposed to other) thing to be where you live.
> 
> now if we follow that analogy, are girls/women more gendered than men, because of the way society treats male as normal and women as other?



Surely this is the case. "Boys" clothes are gender neutral. But you wouldn't dress your boy in a skirt and blouse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Really? I'm actually quite astonished you are saying this.


If pushed, I would say that it is very likely that we are born with a propensity to look for something like gender. That is absolutely not the case with race.

The _content_ of that gender identity is then a socially constructed thing.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

revol68 said:


> I don't think in many ways the comparison between trans race and trans gender holds, but the one vital area it does is that many of the left have moved from being gender critical to embracing it as personal affirmation, no longer a structural formation but a celebratory expression of some innate self. If you reduce gender to a subjective affirmation then why can't you do the same with race? The celebration of racial diversity and self affirming gender ends up only further cementing race and gender, it basically is a means of allowing the discourses enough to slack as to not break under their own weight.


I think this is the sad thing. If everyone is busy focussing on the rights of individuals to self define their identities (even if using regressive binary gender stereotypical ideas to do so) then those terms, which generations of feminists worked to deconstruct, are unintentionally being resurrected, entrenched, like a sort of collateral damage.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If pushed, I would say that it is very likely that we are born with a propensity to look for something like gender. That is absolutely not the case with race.



I'm not saying there are no differences... Again I raise the comparison in order to contrast.


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

revol68 said:


> I mean I'm not a terf but I find it hard to celebrate 12 year olds being given hormone blockers as some sort of liberation, it's not it's a reinforcement of gender norms under a neo liberal ideology.


I find this quite worrying, that gender noncompliant children are being medicalised.  I think back to a friend at primary school who was like George from the Famous Five, used a gender neutral name, wore boys clothes, played football, wanted to be a boy.  I think that was thought of as more normal 20 years ago than it is now (have read several mumsnet threads recently about transgender 5 year olds) and she grew up to be a gay woman rather than a trans man.  I wonder how things would have turned out if she had been given puberty blockers.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Do you think people have always taken transgendered people seriously? The point about her lying is not very significant.



there is a huge wealth a commonality of experience of transgender people spread across both time and cultures, a vast body of testimony of lived experiences of bodily dysmorphia that most say goes back to a very early age, many, many tragic suicides because people were unable to cope with this dysmorphia and millions of people both in the past and now who have lived their lives trying to suppress feelings of gender and bodily dysmorphia.  There is also a well-evidenced track record of successful treatment in the form of gender transition.

its really not comparable to Rachel Dolezal, or otherkin, furries, or any other current sub-cultural fads and as such the only real reason to make that comparison is to undermine the experiences of transgender people - a bit like when gay people were portrayed as wanton self-indulgent hedonists whose sexuality wasn't, or couldn't be, really real


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> I find this quite worrying, that gender noncompliant children are being medicalised.  I think back to a friend at primary school who was like George from the Famous Five, used a gender neutral name, wore boys clothes, played football, wanted to be a boy.  I think that was thought of as more normal 20 years ago than it is now (have read several mumsnet threads recently about transgender 5 year olds) and she grew up to be a gay woman rather than a trans man.  I wonder how things would have turned out if she had been given puberty blockers.



Yep. I find this hard to admit but when I was told the news that my first cousin once removed has started hormone therapy as step one of the ftm transitioning process, it made me just hope very much that despite being so young they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the right thing for them & that they will not ever regret it. There are it seems lots of people out there who do go on to have second thoughts, advice pages on which bits are reversible which are not. That must be very scary stuff to be dealing with, especially if you're 14.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 20, 2016)

smokedout said:


> its really not comparable to Rachel Dolezal



Don't tell me that. Tell revol68.

I'm sick of these arguments about transgender that apply just as well to blacking up. It's a social phenomenon but be nice and understanding about it. It's politically correct bollocks.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 20, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Don't tell me that. Tell revol68.



was just making the point generally, wasn't meant to be directed at anyone specific


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> I find this quite worrying, that gender noncompliant children are being medicalised.  I think back to a friend at primary school who was like George from the Famous Five, used a gender neutral name, wore boys clothes, played football, wanted to be a boy.  I think that was thought of as more normal 20 years ago than it is now (have read several mumsnet threads recently about transgender 5 year olds) and she grew up to be a gay woman rather than a trans man.  I wonder how things would have turned out if she had been given puberty blockers.


They don't just hand these out to tomboys like they are Smarties. Hormone blockers are given to children who are in acute psychological distress because of by their gender dysmorphia and only after thorough psychological evaluation. The effects are reversible when stopping the treatment.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep. I find this hard to admit but when I was told the news that my first cousin once removed has started hormone therapy as step one of the ftm transitioning process, it made me just hope very much that despite being so young they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the right thing for them & that they will not ever regret it. There are it seems lots of people out there who do go on to have second thoughts, advice pages on which bits are reversible which are not. That must be very scary stuff to be dealing with, especially if you're 14.



Isn't that the whole point of hormone blockers, that they are a temporary pause allowing the person time to have "second thoughts".


----------



## Thora (Mar 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> They don't just hand these out to tomboys like they are Smarties. Hormone blockers are given to children who are in acute psychological distress because of by their gender dysmorphia and only after thorough psychological evaluation. The effects are reversible when stopping the treatment.


That certainly doesn't mean that it's risk free, or even that we know what the long term risks are.  I seem to remember reading that most childhood gender dysphoria does not persist into adulthood - so what effect does delaying puberty have?  Is gender dysphoria more or less likely to persist in children who are treated with puberty blockers?


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

ok. that's good to know, I didn't understand that what my (once removed) cousin is being given is just providing a temporary pause. 
It looks like testosterone is reversible anyway, with time.
FTM detransitioning experience—quitting “T” and getting back to life as a woman


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

Thora said:


> That certainly doesn't mean that it's risk free, or even that we know what the long term risks are.  I seem to remember reading that most childhood gender dysphoria does not persist into adulthood - so what effect does delaying puberty have?  Is gender dysphoria more or less likely to persist in children who are treated with puberty blockers?



