Bat Chat Blog Conversations

BAT CHAT

Previous conversations can be found in descending order of date right after this latest one.


Conversation 3:  1 May 2019

Subject: Can Trans Women fairly compete in women's sports?

A couple of months ago tennis star Martina Navratilova
entered the debate about whether transgender women can fairly compete against women in sporting events. It caused uproar on the internet.

Before this present blog was started a 2000 word proposal on the subject was posted by another group of transsexuals.
See : - https://transsexualwomen1.blogspot.com/

It offered some thoughts on fairness of competition and discussed a few options whilst accepting the basic principle that allowing those born male but who have transitioned to female either surgically or by self identification puts girls and women competing against them at clear disadvantage. As a result it is probably unfair if careers and livelihoods are at stake.

This story has taken a new twist with the failure of a case by athlete Caster Semenya in court opposing insistence that she take testosterone suppressing medication permanently in order to compete against women because her naturally high levels convey clear advantage.

We should stress that Caster is not transgender nor transsexual. She has a physical intersex development problem with very high levels of the hormone created by her body. All women have some of this substance in their bodies, but a fraction of that found in boys and men.

Whilst medication can suppress it, and some transgender women take this to aid their decision to live as women, the only way to permanently reduce it to natal female levels is to remove the source that creates most of it in the male body. That means the major surgery that the majority of transsexuals undergo.

Doing that is a final solution going forward but it does not remove the advantages conveyed by its presence during childhood development and puberty on things such as muscle mass and strength.

Given this new debate to insist on testosterone lowering medication in certain women's races  - and whilst not specifically about transgender participation - the same rules are presently applied by some sporting bodies, such as the Olympics, when allowing or disallowing participation by both transgender and transsexual athletes.

So we decided to discuss the consequences for transsexuals of this ruling which may yet be subject to a lengthy appeal.

(B = Blue,   J = Jenny,    L = Leanne)   

J:

As the court ruling is now in and testosterone level testing will stay. What do we think?

B:

Well – yes it is and they set the limit at HALF what Rachel McKinnon is at.

J:

That is the cyclist who has been setting records as a woman despite being a trans woman with what some suggest are very visible physical advantages in a power sport such as cycling.

B:

Yes, that is the problem. It is not just about competing but about breaking records set after years of hard work by women and girls.

J:

I am presuming this new ruling is aimed at those raised as women not transgender or transsexual as such?

B:

It also informs the wider decisions involving trans competition.

J:

The limits as applied to transgender identifying women are absurdly high. Higher than even transsexual women such as ourselves maintain  permanently post surgery. Obviously genetics and testosterone are both factors in bodily development when it comes to fairness of contest.

The problem, though, is that - whilst with someone like Caster - regulating T levels might balance things somewhat - with trans women that same reduction is nowhere near as effective on its own because it has operated on a male body from birth.

The answer being demanded - understandably - by female sports stars - is to remove ALL trans people from competition. I can see why. Yet it creates the problem of what you do with trans competitors.

Competing as their birth sex puts trans women at disadvantage. Not to mention real issues like changing facilities for post op TS (transsexuals) if they compete with men. The first TS woman forced to do so and who is then sexually assaulted after being put at risk would create major concerns.

And on the contrary TS men made to compete as a woman would have huge advantages over natal women thanks to the testosterone they take and the powerful muscles it can build.

B:

We have to find a solution and it should support women first.

J:

Yes it should, but creating trans categories for sport will be virtually impossible.

How many do you have? One? Ten?

Just accepting that competing in sport is not a compatible option with transition is one solution we must consider.

To agree that you cannot compete at all as a price for resolving your medical problem. The transsexual blog mentioned earlier accepted that option had to be the first consideration. I concur.

B:

Yes. Wanna compete? Great!

But you're doing it for you alone. You should accept that competing puts you out of the awards consideration.

This is not difficult.

If you went through a male puberty, you cannot win prizes or set records that count against women... it's one of the prices you pay for transition.

J:

That actually is a very sensible suggestion.

You can compete in your legally recognised sex category even if it is not your birth category. But you cannot win medals in it and set records and disadvantage others for whom it is.

