by DarkEden » Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:49 pm
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of someone self-identifying as the opposite sex of birth and using the toilet and changing room facilities of their choice
That's good. Hence why the majority here have significant therapy before being allowed to take hormones or have any kind of surgery - I'm in the UK also.
However, they've been able to in law for over a decade now. This new 'battle' that's being fought is over regressing a minority group's rights, not stopping them gaining new ones. Self-ID or not, transgender people (classified in law as covered under 'Gender Reassignment') have been allowed to use toilets that match their gender since 2005. In fact, there are literally no laws covering excluding people from toilets in the UK at all.
More generally, the feminist movement here is very split on these issues and those surrounding access of trans women to women-only institutions such as universities. The argument is that someone who has lived as a male for, say, the first 18 years of their life can't possibly know what it feels like to be a woman regardless of what has been going on with them internally. Many female-only institutions are designed purely to address these issues. It is thus a valid case to suggest that these (and other areas of public life) should be trans-exclusionary.
It's significantly less 'split' than you make out.
The feminist movement IS split here, between a group of radical feminists who're actively transphobic in their statements and speech, masquerading under 'oh no our safety' nonsense, and the majority of Liberal/other radical feminists, who see Transpeople as our brothers and sisters. The law DOES allow for some trans-exclusionary practice - for example, it specifically mentions a rape counselling centre is allowed under the law to not give a job as a rape counsellor to a transwoman. That's fine. However, it does not permit the mass-trans-exclusionary the 'split' feminists you mention earlier are demanding (such as repealing the GRA/passing laws forbidding transwomen of any kind from accessing 'female' spaces). Currently it's on a case by case basis and down to each institution to decide, IF it's a significant need to make it a biological female only service.
Clearly not everyone is comfortable with referring to transgendered people by their own defined choice of label and in my opinion that is a battle that transgenderism will struggle to win on a wide basis. The likelihood is that some people will comply and some won't. This really is a large part of the terrain of the debate and I think will ultimately determine how far transgenderism can go to achieve widespread acceptance
That's honestly ridiculous. I know no one in the area where I live who wouldn't at least use a person's preferred pronouns, and I have a wide social circle, have a professional career, and live in one of the largest cities in the UK. Being uncomfortable with transgendered people is fine, you can't help that. Denying them their pronouns, however, is a straight up disgusting move. Thinking they're actually biological women? Thinking they are different to natal women? Sure, that's up for debate, that's fine and normal to have thoughts about. But to call them men (or women if they're transmen) and deny them their pronouns? Very hard to justify.
Specifically these changes have meant that these girls are often denied what they perceive to be safe female spaces when they obviously require them even more than most women.
But they haven't. Rape centres/counsellors don't employ trans people, unless they choose to. They have an opt out under the law. The 'powerful anecdote' you relayed was literally one where nothing has changed since 2010, no laws have changed since 2010, and unless you're implying that transwomen shouldn't be able to access rape counselling, I don't get your point. There have been no legal changes since 2010. They've been discussing 'Self-ID', but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.
By all means make your case using persuasive arguments but I don't think it is helpful to state something fairly subjective so matter-of-factly and certainly not to resort to abuse of those who don't comply (admittedly your adversary may have been abusive initially but 2 wrongs don't make a right etc.)
This is clouding the water stuff. It's not subjective that Natalie goes by 'she/her' pronouns. And yes, the first guy called me a moron - I retorted back in kind. So your point is that it's absolutely fine for rampant transphobes to be as offensive as they like, but I have to make reasoned arguments and never stoop to their level.
I say all this as a feminist, as someone who has supported the LGBT movement since it became that in 2004, and someone who has trans colleagues, friends, as well as the obvious huge majority of non-trans colleagues and friends. In another thread, you mentioned that LGB protections were enshrined in law here, so Trans had to fight their own battles. It was an absolutely bollocks point to make, as the SAME act that protected Transpeople protected LGB people. Transpeople actually had an act to protect them put in place six years before the Equality Act. The battle was already fought, and won, regarding Gender Reassignment being a protected category. There is a loud minority of people here in the tolerant UK who are trying to muddy the water, pretend that it's a battle to be fought, and denying individuals their legal rights.
The exact arguments being made now by people like yourself were the exact arguments being made against the LGB community in the 90s and early 00s. Literally. Even to the whole 'Don't compare it to race, it's nothing like race, it's a choice' aspect. Even to the 'we have to protect children/women from these perverts. It's pure concern trolling to attack a vulnerable minority. I saw it in the 90s, I saw it in the 00s, I'm seeing it now.
I also have to point out the utter irony of you taking the hardline mumsnet style radical feminist position on this - considering they're not only trans-exclusionary, but sex-worker exclusionary as well. And yet you're posting on a forum dedicated to the degradation of women through extreme pornographic acts. Do me a favour - before arguing in favour for transphobia, why not share with those who agree with you your position on sites like this. As a woman, as a feminist, and as both a trans-inclusionary and sex-worker inclusionary person, I am fine with this website. It seems odd that you'd even be here.
You don't have to accept transwomen as women. No one does. However, to misgender them, to deny them their rights under the law (as you're in the UK), to make out like Self-ID (i.e. a man in a beard saying they're a woman and suddenly accessing all female areas) has already happened, and to seek to actively roll-back their legally enshrined rights is, in my opinion, completely immoral. I feel you're attempting to come from a good place, sure, but the fact that you replied to me purely based on the misgendering point (which is actually illegal here in the UK if you do it to an individual multiple times - it's classed as harassment and people have lost their jobs over it) really makes me upset.
Denying someone's identity is a terrible thing. Especially someone like Natalie who has had surgery, hormones, and made every effort to change herself into who she feels she is inside. But oh, I'm too 'matter of fact' by suggesting someone is a douchebag for not honouring her personal pronouns.
You might want to post a link to this thread on mumsnet where the entirety of this anti-trans campaign in the UK is orchestrated and stems from. I wonder what they'd think about you being a patron here.