Taking the most alarmist stance possible on behalf of something you "seem to remember" is not very persuasive. Most children experiment with ideas of gender and sexuality at some point of their lives. That is different from genuine gender dysmorphia, which if left ignored or denied has a good chance of leading to a suicide.


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2016)

I don't think suggesting giving children hormone treatment isn't risk free is an alarmist stance is it?


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think suggesting giving children hormone treatment isn't risk free is an alarmist stance is it?



Measles vaccine isn't risk free either...


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think suggesting giving children hormone treatment isn't risk free is an alarmist stance is it?


No medical intervention is 100% risk free. That doesn't mean that after weighing up the pros and cons, we shouldn't apply them. It's suggesting that any child who exeriments with gender roles could be given them which is alarmist.


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2016)

no. are the two comparable?


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> no. are the two comparable?



No but the anti-vaccine and anti-hormone blockers crowds are comparable in their blindness to the evidence of medical outcomes.


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2016)

Well that's certainly going to win them over to your way of thinking.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 20, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I do wish someone would edit the title of this thread


Changed now.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 20, 2016)

revol68 said:


> I mean I'm not a terf but I find it hard to celebrate 12 year olds being given hormone blockers as some sort of liberation, it's not it's a reinforcement of gender norms under a neo liberal ideology


 
umm

i'm acquainted with a few trans people but don't really claim to be expert. 

although i'm not sure anyone who isn't trans can ever really 'get it'

but...

my understanding is that hormone blockers effectively put a hold on puberty, and effectively allow that young person to keep their options open an bit longer.

the alternative is to let that young person go through puberty and develop further in to being an adult in what they - at that moment in time - feel is the 'wrong' body / gender, and i'm not sure that's entirely helpful either.


----------



## laptop (Mar 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No but the anti-vaccine and anti-hormone blockers crowds are comparable in their blindness to the evidence of medical outcomes.



To be fair, if there is an "anti-hormone blocker crowd" I don't think it's represented on this thread, and I think its core is likely to be religiously-motivated straight-up anti-transsexual.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Changed now.


leaving the 'hate' bit in though, for some reason. The very first response to the OP was a good one i thought..


weltweit said:


> I don't think Greer hates transgender people, isn't it possible she just doesn't think they are women, but does not hate them?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> leaving the 'hate' bit in though, for some reason. The very first response to the OP was a good one i thought..


That might hold water if she hadn't come out with the dismissive, patronising, intentionally hurtful crap she did come out with. She is dismissive of the experience and its significance.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2016)

Ye, ok. I take it back - have just read some truly vile stuff, from a recently deceased radical feminist called Mary Daly, unequivocally hate speech against trans people, no two ways about it, and I'm sure she wasn't/isn't  alone.


----------



## laptop (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> Mary Daly



Her of the _Wickedary_? 

Not my place to say this as a non-woman, but it is my place to say it as a writer: you might as well take Burroughs or Bukowski as representative of all writers.


----------



## toggle (Mar 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't know. I don't think the analogy works, tbh.



your original assertion dosen't work any more or less.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 20, 2016)

toggle said:


> your original assertion dosen't work any more or less.


Gender identity is a different kind of thing from racial identity. So I don't agree with you. I know of no human society in any time or place that hasn't assigned male/female to children. Given that, there is a case for a selection pressure for the evolution of the propensity to look for that kind of thing from birth. This is entirely different from race - there are no useful points of comparison, imo.


----------



## iona (Mar 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> ok. that's good to know, I didn't understand that what my (once removed) cousin is being given is just providing a temporary pause.
> It looks like testosterone is reversible anyway, with time.
> FTM detransitioning experience—quitting “T” and getting back to life as a woman



Hormone blockers used to delay puberty aren't the same thing as hormones, eg. T. Some changes caused by T will change back over time after stopping it, but not all.


----------



## Shirl (Mar 20, 2016)

I like the new thread title


----------



## toggle (Mar 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think suggesting giving children hormone treatment isn't risk free is an alarmist stance is it?




hormone treatment, or treatment to block hormone production?


lets seperate the two shall we? because we are talkling about 2 different things. one is blocking the hormones that would cause the development of an adult body that does not suit the young person's perception of themselves, the other is to give hormone treatments that cause the development of an adult body.




littlebabyjesus said:


> Gender identity is a different kind of thing from racial identity. So I don't agree with you. I know of no human society in any time or place that hasn't assigned male/female to children. Given that, there is a case for a selection pressure for the evolution of the propensity to look for that kind of thing from birth. This is entirely different from race - there are no useful points of comparison, imo.




so how is it possible to raise a child without awareness of the community they belong to?

a belief that you lack a race, generally comes from those in a currently and historically dominant culture. those who have maintained their cultural supremacism.

it's not white power supremacism where your race/culture/ethnicity is the top of the food chain, but more white liberal supremacism that your race/ethnicity/culture is default. lacking a race, a culture, a cultural/national mythology, only recognizing the existence of these in someone identified as other.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 21, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> umm
> 
> i'm acquainted with a few trans people but don't really claim to be expert.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah but like Thora said there is a danger in reifying gender more by saying "well you are in the wrong body" rather than there being space and acceptance for people being able to move beyond gender roles assigned to the body they have.

My bestfriend had a similar childhood as Thora's friend, she played with boys, dressed like a boy, she's told me that if someone had said to her when she was 12 years old did she feel like a boy she'd have said yes. They didn't cos her family were cool with her being who she was as a girl (she has lesbian aunts etc) and she's a very happy lesbian.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

revol68 said:


> Yeah but like Thora said there is a danger in reifying gender more by saying "well you are in the wrong body" rather than there being space and acceptance for people being able to move beyond gender roles assigned to the body they have.
> 
> My bestfriend had a similar childhood as Thora's friend, she played with boys, dressed like a boy, she's told me that if someone had said to her when she was 12 years old did she feel like a boy she'd have said yes. They didn't cos her family were cool with her being who she was as a girl (she has lesbian aunts etc) and she's a very happy lesbian.


