Anti-trans sentiment

[lpm]

Yes but in the real world, perceived risk trumps actual risk.

c.f. SCARY RADIOACTIVITY determining public policy, rather than actual risks from radioactivity. Which is fair enough - if people are genuinely fearful then their feelings should be recognised.

I tried your arguments on another forum and was never convinced I was successful. And it gets even worse when attempting to extend it to rape shelters and women's prisons.

[EllyCat]

So one take on this issue can be illustrated with an anecdote: a trans-woman gets admitted to an acute mental health ward where there is no single room available. She, like several of the other patients on this ward, is experiencing sexual disinhibition as a symptom of her illness*. So should she be placed in the male dormitory, and be at risk of violence after being “outed”, or the female dormitory and be at risk of causing a pregnancy? In this case, she was admitted to the female dorm and nothing bad happened; everyone is happy. It is also clearly in the trans-woman’s bests interest to go into the female dorm. However, the argument I have heard is “why should all the other female patients on the female dorm be put at increased risk (of pregnancy) to reduce a risk to someone else?” and whilst I can see that for the staff in the ward at the time it’s because this is the least-worst option available to them, I would not be willing to accept the increase in risk to one of my loved ones for the benefit of a stranger. This might make me a bad person, but I don’t think it makes me trans-phobic (not least since the family of the trans-woman would make exactly the same argument)? Unless I were to post it on twitter, then I’d be a feminazi terf.

IMHO the obvious answer would be adequate funding of all situations (mental health services, refuges, prisons) so that everyone who needs to access the service has an appropriate option to cater for them (e.g. single-occupant rooms on a hospital ward, for my anecdote) so that this kind of “who is put at risk” decision can be avoided. But appropriately funding services doesn’t seem to be realistic in the UK nowadays, and it’s far easier to set groups against one another than to cough up money for a solution.

*we are talking about seriously ill people who are lacking capacity to consent; this isn’t the same as bunking in a youth hostel dorm

[TAFKAsoveda]

One thing I'd thought about for a while which is buried in that long article is the assumption that every trans woman was 'originally' a hetero man and is now attracted to women as a lesbian. This is very much not the case.

I've had problems in changing rooms on many occasions with people telling me 'this is the women's changing room' or other generally hostile comments. I'm not trans but I am very tall and people are stupid. In fact, I get misgendered quite a lot in many circumstances. Most people realise their mistake, some (but far from all) apologise. Obviously in a changing room if I get naked they can see their mistake (wide hips as well as no penis). So I do have some experience of what it's like for trans woman and it does undermine this perception of women as feeble victims who can't stand up to predatory men. Of course, many women are victims of men but Victim is not necessarily the default setting, especially when there is more than one woman. If I had a quid for every time I've been called Sir or Mate ....

Also, I've been to clubs and public parties where men and women share toilets and changing areas, both cis men and various flavours of trans (including men who occasionally like to dress up) and there is never any problem because there is a general understanding of tolerance and consent in my world (which is not the whole world, I know, but it shows it's workable)

There was an interesting point made in the article I linked to above about the experience of trans men in the US. One African American said that since he transitioned, he got a lot more grief from the police and suspicion from non-black people in general than he did as a black woman. I wonder if the reverse is true for trans women of colour.

very much the bit in bold. All the trans- women I have met to date have been sexually attracted to men. I know that's only 10 or so individuals but it also tales with what the team from the Tavistock said when they lectured to us about gender reassignment.

[Grumble]

There are some trans women who are attracted to women and it probably seems more prominent as one of the most high profile trans people, Eddie Izzard, is one.

[Woodchopper]

So one take on this issue can be illustrated with an anecdote: a trans-woman gets admitted to an acute mental health ward where there is no single room available. She, like several of the other patients on this ward, is experiencing sexual disinhibition as a symptom of her illness*. So should she be placed in the male dormitory, and be at risk of violence after being “outed”, or the female dormitory and be at risk of causing a pregnancy? In this case, she was admitted to the female dorm and nothing bad happened; everyone is happy. It is also clearly in the trans-woman’s bests interest to go into the female dorm. However, the argument I have heard is “why should all the other female patients on the female dorm be put at increased risk (of pregnancy) to reduce a risk to someone else?” and whilst I can see that for the staff in the ward at the time it’s because this is the least-worst option available to them, I would not be willing to accept the increase in risk to one of my loved ones for the benefit of a stranger. This might make me a bad person, but I don’t think it makes me trans-phobic (not least since the family of the trans-woman would make exactly the same argument)? Unless I were to post it on twitter, then I’d be a feminazi terf.

