Exclusion

That's because this isn't an activist movement, this is a attention and special treatment grab. They demand support without providing it. They don't lift each other up, only put other people, whether that's "cishets", "cisgays", T*RFs, trenders, or truscums. They preach inclusion but constantly exclude everyone and anyone. They won't invest in their own spaces, only destroy ones they dislike. They don't perform emotional labor, only demand it.

This is a movement that is dominated by wealthy straight white men who think activism is about getting special treatment and having people feel sorry for you. They treat oppression like a competition of who gets the most pity points. They got tired of standing on the sidelines as allies so they've manufactured their own axis of oppression. They have no concept of what it actually is, hence the constant comparisons to black people, gay people, disabled people, whatever. You can tell because they make it about their feelings. This is what a lot of privileged dumbasses think oppression is- hurt feelings (e.g. making fun of white people is racist because it hurts my feelings, people demanding equality are pussies because they can't get over some hurt feelings).

There's no validity to these statements, that male people can be women, that women would mean anything if it included male people, that you can do all this while dismantling the concept of gender, or that anyone else should be responsible for treating their dysphoria. They hopefully understand, deep down, how fucking stupid this all sounds, and the more people exemplify this nonsense, the more ridiculous it looks and the harder it is to fly under the radar and garner sympathy. They'll forgive this bullshit in themselves but not others.

You're not going to get a straight answer here. At most you'll get some red herring about how the agony of living with dysphoria. The suffering of being in the "wrong body". They need to save that shit for their therapist and give actual answers, but they won't.

From what I have observed from listening to prominent transpeople in the UK, I think it's motivated by two very different theories clashing.

Those who believe in 'acceptance without exception' want to remove sex as a class and therefore don't need to pass or conform, they want to tear down and subvert any barriers that sex as a class leads to.

The other group want to conform, they want to fit into their desired sex class. Their need is to be part of women's spaces, groups and opportunities. But the only way that is feasible is that they are indistinguishable from women. They want to be accepted in womens spaces and it's hard to claim that the safety and privacy of a women's changing room is needed when someone doesn't pass.

I don't think it's discrimination or invalidating - it's self protection. They believe that women will accept a certain type of male into their class, but that acceptance can only be stretched so far.

They are arguing about where that line is. But you are correct, coincidentally they are usually on the right side of that line themselves.

I think the issue is that Trans is an umbrella term used for a few different groups (Transgender, Transsexual, Tucutes, Truscums, Transmeds, even Enbies) and all kind of have varying attitudes regarding transition, some even opposing the other.

The rest of the world doesn’t see them as being any different and just uses the umbrella term when discussing issues that may effect them, when each group may have different opinions/solutions etc.

So now trans people seem to want to make the ‘Trans’ word all about their group so that their own issues can be tackled properly.

And since a lot of people can’t look further than the term ‘Trans’ to see the shitshow that is the infighting groups under it, trans people feel the need to argue about what is or isn’t trans so that their issues can be discussed/dealt with, properly by everyone else.

Idk, maybe I’m overthinking this.

How can some trans people do it to each other?

Because once you deny that "woman" refers to sex, you get this nebulous unclear word that can mean whatever anyone wants it to. So of course since we're dealing with people who'd cut off their body parts in the name of gender identity, there's a lot of arguing over what this new esoteric word even means. The only part of the definition they can be certain of is that women can't be based on something that excludes males, because some males want to be women. And once you accept that wanting to become a woman can qualify someone to be a woman, things only get more nonsensical and convoluted.

So, this is a very thought provoking question, and it makes me want to bring something up and I probably won’t say much after this. But it seems to me like there’s a parallel we can draw between how you see trans people excluding other trans people as wrong, and how a lot of feminists see gender critical feminism excluding trans women as wrong. And I would like to respectfully explore this parallel.

Let me start by saying I’m fairly gender critical myself. I get it, Germaine Greer once said that our experience in life is shaped by the realities of our body, and I very much agree with that. And because a transwoman cannot have the exact same bodily reality as a natal woman, the two therefore cannot be the exact same. They can, in the best cases, only be similar.

