Safe space, free speech and hate speech

No trans woman should have to hear that trans women are a threat to cis women, without robust rebuttal, ideally by allies rather than ourselves. In particular in universities, where trans women are in their late teens and early twenties, where they live on or near campus and spend much of their time on campus, they should be protected from the idea that we are a threat, either ourselves or that violent men will pretend to be women in order to assault women, if we get recognition. If people say we are a threat, they feel entitled to use violence against us to protect themselves or others.

That might be the most protection we can get.

Safe spaces in Britain have been created by students, usually allies protecting fellow students. This started with far right speakers attacking students of south Asian heritage. The leaders of Britain First, recently retweeted by Trump, or the English Defence League have nothing of use or interest to say, cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and are grossly offensive to most students, not just Muslims. If you do not have the basic empathy to feel with those minority students, you have something wrong with you. Some students are prejudiced, and BAME students will receive microagressions, but generally the most overt racism is taboo.

Now, the National Union of Students policy is that attacks on students cannot be tolerated, and it was a cis woman NUS women’s officer who opposed Germaine Greer speaking in Cardiff. Their video here explains that as charities they have to be careful external speakers do not incite hate crimes, and consider health and safety. That is separate from their no-platform policy, which bans the EDL and Al-Muhajiroun. Freedom of speech should be balanced with the right to be safe from harm, such as Linda Bellos saying she would take off her glasses and punch one of those bastards- trans women. That is incitement to violence, but as they put it it might have a “possible impact on campus cohesion”, emboldening TERFs to mock or threaten trans women. If “risks or tension arose at a similar event before” that might be a reason to refuse a speaker a platform within the Student Union. The Union might consider “robust regulatory steps” to allow a higher risk event to go ahead. Steps to mitigate risk could include having Union officials observe, stewards provide security, or the speech submitted to the Union in advance.

Germaine Greer could simply have been told not to mention trans people. At another speech she made in Norwich she refused to answer a question about trans women, saying “What do I know?”

The risk to cis women of trans women in women’s loos is less than the risk from other cis women. Self-certification when one pledges to live in the acquired gender life-long by oath is sufficient protection against people faking.

Before researching this I did not know the difference between the No Platform policy, applied to particular extremist groups, and the External Speakers policies, applied to all speakers. This is arcane. When everyone knows about the difference, it is a useful distinction to allow people to distinguish different issues. When listeners might not know, there can be a bait and switch, making someone answer about extremist groups and then ridiculing the answer as if it applied to any speaker.

Non-gendered

The toilets had signs on them saying “all gender toilets- urinals and stalls” and “all gender toilets- stalls”. Still there was a long queue in the stalls only loos, and none in the one with urinals, where I saw one brave AFAB person as I walked in. The smell there is far worse. I could use the “urinals and stalls” loos if that was normal or conventional. We sought “stealth”, where no-one would notice us, for if we were noticed we would suffer, and now we might be “visibly trans”, taking the risk, hoping we won’t come across the violent bigot; and yet I just want to be normal, going about my normal business, which includes using loos. I don’t want to be looking over my shoulder, and I don’t think I should have to.

It is rare to bump into an acquaintance in London, but Nell saw me in the Tate and said Hello. She had been there drawing from the pictures, as part of her art class, and showed me a picture on her phone. An artist had painted her husband wearing a wedding dress. Of course it is the kind of thing that interests me, and it still perturbs me, still knocks me off balance. It is a reminder of my vulnerable sexuality, the sensuality which has always seemed merely weak to me, which has never given me pleasure. I am that vulnerable self which even I despise. I feel I should not be tortured by my own sexuality.

Some might call that male privilege and a sense of entitlement that I might feel I could evade comments on my looks or sexuality. I read about “non-dual consciousness”, that state of presence in the moment when we are aware of surroundings, and I know that it can be exhilarating. It makes me feel real. So avoiding self-consciousness by being absorbed in my thoughts, not noticing the people around me, so that if anyone has remarked that I am trans I would not see it, is a loss, a price I pay. People tend to look at the most attractive of us, and the weirdest. For stealth I might aspire to the invisible middle. I am as uncomfortable as anyone, walking down the street, I just deal with that discomfort in my own way. Or, I am wrapped in razor wire, so any movement is painful.