Create a set of transgender / transsexual results tables (two separate ones based on surgery or those just taking medication perhaps?) so you can be rated number one in THAT category which reflects as closely as possible your peers who compete.

Then judge yourself versus those you match fairly based on your results over a year.

That should work and also not prevent those born women from winning the competitions they deserve to win.

Though safety of competition would matter too. In some sports women and girls could be at risk of physical harm. That has to be a priority. Fairness is one thing. Actual danger is another.


B:

We all do sports because it makes us strong and it feels good... and we have categories so as to keep it fair. So if you went through a male puberty, you're out of the running to be judged in competition as a woman. That has to be the bottom line.


J:

Makes sense to me.

My own experience comes from a slightly different perspective. As a football (soccer) referee in junior matches during the 1960s I qualified in doing this pre transition.

But knew I was not going to be allowed to referee as a woman because at that time women were not able to play competitively  or referee matches as ruled by the football authorities.

Things then changed and I would be regarded as legally male after 1971 when the law was altered following the Corbett versus Corbett trial that stopped birth certificates being altered by doctors post surgery for transsexuals. So I could have carried on refereeing but I saw this policy as unfairness against women. It did not feel right given where I knew my future would be.

It briefly crossed my mind post surgery to challenge the authorities and return to refereeing but like most transsexuals I transitioned to live as normally as possible and blend in – not to change the world. So I just told the authorities why I would not go for the higher level refereeing exam I was asked to take.

I doubt they had come across such a thing all those years ago. The room full of horrified men's faces in the committee meeting was a picture.

Happily things soon changed. Not because of me in the slightest I should point out. But it was heartening to see women get to play and referee when that happened.

L:

Been listening to you both and I whole-heartedly agree with these thoughts, that if you've been through male puberty and transitioned then it's a price one has to recognise.

Compete in spirit with women but do not expect to be given a medal.

We transsexuals have had to make huge sacrifices during our difficult lives to become the people we are today, and we come to learn that even after our main struggle is over we must still expect to make many more.

If that's what it takes to fit into society and hopefully be accepted, then so be it.

J:

Yes, a lot of what we seem to be seeing out there is 'cake and eat it' thinking.  Trans ideology is pretty selfish.

We are the ones asking society to embrace us.  It is no simple ask given the fight women have had for centuries. So we really have to be more mindful of how it should be our place to fit in with them – not theirs to entirely alter their view of the world so that trans people might feel better.

If transgender ideology was not so demanding I think there would be much more understanding.

That is how it used to be even 20 years ago. It is frustrating to see how this has just morphed from a mutual bond of trust into a set of demands backed up with- or else.

L:

It's just outright unfair that a trans person be allowed to compete for awards in sport.
In the TV coverage you invariably see them way ahead of women participants.

You can understand the frustration and resentment. The same happens when Caster runs, but if it turns out that she is biologically female then that alone allows her to take part. 

Though I still feel, even then there is going to be some unfair advantage.

With doping scandals in sport in recent years I believe there should be rigorous tests to prevent fraud and cheating - as others less scrupulous than Caster might take advantage of lax rules.

If Caster had won her case would that not have afforded some (trans or non-trans) campaign the possibility of using precedent to find a legal loophole to take steroids, for example?

J:

It still might as I doubt we have heard the end of these debates.

That's why we have to be so careful to create a working balance fair to all without setting dangerous precedents that can have unintended consequences exploited not by the genuine athletes but those who see it as an opportunity.

Conversation 2     7 April 2019

Subject:  Should misgendering be a Crime?

In Canada this week it has been reported that a deeply religious Christian has been fined $55,000 for calling a transgender woman a 'biological man' and using the male name from which she had transitioned. The crime of misgendering was deemed by the hearing to be a 'hate crime' – hence the ruling, which is being appealed.

The argument of some fundamental Christians is that God dictates a person's sex and someone must therefore be forever described as a 'man wearing a dress' not any kind of woman and claiming otherwise should not be deemed illegal to express.

This case is just the latest in a stream of 'misgendering' stories which has seen a video posted in the US of a trans woman getting angry at a shopkeeper for misinterpreting her as a man and police interviewing UK citizens over hate crimes that amount to simply posting on Twitter with a pronoun that was legally true at that point in life to which she was referring.

