Woman

I care much more, and work for much wider and more radical aims, than most of you on GN.

Isn't that an assumption?

Thank you for answering some of the questions. I have a couple more in response to your replies, if I may?

I understand what you are saying about inclusive language, and the examples you give are neutral and highly unlikely to upset anyone. 'Person who menstruates', and 'Ciswoman', on the other hand (amongst other terms) are not neutral. Both terms qualify the state of womanhood purely so that being female can be seen to include men.

Transwomen may have been in women's spaces for years. It is difficult to be sure one way or the other, as by definition they will have been doing so secretly. What there is no precedent for however (until recently at least), is transwomen with beards in female spaces, or beauticians being told that they have to wax a 'female' client's testicles on pain of being sued. Neither has it been the case until recently that owners of shops or workers in refuges have felt obliged to allow men who say they are female into women's spaces. Hospital trusts have not traditionally been expected to have policies that mean that male bodied people sleep in female wards with sick and vulnerable women. These are very important differences, and are the developments that many women find disturbing. Can you understand why that is the case?

Why do you think that it is 'in the interests of women' to allow these things? That question really interests me, as it seems to me that someone who is genuinely interested in women's issues would think the opposite, which clearly you don't, so I would like to know what you think.

Also, do you believe the posters on these threads when we say that we are not transphobic and that it is only when our safe spaces and our own identification are threatened that we are concerned? It often feels as though you think we are all liars or deluded, which is not a great way to feel, and it would be good to know whether this is the case or not.

Another diversion . But just for once I’ll play your game.
The use of mother is inclusive of mothers.
The use of husband and wife is inclusive for those who are husbands and wives. They may be upset by being simply called partners.
The use of parents is a different inclusive word.
The use of partners is inclusive and fine for those who want to be called that.
For me a partner indicates someone I work with, play tennis with.
The use of partner for my married state would cause me distress. The use of parent, when I am my child’s mother would cause me distress. Do my needs and those of millions of others not count in your world of inclusivity?
Now back to the purpose of the post.

Do you think it’s right to deny natal women safe spaces, where the admission of some transwomen make the spaces unsafe, and women feel at risk, whether that be hospital, toilets, prisons or other single sex spaces?

Do you actually believe that transwomen should be allowed into those spaces until, on an individual basis, a transwoman admitted harms a natal woman, girl or child physically or mentally?

Do you think it’s right that even a small but potentially increasing number of women and girls should be denied the right to compete or win at the highest level by having to compete against transwomen who still have the virtue of having reached puberty and the advantages that gives?

I don’t need to ask you about women’s rights to employment not being eroded by ‘the patriarchy’ allowing men or transwomen to take their places as you have already posted that you don’t agree that should happen.

trisher Thu 05-Aug-21 18:34:02

I do resent the way some posters accuse me and any trans supporter of acting against women's interests.

Exactly trisher. I have worked in a gay/lesbian support group, worked on the phone lines for a rape support group. I wonder how many of the keyboard warriors on here have worked voluntarily in the feminist community, at a grassroots level?

It's all a lot of hot air about something most, if not all, of them have no experience of.

Mollygo Thu 05-Aug-21 22:14:06

The use of partner for my married state would cause me distress.

Seriously? Such a huge overreaction due to the use of a synonym. Partner is the modern word for one's partner in life. It includes husbands / wives / girlfriends / boyfriends / lovers / non-sexual life partners.

Some of your points, I disagree with but acknowledge your argument has some logic. But you get actively distressed at being called the partner to a person you have spent your life with? I really think prioritising is due if a relationship or sense of self is so fragile. ?

And so it continues...... ignore the probing questions....make assumptions about every other poster......trumpet how absolutely fabulous and superior you personally are...... lie through your teeth, nobody can prove otherwise...denigrate anybody who disagrees....... I feel such pity for individuals whose self worth is so limited. Fantasy has never been my preferred genre in literature, film or indeed Gransnet postings.