That's still different from being traumatised by your body. I was a little gay boy who played with dolls, preferred to hang out with the girls and accasionally wore mums dresses. I wanted to be a princess at a fancy dress party ffs (my parents compromised on prince) I had no problem with the body I was in though.

Btw my own experience growing up makes me call bullshit on the assertion by some that gender is entirely a sociological construct as I went exactly the opposite from how I was supposed to develop from being a toddler onwards. My parents were homophobic and they tried everything to butch me up (football club  )and keep me away from dolls, kiddie drag, etc and yet that's what I gravitated towards. If we are all slotted into our society imposed


----------



## Mation (Mar 21, 2016)

toggle said:


> a belief that you lack a race, generally comes from those in a currently and historically dominant culture. those who have maintained their cultural supremacism.


First, apologies. I'm only dipping into this thread (that makes my heart sink every time I see it revived [not on your account, though!]), so I may not have the context right. 

I think that the belief that you have a race only comes from other people telling you that you do. Before that you're just a person. And there are no behaviours/norms that, within your local culture, will mark you out as having a race. That seems to me to be different from, on a very local level, being assigned a gender, which will happen _within_ your very local societal group.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 21, 2016)

The two transgender women I am closest to were in relationships with women before they transitioned, and are now lesbians.  Gender dysphoria is not the same as being homosexual, not at all.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> That's still different from being traumatised by your body. I was a little gay boy who played with dolls, preferred to hang out with the girls and accasionally wore mums dresses. I wanted to be a princess at a fancy dress party ffs (my parents compromised on prince) I had no problem with the body I was in though.
> 
> Btw my own experience growing up makes me call bullshit on the assertion by some that gender is entirely a sociological construct as I went exactly the opposite from how I was supposed to develop from being a toddler onwards. My parents were homophobic and they tried everything to butch me up (football club  )and keep me away from dolls, kiddie drag, etc and yet that's what I gravitated towards. If we are all slotted into our society imposed


 
Yeah but the being traumatised by your body is obviously socially mediated, we wouldn't buy into the idea that black people bleaching their skin have a medical condition, instead we'd understand it as a product of racism etc.

You're experience doesn't undermine the idea of gender being a social construct, whatever interests you had, whether they were tied to you innately or socialised it wouldn't matter, say you had a "natural" tendency towards things gendered female the issue isn't that you had these interests, it's that they are socially defined in a gendered manner.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 21, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> The two transgender women I am closest to were in relationships with women before they transitioned, and are now lesbians.  Gender dysphoria is not the same as being homosexual, not at all.


 
What, who suggested it was?


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 21, 2016)

revol68 said:


> What, who suggested it was?


Examples were given of young people who it is conjectured may have been misdiagnosed as being transgender, when actually, when they understood their sexuality, no longer seemed to be trans.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 21, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Examples were given of young people who it is conjectured may have been misdiagnosed as being transgender, when actually, when they understood their sexuality, no longer seemed to be trans.


 
eh what? No the examples weren't to do with their sexuality, they were to do with their interests and dress being gendered masculine and her saying that if someone had asked her at 12 if she felt more like a boy and would like to be one she'd have said yes.

the stereotype of lesbians being more into masculine things might have helped her in so much as it provided a recognised "identity" for her and her aunt and her various partners provided examples of women who stood outside of gendered norms.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 21, 2016)

revol68 said:


> eh what? No the examples weren't to do with their sexuality, they were to do with their interests and dress being gendered masculine and her saying that if someone had asked her at 12 if she felt more like a boy and would like to be one she'd have said yes.


So why mention her sexuality? Not to mention the sexuality of her aunts... Seems odd info to include if you weren't implying that her sexuality and gender identity were somehow related.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 21, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> The two transgender women I am closest to were in relationships with women before they transitioned, and are now lesbians.  Gender dysphoria is not the same as being homosexual, not at all.



This. The trope of the tomboy becoming a lesbian is really unhelpful. Not all lesbians are butch, not all gay men are camp and effeminate. Who knew?!


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> So why mention her sexuality? Not to mention the sexuality of her aunts... Seems odd info to include if you weren't implying that her sexuality and gender identity were somehow related.



tbf I don't think he was doing that, I think he was doing omg if someone felt like that today they'd be pumped full of hormones and turned into a boy, cos thats how it happens, bit tomboyish and before you know where you are your growing a beard


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> tbf I don't think he was doing that, I think he was doing omg if someone felt like that today they'd be pumped full of hormones and turned into a boy, cos thats how it happens, bit tomboyish and before you know where you are your growing a beard



This is not what happens at all. How melodramatic.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> This is not what happens at all. How melodramatic.



I was being sarcastic


----------



## bimble (Mar 21, 2016)

revol68 said:


> You're experience doesn't undermine the idea of gender being a social construct, whatever interests you had, whether they were tied to you innately or socialised it wouldn't matter, say you had a "natural" tendency towards things gendered female the issue isn't that you had these interests, it's that they are socially defined in a gendered manner.



Is seems a bit sad, but clearly felt to be necessary, that the current NHS guidelines feel the need to state the following (in the section about children and young people):

"There is a range of opinion among professionals about _the treatment of children and young people who show atypical gender behaviour_. . _. In this context, it is important to note that gender non-conformity is not the same as Gender Dysphoria._ Gender non-conformity refers to the extent to which someone’s gender identity, role or expression differs from the expected cultural norms. ."
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Transhea...guide-for-gps-and-other-health-care-staff.pdf


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> This. The trope of the tomboy becoming a lesbian is really unhelpful. Not all lesbians are butch, not all gay men are camp and effeminate. Who knew?!


The girl I went to school with isn't the slightest bit 'butch'.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> The girl I went to school with isn't the slightest bit 'butch'.



That's my point.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

Also I can imagine a gender nonconforming 4 year old who is told that they are transgender and born in the wrong body may well hate their body by puberty.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> Also I can imagine a gender nonconforming 4 year old who is told that they are transgender and born in the wrong body may well hate their body by puberty.


Who is telling gender non conforming four year olds that they are transgender? Do you believe in gender dysphoria (as being separate from gender non conforming)?