The three authors of this blog decided to make the latest Bat Chat about this controversial topic. Here are some of the thoughts we had.


(B = Blue,   J = Jenny,    L = Leanne)   (GRA Gender Recognition Act)


J:

This debate is something I prefer to view in historical context. Having lived without almost any rights for 30 years before the GRA was passed in the UK in 2004 I'm not personally horrified just by any use of words. These are trivial in the overall scheme of things against living your life in happiness and being a good person.

If you transition and the most important thing that matters is to sue someone over their belief differing from your own or being unwilling to support your perception of yourself then your priorities are seriously askew.

I will fight for the protections that the GRA gives to properly diagnosed transsexuals willing to go through the gate keeping and earn some respect from society. But respect is gained by mutual responsibility and civility and respect from others should be earned, not demanded as a right. As nobody can self identify out of biological reality – certainly not by simply declaring they have done so. If that matters to others we cannot enforce denial.

B:


We are in the dawning of a new age... society and the entire structure by which we interact has changed more radically in the past twenty years than it has since the advent of agriculture.

The idea of a commons is gone... and the dreams of the internet being a tool to liberate are quickly being replaced by it being a tool to control.

J:

Yes, Twitter is now a battleground over ideologies and tiny things that most people would take in their stride or laugh off in daily life, are now seen as fights to the death.

Plenty of (non trans) women get misgendered day to day. Especially when older or in wheelchairs. It happened to my mum all the time because she could not communicate verbally and was wrapped up under blankets.

What do they do? Throw a hissy fit? No. They do what I suspect the three of us would do these days – smile, laugh it off, perhaps politely correct. But not act as if the sky has fallen in.

I think again we are back to the difference between transgender and transsexual – between needing and not needing validation of identity as a day to day experience.


L:

The internet can be a tool of control, with some people seemingly out to destroy even us transsexuals. Is there any hope? I'm depressed with it.

J:

The problem with over reacting to things like being misgendered when most people will just shrug that off is that those who do it think they are helping to create enlightenment. But they are really driving some to extremes as they presume all trans are like this and must have no right to sex defined spaces. So laws codifying access should just be repealed and everybody should just celebrate being transgender and not be discriminated against or ridiculed as a man dressing as a woman.

This in effect makes a law ALL about gender expression and not in any way about sex characteristics – the driving force of being transsexual. We have sex dysphoria - physical in nature and resolution - not gender dysphoria - where gender stereotypes need to be satiated.

Probably why pronouns are not the big deal for us that they are for transgender, where being recognised as their perceived gender is the centre of their existence.

The consequence is one homogeneous trans population which would be fine for those who are dressing up but catastrophic for those with actual sex based dysphoria because access to health care, psychiatry, care for surgery, would all be at risk because they do not apply to the transgender population.

It would also mean transsexual women losing the right to marry a man and be that man's wife. Which matters less to transgender as many are already married to women and have long been in some cases. Indeed some want to force to redefine those women as lesbians.

How is that any less offensive and controlling of language than someone misgendering that transgender person?

If a Christian calls a transgender woman a man as that is their belief yet that deserves a law suit – could a wife of her long term husband who is now told that she has become a lesbian react badly to her reality being altered and challenge that forced adaptation of her identity?

Surely this has to work both ways if you start policing belief.

L:

I would suggest that any lawyers out there might want to look into the legality of what some of the trans activists are doing, as they act like self ID has already replaced the need for legal status.

B:

This whole thing actually scares me. Here in the US I was able to change my birth certificate and other documents early on, having changed my 

sex physically.  That was what counted to actually do this. Not words you spoke.

It was a one time one shot thing and that is the way I will be till I shuffle off this mortal coil.

But now if you introduce self declaration and nobody knows who is who or what is what or how long they will be who they say they are well that lack of clarity is exactly what scares me about all of this.

We need certainty as for us there is no going back. We burned all those bridges. Those w*****S can walk back over the bridge if they do not like what is on the other side.

We have been erased in this discussion.

Between us we three have what... about 120 years lived as ordinary women?

Now we are being erased by w******
who lived to 60 then became their 'true self'.

L:

It is frustrating.

B:

It is what it is. Not sure we can do anything to stop it.