IMHO the obvious answer would be adequate funding of all situations (mental health services, refuges, prisons) so that everyone who needs to access the service has an appropriate option to cater for them (e.g. single-occupant rooms on a hospital ward, for my anecdote) so that this kind of “who is put at risk” decision can be avoided. But appropriately funding services doesn’t seem to be realistic in the UK nowadays, and it’s far easier to set groups against one another than to cough up money for a solution.

*we are talking about seriously ill people who are lacking capacity to consent; this isn’t the same as bunking in a youth hostel dorm

I think its worth noting that some trans activists have highlighted situations in which inclusion of trans women might lead to situations which require sensitive management and compromise. See for example this post.

As long as it is done accurately and with sensitivity, and without prejudice or fear mongering, I don't think that pointing out areas in which inclusion involves difficult decisions is transphobic. Instead, IMHO inclusion occurs via a process of compromise.

[cvb]

There are some trans women who are attracted to women and it probably seems more prominent as one of the most high profile trans people, Eddie Izzard, is one.

Eddie Izzard is a transvestite not a transsexual.

[greyspoke]

He ain't from Transylvania either

[Grumble]

There are some trans women who are attracted to women and it probably seems more prominent as one of the most high profile trans people, Eddie Izzard, is one.

Eddie Izzard is a transvestite not a transsexual.

Pretty sure he identifies as transgender these days.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bookm ... el-1012926

[mediocrity511]

I think transgender women who are attracted to women are discussed more because they are primarily who people who worry about shared spaces are concerned about. Certainly if you read many radical feminists concerns lots seem to believe that there are two types of transgender men, autogynephiliacs (who are attracted to women) and homosexual transsexuals (who are attracted to men). I know this division between the two isn't something that is universally accepted (to put it mildly!), but if you are wanting to understand their viewpoint, it's that men who identify as women and want to date women often transition for fetishistic reasons whilst ones who date men are entirely different and less of a concern.

[lpm]

WTF? Where has this bizarre shift in the conversation come from. Who cares what someone's sexual attraction is? Feminists don't.

If you are traumatised by men and in a refuge, then it's not men or women fancying you that's the problem - it's the terror of violence from people with a male appearance and voices. Women and trans people have a justified fear of male violence in public places, semi-public places and private places - and over the years feminists have won safer places and security measures for women. Women only wards in hospitals, for example.

There should be no reversal of this, on the contrary there should be additional measures for vulnerable trans people who have their own particular vulnerabilities to male violence.

[Stephanie]

WTF? Where has this bizarre shift in the conversation come from. Who cares what someone's sexual attraction is? Feminists don't.

If you are traumatised by men and in a refuge, then it's not men or women fancying you that's the problem - it's the terror of violence from people with a male appearance and voices. Women and trans people have a justified fear of male violence in public places, semi-public places and private places - and over the years feminists have won safer places and security measures for women. Women only wards in hospitals, for example.

There should be no reversal of this, on the contrary there should be additional measures for vulnerable trans people who have their own particular vulnerabilities to male violence.

I've seen people talking about what medi is referring to - Blanchard's transsexualism typology - some of them insist on calling trans women "autogynephilic transsexuals", which is as pleasant as you'd expect.

So, yeah, this interest in their sexual attraction does seem to be a thing.

[Tessa K]

There are some trans women who are attracted to women and it probably seems more prominent as one of the most high profile trans people, Eddie Izzard, is one.

Eddie Izzard is a transvestite not a transsexual.

Pretty sure he identifies as transgender these days.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bookm ... el-1012926

I am trying to have my cake and eat it, because I am essentially transgender. I have boy mode and girl mode. I do feel I have boy genetics and girl genetics.

Shouldn't that be pangender?

[cvb]

There are some trans women who are attracted to women and it probably seems more prominent as one of the most high profile trans people, Eddie Izzard, is one.

Eddie Izzard is a transvestite not a transsexual.

Pretty sure he identifies as transgender these days.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bookm ... el-1012926

I was mot aware of that.

Also I am not certain that saying you are transgender is enough. I don't think he wants to transition or does he?

[Grumble]

WTF? Where has this bizarre shift in the conversation come from. Who cares what someone's sexual attraction is? Feminists don't.

If you are traumatised by men and in a refuge, then it's not men or women fancying you that's the problem - it's the terror of violence from people with a male appearance and voices. Women and trans people have a justified fear of male violence in public places, semi-public places and private places - and over the years feminists have won safer places and security measures for women. Women only wards in hospitals, for example.

There should be no reversal of this, on the contrary there should be additional measures for vulnerable trans people who have their own particular vulnerabilities to male violence.

Refuges are one thing, but why would you be worried about trans-women in toilets and changing rooms if not for sexual reasons? Isn’t that the basis for separation in the first place?

[lpm]

I really don't know how to respond to that. Surely you know women face harassment every single day, ranging from the male gaze to pestering to groping?

