How much of a difference should be acknowledged between trans and cis people?

Arguably, this statement applies to cisgendered women and men too, doesn't it? Just because a woman or man is cisgendered, doesn't necessarily follow that she/he relates well to other cisgendered women/men. I can certainly think of examples where it doesn't apply.

I happen to think these relational skills, qualities and attributes can be honed and developed before and during transition. In other words they can be learned.

Personally, I'm content with the idea of trans people identifying as male or female with no additional comment.

 

Trans women - xy chromosomes
Cis women - xx chromosomes

Ciswomen will also experience biological things intrinsic to the biology (unless a medical problem involved) such as periods, and that cis women (have the choice to) can get pregnant whereas (as for now) trans women cannot.

Life experiences will differ, perhaps, that is involved with being a cis or trans women. Such as sociolisation in families that have traditional (percieved) gender roles.

People also tend to sympathise more with ingroups. Not just majority groups. There will be cispeople who show a bias towards other cis people and transpeople who show bias towards other trans people. Even if not aware of it, people who are similar might be able to just relate to each other more.

But both of the groups call themselves ''women''

Some people identify more closely with these labels than others.


Instead of labelling it ''transphobic'' perhaps just have a ''fun'' conversation about the similarities and differences between intersectional/groups.

 

From conversations that I have had with trans friends, most people don't think that having this conversations is inherently transphobic. That being said, the conversation can EASILY and most of the time become transphobic for multiple reasons.

1) Most people bring up the difference of experience between cis and trans women in order to defend the notion that trans women shouldn't be interluded in certain spaces which is bullshit and highly problematic
2) These conversations can be dangerous to trans people so is not a conversation that should be had lightly. Trans women are being killed everyday by people that "catch" them. So while it can be fun to have a theortical conversation about the differences, its important for cis people to understand that these conversations can be dangerous for trans people if you don't have them responsibly

For example, this right here is incredibly problematic.

Chromosomes have NOTHING to do with someone being a trans woman or cis woman. There are cis women who don't have those chromosomes, who are infertile, who have never experienced a period. This is not a chromosomes conversation and this is why its a way more complex conversation than most people realize.

Adn this is not to imply that you are transphobic Secrets, but this type of misinformation is used by transphobic people so its still hurtful.

So yes, have the conversation but always think "Why is this topic even brought up? What is its purpose?" Without a clear purpose then this conversation can become hurtful.

 

if i’m not mistaken, the adichie controversy was partly a language problem: she insisted trans women are trans women but did not say the same thing about cis women (so, “cis women are cis women”) which sounded like she thought cis women were women and trans women were a different kind of women, or “not real”. (just to add, she acknowledged this and explained her point further to explain this was not the case)

i feel like the only way the distinction between trans/cis could be relevant is in terms of lived experiences, that is to say, the way the world has treated them, but it is relevant only when it comes from the inside, i.e. the trans ‘community’ itself. that does not alter their gender. and it does not make them different per de - it just means they have faced different challenges. but like patrickUK says above me, i do think it is worth questioning the weight of that difference: not all trans women have the same experiences, nor do all cis men, etc. a black, straight trans woman and a white, lesbian trans woman might not really have all that much in common at all. it can be an identifying factor to help build a sort of community (just like people uniting bc of their gender, or bc of their race, or whatever) but one that comes from within, and not from an outsider determining which factors connect them. More so, it is further complicated by all sorts of intersections.

trans men are men, just as cis men are men. the descriptor is only relevant for them to describe their own experiences. there is no further reason to distinguish between them. and if the descriptor “trans” is used, so should “cis” - because “trans man” is different from “cis man” but it is not different from “man”.

fully agreed.

 

@smurf

I did say that some cis women are infertile (well I said if a medical condition involved and cannot get pregnant or simply choose not to even if fertile)

I've never heard of ciswoman who never have a period ... but most likely a medical condition or some kind of intersex is involved. (But I don't know ... Maybe a link to a journal article or suggestions of what to research?)

And a "cis woman" who doesn't have xx chromosomes (such as x0 ... but I didn't mention as not sure if xxxx is one) are classed as intersex.

