(I’m just trying to learn. No hidden mockery in this and this is no gotcha bs aimed at t women. I’m NOT transphobic. Just saw this in a debate and wanted to know other people’s thoughts)
I just want to know:
- Is this factually correct?
- If it is, does it matter? Why or why not?
- How would you logically respond to this?
- How does this statement not contradict with Trans Women are Women
Thank you for your heartfelt response. I can see how broad sweeping rules against trans people would cause great pain, but similarly I see that broadsweeping rules in support of trans people in terms of access to female-only spaces and the right to compete in any and all sports in one’s preferred gender category at any point during transition would lead to issues for others.
I can see how the reality in any given case is far more complex and likely it would need to determined on a case-by-case basis if a trans woman offender should be placed in a women’s prison, for example, or if a trans woman athlete is sufficiently feminised to be a fair competitor for the women’s category. But there it is again… The unwanted interrogation.
The search for ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’ in the blood, in the cells, in the bone, in the mind. Is there any fair process here? Do we need one? Do we do away with all of them and put cis women at risk?
Your questions are all to the same end “under what circumstances can we unilaterally exclude” not “How do we create compassionate, dynamic rules and boundaries that service more people”?
All of it assumes risk to cis women. In the shelter situation did or would anyone ask if those women would react to trans women in the same way they would a cis man? Do you think a trans woman would not be compassionate and understanding in those circumstances? Trans people are four times more likely to be the victims of intimate violence ALSO predominantly enacted by cis men. Is it really so hard to assume in circumstances of shared space they would not have compassion for a scared cis woman or be want to be placed in that situation where she’ll be reacted to in a way that triggers the trans woman’s gender dysphoria? Why in this circumstances would services NOT be talking to everyone involved and reaching a reasonable concensus? Why are the assumptions of the situation posed from the outset hinging entirely on “biology” alone?
In some circumstances in the past I have been approached by women and children in trouble because I am visibly queer.
These don’t need be “interrogations” they can be questions, asked compassionately with a mind to peace that takes into consideration the needs of everyone involved. But that’s not what is happening here.
All good points. Thank you for your answers. I will hold on to this exchange. And I already know it will help inform how I move forwards. I hope you understand from this that not all those who ask questions or who carry doubts are against the trans community. All the best.
If I assumed such malice I would be ducking and covering rather than engaging 😊 I appreciate the open mind!
I will tell you a neat tidbit. There’s parts of the more common trans experience of gender not widely experienced by cis people. One of these is a deeper sense of connection and kinship with cis people of our gender. We look at them as “our people” in a way cis people generally don’t think of other cis people. It’s part of why peer rejection hurts so much… But it’s also something beautiful once it’s understood and if I believed in there being a design to life and all this then the function of the occasional gender optimist programmed to see the best in men while implicitly understanding the plight of women thrown in sounds like it would serve a decent purpose. It’s my hope to spread optimism and help others to find new avenues of compassion. I really do hope the best for you my friend.
Preordainment or not, I believe you’ve fulfilled that role beautifully. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.