[Grumble]

I really don't know how to respond to that. Surely you know women face harassment every single day, ranging from the male gaze to pestering to groping?

Yes, of course I know that, and doesn’t all of that come under the sexual harassment heading? Which is why I’ve assumed that part of the issue is that some anti-trans sentiment comes from women fearing sexual harassment from trans-women, not just violence. I don’t think you can take the sexual attraction out of sexual harassment can you?

[lpm]

Violence and bullying is not sexual attraction. Harassment is about domination. Don't confuse it with flirtation, even with clumsy flirtation.

Nobody's sexual attraction is visible, nobody's propensity to violence is visible. If you are being harassed, you have no way of knowing if rejecting the person will lead to physical violence.

[TAFKAsoveda]

WTF? Where has this bizarre shift in the conversation come from. Who cares what someone's sexual attraction is? Feminists don't.

If you are traumatised by men and in a refuge, then it's not men or women fancying you that's the problem - it's the terror of violence from people with a male appearance and voices. Women and trans people have a justified fear of male violence in public places, semi-public places and private places - and over the years feminists have won safer places and security measures for women. Women only wards in hospitals, for example.

There should be no reversal of this, on the contrary there should be additional measures for vulnerable trans people who have their own particular vulnerabilities to male violence.

It comes from the twitterverse and the argument given there that there is no such thing as a trans woman just a man who is trying to access women only areas for sexual pleasure.
That may not be your perspective on the discussion but it is out there in that there Twitter.
Your reasonable points about trauma and triggers from masculine assistance etc are not the arguments I see posited as reasons to keep trans-women from women's refugees by the more vocal tweeters.

[lpm]

LPM's law: always ignore the extreme 10% nutters on one side of an argument and the extreme 10% nutters on the opposite side. Stick with the arguments of the 80%.

Unfortunately, on this topic only the extreme 10%s get heard and the 80% have been terrorised into silence

That said, I've never seen any extremist on Twitter claim trans women don't exist, merely that some spaces need to be kept for cis women only.

[dyqik]

LPM's law: always ignore the extreme 10% nutters on one side of an argument and the extreme 10% nutters on the opposite side. Stick with the arguments of the 80%.

Unfortunately, on this topic only the extreme 10%s get heard and the 80% have been terrorised into silence

That said, I've never seen any extremist on Twitter claim trans women don't exist, merely that some spaces need to be kept for cis women only.

You've really never seen anyone claim that gender is XX or XY, and given at birth?

I don't find that credible, tbh.

[lpm]

That wasn't the claim. Apparently there are people who claim "trans woman is just a man who is trying to access women only areas for sexual pleasure". I've never seen anyone say that but no doubt such prejudice exists.

People often say sex is XX or XY and given at birth. To be more precise, they say people either produce sperm or eggs, with XX and XY being a shorthand for this, and this sexual difference in reproductive cells exists at birth and cannot be changed, which is perfectly true.

I don't think many people say gender is XX or XY and given at birth, except when confusing gender and sex, as you seem to have just done. The argument more usually is instead that "gender" is too fuzzy and meaningless to be worth obsessing about, or that anyone can be any gender they choose but that doesn't mean they can choose their sex.

[dyqik]

No, I specifically haven't confused gender and sex. Virtually every discussion of gender on Twitter that finds a wide audience has some loudmouth declaring that sex=gender=genetics. Which is a denial that trans-women exist in any real sense.

It's an extreme and ill-informed position, but it's one that you seemed to be excluding from even the 10%.

Anyway, it's not particularly important, except to note that idiots exist.

[Squeak]

LPM's law: always ignore the extreme 10% nutters on one side of an argument and the extreme 10% nutters on the opposite side. Stick with the arguments of the 80%.

Unfortunately, on this topic only the extreme 10%s get heard and the 80% have been terrorised into silence

That said, I've never seen any extremist on Twitter claim trans women don't exist, merely that some spaces need to be kept for cis women only.

You've really never seen anyone claim that gender is XX or XY, and given at birth?

I don't find that credible, tbh.

Me either.

[lpm]

An example should be easy to present, therefore. I'd be amazed if you found a feminist with such a view.

[Squeak]

There's a feminist biologist on my FB feed, who shall remain nameless here, who is infuriated everytime a transwoman's crime is added to statistics as being committed by a woman, since transwomen clearly have xy genetics and their biological sex makes them more violent/criminally inclined than xx women.

She is adamant that biological sex is the key differentiation and that trans people are simply reinforcing outdated notions of gender.
I think she'd define her position as biological determinism, which seems to be the argument that you're saying that you haven't seen anywhere.

She seems to find plenty of blog posts and newspaper articles to reinforce her view.