She is still a woman/he is still a man but chromosomes are a part of it. There is coding that says what type of sex a person develops and if the sex doesn't match the brain then they're trans or intersex .

Even if it's deemed "hurtful" I don't think that should shut down a conversation. People who are "hurt" by it should engage with the conversation (or choose to ignore it) and state their case; such as why a woman with xy chromosomes should still be given space as women with xx chromosomes or other which means she is assigned female at birth. (Sorry missed the first sentence e of this section).

The clear purpose would be to scientifically define the differences and similarities between × groups of people(s). It is not the conversation itself but how people use it that could be beneficial or not to certain groups of people.

 

Furthermore, I do agree that in some cases cis women and trans women should be separated. In the case of domestic violence shelters for example. Cis women in this situation is vulnerable and if a woman with a penis enters then she could mentally trigger anxiety since these woman may have been raped or something.

I do not think that because transwoman are also oppressed and in need of domestic violence shelters as a safe space that it should stop cis women from having a safe space.

I know this is probably "transphobic" but it is to the sympathy of women who are abused by "male bodies".

Just as I'm probably les/bi/het woman phobic for being annoyed that women's shelters don't take into account a woman could be abused by "female bodies"

Or that there isn't any for males in the uk at all.

But like I said people want to protect their in groups. So at this moment and in this example I actually don't care if this is transphobic. Because all women deserve to be in a safe space in abuse even if it means discriminating other women.

(And how to solve a safe space for the women who like women who have been abused by women situation I don't know .... )

Or maybe this is a separate issue to do with safety and anxiety that I need to deal with alone, it might be, I don't know, I probably won't know, so reply as it is.

And I apologise. You know I'm probably having anxiety as I hate conflict but like I said we need to be sympathetic to all the victims but it can be difficult when theres multiple sub groups and we all tend to favour our own group.

So complex .... not going to solve it online .... I'm going to bed and may not reply but I probably will and I am stupid for even replying back as this is so much internal stress.

Stress - I would like to not discriminate against transwoman from women's domestic violence shelters but ciswoman in those places are likely to have been raped and if if she has a penis then it could trigger a lot just knowing it even ifs irrational triggers usually have some internal rational but at the same time transwomen also need domestic violence shelters but none for them so where can they go (?).

Like I said ... not going to solve this online and I don't have much influence on the law (I vote but that's it) so not sure apart from sorry this is a mess and I shouldn't have bothered replying.

 

Here is where the confusion lies. Intersex is talking about chromosomes and not gender. So you can have a cisgender woman with x0 chromosomes and they are still a cisgender woman.

Cisgender means that your gender matches the gender that you were assigned at birth. It has nothing to do with chromosomes. So if a doctor decides that an intersex person is a woman, and it turns out the person identifies as a woman then that would make them cisgender and intersex.

I never said stop talking about it. I said be mindful that its hurtful. That means have empathy for people as you have this conversation.

These conversations are happening in trans activist groups in order to train medical professionals how to take care of them. So they are happening, but like I said you have to have them while being aware of the context in our society.

 

Some people don't agree with empathy in conversations they just want the cold hard logical truth to effect people not emotions.

Clash of personalities and I hate the clash in mine.

 

Couple of things.

• If a person cannot tell a ciswoman and a trans woman apart then why would they be re-traumatized by it? That makes absolutely no sense. Would they be less scared with a cis guy who lost their penis to an accident?
• There isn't one single piece of evidence of trans woman being a threat to a cis women in a shelter. Its simply not a problem.

This is the same mentality that has passed laws to bar trans women from shelters, bathrooms, jails and other public spaces. Yes, its is transphobic and is based on fear and not facts.

 

- if they did not know then they would not be scared but they may be retraumatised if they found out somehow
- in theory, no, if a man lost his penis and the threat is "penis" as that's associated with the rape then the threat isn't there
- yes it's based on fear but fear isn't fact, it's a chemical reaction used for "protection" even though there's nothing there. And for ciswomen in these situations there would be this fear is, and mental health has to be taken into account too.
- considering there is barring to transwomen being in the shelters no evidence can be collected in this situition. However, I have heard (note youtube comments with no link) that a transwoman was put in a female prison and raped some women there.