L:

Indeed, their propaganda has worked now everyone it seems believes transexuals and transvestites are the same.

J:

This is why there is such a push to remove barriers to the GRA. They don't want the gender recognition certificate. They want the birth certificate 'sex change' they can only get if they legally redefine themselves this way. The Equality Act coverage has a different level of protection because it is broader and covers many more people.

Right now that wider access requires medical diagnosis and they do not have that because they have no condition needing medical support. So instead of going out and getting it they insist that nobody wants it to be a medical condition any more. As in they don't and so nobody else matters.

It is all about validating sex to enable them to not have to depend on the Equality Act by self declaring who they are but through abuse of legality of what should be certificates that can only be altered with an exacting medical cause. 

B:

Here in the US they are pushing hard too and have succeeded in getting self ID in California New York and Connecticut and a few other states... the effect is that half the population of American can now send in a letter and a few dollars and they are suddenly the other sex with all the rights and privileges with no reservations

J:

I had a private chat with a journalist and he told me he understood the difference between transsexual and transgender and who the GRA was written for and why and had tried to explain this in articles. But it was removed each time.

I suspect there is a push in various parts of the media from trans activism wanting them to help erase the difference in public perception. Frustrating.

B:

We are being used as a beard by these people to deflect public opinion.


J:

Just imagine that someone who had a brain tumour and needed assessment and investigations and proper treatment and might need surgery and long term follow up was told they were now being redefined as someone who merely THINKS they have a brain tumour because they get a lot of headaches.

Then are told well most of you won't really have a brain tumour so we will give you easy access to some aspirin and nobody will need to bother seeing doctors.

Those of you who really had a tumour and needed care for it are in the minority so you just have to accept that resources and laws went with the majority here because we could not have NHS scanners dominated by those claiming they had tumours when they really did not. Which would be true in most cases. So this policy will save money and stress for those who did not need those medical tests.

Yes a few who had real problems might unfortunately die as a result of our making this change, but this is just a consequence of making life easier for the majority.

THAT is where not recognising we are talking about two different things here and not one inevitably leads if you do not see it coming.


B:


Those pressing for this have hidden motives we can see but most others are not seeing. They are selling this to politicians too easily.


J:

Many of the new wave of transitioners are not young and those who transition late through these new conflations will find it harder to really believe in themselves as women. They have lived as men for so much if life that is inevitable.

So I suspect they might over react to any calls of invalidation like having their gender questioned even by accident – resulting in an overdose of what we see.

I had lived more of my life as a woman than not by 1993.Most transexuals will have a similar balance. This has to matter versus those who will have to become centurions to get that balance in their lives.

But if we just make it all about self declaration to declare whenever you feel like it later and later in life then the inevitable will happen,

More and more rage about misgendering until the whole world has had enough of us all.

And I mean us because the difference will have been erased by then irrevocably.

L:

Yes I was thinking the other day - I began transition the first time at 18. Here I am now.

Women have a right to self-preservation. But transsexual people also should have that right based on medical needs, not to be erased simply because of society's inability or unwillingness to accommodate them.

Why stop there? Look at the elderly. Blamed for taking up beds in hospitals (rather than the underfunding or the overcrowding from uncontrolled mass immigration) blamed by the young for simply voting for Brexit. Seen as a burden on the State. Euthanasia perhaps, to be enacted when someone reaches the age of 30 (Logan's world).

J:

I cannot contemplate how any one who is transsexual in the same sense as we seem to be would even be able to live 50 or 60 years as a man first (such as Caitlyn Jenner and so many other later life transitioners). They have used male privilege all their lives and that has to impact on who they are after transition. You cannot just eradicate a lifetime lived. And if they lived 50 years without transition, why not 60? Or 70? What suddenly changed? But they will try to overcome those hurdles and some  - not thinking of anyone specific here - seem to forcefully deny they were who they were before.

L:

Here's another thought. Back in the 1990s after rejections by several blokes, I stopped clubbing. Became reclusive. Loneliness set in. A girlfriend suggested why don't we join a gym?

So we had a look, shown around the place, including the changing rooms. I was shocked to see women wandering around naked. It made me feel awful, guilty even that I knew something they didn't about myself.

How could I look them in the face? I wanted to be honest with them but after bad reactions doing that before I could not.