Tate had “Flux”, an evening of talks and films on gender and its subversion, aimed at ages 18-25 and with a few older trans women. Few people seemed to present as “the other” gender, but played with gendered expression. Some were particularly eye-catching- as attractive, rather than weird. “Introduce the person next to you”, we were told. I had just met Ashton, and said, “I don’t know Ashton’s pronouns, but love Ashton’s style”. Mmm. I can either assume female pronouns or imply there is a doubt. “They or she” she/they said. She wears a pinstripe suit with narrow trousers and trainers. Her hair is shaved to ear level, then frizzes out above, died blue. She plays nervously with the leather thong on a journal, and later performs for us, reading her poetry.

We did word association games in small groups, which made others but not me self-conscious- no, she/he/they does not want to say the word which came first into their head- then constructed poems from prompts. One prompt was microaggressions, and two women (?) looked at a page saying

Where are you from?
No, where are you really from?

which I find more than micro. The best line from our poem was “Gender is like a Summer hat in Winter”, but that sees it as merely oppressive or ridiculous. I feel it could be a joyous source of self-expression, if only one was expressing one’s own gender rather than someone else’s. I read the poem, and enjoyed performing it.

After, the editors of Beyond the Binary had a panel discussion, and lots of us sat on the floor to hear them, reclining on scattered cushions. Does anyone know how hard it is to get a GRC? Very few of us did. They expressed anger at the difficulty, which I could say more succinctly- I don’t need a psychiatrist to state who I am– yet with less anger. So, it’s bureaucratic- just like getting a passport is.

What were non-binary people, before the word “non-binary” was popularised?

After, I went to a fish and chip restaurant with H, got the train home, cycled from the station.

Confident, not confident

With Léne to Nupton, to start the Queer Trans Inclusion Partnership. She drove me down, and we compared notes over lunch in a pub. I learned that the shy, silent types we want to get talking are not called “difficult to reach” as they were when I was delivering services, but “seldom heard”. That changes the phrase from the perspective of the service provider to a global perspective, as when someone is not heard that is a problem for everyone.

We gave a talk for about half an hour. I wanted to say how self-declaration made no difference from the current position for the wider community: only people committed to transition will seek gender recognition. I spoke almost without notes. I quoted Scottish Women’s Aid in our support. I can speak confidently. On a platform, I have a role, which I play well.

And then we discussed things as a group. Only eleven turned up, three trans and several others gay. How to include trans people? A woman at the STD clinic said that her rainbow lanyard won the trust of LGBT folks. Was there something else needed for trans? I felt that a rainbow would do. Someone felt a trans flag, blue pink white pink blue, would be better. It will cost a bit to get NHS printed on the lanyards, and other people have expressed an interest, so a decision would be good. I don’t want to require a different symbol for trans. Someone did, and I wanted to shut them up but went silent.

I would not have read –, but he talked of his trans experience. He wanted to know how to engage older trans folk- he is 23. On his website, he has soundcloud interviews showing the change of his voice over the last year on T. Now he has facial hair, he seems a gentle, charming, alert young man, in rainbow braces.

possibly the hairline, round over the temples, is feminine-

I would have read — even without the context. She has a professional job within a large company, and is their trans face to the world and within the company. We went for a drink, after. We have made a good start. And I have judged them, perhaps as a way of showing trans is not safe, to my own satisfaction. I am better off reclusive as I am. It was Friday evening, and blokes came to the pub from the office. I am uneasy with them swearing so loudly. The pint of “Black Hole” tastes weird. “Black Sheep” at lunchtime was unusually bitter and hoppy, but clearly fresh. I try drinking my pint and ignoring the taste, but eventually take it back to the bar, where the man agrees to change it for Black Sheep. Why would he not? He wants to keep the customers happy. And, if he refused my trying to be overbearing would be useless, what with the bouncers on the door. I am still pleased I asked.