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Who is telling gender non conforming four year olds that they are transgender? Do you believe in gender dysphoria (as being separate from gender non conforming)?


Are you saying there aren't children of 4 being identified as transgender?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> Also I can imagine a gender nonconforming 4 year old who is told that they are transgender and born in the wrong body may well hate their body by puberty.



its true, they lock them in a room and scream you're transgender at them over and over again until they agree to take hormones


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> Are you saying there aren't children of 4 being identified as transgender?



why don't you read what actually happens: Gender dysphoria - Symptoms - NHS Choices


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> its true, they lock them in a room and scream you're transgender at them over and over again until they agree to take hormones


Who are 'they'


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

other transsexuals mostly, recruiting


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

I was thinking more of parents/families, and I guess as an extension of that nurseries and schools.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

i think its on the national curriculum now, catch a boy playing with dolls and you have to tell her she's transgender


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

its the law


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> i think its on the national curriculum now, catch a boy playing with dolls and you have to tell her she's transgender


----------



## Mation (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> Are you saying there aren't children of 4 being identified as transgender?


what on _earth_ are you on about??


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> i think its on the national curriculum now, catch a boy playing with dolls and you have to tell her she's transgender


Yes, that's exactly it.

But, more realistically, I have read articles and seen posts on parenting forums where parents describe their 3/4/5 year olds as transgender and want them to transition at school.  I'm on various early years discussion groups and have seen discussions from teachers and practitioners about very young children being trans.  I think gender is generally more rigorously policed for young children in terms of gendered clothes, toys, activities and attitudes than I remember in my own childhood.

I looked for the article I remembered reading about the number of children with gender dysphoria who go on to have it as adults http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/12/transgender-children-have-to-respect-who-he-is
The Gender Identity service at the Tavistock are saying 16%.  I don't think it is ridiculous to wonder what impact delaying puberty has on the children whose dysphoria wouldn't have persisted past puberty.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

Mation said:


> what on _earth_ are you on about??


I'm saying that if you believe your 4 year old is transgender, and treat them as such, that might have an impact on how they see themselves.


----------



## Mation (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I'm saying that if you believe your 4 year old is transgender, and treat them as such, that might have an impact on how they see themselves.


It's certainly worth considering.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 21, 2016)

dunno really.

there is still (possibly less than there used to be) a lot of confusion out there between being gay and being transgender - some people do seem to think that the ambition of 'effeminate' gay men is to be/become a woman (and vice versa for 'tomboys') - and i guess some young people do get this impression as well, and might feel "i don't feel comfortable with being a stereotype girl, maybe i ought to be a boy" (or vice versa) rather than just accepting that they are a non stereotype of the gender they are (and being accepted as such)

as i've said before, i don't think i entirely 'get' the transgender thing, in that i can't identify with feeling that the body i'm in is wrong, so i'm not sure i'm qualified to say what is right or wrong here.

but i don't think going any distance down the trans path is something anyone is going to do lightly.

is there really any evidence that "the system" has become too eager to shove young people who don't seem entirely comfortable with the roles society seems to define for 'their' gender into going down the trans path?

if so, is that better, worse, or just a different sort of wrong to the traditional approach of punishing / disapproving of kids for playing with the 'wrong' toys or wanting to dress the 'wrong' colour, and forcing them to conform to the 'correct' appearance and behaviour?

or is what seems to be being dismissed as PC gawn mad simply letting children express themselves and keep their options open a bit?

is being trans really something you can only know what you want when you reach a certain age?  i'm not convinced it is - some people argue that kids shouldn't even contemplate the possibility of not being straight until they reach adulthood - despite the fact that heterosexual norms are set out for kids at a fairly early age.

i'm really not sure what the answer is.

ideally, the world would have far less messages about gender identity / roles, and kids of both genders would grow up thinking they can dress how they like, follow whatever interests / career aspirations they like, and when they feel so inclined and reach legal age to do so, shag whatever gender of consenting partner they feel like at any particular time (there's also too much pressure to identify either as straight or gay, and life's not that simple, but that's for a different thread) - but i still don't think that would stop transgender people existing...


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I'm saying that if you believe your 4 year old is transgender, and treat them as such, that might have an impact on how they see themselves.



how do you treat a four year old as transgender?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I'm saying that if you believe your 4 year old is transgender, and treat them as such, that might have an impact on how they see themselves.



 you know people used to say this about gay switchboard, that if you treat children as if they might be gay, or that that's normal and ok, you might warp them and turn them gay


----------



## bimble (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I looked for the article I remembered reading about the number of children with gender dysphoria who go on to have it as adults http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/12/transgender-children-have-to-respect-who-he-is
> The Gender Identity service at the Tavistock are saying 16%.




Mermaids, a support group for children and parents dealing with transgender issues, has a link to this article from new scientist which says, similarly to your figure above, that _"only 20% of boys who show signs of gender identity disorder in childhood continue to show it into adulthood_."
It mentions also that if you start hormone blockers before mature sperm have had a chance to develop, then you obviously remove the choice of that person being able to start a family in later life should they change their mind.

Given the incredibly high risk of self harm & suicide though it's totally understandable that people want to listen to their children, take them at their word and get them the help they are asking for, by giving hormone blockers, like my 14 year old relative. But obviously there are consequences, especially around what if they change their mind later on.


----------



## kingfisher (Mar 21, 2016)

well, what do you do when you are faced with prejudice in your community JOIN MI5!!!! - seriously are there any LGBTQ analysis of the rise in stonewall rankings of MI5 - or is it just a big joke, ha ha ha - btw some of my best mates (are mi5)


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> you know people used to say this about gay switchboard, that if you treat children as if they might be gay, or that that's normal and ok, you might warp them and turn them gay


What does treating a 4 year old as if they are gay mean?  Do you dress them differently, use a different name and inform their reception class teacher that they are gay


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

bimble said:


> ...it mentions also that if you start hormone blockers before mature sperm have had a chance to develop, then you obviously remove the choice of that person being able to start a family in later life should they change their mind.



Hang on, is that somewhere on the Mermaids link or somewhere else?