But yes, fear/phobia ... I think in these situations it's reasonable to have this irrational fear.

------

Let's say it becomes known transwomen are now accessing women's shelters ... honestly if I was abused by a transwoman it would kickstart all that anxiety again.

(Like if I was abused by a ciswoman I would fear going into a shelter for that same anxiety ... and I'm screwed)

It's the same reason men aren't allowed into a woman's shelter ... as men are statistics ally likely to abuse women and thus are a danger.

If the danger can be triggered here then it could be the same for an abuser of any gender.

Thus, i rhink things need to be kept as separate as possible.

I mean, if a transwoman was abused by a ciswoman - would she not have that same internally logical fear of 'it' (whatever the abuse was) happening all over again

Again, I agree, fear not fact. But in traumatic situations the fact is that mental health needs to be protected.

Let's say there was a transwomen's domestic violence shelter but a ciswoman got to one before she could find anywhere else ... should she be allowed in as not to discriminate or would it negativly impact and trigger anxiety if those transwomen had been abused by a ciswoman?

------

Like I am scared of depressed people because I was abused by my depressed mother (who made me believe it was okay as she was depressed). If I don't know they have depression then I don't know so I won't be scared. But people are starting to talk about this stuff so if I find out anxiety starts kicling in and think it'll happen again. Yes it may be illogical but that's what anxiety and post-traumatic stress is.

 

So I'm going to reply to this more for anyone that stumbles on this because I think some of this statements left alone can be dangerous, but don't feel like you have to reply Secrets. Take care of yourself.

- if they did not know then they would not be scared but they may be retraumatised if they found out somehow
- in theory, no, if a man lost his penis and the threat is "penis" as that's associated with the rape then the threat isn't there
- yes it's based on fear but fear isn't fact, it's a chemical reaction used for "protection" even though there's nothing there. And for ciswomen in these situations there would be this fear is, and mental health has to be taken into account too.
- considering there is barring to transwomen being in the shelters no evidence can be collected in this situition. However, I have heard (note youtube comments with no link) that a transwoman was put in a female prison and raped some women there.

None of the above is true and that is not how most domestic abuse shelters work. If you have trauma from the abuse, the case manger will work with you to create tools so the fear doesn't become an obstacle for the rest of your life. The client will be given physical security, but the shelter is not made to take away as many triggers for every person. But they will be made physically safe and given tools to manager their trauma so they don't have to be afraid of every person that resembles their attacker.

Every single time you hear "we must keep cis women safe from trans women" this is a transphobic call to attack the safety of trans people. Do not feed into the fear. All of it is based on fear and not on evidence.

Hopefully this thread it self is an example on how this conversation can jump REALLY quickly from "there are some common differences" to "because of those differences we should protect cis women from trans women"

The conversations that you are talking about are happening withing the trans community, but those are being had with the goal is help the trans community. So its important as cis people ourselves to be careful when we engage in this type of conversation when the objective isn't clear.

 

This is irrational, illogical and nonsensical! This argument is actually transphobic in the literal sense of the word.
a) Not all transwomen have a penis. There are plenty who have had surgery. What is your reason to exclude them too as the penis argument doesn’t really work here does it? You have to come up with something else then I suppose. Or do surgically created vaginas also traumatise people because, I don’t know, the topic of surgeries perhaps triggers some people too? [And honestly if one followed that logic nothing and no one could be in such a shelter because there are people with irrational fears of literally everything! Everything might have the potential to scare and trigger some person somewhere in the world.]
b) You can’t even know whether those women are trans or not if they transitioned medically and legally! How do you want to figure that out in the attempt to exclude them? Do you want to mark them by making a law that enforces putting a sign into their IDs or sewing a specific sign onto their coats so that everyone can see ‘trans’ right away when looking at them? Or how do you want the shelter to segregate them? If you intend to do so you’d need some tool to distinct them for the segregation so how did you think that would work, what was the plan and intention in mind when you typed this? I’m sure you have an idea how this could be easily implemented in real life don’t you? Just like all the people who call for transwomen to not use women’s bathrooms always have completely practical solutions that allow transpeople to keep their dignity to how this would work and not cause a complete mess in everyday life in mind.
c) Penises are not a threat! (I find this misandrist as well actually) Having a penis doesn’t make those women a predator! That a transwoman might still have a penis doesn’t make her a risk for anyone, it just puts her at a higher risk of experiencing violence if someone figured it out somehow.