There’s a new drama on the telly, Love, Lies and Records. It is set in a registry office, and has a number of ridiculous plot lines, as if taken from lurid weekly women’s true life magazines like Chat, Yours or Take a Break. None are believeable, and only Rebecca Front as the villain, whose ambition to be supervising registrar has been thwarted, is watchable, but it has a character announce she will be “coming to the office dressed as a woman” from the following week. She is gormless but mostly harmless. She is promptly thrown out by her wife, the mother of her children, and cadges a bed from the big-hearted heroine. Her beard stubble is showing in the morning as she makes up. What would the target audience think? At best they would see her as harmless and she would win sympathy. Surely she would not arouse fear, though possibly disgust. But I want role-models on the telly, not people having a crap time. And it’s not about the clothes, not really. After deadnaming her, the villain says “It’ll take me some time to get used to it,” clearly never intending to.

Sharing our stories

Should we share personal stories of transphobia? The time I was called a “fucking nonce”, the time I was assaulted. Yes, if there is a good reason to.

The story becomes mine, to do with as I wish, when I have processed the emotion arising from it. That man tried to push me in front of a car. I was distressed after, but talking of it now does not bring up that distress. The world has risks, and chaotic individuals, but fortunately the risk of coming across such a person is low.

Processing emotion is a bad reason to tell these stories in public. I have told my stories privately, using people as confidantes, as my distress returns and eventually it subsides. But I don’t want to use them to gain sympathy. She has heard people’s stories, and she is angry. She wants to tell their stories to make other people angry on our behalf in the same way. I don’t feel that emotion is useful. It paints us as victims. Sometimes, journalists want us to tell those stories as entertainment, to paint a picture of the world and what kind of people we are, rather than to produce useful change for us.

And, as a professional I wanted to see what good I could do. People would be surprised when my care and sympathy turned into a curt dismissal; it was because I felt they had no chance.

It might be better to share public transphobia. Linda Bellos, otherwise an admirable person, does not like trans people, saying of us, If anyone of those bastards comes near me, I will take my glasses off and thump them. Yes I will take my glasses off… But I do, I am quite prepared to threaten violence, because it seems to me that what they are seeking to do is piss on all women. I don’t, actually. That shows there is a general problem of prejudice, which everyone who wants diversity and inclusivity should oppose. It illustrates a systemic problem rather than individual victimhood.

I do not want to come over as a victim. Society has a problem of transphobia. It is pervasive: The Times reports that Lily Madigan has applied for the Jo Cox Leadership scheme, calling her Lily Madigan, who was born male but identifies as female. This is not a story: woman applies to women’s scheme. It might be a story if she got in, so we could celebrate her, but this is only of interest to those who want to tut or fume at “men pretending to be women”. Linda Bellos should know better than to get in bed with Rupert Murdoch. Let us gather to resist this transphobia.

We are people with rights. What can you do so that we vindicate our rights?

But she has heard the personal stories, and she is angry. She is fired up on our behalf, and cannot believe than anyone hearing those victim stories would not feel the same way.

An address to the radical feminists

A change of tack.

I transitioned fifteen years ago, and I don’t know why beyond it was what I wanted, more than anything else in the world. No-one knows why, not really; in the nineties I heard about the bed nucleus of the Stria Terminalis central section, a bit of the brain which is twice the size in trans and non-trans men that it is in trans and non-trans women, but there is no definitive research. I am a complex organism in a complex social structure is about as precise as I can get: I transitioned because I am human. I am I.

So we tell stories to each other about it. I don’t think the autogynephilia hypothesis is useful to explain or predict, but you might like it. I don’t know what being “really” a woman would mean. I know people have been doing this for thousands of years. Deuteronomy would not prohibit something no-one ever did. They were not “trans people” as understood now, but they were people seen as men by the authorities, wearing women’s clothes. There are people born with testicles who believe they are women, or third gender, all over the world. People transition in far less accepting cultures than ours.