Besides even if some were ok, there'd inevitably be those opposed to me. That would have caused division and arguments between the women - friends - resulting in some not coming again etc. I certainly didn't wish to be the cause of that either. A dilemma indeed!

In the end I didn't join and returned to my loneliness instead.

J:

I get that. Post transition and pre surgery in the early 70s I stayed out of women's spaces even if that meant not going somewhere unless there was a single toilet, for instance. Post surgery we were advised by psychiatrists to use facilities such as loos but watch for any disquiet and leave discretely if we saw this.

It seemed an appropriate and correct response. This was at a time when the numbers of us were miniscule. Hundreds at most in the whole UK. And all post surgery as that was then the only way to alter documents before the GRA was passed long afterwards. Back then none of us were legally women, just helped legally by the state to live quiet lives. Not redefine everybody else's lives.

So there were things I still never did. I avoided shops with open dressing rooms and stuck to this with self contained spaces.

You just know how this would play out today with the transgender and self ID majority and not just a handful of transsexuals trying not to be invasive.

In fact we do not need to speculate as we see it all the time. Lawsuits to shut places down and to cause angst and financial loss or intolerance at the concerns of women in the presence of trans people, often these days who are not transsexual post surgery but fully intact and so all too reasonably causing distress to women.

What has changed to turn the responsibility and mutual respect of the past into this angry entitlement of today?

The weakening of gatekeeping and the erosion of this being a medical condition being treated instead of just a choice of lifestyle to express has to be the main cause of this turnaround.

We should be returning to the tight restrictions of the past where transition was a hard fought last resort of an option that if taken was permanent and needed support.

Instead we are making this into a simple option to try out and return from if it does not meet expectations.

We knew this was a one way street. And we are now being led off into a gloomy back alley via understandable fear by society of the ridiculous numbers being facilitated and their apparent lack of respect for other people's lives and rights.

L:

I hate the way this is all about their right to this or that. What about the women they are trampling all over to get those rights?



J:

My guess is that they often should not be transitioning at all or not put on medical pathways and given expectation of legal validation that might paint them into a corner.

Transgender needs different laws and rules that protect against oppression but do not require the onerous restrictions or medical permanence that transsexuals do.

Trying to fiddle about with an existing law created for entirely different and far smaller numbers of people to bring in so many others with totally different needs is simply bonkers.

It has been incredibly poorly thought out. It will harm everyone – women, children, transsexuals and transgender.

The GRA should be for transsexuals with permanent medical transition and lifelong needs. Plus return to much stronger gatekeeping where surgery is not the first idea they come up with but a very last resort thought through and taken slowly until sure it was the only route.

Then add a Gender Identity Act crafted for transgender people to give flexibility to their transition and easy ways to transition back and rights and protections commensurate with that.

L:


Sadly, this move away from transition as a last resort is what is happening at the Tavistock Clinic. Trans activists don't care about kids, be they trans or otherwise, They just use them as pawns in their political chess game of pushing for greater rights for themselves.


B:

The backlash is happening as a result of all this. We are going to feel it brutally.



THERE WILL BE A NEW BAT CHAT

EVERY FEW DAYS.

CONVERSATION 1    31 March 2019

Subject:  Is transsexualism caused by social control of gender? 



On Twitter this weekend we read an interesting quote from Debbie Hayton and it started the three of us on our first conversation: Debbie remarked : - "The tighter society controls gender expression, the more transsexualism it will create."

This reasonably suggests a link between how gender roles are restricted by a culture or a period in time and the level of transsexualism? Perhaps offering a way to explain increasing levels of attention for the subject and a route towards resolution. Here are some of our thoughts: (B = Blue, J = Jenny, L = Leanne)



J:

"I do think this is partly right. Restrictive gender ideals will have an influence on transition numbers.

However, I think Debbie is wrong to single out transsexualism as what could increase because of this. For two reasons.
Firstly, there is no evidence transsexualism as a medical diagnosis is rising. The figures for the percentage of society who surgically transition fully look similar in relative terms to how it was 50 years ago.

Plus in 2004 doctors could successfully predict to parliament how many (5000 estimated versus 4910 in reality 14 years later) would apply for the GRA (Gender Recognition Act) which was built around those defined and required diagnosis as being transsexual.