With that all being said there’s a group of trans people who seek assimilation and there’s a group of trans people who seek reformation. The assimilationists among us, usually found in groups like truscum and transmedicalism, often get compared to or get called gender critical by those seeking reformation. Phrases like “the line between gender critical and truscum keeps getting smaller” or “truscum are just GC trans people” get thrown around. Obviously this isn’t true. I’d argue that gender critical theory is inherently anti-assimilationist. But these kinds of things get said because a lot of assimilationist trans people, when excluding other trans people, adopt a lot of gender critical arguments. We’ll exclude other trans people by saying “no Late in Life transitioners” to imply that those who started transitioning as a teenager have a stronger working knowledge of what it’s like to grow up being socialized like someone female, to imply that someone who started transitioning earlier benefits from less male privilege. We’ll exclude other trans people by saying things like “SRS is required” to imply that someone with a vagina or neovagina is more vulnerable to sexual assault and certain types of male violence. We’ll exclude other trans people by saying things like “you must pass” to imply that someone passing will have a more female-like experience with discrimination, violence, and socialization. And we’ll exclude other trans people by saying things like “fetishists cannot be trans” to imply that women don’t fetishize womanhood so neither should transwomen.

There’s also a variety of ways, within feminism, that feminists choose to deal with male socialization. For example I think a lot of Liberal Feminists, who include males in their feminism, view working with males to dismantle toxic masculinity and harmful male socialization practices as feminist issues. Where as, there’s a lot of female separatism in Radical Feminism so there’s a tendency to look at that issue and say “It’s not my problem.” Where as someone trans inclusive would see a transwoman and think “this is a female (or woman) whose experienced harmful male socialization and now we must work with her to resolve it.”

I understand why a feminist would conclude “transwomen are male and therefore worrying about including them is not my problem.” I’m not disputing that. But my point is, again, if a feminist views transwomen as women then they would see you, as a transwoman exclusive gender critical feminist, much in the same way they view a trans person excluding other trans people. So, I have my own answer on how I reconcile me being a transwomen excluding certain transwomen. But I’m wondering how you, as a feminist reconcile this issue of being exclusive. Because as far as I understand you either need me, the transwomen, to be immutably male in order to sustain your arguments. And you have to conclude that a transwoman inclusive feminist isn’t a real feminist. Which is fine, I understand those conclusions. But the flip side, again, is that if a feminist views transwomen as a category of women, then they would conclude that you’re not a feminist for excluding a group of women. (And sorry, I realize that I’m assuming your beliefs. Please do correct me if I’m wrong). So do you conclude that trans people are a separate class that ought to be looking out for eachother? But then what if there’s different classes of different kinds of trans people? Should all gender variant people be looking out for eachother? But then what of those who use the transgender label who aren’t gender variant? And what of those who are gender variant who don’t identify as transgender? And what if a stealth, passing trans woman developes a separate identity as a woman in addition to their identity as being transgender? To maintain your beliefs you would have to argue that a transwoman is incapable of developing a separate identity as a woman and that there are no facets of intersectionality between the two.

The reason I’m bringing all of this up is because I’m expecting that since reasons gender critical feminists exclude transwomen are similar to the reasons some trans people exclude other trans people; the way we both choose to reconcile our reasons as the truth will also be similar.

I don’t really know exactly why trans people exclude other trans people, but I can speculate a little about it, I guess. This could be totally wrong and is obviously based on my experiences and perspective so another person could see it totally differently.

I feel like most trans people have to had to fight for their identity in a way that is different than most other people. My transition was much more seamless than many, but I still had to assert my identity to parents and therapists in order to make it to adulthood, let alone get to a place I felt comfortable in my own skin. Having to assert yourself this way may cause trans people to be more protective of their identity. I think we see this in the defensiveness that many trans people exhibit around definitions of words or any suggestion that we might not actually be how we conceptualize ourselves. Many feel deeply vulnerable and insecure about that.

I think most of the trans people who participate here recognize that there are problems with what the trans rights movement is asking for. As a result of trying to find a compromise or from our own negative experiences with trans people, many of here are looking for ways to simplify the situation and address the problems. That may mean more gatekeeping towards who counts as trans or who should be included in this space or that. This leads to the sort of exclusion you are talking about, but it rarely ever results in the trans person questioning the validity of their own identity or inclusion because of the defense mechanisms we’ve built around the specifics of that identity that grew out of having to fight for it.