Socially and legally I am a woman, accepted as a woman by such as Diva magazine and Women’s Aid Scotland. The former editor of Diva said, Thirty and forty years ago to be a lesbian was to be questioned. Today things are much better for us (for the cis lesbians, that is) but there are still places where to be a lesbian is impossible. So it is for transmen and women, many of whom have been or are lesbian or bi-identified. We know something of these struggles. And just as others have supported us, so we must support those among us who are trans or we risk ending up on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, that quote is no longer on their website.

Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland said, We do not regard trans equality and women’s equality to be in competition or contradiction with each other. We support the Equal Recognition campaign and welcome the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid in Scotland provide trans inclusive services on the basis of self identification. We will continue to work collaboratively with Scottish Trans Alliance and other equality organisations with the aim of ensuring that new processes are appropriately designed and without unintended consequences.

So the trans lobby that afflicts you is not a few dowdy, frightened trans women but a huge number of campaigning feminists, who are “women born women” or whatever phrase you would like to use. When you campaign against the trans lobby, you are campaigning against feminist organisations. Even if a few men in mini-skirts with their penises showing could terrify Women’s Aid by the threat of an Equality Act court action, they could not force them to make such a statement. Women’s Aid are used to assessing the risk posed by clients, and whether they should be in a group hostel or alone- or sent away because of lack of funds.

And you are working with the establishment and the hard Right: the Telegraph, the Spectator, Standpoint magazine, the Daily Mail. The Times is virulently anti-trans at the moment. I don’t know what Mr Murdoch has against us, but he has never been progressive.

Before I transitioned, I was friendly with a colleague. We were committed to the work we did and the people we served. Then I started testing out whether transition would be possible, and on one of our works meals out together dressed female. Ann was revolted. She apologised to me about her revulsion. She was aware of the organisation’s diversity policy, and equality legislation, but after we worked together on a strictly professional basis. I had great sympathy for her.

Again, there are stories we can tell about this. Ann might accept the word “transphobia”. We worked around it, just as people tolerate an arachnophobe, protecting them from spiders. The arachnophobe may be ashamed but other people are accepting. Or, you can be self-righteous, calling us dudes/chaps/trans-identified males/male-to-trans/trans rights activists. I am not going to say that your reaction is irrational, it is for you to consider how proportionate it is. I do not want to disparage your fear of male violence against women, but feminists whose life work is helping women who suffer male violence accept trans women in their spaces.

And it is not for me to tell you where to devote your campaigning energy, but you can fight those feminist organisations, or you can fight conservatism, the establishment and the patriarchy. It is a tragedy when feminists fight amongst ourselves.

Applause- thunderous applause- standing ovation. All congratulate me, and rush to tell of their Damascene conversions at my words. Or not.

Why do people transition?

Why do people transition? Because we are human. No more precise answer is possible- because we are complex organisms in complex social structures. But transition continues to shock and distress trans folk and others. Because I wanted to is not a good enough answer for me, because I feel I have suffered because of transition and life might have been easier without that desire; and not for other people, because they want to debate what rights I get as a transitioned woman.

The answer “Autogynephilia” is given by people who want to treat trans women as men, limit transition, and exclude us. So it matters whether that is scientific or not. It isn’t. Haters insist on it, though.

The answer “because I have a woman’s brain/spirit, because I am really a woman” would give us full rights, but I don’t believe it myself. Women’s brains are not particularly different from men’s, trans women’s brains are not clearly closer to cis women’s than cis men’s, it is not clear what differences would be relevant to transition, and brains are plastic, changing throughout life. “Gender essentialism”, the idea that women are in some way innately feminine, is offensive to women who reject femininity but are clear they are women. I observe gender non-conforming people who do not transition, and conclude the idea that people with ovaries are fundamentally different from people with testicles, with the exception of trans people who are really in the other group, is ridiculous.

There is nothing which is a virtue in one sex which is not a virtue in the other; no characteristic which one has but the other has not, apart from those reproductive differences.