And there is no sign of numbers rising sharply like there is of the levels of much more broadly defined transgender people now making clinic visits.

All of that to me points to a difference between transsexuals, who have severe sex based bodily dysphoria and must access surgery, and the much wider transgender population that often do not have this same need. Here shifting gender expectations DO seem to be influencing escalating figures.

So I am a little puzzled why Debbie says that transsexual numbers would rise when I think that more appropriately applies to transgender. 

Secondly, if transsexualism is about body and transgenderism about gender, as from my perspective it is, then it seems understandable that one would respond to changes in societal pressure over gender structures more than the other.

In my view, and again it is just that obviously, if you are only driven by a desire to look like and emulate a woman because you have had a lifetime preferring that identity role through interests or mind set then you ARE transgender.

And, I agree, that if you see society tightening or loosening its hold on stereotype gender behaviour then we may find fluctuations in levels of those transitioning versus conforming.

During the the 60s flower power era and new romanticism less than 20 years later these offered modes of expression without transition that likely worked better than in the straight laced 50s did where men and women had polarised expressions. I am sure that gender ideas and societal pressure is also a factor in how transsexualism develops, or how severe it impacts your life. But I do not know any transsexual who could have survived far into adult life without needing drastic intervention to resolve any meaningful body dysphoria.

And I believe that having this is essential to being defined as transsexual

L:

A newspaper recently twisted my words (as they do) and reported me as saying 'I'm still a Man'.

I was persuaded to accept that when anyone promoted the piece. I didn't like it but felt I was helping the cause as a 'powerful thing to say'.


J:

That must have been hard for you, Leanne.

We do have a difficult line to walk between acknowledging biology, which transsexuals seem to understand because our condition is predicated on sex not gender, and resolving this and then living our day to day reality.

There will be those who find it hard to support Blue for saying in her biography on here that she is a mother and grandmother.

But the problem is, what looks like seizing power words based on biology to some, is not at all what she is doing here. Families and society interact with people in social ways too. If someone transitions into a transwoman after being married as a husband to a woman and raising the children she gave birth to for many decades, would it be appropriation to let them call their father now their 'other mother'?

It is arguable. But the family will make a choice on the basis of what works.

However, the situation is different if for the entire life of that child or spouse you have had that role in their life. I would not personally support deception but if done openly and they are aware of your status and this is their choice I think we have to accept that we live in the real world and words can have multiple meanings.

After all a foster mother who raises a child from birth would not call themselves the birth mother, but nobody would decry her relationship being as a mother to the child if that was how the child perceived her.

I never was married or had children as the law did not allow me to marry when I would have done. But my brother had children and grandchildren, all born after I had fully transitioned. They have always called me aunty. We chose to tell them the truth when they were old enough, as in those days children were not aware of this subject in primary school and we did not believe it right to force that onto them so as not to influence their own judgement and let them discover these things naturally.

So I have never been their uncle. It would be rather surreal to use that term in this context to people who are now adults. But it always has been their choice, not mine. We tried to do the right thing.

When you are not appropriating identity as a game as some out there today almost look to be doing, and just living your life as best as you can, as we are, then it can seem to some that you cannot say the right thing for saying the wrong.

We end up being the enemy of extremes on all sides because we are calling for reason and balance, which for much of our life has been there, but is now jeopardized by new wave transgender ideology that many in our position are baffled by in the same way much of humanity must be.

I would not go so far as to state that I think transgender is entirely psychological or gender rooted and transsexualism is not. I am sure that who we are will have influence from social pressures and gender norms. They are inescapable.

But there is a possibility,currently far from proven, that some kind of physiological involvement may emerge in early onset transsexual cases - perhaps involving genes, hormones or something as yet untraced. But even if that trigger is found it likely still is exacerbated to a greater or lesser degree by gender pressures around all of us.

I suspect this because something has to explain what looks like stark differences between transsexuals and transgender as described under today's definitions. Either way I think the relative influence of gender expectation and its importance to the person cannot be ignored.

Right now we need research to look for causes, too often suppressed by trans activism and you have to wonder why they would do that? This could help resolve questions like how influential social gender roles are in all kinds of transgenderism and transsexualism and might inform future treatment protocols too.