I understand wanting to gatekeep. I don't remember where it was said, but a trans poster said that they never wanted the trans label, but after their experiences they realized it wasn't really a choice and it was an accurate description of who they were (I'm paraphrasing as best as I can). This is the difference between identity and "I am." We throw this word identity around and some things you don't identify into bc you just are. I can understand someone who has GD, maybe had it for all their life, and they just want to transition and live their life quietly, having a problem with someone who treats their condition like an obscene fetish or a costume. The latter person is publicy representing them and they really feel like they don't have anything in common. In a way, it makes a mockery of their experiences and makes it more difficult for them to express and deal with their experiences. I don't think it's necessarily wrong when people with shared experiences feel the need to gatekeep for protection.

Now the irony in all this is that these same trans people understand this for themselves, but they don't understand it for women and lesbians. Just like their experiences as transsexuals/transmedicalist (not sure what they're calling themselves exactly) have a specific definition and meaning, so does woman and so does lesbian.

(I'm kinda all over the place bc I'm tired, but I hope there was a point in there somewhere.)

I don't exclude people from the community, I only really talk with trans people who are on the same path as I am, and give advice to those who are starting their transition or their questioning. What they do with it is up to them. The debate here is pretty removed from everyday practicality for most trans people with a few years of transition under their belt (yes, yes, yes, I know, we never pass).

I don't know how to reach the people who can't transition, or don't think of it as a real-world option, or don't know why they're feeling like this.

You're talking about a lot of different issues at the same time, which is partly why it doesn't seem like it matches up. I'll go point-by-point.

First, before getting into specific issues, being "trans" isn't the same as being, for example, "conservative" or "liberal." It's a medical condition. So to expect all trans people to hold the same belief system is like expecting all diabetics to hold the same belief system -- there's no correlation between the medical condition and political beliefs, so it's unlikely to happen. There's a reason that non-dysphoric tucutes ("dysphoria isn't required to be trans") are virtually all hard-left, whereas transsexuals span a gamut of spectrum of political beliefs, from hard conservative (Caitlyn Jenner, for example) to hard liberal.

So that being said, you might at least expect trans people to at least be consistent about what being "trans" means. After all, a diabetic person could explain to you the two types of diabetes and how someone qualifies as diabetic. Unfortunately, many trans people (just like many libfems) get caught up in feeling worried they might prevent someone from being diagnosed that they remove all barriers to diagnosis with informed consent. Or many transsexuals believe that people who talk about "gender euphoria" just want to list their transition in positive terms (neutral => happy) instead of negative terms (sad => neutral) and are actually dysphoric, but that they just don't want to admit it.

Generally, most natal individuals would likely agree, if asked, with transmeds that dysphoria is required to be trans if you asked them in a sense that was easy-to-digest (e.g. "does someone have to be unhappy with their birth sex to be trans?"). The vast majority of transsexual people would likely agree with this too. The unfortunate thing is that the community allowed too many natal people to claim our label under the assumption that no one would voluntarily want to be seen as trans, and now natal individuals have taken over the messaging and all our major social groups. They get Facebook groups taken down if they're transmed (transmed = "transsexuality is a medical condition and dysphoria is the primary symptom and is thus required"); they ban "truscum" (transmeds) from Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, etc. because we don't agree that natal male crossdressers (Stevie Romer, Eddie Izzard), non-dysphoric non-binaries (Sam Smith, Jamey Jesperson), or fetishists (AGP men) or natal female non-dysphoric non-binaries, stargenders, AAP women, etc. can use our label when they are literally undiagnosable with our medical condition.

However, obviously this will not be the majority "trans" position as long as natal individuals recognize these individuals as trans and allow them to speak on behalf of trans people or as long as LGBT groups continue to fight for the policies these groups want fought for (like self-ID) that actual transsexuals don't. But it is still important to distinguish between individuals who are transsexual due to their medical condition and individuals who co-opt the label because it's fun or because they outright benefit from it.

Secondly, I'll get into specific issues one-by-one:

Safe spaces:

This is entirely up to natal women what exemptions to grant us. I use female safe spaces because I pass, am post-operative, and because natal women [as a class] support post-operative trans women using female safe spaces. I generally have more restrictive views than the female population on washrooms [women in the States, for an example, support self-ID by a 12-point margin, whereas I would, at minimum, require a doctor's note with required HRT time if pre-operative], but women typically don't support pre-operative trans women in women's locker rooms/prisons but do support post-operative trans women in the same spaces, a stance I agree with. Shelters are much touchier, and I generally support each shelter's right to classify women however they want without legal interference from governments or lawsuits. I've said this multiple times before, but I would stop using women's spaces entirely if women, as a class, were ever to no longer support access for post-operative trans women.