“Should a trans woman be allowed in women’s space?” should be addressed without a definitive answer to whether we are women or not. Socially and legally we are women. At worst, we should be pitied and tolerated, for we are mostly harmless. Some say we are men, so should not be there; but society is too complex for such a simple answer. Most people answer the question by imagined consequences: male abusers pretending to be trans to enter women’s space, or cis women seeing trans women, thinking they are men, and being retraumatised over past male violence; but most people either don’t care, or see that the gain in allowing us to lead productive lives as members of society outweighs such imagined problems.

A trans person just transitioning might need to justify that to themselves. I wanted to believe I was really a woman. I feared transitioning if I were simply an autogynephiliac pervert, consumed by my sexual fantasies. You doubt yourself, so other people’s opinion that you are a man hurts- it was as if I wanted the whole world to say I was a woman because I could not trust my own judgment and any doubt of it confused depressed and terrified me. But you doubt yourself, then you transition, or you don’t. It is hard to be a campaigner when you need affirmation, because you will meet the opposite.

Now my answer is It was the best I could do at the time. I look back on the difficulties, but with effort I also see blessings, and I may have been worse off if I had not transitioned. It is part of forgiving and acceptance.

A friend said Those who look for a cause are looking for a cure. That was in the nineties, when gay people questioned their own orientation. This is who I am, they should say. Gay Pride. I still looked for a cause. Transition is such an odd thing to do.

#Stand with Heather!

I stand with Heather.

Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans is a public intellectual, an incisive and persuasive speaker, an energetic campaigner, and a passionate feminist. I have heard her speak, and also met her more informally, where I found her warm and funny. She campaigns on porn culture, and I entirely agree. She supports the Nordic model of sex work law (which has inspired the law in France and increasing numbers of jurisdictions). On that I am unsure, but clear she has important things to say and is worth hearing, as she has researched the arguments. And she does not like being called a TERF- perhaps a gender-critical feminist, radical feminist or just feminist.

She appeared on The Moral Maze on Radio 4, where she expressed concern about teenage girls transitioning to trans men. She is the spokesperson for the Women’s Equality Party policy on sexual violence against women and girls. A complaint has been made that she contradicts the party’s position on trans women, which accepts our self-determination as women.

The party has 65,000 members, as of July 2016, and while it has no elected councillors has won thousands of votes in various elections. It stands for equal pay, equal treatment in the media, and an end to violence against women. It will have difficulty while the UK parliament and local councils operate first past the post electoral system but it has value as a campaigning organisation; and it cannot be expected to enforce cabinet responsibility, with no spokesperson ever contradicting party policy, at such an early date in its existence.

That is, I want WE to flourish, and have the passion, skills and experience of Dr Brunskell-Evans, and I want her to be able to speak her understanding and campaign as she wishes- even though I do not agree with her. She does not like the word TERF, but when she says we should not be in women’s space it feels exclusionary to me. It is a bodge, I suppose. There are many people I will never persuade that I am really a woman, but I hope to persuade them that I am mostly harmless. Rape Crisis Scotland, which works against violence against women and girls, says We do not regard trans equality and women’s equality to be in competition or contradiction with each other. I can bear Dr Brunskell-Evans’s disagreement.

Twitter is not the place for nuanced argument. There, there is a campaign with the hashtag #standwithheather. “You are being anti-feminist and cowardly”, one tweets at WE. No, they are not, they are being practical and reasonable, allowing her to say things which other members contradict. Their own twitter stream is tweeting about toilets- not trans women in women’s toilets, but the impact of a lack of toilets on women’s health and dignity globally. They mark International Men’s Day by showing the men who have joined- for women’s equality benefits everyone. “They should be ashamed of themselves and their pitiful attempt at male pandering feminism”, thunders Quelizinha. Transgender Trend suggests WE is giving into bullies. “RemakingAdam” is obsessively tweeting again and again, claiming hundreds of women are leaving the party.