Ok, I'll come clean. I was voted Feminist of the Year in 1997 by the Society of Great Women of the World. I don't boast about it, as it has no bearing whatever on my posts on a discussion board which are expressions of my opinion - no more, no less.

Oh, and did I mention that 8 days a week I work 25 hour shifts in the GoodWorks department of the Merseyside Women's Club? And that I have a PhD in Feminism and an MA in Keyboard Warrior Studies (I got a Distinction in the 'no life experience' option)?

Now that my credentials are established, how about answering some of the questions that I have been asking on this and other threads since what feels like the dawn of time?

I stand, no I lie, I sit in awesome admiration for your many and varied achievements Doodledog

Why thank you! My female socialisation taught me not to boast about my achievements, though. They might make men feel inferior.

I’m well impressed, Doodledog. No wonder your posts are so well presented and knowledgeable.

I’m less impressed that trisher and/or Gaga feel competent to decide how I am allowed to feel.
So husbands and wives must not be ‘distressed’ because they prefer to be called by that title rather than ‘partner’ because partner is more inclusive.
Really you talk such rubbish. I should have known better than to enter into your mind games.
Sorry to disagree with you as well Gaga but I actually have quite a lot of experience with Lesbian support which is why I feel able to post different points of view from yours, gained from the people I work with.

Just as a general question

I’m waiting for trisher’s straightforward responses to my questions, without any attempts at diverting the post. While I wait, perhaps Gaga could answer the questions in my post at 22:44 tonight?

Rosie51 Thu 05-Aug-21 23:11:05
lie through your teeth

Seriously? WHY would an anonymous individual lie about that?

And as you can easily see, it was in response to the implication that those that support trans rights work against womens interests.

From those who have probably done no more to support women than sit in front of a screen, to insult some of us who have been active feminists and given time, energy and care to actually make life better for women...

Feminism is about being ACTIVE. Getting out of your comfort zone and trying to make change happen. Not about sitting arguing about the width of the head of a pin. Or casting judgement on individuals who have gone through a terrible and very difficult transition.

From women (if those posting on here are women, because this looks very like misogyny to me) who get upset if their husband is called their partner... Well. Words fail me.

Try doing some real good in the world and stop contemplating your navels.

Talk about patronising ?

Can you please, just for once, engage with the questions you have been asked? Any set will do.

Better patronising to theoretical feminists than actively working to make life worse for a very vulnerable group.

Not interested in engaging with your questions thank you. Mired in abstraction. Not based in reality.

I'll leave you to go round in every decreasing circles.

Thought so. Neither of you ever engage with a discussion - you just make massive assumptions about other posters’ lives, divert the conversation (or try to), and contribute the square root of naff all.

For someone with an MA in trans issues I have to say that you have scant regard for theory, but the questions are all straightforward ‘life experience’ ones that can be answered yes or no. I’m sure you could answer them if you tried.

Rosie51 Thu 05-Aug-21 23:11:05
lie through your teeth

Seriously? WHY would an anonymous individual lie about that?

I really don't understand this tendency. Perhaps you have more insight?
GagaJo when you patronise people and make such wild, unfounded assumptions, well I despair. You have absolutely no idea of the commitment or hours spent aiding others of anybody on this forum. You are not just patronising but rude and offensive. Maybe a lesson on common courtesy and good manners is called for?

Because when we do, you (not just you, the 'gang') resort to insults or abstraction. THAT isn't discussion, it's repeating a minute point from multiple angles.

Who has an MA in trans issues? Now there is an assumption.

You have mentioned more than once that your (presumably theoretical) dissertation was on trans issues when it suited you to use it to show your expertise.

Are you denying it now that you’ve decided that only life experience matters?

Do you not see how theory and action SHOULD go hand-in-hand? If you believe in something, you work towards it?

I'm not explaining my life to you. Anyone who is an activist works that way. Not just talk.

not just you, the 'gang') Wow who belongs to this gang? Is it open to anyone? Is it really cool? May I join? Are there qualifications to join? Can you tell I'm excited/intrigued?