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 21, 2016)

Surely what's happening with very young children is that they (and hopefully all children) are being made aware that some people feel that they have the wrong physical sex, and that these people can be helped to live their life as the gender they believe they are.  If a child as young as four is exhibiting the prolonged psychological distress inherent in dysphoria, I would hope that they are offered a range of possible answers to that. I also tend to believe that parents and doctors want something more profound than a period gender non-conformity before any absolute label was applied ("you are definitely x") or any medicalisation given.  

I see no harm at all, and a lot of positivity in, for example, allowing a young child to choose another name and gendered pronouns / clothing for a period of time.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> What does treating a 4 year old as if they are gay mean?  *Do you dress them differently, use a different name* and inform their reception class teacher that they are gay



so you think parents should rigourously police traditional gender roles if children show signs of not adhering to them?  even for you, you're all over the place.


----------



## bimble (Mar 21, 2016)

8ball said:


> Hang on, is that somewhere on the Mermaids link or somewhere else?


yep, here:
http://www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/Science/delaying puberty new scientist.pdf


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> so you think parents should rigourously police traditional gender roles if children show signs of not adhering to them?  even for you, you're all over the place.


I thought you were comparing it to identifying a 4 year old as gay   I'm not sure how you do that.  I've not actually seen anyone identifying their 3/4/5 year old as gay whereas I have seen parents and teachers identifying very young children as transgender.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

bimble said:


> yep, here:
> http://www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/Science/delaying puberty new scientist.pdf



No, that's not what it says.  (would have been scary if it did)

Though really massive trials to check for any effect on later fertility do not seem to have been carried out.  Understandably.


----------



## bimble (Mar 21, 2016)

8ball said:


> No, that's not what it says.  (would have been scary if it did)


 which bit are you talking about?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I thought you were comparing it to identifying a 4 year old as gay   I'm not sure how you do that.  I've not actually seen anyone identifying their 3/4/5 year old as gay whereas I have seen parents and teachers identifying very young children as transgender.



no I was comparing your belief that by treating a child as transgender you will turn them transgender with the kind of bollocks people who are homophobic used to come out with

because the inference is if that you treat a child who's transgender as not transgender then you will cure them - you are insisting parents should police the very gender roles you claim to oppose in case they turn their child transgender

and what you are also saying, what you are always also saying, is that transgenderism as transgender people descibe it, doesn't really exist, it can be induced, and taken away, but its not a really real part of identity, its just a fad, phase or aberration


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

bimble said:


> which bit are you talking about?
> View attachment 84923



The bit that says something completely different to what you said it did (perhaps unintentionally, since you seem to have not spotted it).

ie. quoted bit of #1506


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 21, 2016)

bimble said:


> which bit are you talking about?
> 
> View attachment 84923


That quote doesn't say what you think it does.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> no I was comparing your belief that by treating a child as transgender you will turn them transgender


I haven't said treating a child as transgender will turn them transgender.  I have suggested that treating a child as transgender when they may be in the 80+% of children who grow out of their feelings of dysphoria may be confusing/distressing for a child, and also that I have concerns about the effects of blocking puberty in one of those children who would have otherwise grown out of it.


----------



## bimble (Mar 21, 2016)

sorry don't know what you mean. Anyway, just to be clear, I'm glad my cousin is getting the hormone blockers. But 14 is very different from 4, obvioulsy.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I haven't said treating a child as transgender will turn them transgender.  I have suggested that treating a child as transgender when they may be in the 80+% of children who grow out of their feelings of dysphoria may be confusing/distressing for a child, and also that I have concerns about the effects of blocking puberty in one of those children who would have otherwise grown out of it.



If someone has a kid they think might grow up to be gay then (generally) they don't force them into a 'gay' bracket but give them time to grow and develop and make their own mind up.  I don't see why you would demand rigid cross-gender roles in child showing some gender nonconformance.  You just let them know that the way they feel isn't something shameful and sick, and give them space to develop, don't you?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

bimble said:


> sorry don't know what you mean. Anyway, just to be clear, I'm glad my cousin is getting the hormone blockers.



What I mean is that the hormone blockers, to the best of knowledge at this time, do not harm future fertility.  If you stop taking them, then puberty kicks in.

If, however, you either use cross-hormones (not stated in your literature tbf) or gender reassignment surgery (stated in your link) from a pre-pubescent paused state, then obviously there will not be the change to store any sperm just in case.

Immature eggs can be harvested, and brought to maturity with hormones, since they are present from birth.  Sperm are more of a production line deal.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I haven't said treating a child as transgender will turn them transgender.  I have suggested that treating a child as transgender when they may be in the 80+% of children who grow out of their feelings of dysphoria may be confusing/distressing for a child, and also that I have concerns about the effects of blocking puberty in one of those children who would have otherwise grown out of it.



here's what the medical practice is



> Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological, rather than medical or surgical. This is because the majority of children with suspected gender dysphoria do not have the condition once they have reached puberty. Psychological support, therefore, offers young people and their families a chance to discuss their thoughts and receive support to help them cope with the emotional distress of the condition, without rushing into more drastic treatments.



they don't give 80% of children who experience dysphoria hormone blockers, they give them to teenagers, who want them, and who have shown consistent signs of gender dysphoria throughout their lives


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

8ball said:


> If someone has a kid they think might grow up to be gay then (generally) they don't force them into a 'gay' bracket but give them time to grow and develop and make their own mind up.  I don't see why you would demand rigid cross-gender roles in child showing some gender nonconformance.  You just let them know that the way they feel isn't something shameful and sick, and give them space to develop, don't you?


Yes, I would.  But I also wouldn't call them transgender and I don't know that I would give my own children puberty blockers.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> Yes, I would.  But I also wouldn't call them transgender and I don't know that I would give my own children puberty blockers.



Well, you wouldn't call them transgender at the age of 4 since they mostly wouldn't be.  It's when there is serious danger of a child with well-established gender dysmorphia and the attendant aversion to their body having to go through puberty that you might want to put things on pause.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 21, 2016)

bimble said:


> sorry don't know what you mean. Anyway, just to be clear, I'm glad my cousin is getting the hormone blockers. But 14 is very different from 4, obvioulsy.