The Women’s Equality Party, like most feminists, supports trans women. That is the progressive cause. We subvert gender. We are an oppressed minority, and we need the support of society: we transition because we must, and we do so in far more dangerous conditions than in Britain. They could take a “gender critical” line, and escape censure from the likes of @Janice5E, who gloats that “@WEP_UK have had a lot of practice at losing women. Sophie Walker (@SophieRunning) made a complete arse of the party on Mumsnet…” Such people, though, tend to be only interested in one feminist cause, devoting a great deal of energy to excluding trans women. I wish they would take that energy somewhere else.

Because all we know about the WEP position is that complaints have been made, and they are investigating. Here are their statements. The paranoid response on Twitter only damages the tweeters’ own cause. No-one has threatened Heather’s expulsion from the party. The tweetstorm damages the cause of feminism.

Truth in falsehood

Children who identify as trans should be allowed to transition. They should get puberty blockers if they need them. I write this post to create common ground with people who disagree with that statement. It is not working when people say, “But that’s a boy, not a girl”. Much of society supports the trans child, however conservatives and evangelicals object, however radical feminists analyse. It is difficult for the trans child, they will face mockery or violence, but official guidelines, at least, support them. Trans children are becoming more visible, and as people become aware of the possibility more will transition. It is the best way they see of dealing with their problems.

Even if you think the child is deluded and wrongheaded, would you agree that s/he is seeking to be well in the world, as best s/he knows how? The parent wants what is best for the child. The child explores what is possible and tries something which appears to increase health and freedom. The child might explore any type of fantasy in play, but before they identify as trans at school it is a fixed, settled clarity which has survived the parents’ shock, and perhaps objections.

A trans girl has some idea what girls are like, knowing many of them since nursery. At least, the “trans critical feminist” should admit that identifying as trans has some value for the child which outweighs the difficulty of persuading their parents and the bullying and mockery they face at school. Perhaps they feel they do not fit in, in their birth gender. Rather than simply insist that the child stop, why not find what value the idea has for them? What else would fill that void?

If gender is an oppressive Patriarchal concept, not all feminists accept that it oppresses men too. It certainly oppresses gay men. Homophobia is in part a dislike of the gay man not being “manly” in the right way. Perhaps some heterosexual men and boys can suffer similar oppression. The feminist might not have enough empathy for that, finding her strong personality demeaned and devalued and simply seeing men as beneficiaries. Could anyone want to be feminine? Surely not. And yet, apparently, we do.

Something which is obvious to me is impossible or ridiculous to them. “The World’s gone mad, and we should at least be able to challenge it when we think people are not speaking the truth” said Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas. For her, the truth is that child is whatever gender their gonads indicate. She wants to claim that I am a man, and not a woman. Can I perform a similar exercise on her?

I agree that reality is objective, at least in part. There is a reality outside myself which I know in part. I can come to know it better, and my statements can be closer or further from it. Thus far I am with her, but if she believes “trans ideology” is as wrong as, say, global warming denial I disagree. I might come close to sympathising when I imagine my “Why is nobody listening to me!?” moments, but that does not mean there is common ground.

I could feel that not reacting angrily might reduce the heat and conflict in the situation. I would rather win her over than bludgeon her into silence. However accusing me of “not speaking the truth”- in context, she means the trans folk- merely blocks dialogue. She might say we started it.

Trans people are marginalised people

I have never shown my gender recognition certificate to anyone in order to prove entitlement to anything. I wanted it, and the legal status of “woman”, but simply assert that I am, and did before I transitioned. When I saw a psychiatrist I got a wee form saying I suffered from gender identity disorder, and so should be allowed to use women’s loos and changing rooms, but I never showed that either. I have not been in such a confrontation. I usually carry a credit card with my female name on it, but have never been challenged.

The TERFs’ paranoid fantasy about self-certification is that any man, even clearly male and dressed male, will be able to go into a women’s lavatory without being challenged, there to prey on and victimise women, masturbate, fantasise sexually and attempt indecent photographs or even sexual assault. As far as I can see it is not just trans women they imagine doing this, but non-trans sexual perverts, who could not be challenged when they went into the Ladies’ because they would simply state that they were trans women, with a perfect right to go there, and no-one could stop them.