How do you know whether or not I, or anyone else on the thread is an activist? You really don’t. This is not an activism contest anyway - it is supposed to be a discussion.

I’m not asking you to explain your life - just commenting on something you have posted numerous times that seems at odds with your sustain for theorising.

None of this is answering the questions though, and surely that is how discussions work? Someone asks a question and the person they asked answers?

Distain, not sustain! Bloody phone.

Gaga-just an inclusive name for . . .
You make such sweeping assumptions about the lives of others, what they do and don’t do, and whether their understanding of feminism is ‘right’ as defined by you and yet you can’t answer simple questions requiring a yes or no answer any better than a politician ever does.
So I’ll try again.
Can you give a straightforward yes or no answer to the three questions I asked at 22:14 yesterday?
I haven’t the time or the desire to post them again but
Q1, yes or no
Q2 yes or no
Q3 yes or no
I prefer not to make assumptions, but since your use of them implies that you approve of assumptions I’ll take it that any further diversions or your refusal to answer means no.
Sleep well everyone.

Thanks for your posts Gagajo I was thinking that perhaps we should be cheerleaders for each other much like some of the people on this thread who have to post "Good post" all the time.

Well here's one for the twisted logic of those who aren't against transpeople. Transwomen whatever their medical state have to access women's facilities. They cannot as some of you are posting choose to use men's facilities because the law says they have to use women's and live as a woman for two years regardless of any procedures they may or may not have undergone. Just as transmen have to use mens.

And as for the question about the person with obviously male bits and the three year old. I would have said what I always say to a child who questions someone's appearance. "You don't stare at anyone, you don't make remarks about their body. It's bad manners"
And as a matter of fact that has served me very well. I tend not to examine anyone's body in a swim suit.
But anyway that person is probably a transwoman putting in her two years. She has to be there. The law says she must. Self ID which might have given transwomen a choice was scuppered because misinformation about it was widely circulated. Funny that isn't it.

Cheerlead away, if that's how you see agreeing with someone. Personally, if I see a post that makes me think, or that echoes what I was about to post, I prefer not to ignore it, but instead acknowledge that I agree. I do't do it 'all the time', but anyway . . .

You know, you might get a bit more respect if you stopped with the sly nastiness on your posts. 'Twisted logic' is by no means a neutral phrase, and it is quite difficult to respond neutrally to a post that is insulting before it makes any point at all.

You may well be right about transwomen having to use female facilities - that is a valid point, so there is no need for the snide 'funny that' comment. However, and this is why many women are concerned, they do not have to use communal changing rooms which are there to help mothers dress their children and keep an eye on them whilst they dress themselves. Anyone wanting to fit in as a woman would know this, and would opt for a private cubicle, even if it were on the female side of the pool.

You may have told your toddlers not to stare - as their parent that was your right, but can't you see that your way is not necessarily the only way? Not everyone wants to see naked men when they least expect it, and not everyone wants their children to be confronted by a penis either - and that is their right. There was no need to 'examine his body' - he had it on full display in the shower and changing room.

The other questions asked by me and by Mollygo remain unanswered , however.

trisher what would be the point of segregation of spaces on the grounds of sex, granted since females were allowed to have public loos, (much later than men, separate point however) because females would be vulnerable to male attack, if you can use all the facilities at any time (in the two years proving your gender status) that is bonkers. And I don’t believe it. The evidence you have to supply is bureaucratic.

grannygranby the reason there were no women's public loos was because upper class women never admitted to any bodily functions and lower class women simply hitched up their skirts and went in the street.
The law says you must
have lived in your true gender for two years before you make your application; and
intend to continue living in your true gender until your death
The "funny that" remark is aimed at the way self ID has been misrepresented in the press and by government. We have one of the most right wing governments in recent years, but no one seems to question their commitment to human rights. So refugees, and asylum seekers are denied theirs, transpeople are misrepresented and women are turned against each other. Do transpeople benefit? No. But it is obvious who does.