Denying a search for that knowledge seems strange. Almost as if someone is afraid that the wrong answers might be found.


B:

It's only quite recently that I've come to think the reason transgender always affect these very flat cartoonish two dimensional creations is that they have been so inculcated by their male socialisation and they are so used to seeing women through the male gaze. ie. woman as a commodity to be consumed, that they simply cannot see women as real.

To them woman is defined by them as men and by their need for and desire for women. There is also the issue of their male privileges...

As they say. How do you tell if a man is completely unaware he has them? Ask his opinion of it!

The transgender (speaking here of "transwomen") are absolutely no different! It's like asking a fish to hold forth on the subject of water!

Transsexuals have less issue with it... not that we don't have to work through it, too, as we absolutely do... one look at the things said by some of us speaks volumes... that male socialisation comes through loud and clear, but on the whole that we have always been effeminate put us just far enough outside that to have some degree of perspective and if that wasn't enough?

If we go stealth we are thrown head first into the deep end of the pool and then taught how to swim. And I wonder if transgender will ever be able to move past that barrier?

It means giving up every bit of power and control they have taken as their right since birth... To stand there and to have to center every man they interact with? To be talked over and expected to simply smile? To have their entire value as a human to be their fuckability as seen by OTHER men?

Knowing that they are coming to the table a day late and a dollar short? They are going to come up at the very bottom of the same scale they have used on women their whole lives... and as men are so hierarchical to begin with? I question if there is any way they CAN let go of such a thing?

J:

Absolutely, Blue.

The later the transition, the more engrained this socialisation must be. There is an epidemic of men transitioning later in life after living with women as husbands and fathering their children.

The impact of this on those families worries me deeply. You see the faces of the spouses and children and they look bewildered and haunted. In fact they look betrayed and I can see why.

B:

Yes, having been married to men I can put myself in the position of that wife and ask how I would feel if someone did that to me.

It would be so upsetting and feel like a betrayal. I do not know if I could cope. Most of these were straight men before and are straight after transition. They want to seem attractive to men, as they see women attractive to them, but still actually BE attractive to women, as that is who they are.

L:

My best friends son is still trying to work me out after 25 years. He asks 'how can you change to be a woman if you are attracted to women?'

He misses the point that it is not sexual but emotional, like a bonding. Yet transgender out there are answering - 'but I see myself as a lesbian with a penis'. And wonder why that might offend women and lesbians.

J:

Perhaps that is what a man would think? It seems utter nonsense to me and I suspect to both of you. If you have a penis and desire to use it then surely only a tiny number of people would say that means you can claim to be a woman. Let alone a lesbian.

B:

I had a friend who used her entire life savings to help young transsexuals. She notes that in the days before ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) - as we are seeing in recent years - the balance of sexual orientation gay/straight exactly mirrored the general population.

Most of the transsexuals were straight from the perspective of the sex they transitioned into. Very few were gay by the same measures - as in men who would become women who were then 'lesbians' post transition.

Compare that to the transgender people. Almost all were attracted to women and after whatever transition they still are. It's a huge thing they try to gloss over.


J:

So they redefine their words - becoming 'lesbian' after living as a straight man. As it is easier to do that than changing their bodies. Which they have no desire to do in any event.

Especially if you can persuade politicians that it makes no difference in law and words you speak are as meaningful as any transition that involves physiology.


L:

Indeed, there has to be physiology involved.


B:

There is a comradery involved - that unspoken language of looks, smiles and body language. We have an exchange with every single woman we pass and not one man has a clue that we just 'said' Hi, I see you other woman and I want you to know that you are not a threat and neither am I'.


J:

Understanding that is not something any man hoping to transition can just acquire. It is innate or it is not there.

It is also behind the fear of spaces that is usually turned on women with rage as accusing trans people of being paedophiles. It completely misreads these subtleties of everyday life because for most of their life they have been on the other side unaware it even happens.


L:

B, you have put it beautifully.


J:

It is almost as if some men give themselves an early retirement present after building up all those male privileges across a life time so they can now go and live in the land of their dreams. And treat family as collateral damage because they matter less.