So this isn't about being exclusionary; it's a combination of policies that prioritize women's comfort and women's safety. Restricting locker rooms/prisons/other places of nudity to only post-operative trans women is supported by natal women [comfort] and safe due to the inability for fetishists to take advantage of it [safety]. Natal women support self-ID for washrooms [comfort], but I personally believe the safety side requires more restrictive measures such as HRT, passing, and/or doctor's notes, which is why I take a more restrictive stance.

​

Athletics:

This is not about being exclusionary either. Each sport should admit or not admit trans women based on scientific evidence exclusively. Trans women who have gone through a female puberty likely will have next-to-no restrictions, whereas trans women whose T levels are 12.5 nmol/L even on HRT and have no intention of undergoing SRS probably can't be allowed to play any sport at all (except those that advantage female bodies obviously). And then the in-between cases are handled sport-by-sport, depending, but only based on pure scientific evidence that shows conclusively a lack of advantage for the admitted trans women.

​

Transitioning:

If someone can't afford to transition, then they're still trans. If they have no intention to transition ever, aren't dysphoric, etc. then obviously they aren't trans. But the sheer fact of not transitioning does not make someone not trans.

​

Not Passing:

Remember, social circumstances aren't about whether someone is trans or not. A non-passing trans person is definitely still trans, but they 100% are not read as their target sex. A non-passing trans person will experience transphobia, but a non-passing trans woman won't experience and a non-passing trans man will continue to experience social misogyny. A passing trans person won't experience transphobia. In a podcast interview posted here about 4-5 months ago, Dr. Holly Lawford-Smith (GC) suggested that early-in-life transitioners could potentially be considered women with respect to discussions of class or given exemptions for female safe spaces due to similar experiences with misogyny and passing, but that she saw no reason to consider late-in-life transitioners women, grant them access to female safe spaces, or give them any kind of voice in feminism since their entire life experience was nothing but male privilege.

​

Anyway, hopefully this helped explain it a bit more. I'm not sure I understood your post entirely, but if I didn't, please feel free to ask questions or push back and I'm more than happy to have a discussion about this. I have no intention of being on the "right" or "wrong" side here; I just see trans men and trans women as 3rd/4th sex classes, distinct from both sexes in both biological realities and socialization/social experiences, and I want our rights to be able to be obtained through a method that ensures natal women retain all of theirs first and foremost.

[deleted]

I sort of talked about this in the other thread with you so I'm sorry for repeating stuff.

I think it's a compromise.

I think if QT pushes for trans acceptance for everyone, including people who don't pass, including people like Yaniv, then there will be a backlash to transness in general, and we'll all be considered fetishists and freaks. I don't think anyone wants that, maybe some of GC does, but I know I don't.

I do have compassion and care about trans people who don't pass. I don't think they should be ridiculed or attacked for being who they are. But forcing people to accept trans people into their spaces unconditionally is rude and will fail. Imo it should be based on those spaces choosing to allow trans people in, and as GC shows, there are people uncomfortable with non-passing trans people in their spaces.

And yes, there's GC women who are uncomfortable with any transwoman, no matter what they look like, sharing a bathroom with them, etc, who would always be uncomfortable. But the only way for any trans person to be accepted as something other than trans or for not every trans person to be included. If we recognize that, at least some people who pass and won't cause issues might have a chance.

In a perfect world, every trans person would pass and there'd be no trans predators. I sadly don't think that that will happen, because there will always be bad people. So the only option is to compromise, kick predators out of "the movement", and try to keep transness under the radar.

It sucks being excluded because you're trans, like you said. We all know what it feels like. But suckiness doesn't mean someone deserves to be included. The best we can do, is include people who will fit in, and the rest can hopefully comfort and support each other. It's either that, or everyone is stuck being othered forever.

To answer your question, I think it's the cycle of hate. Hate begets hate, and because we are so persecuted, we need to turn that anger somewhere. So, as often is the case, we can turn it inward. The internalized transphobia manifests itself outwar. It's also a way of protecting their own experience. Just like a lot of the GC community, they feel like because there are people that exist that haven't had the same horrible experiences, the others are less trans. But, more importantly, they feel like their pain is invalidated by other people not experiencing that pain. It's terrible, awful. I feel like I should always accept others. There is so much more damage to be done by being unaccepting then there ever could be otherwise.