Reason and facts should always stand above feelings! Hence a system should be based on reason and logic and not someone’s irrational fears! I wouldn't want to live in a society where fear ruled over reason and rationality!

What you are doing here is nothing but fearmongering at its finest!
Something like this is planting the seed of fear and hate is the only thing that will be reaped from this. And hate leads to legal discrimination and the justification of violence. For centuries religious institutions and people have used the same strategy of fearmongering against gay and lesbian people and it still has not been fully overcome.
And yet you are doing this exact same thing to another part of the LGBT community, to transwomen specifically who have actually stood by gay people during the fight for equal rights, using the same methods that religious fanatics used and still use against homosexuals. I genuinely don’t understand this and can’t wrap my mind around this. But if you think fearmongering and making the boogeyman out of transwomen is constructive, beneficial and intelligent you do you, there are also still people who argue that gay men shouldn’t be teachers because they are a supposed threat for children! It’s basically the exact same thing!

 

You have to acknowledge a difference insofar as you want to identify the nature and scope of disadvantage and distinct identity. Importantly, to the extent some (often feminists in regard to womanhood) thinkers will exclude transgender people from their definition of a gender group, you have to be able to identify why the essential definition of a gender group can encompass the real and meaningful difference of being trans within that group if you're to come even close to responding to those arguments in good faith.

Transgender people have a very particular, if internally diverse, identity politics that indicates at least that trans people are a special subset of the gender with which they identify. That's an important thing to note, because I think it belies the approach Patrick (quoted below) takes as somewhat too naive in responding to exclusionary gender politics. There has to be something essential, a threshold test, for what falls within and outside the definition and that means we do need additional comment. It's at that point you do what Patrick suggests, distinguishing biology at birth from social constructions, noting that what we define as womanhood or manhood is distinct from, though related to, being a female or a male.

This isn't so much an argument on the principles of trauma-prevention as it is about resource constraints. The risk of violence to a transgender woman being as great as it is and the proportion of transgender women to cisgender women being very low, you can't reasonably provide protection to those transgender women without combining resources. Even if transgender women were more violent on average (something I don't think you've successfully made out at all) the risk of violence to transgender persons, and the consequences of being deprived of support services are so great, you probably just have to make a tradeoff in favour of those persons.

What you're arguing comes to a logical conclusion that no person should ever have to come into contact with a potential trigger of violence. That's an enormous hurdle given trauma can come from anywhere, and you'll never have the numbers or diversity of social support workers required to have one-on-one aid, delivered away from other victims who may also be potential triggers.

It is likely more traumatic for the trans women to be forced to have no aid or go into a men's shelter given
a) the sort of violence she faces is likely not separate from being a woman, just compounded by being transgender, so you're excluding her from relevant services;
b) men are more likely than women to perpetrate physical and sexual violence against trans women so the risk of a trauma trigger is higher for her anyway; and
c) it is humiliating and degrading to have your gender identity dismissed such that she may choose not to access the men's service even if the first two things weren't true.

What I really don't get here is why we should assume that the transgender person (or the depressed person) should be denied assistance if you would be impacted. You seem to think that your comfort (or the comfort of the hypothetical cisgender woman) is for some reason more important than that other person's access to services.

Yes, sometimes that separation is workable within resource constraints (eg. men/women; mental-health specific services) because there are sufficient numbers of workers and recipients of aid to make it cost-effective. When it isn't, and when the separation would then cause further trauma, then I think we have to accept even the minor risk of triggers of trauma if it saves transgender women from the very significant risks involved in being denied services in the first place.

It doesn't matter if illogical fears are acceptable. It matters who gets impacted, to what extent and in what ways. What you're suggesting gives very little recourse to transgender women who would be excluded from those shelters, in a way I find deeply concerning and detached from the comparative importance of the needs of everyone involved.