Then assume that if instead of heading off to the Greek Islands they go to the land of women they will be welcomed as a local and not some suspicious looking interloper from a foreign land.

This indulgence of self to escape their life has consequences on so many others but themselves and so rarely do you see evidence they even notice that.

What does this late switch to 'being a woman' do to the wife and the children underneath from whom they are pulling the rug and impacting their lives in such awful ways?

Do some of them even think of that having lived as men for so long?

As a transsexual I find this kind of transition incredibly selfish. Like you are putting yourself first all the time and using male privilege when it benefits you and deciding to shed it when it suits.


L:

Having listened to this chat I also fail to see much correlation between society's fixed gender 'norms' with the notion of rising transsexuality. As Jenny points out earlier the figures seem to show the level has been stable for the past 50 years.

On the other hand I can see why transgenderism would have risen sharply in response to a relaxing of those gender expression restrictions, conveyed especially via the power of social media.

People who cross-dress now feel more able to escape the need for secrecy and just 'come out' emboldened. But since many in my view project a fantasy of becoming a member of the opposite sex they find themselves joining the queues to that end, while others, unsure of whether they are trans, gay or whatever the case may be, become ever more confused and also wind up standing in that queue.

Which is why gate keeping is essential - to process through those who are genuine candidates for transition and SRS and disqualify those who are not lest they meet with disaster. Self ID will remove those safeguards so must be opposed.


B:

We need to come back to this subject in a future conversation as all three of us feel very strongly about the result of taking any such action.


J:

Yes, we do, especially as those safeguards are being eroded all the time without the law being changed. Almost altering society by stealth. Which is a metaphor for much of transgender activism.


L:

For me personally, I had no desire to merely look and dress like a woman - it would be a pointless exercise. It had to be complete as physically possible with current medical technology. Therefore from my perspective even if society was more relaxed about gender expression I would still opt for SRS (Reassignment Surgery).


J:


I agree. It was never for me about gender expression. I have never attempted to fulfil any kind of ideal of female identity as my whole life pre and post transition likely reveals.

This is another difference. Transgender do find gender imagery significant, almost like they are happy with a soft version of 'sexit' as they can get away with that today. That would never be enough for us.

Transsexuals just seek to be as normal as possible and have a life but our transition has to be meaningful, not trivial.

Like you, Leanne, I prefer to think the best of people but something more is going on than one single sociological phenomenon involving men wanting to free the restrictions of their gender roles.

Though that does indeed seem to be part of it. And because transgender is a swelling crowd and transsexuals remain stable at about 0.03% of the population it is easy for most of humanity not to see that such a duality even exists.


L:

Yes, it does feel that way and frustrating. Something hopefully this blog can try to help change.

As I said the dressing up matters to many of them. You can see it in the way they deal with appearance and cosmetic surgery as a priority. They do not seem to hate their bodies and need to change them, they desire the bodies of an ideal female. So long as they do not have to sacrifice too much to get there.


J:

Some good points you made about how boldness has spread, I think laws like the GRA to recognise change of legal identity have created a realisation with some once secretive groups that closet cross dressing can now be engaged in within the real world as if it were a very large bedroom and protected by the law.

It is also so noticeable how much focus transgender put on validation and being perceived as women to the extent that they will protect that need at all costs even though to us it seems almost hysterical desperation to be seen as someone else.

Running to the police, trying to get people sacked, filing lawsuits over misgendering. This is as ridiculous to us, and I suspect to many transsexuals, as it clearly seems to be for much of society.

The key to me seems that a transsexual transitions into themselves. We do it to escape the real physical pain of dysphoria over sex.  And once achieved we just want to try to live our interrupted lives as our selves and find happiness, like anyone else in this world.

Of course, like all humans it hurts not to be respected but it is not pivotal to the core of our personality because that is still the same.

We will grow as all people do and transition will mould us in some way. But we did not become someone else by transitioning. Just a happier more balanced version of who we always were.


L:

So many transgender people have told me 'if I could live as a woman and be accepted I can dress like this all the time'. We all know there can be a sexual arousal motive with some of them too. No longer confined to the bedroom but now able to go out in public. A thrill indeed and protected from ridicule or harassment. Then extend that into the law allowing them to use women's facilities. It is scary