The puberty blockers only harm future sperm production if the trans girl keeps taking them.   If they stop taking them, because they decide to develop male secondary sexual characteristics, they will develop mature sperm (as far as anyone knows). 

The caveat in the report is that trans women who did not take hormone blockers before puberty can decide to freeze their sperm so that, as an adult woman they may have a chance of parenting their own genetic children, though some form of fertility treatment, and with a cis woman carrying the child.  Trans women who took hormone blockers pre puberty, and who continue to do so, will not have this option.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

8ball said:


> Well, you wouldn't call them transgender at the age of 4 since they mostly wouldn't be.  It's when there is serious danger of a child with well-established gender dysmorphia and the attendant aversion to their body having to go through puberty that you might want to put things on pause.


My original point was that when children of this age are considered transgender, rather than their behaviour being seen as normal childhood gender nonconformity or even gender dysphoria that will probably pass, that in itself may cause significant distress.  Being transgender isn't a phase that people grow out of.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> My original point was that when children of this age are considered transgender, rather than their behaviour being seen as normal childhood gender nonconformity or even gender dysphoria that will probably pass, that in itself may cause significant distress.  Being transgender isn't a phase that people grow out of.


Distress to whom? Surely the point of this is that it is something that comes from the child/adolescent, not something imposed on them.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> Being transgender isn't a phase that people grow out of.



No, but early on it seems we don't know how to tell.  So unless something major changes on that score there would not be a reason to consider a 4 year old transgender.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Distress to whom? Surely the point of this is that it is something that comes from the child/adolescent, not something imposed on them.


If your parents, teachers, friends are very sure you are one thing, and you are not so sure or think you might be something else, do you not think a child might find that distressing?  If your mum was sure you were born in the wrong body I think that might influence your feelings about your body.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> If your parents, teachers, friends are very sure you are one thing, and you are not so sure or think you might be something else, do you not think a child might find that distressing?  If your mum was sure you were born in the wrong body I think that might influence your feelings about your body.



If your parents, teachers, friends are very sure you are one thing, and you are not so sure or think you might be something else, do you not think a child might find that distressing? 

quoting that twice, because irony


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

I guess essentially I share some of the concerns outlined by the psychologist from the Gender Identity service mentioned in the Guardian article.



> “The idea was, if you could reduce that distress, then there would be room for young people to really explore the less reversible interventions: cross-sex hormones,” she explains. “But there’s also a lot of pressure to introduce cross-sex hormones at a younger age. It’s currently at 16. For some, there’s a real wish to bring it down to 14.” When I ask who she means, she says Mermaids and the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (Gires), a transgender advocacy charity based in the UK. “Really big changes like that should not be considered outside proper research protocols. We just don’t have the evidence.”
> 
> Carmichael says it’s very important for young people to experience some of their own puberty. “The blocker is said to be completely reversible, which is disingenuous because nothing’s completely reversible. It might be that the introduction of natal hormones [those you are born with] at puberty has an impact on the trajectory of gender dysphoria.” Even though the idea of experiencing any “natural” puberty might horrify the Kings and the Wilsons, by inhibiting it completely Tom and Julia might be denied the chance to explore fully who they are.
> 
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I guess essentially I share some of the concerns outlined by the psychologist from the Gender Identity service mentioned in the Guardian article.



the psychologist who leads a team responsible for referring children to hormone blockers?  she's talking about a diversity of outcomes, you're not


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2016)

This allowing some of natural puberty to occur to "_allow [potential TG children/teens] the chance to explore who they really are_" sounds a bit reminiscent of when gay people were strongarmed into heterosexual marriages in order to do similar.

It's all well and good where you dont have a child who is horrified by the process. Not so much otherwise, especially if they are unlucky enough to be going through it early.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> the psychologist who leads a team responsible for referring children to hormone blockers?  she's talking about a diversity of outcomes, you're not


I'm not sure what you mean.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

I'm not sure the idea of gender as a spectrum is helpful either, tbh. Biological sex is (mostly) binary, and gender's binary nature is a direct reflection of that. Surely what is needed is to strip away many or most of the characteristics that get tacked on to gender - you can be a girl and also be x,y,z; you can be a boy and also be a,b,c. It doesn't make you any less of a male or less of a female to be like that. Not saying 'that's your feminine/masculine side' but rather refusing to genderise those particular characteristics in the first place.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure the idea of gender as a spectrum is helpful either, tbh. Biological sex is (mostly) binary, and gender's binary nature is a direct reflection of that. Surely what is needed is to strip away many or most of the characteristics that get tacked on to gender - you can be a girl and also be x,y,z; you can be a boy and also be a,b,c. It doesn't make you any less of a male or less of a female to be like that. Not saying 'that's your feminine/masculine side' but rather refusing to genderise those particular characteristics in the first place.


Ditch gender entirely?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> Ditch gender entirely?


I doubt that's possible. However the damaging, mostly entirely untrue stereotypes that place gendered limits on abilities definitely need to be ditched.

Many gendered expectations are damaging, to everyone.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.



she presumably supports hormone blockers because she makes referrals for them, she is advising caution, in line with current medical practice, and recognising that there can be a diversity of outcomes for children who display symptoms of gender dysphoria, as there can for adults.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

Of course there are a diversity of outcomes.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

so you support hormone blockers in some cases?


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> so you support hormone blockers in some cases?


I don't know enough about it to say positively that I would.  But then, I'm not a psychologist.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure the idea of gender as a spectrum is helpful either, tbh. Biological sex is (mostly) binary, and gender's binary nature is a direct reflection of that. Surely what is needed is to strip away many or most of the characteristics that get tacked on to gender - you can be a girl and also be x,y,z; you can be a boy and also be a,b,c. It doesn't make you any less of a male or less of a female to be like that. Not saying 'that's your feminine/masculine side' but rather refusing to genderise those particular characteristics in the first place.



As has been said many times already, gender roles are not the same as gender identity.