Well. When I first saw the psychiatrist, I was still presenting male most of the time, and when presenting male used men’s loos. I would have been scared to go in the ladies’. And while both sexes wear jeans, there are clear differences between the two kinds. Same with trainers, and short or long hair. Some of us wear women’s jeans when presenting male, and I wore a women’s shirt a few times, but still are presenting male and not in women’s space. There are clear differences, and I wanted to appear female rather than ambiguous when expressing myself female. I was afraid of confrontation, so I carried that card.

Of course they criticise us for an extreme stereotype of femininity- skirts and heavy makeup, more pink and satin-soft than most women would ever be, but why should they ever be consistent.

It is not a realistic worry, I thought. When transitioning, I wanted to avoid scrutiny and feared mockery or worse. I had some horrible experiences of transphobic attack. I did not have the self-confidence to go in a women’s loo dressed male. But then I thought, I could not sustain expressing female if I started to sleep rough. My wig would become unpresentable quicker than my clothes. Trying to keep warm, I would wear anything. This week, still Autumn, temperatures are forecast down to 3°. Trans people are extremely vulnerable. The demand that we dress to a particular standard, so that some people object to shoppers in night clothes in the local shop, is particularly onerous on us. I could manage that. I bought women’s clothes in charity shops, but never wore them threadbare. I could pass as a member of ordinary civilised society.

Rough sleepers, just like new transitioners, would want to avoid scrutiny, because they are likely to be hurt if noticed. Us normal people are a threat to them. Trans folk having difficulty finding work might not have much money to spend on presentation, or be able to afford electrolysis.

And, forbidding men women’s loos imposes a standard of acceptable passing on us. Does this trans woman look like a man dressed up, and if so should she be limited in a way trans women in stealth are not? No, I say, the right to transition should not depend on your looks.

I want the apparent man to be able to use a women’s loo, because I sympathise with the trans woman who cannot pass or cannot afford suitable clothes. Where is your sympathy? Of course I sympathise with women who have experienced sexual assault and are wary of men, but their rights might be reconciled with trans women’s, if there is imagination and good will. Women’s rights are not incompatible with trans rights.

And trans folk are more likely to be marginalised than cis folk. We just are. Transition is the most important thing in the world to us. For marginalised trans folk, I want the right to express as the acquired sex. That may mean some people disapproving of how we look, just as people always have.

Trans reverting shame

Imagine that is a thing- rapid onset gender dysphoria is a social contagion, as a teenager you take T and have chest masculinisation, and then only three or four years later you regret it. You are a woman. Except now you have thick facial and body hair, your voice is breaking, you may develop male pattern baldness and you have no breasts. You have mutilated yourself in pursuit of a poisonous fantasy.

Someone who reverted might believe that. It is a lie, a terrible trap for vulnerable teenage girls. Given time, you could have come to glory in being a woman, the power and freedom that being a woman brings, but you were trapped by your fears and fantasies into trying to escape. You rejected truth and beauty for something less. Your punishment is to have what you wanted.

And you are still stuck, between desire and reality, manhood and womanhood, fantasy, belief, all whirls around you ungraspable, incomprehensible, unreachable. The reverting trans person regrets the body they could have had and the damage they have done to it, and still you are not what you ought to be.

It is as it always was: desire to be what you are not, shame at not being what you ought to be. At some time you have to stop running, fleeing or pursuing. There is only acceptance of what you are now, with your history, the substances you have taken and the relationships you have broken, the bad choices, the fear and the failures will always be yours. You don’t understand metanoia, true repentance and amendment of life, until you achieve it, and that is acceptance.

You are yourself, your own powers and affections, and only yourself.
From wrong to wrong the exasperated spirit moves
unless restored by that refining fire.

And,

The life that I have
Is all that I have
And the life that I have
Is yours.

The love that I have
Of the life that I have
Is yours and yours and yours.

That is all there is. I will not revert. It would get me nothing I do not have now, just delay appreciating it.