I'm sure it's very easy for you, a cis person, to say if only we didn't have these pesky gender roles then trans and other non-binary people wouldn't feel the need to identify differently to their body. Being trans is by orders of magnitude very different to that.

By golly gosh, there are trans men who like make up!!!

There are 'effeminate' gay trans men.

Heavens to Betsy, there are trans women who shave their heads!!!

There are butch lesbian trans women.

*clutches at pearls*


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> I don't know enough about it to say positively that I would.  But then, I'm not a psychologist.



for someone who doesn't know anything about it you don't half go on about it a lot.  perhaps listen more.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> for someone who doesn't know anything about it you don't half go on about it a lot.  perhaps listen more.


Gosh, please do tell me some more of your opinions on puberty blockers then.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

how about listening to the parents, children and advocacy groups in that link you posted for a start.  or some of the people on here who have described their own experiences


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

I have read it, and I still share the psych's reservations.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

she doesn't have reservations about proscribing hormone blockers in some cases, she does it


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

you see the problem, you say you don't know anything about this but you say you share the concerns of an expert who actually disagrees with you.  its almost as if you had another agenda.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> she doesn't have reservations about proscribing hormone blockers in some cases, she does it


Yes, that's her job and I'm sure she's very good at it.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> you see the problem, you say you don't know anything about this but you say you share the concerns of an expert who actually disagrees with you.  its almost as if you had another agenda.


In what way does she disagree?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 21, 2016)

Thora said:


> In what way does she disagree?



you say that you are not sure that hormone blockers should be proscribed ever.  she supports using hormone blockers.


----------



## Thora (Mar 21, 2016)

smokedout said:


> you say that you are not sure that hormone blockers should be proscribed ever.  she supports using hormone blockers.


She prescribes puberty blockers, but says they are not completely reversible and suggests children need to experience some of their natural puberty.  Maybe I am more cautious about their use than she is, I don't know.  I think there are unanswered questions about the long term effects of delaying puberty.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> As has been said many times already, gender roles are not the same as gender identity.
> 
> I'm sure it's very easy for you, a cis person, to say if only we didn't have these pesky gender roles then trans and other non-binary people wouldn't feel the need to identify differently to their body. Being trans is by orders of magnitude very different to that.
> 
> ...



I find it amazing VP that this has to be repeatedly said, but clearly it does.

And its a subject where people will make grand statements that they don't agree with treatment, or misrepresent how that's made, yet will also acknowledge they don't know much about it. And then in the face of people trying to educate/explain, do the fingers-in-ears routine. You see it playing out on comment pieces online, blogs, all the time.

And smokedout is right, a lot of this stuff is precisely harping back to the attitudes to especially young kids coming out as gay/lesbian/bi. 'How can they possibly know?' shriek the straight adults who have never questioned their heterosexuality! 'They might grow out of it?'.

In my experience, those with the worst gender identity disorder never 'grow out of it' - even if they're been able to continue their lives without any kind of transition. I have a friend who's just come out to me. Mid 30s now, but the familiar story - *knew* they were different somehow around 4/5, but couldn't articulate what/why, other than a deep incongruence with their body and confusion over gender. And feeling completely trapped in those feelings because of not being able to share them with parents, peers growing up for fear of ridicule, rejection, being told they were mad. So, it gets buried for years and years until it affects their health again later in life. 

And whilst I share reservations about any increasing (over) diagnosis of kids at a young age being trans, although puberty blockers around 10+ seems a reasonable path of treatment for those that show the most extreme sense of dysphoria to at least _buy them some time_ whilst the effects aren't reversible and they can explore carefully with psychiatrists and those around them how they feel and identify. There really is no 'railroading' of trans people into it - its usually trans people struggling to convince others of who they are and they need help/treatment.

I do think that the push amongst trans activism towards identifying 'brain sex' as a be-all for explaining trans existence, whilst understandable, is probably the wrong route to be going down in trans equality (though, I'm not discounting there could be a complex set of variables that one day might, but might never proved). For the same reason that gay/lesbian people have had to fight for their own rights regardless of whether there's a 'gay gene', etc. We had years of the 'can we prove gay people are born like it, or is it nurture' and it merely hurt gay people and didn't progress liberation. Most people now accept that gay people know that they're gay, without asking them to 'prove it' scientifically, or that perhaps they can be 'straightened out' when they're a kid with reinforcement of rigid gender roles, etc.

I don't know why I'm posting again on a thread I said I wouldn't, but I just despair at the same old arguments going circular. And whilst I wished Stella would/could also offer her personal experiences/insight into this more as I think cis people can learn from it, I understand why she soon gets upset by it all and has to give such threads a wide berth again. Trans people are subject to questioning of their existence and experiences like no other group right now, and everywhere - on the street, in the workplace, receiving end of hostilities on the internet all the time, even having to 'convince' gender clinic psychiatrists (almost always cis).

And finally, that a majority of cis and straight people in this World can still spend so much time pulling apart the minority of trans people whilst simply asserting 'let's get rid of gender and that'll do it' whilst upholding gender and doing little to smash it (at least the minority of lesbian rad fem seperatists are not hypocrites in this regard) is just privileged of the highest order. In the same way that most right-thinking people wouldn't do with sexuality these days. And its worse when its those that otherwise say they are generally supportive of trans people.


----------



## elbows (Mar 22, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> And finally, that a majority of cis and straight people in this World can still spend so much time pulling apart the minority of trans people whilst simply asserting 'let's get rid of gender and that'll do it' whilst upholding gender and doing little to smash it (at least the minority of lesbian rad fem seperatists are not hypocrites in this regard) is just privileged of the highest order. In the same way that most right-thinking people wouldn't do with sexuality these days. And its worse when its those that otherwise say they are generally supportive of trans people.



We certainly seem to have entered a phase in recent years where weasel words and slippery stances have taken the place of total ignorance and 'jokes'. In some ways I find it harder to deal with, there are a few people in this thread who I'd like to give a hearty fuck off to but I expect it would only lead to more sly and disingenuous 'concerns' being expressed.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 22, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> So, it gets buried for years and years until it affects their health again later in life.


 
or not, as the case may be



> A survey found that 48% of trans people under 26 said they had attempted suicide, and 30% said they had done so in the past year, while 59% said they had at least considered doing so.
> 
> By comparison, about 6% of all 16- to 24-year-olds say they have attempted suicide, according to the Adult Psychiatry Morbidity Survey.


 
source (late 2014)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> As has been said many times already, gender roles are not the same as gender identity.
> 
> I'm sure it's very easy for you, a cis person, to say if only we didn't have these pesky gender roles then trans and other non-binary people wouldn't feel the need to identify differently to their body. Being trans is by orders of magnitude very different to that.
> 
> ...



That particular post was a response to a specific thing to do with the idea of a gender spectrum, not specifically to do with being trans. 

And it's not all so easy for me as cis. That's kind of the point.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> In my experience, those with the worst gender identity disorder never 'grow out of it' - even if they're been able to continue their lives without any kind of transition. I have a friend who's just come out to me. Mid 30s now, but the familiar story - *knew* they were different somehow around 4/5, but couldn't articulate what/why, other than a deep incongruence with their body and confusion over gender. And feeling completely trapped in those feelings because of not being able to share them with parents, peers growing up for fear of ridicule, rejection, being told they were mad. So, it gets buried for years and years until it affects their health again later in life.



My own experience of knowing who I was since age 6 - and even trying to tell people at one point but learning very quickly that in a working class family in the 70s this was a deep taboo. so I buried it. not very successfully because I couldn't control "cross dressing" urges right through my child hood, from when the opportunity first arose at age ten into adulthood. 

consequently I began to think of myself as weird or so damaged I couldn't possibly open myself up to anyone ever again. From that came low self esteem and self hatred. when I was sent to see a psychiatrist at age 17 I refused to talk to him about being trans and just made other stuff up to throw him off the scent. 

It wasn't just cross dressing though, it was a complete disconnect with other boys my age. I also supressed my sexuality for similar reasons. I just went into complete denial. 

This more or less went on until I was 45, give or take a few breakthroughs I made along the way - or short periods in my life where I rediscovered myself and began to express myself. 

By age 45 I'd had two failed marriages and many hopeless relationships with women where I tried so hard to be a man and failed. I was on my own, had lost almost everything, suffering from PTSD, felt hopeless, often suicidal, was waking up crying in my sleep, and so depressed I often couldn't get out of bed,  and I had nothing in my life apart from a job, at which I was failing badly. then I transitioned and life started again. If only I could have been accepted as trans from childhood. 




stethoscope said:


> I do think that the push amongst trans activism towards identifying 'brain sex' as a be-all for explaining trans existence, whilst understandable, is probably the wrong route to be going down in trans equality (though, I'm not discounting there could be a complex set of variables that one day might, but might never proved). For the same reason that gay/lesbian people have had to fight for their own rights regardless of whether there's a 'gay gene', etc. We had years of the 'can we prove gay people are born like it, or is it nurture' and it merely hurt gay people and didn't progress liberation. Most people now accept that gay people know that they're gay, without asking them to 'prove it' scientifically, or that perhaps they can be 'straightened out' when they're a kid with reinforcement of rigid gender roles, etc.



This is a debate I generally abstain from. I think the evidence is definitely there but its not exactly conclusive, and yes, as you say, it shouldn't matter!! And it probably won't change the minds of our worst enemies. 



stethoscope said:


> And whilst I wished Stella would/could also offer her personal experiences/insight into this more as I think cis people can learn from it, I understand why she soon gets upset by it all and has to give such threads a wide berth again. Trans people are subject to questioning of their existence and experiences like no other group right now, and everywhere - on the street, in the workplace, receiving end of hostilities on the internet all the time, even having to 'convince' gender clinic psychiatrists (almost always cis).



I try. I'm slowly getting to the position where I can begin to engage more now. What I do though is put out stuff on Twitter both about my experiences and those of other trans people. With 20k followers I hope I'm making an impact and people are understanding trans people more. I've had some good feedback, and I have been targeted by Cathy Brennan so I obviously made some waves somewhere.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure the idea of gender as a spectrum is helpful either, tbh. Biological sex is (mostly) binary, and gender's binary nature is a direct reflection of that. Surely what is needed is to strip away many or most of the characteristics that get tacked on to gender - you can be a girl and also be x,y,z; you can be a boy and also be a,b,c. It doesn't make you any less of a male or less of a female to be like that. Not saying 'that's your feminine/masculine side' but rather refusing to genderise those particular characteristics in the first place.


all of that is irrelevent. I always admired masculine women. If I'd have been cis I'd have tried to be like them. As time goes on I am gravitating towards being less feminine. On Twitter I see many trans women who present as masculine female. If I tried it I'd be back into a box marked effeminate men before you know it! Plus I work in a place with a dress code so I try to fit in.
What's more important to me is to be identified as a woman, regardless of how i express my gender - that is almost irrelevent to me at this stage. if I ever I get to where I want to be I will be dressed like Chrissie Hynde or Patti smith (for example) but I will be a  gender non-conforming woman, not a man.


----------



## D'wards (Apr 12, 2016)

Ol Germaine stoking it all back up again
Germaine Greer tells Q&A her trans views were wrong, but then restates them


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 13, 2016)

Look at this:

Harvard’s Evolved Response to a Trans Male Swimmer Is a Joy to Watch

Person is trans, everyone just gets on with their life.

So rare to hear these stories.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 13, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Ol Germaine stoking it all back up again
> Germaine Greer tells Q&A her trans views were wrong, but then restates them



ffs


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 13, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Ol Germaine stoking it all back up again
> Germaine Greer tells Q&A her trans views were wrong, but then restates them


I can't even go there


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Ol Germaine stoking it all back up again
> Germaine Greer tells Q&A her trans views were wrong, but then restates them



She's wrong.

But she was asked a very odd question, which implied that the questioner does not believe that 'real women' exist.  Does that mean she believes that neither trans nor cis women are real?  Isn't that at odds with how most women (trans or cis) feel?


----------

