# A Woman's Place is Speaking Up in Wales



## shygirl (Apr 6, 2018)

The following event is taking place in Cardiff on 12 April.   There's still tickets left, come along if you want to find out why many women are concerned about the actual and potential impact of self-id on women and girls.

A Woman's Place is Speaking Up in Wales

*DESCRIPTION*
A Woman’s Place is Speaking up in Wales

Public Meeting in Cardiff

7pm Thursday 12 April 2018 (Venue to be announced) 

Jeni Harvey. Writer and feminist from South Wales. She will talk about the sexism inherent in much of todays transactivism and the sanctioned misogyny of many of its male supporters.https://sexandgenderintro.com/

Ruth Serwotka. Trade unionist, co-founder of Woman's Place UK and convenor of Socialist Feminist Network. She will speak about the need to build a new women’s movement whose first principle is that sex is a material reality and that it shapes women’s lives.

Raquel Rosario Sanchez. Writer and Researcher. She specializes in ending male violence against women and girls and is currently pursuing a PhD with the Centre for Gender and Violence at the University of Bristol. She will talk about the importance of biology in clinical trials and in data collection.

Helen Mary Jones. Deputy Director of Morgan Academy and associate professor at Swansea University. Educationalist who has worked with and been chief executive of youth and children’s charities. Former Deputy Director of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales, and shadow minister in National Assembly in Wales for roles including Equality and Social Justice, Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Committee.

The meeting will discuss proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. 

In July the government announced a consultation on their proposal to ‘demedicalise’ the process of changing gender, so that people can self-identify as the gender they choose, without any need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.


But what exactly is ‘gender’, and what will be the impact of self-identification on women and on women’s rights?

Will this reform spell the end to single sex spaces and the provision of single sex services, such as those provided by rape crisis centres and women’s refuges?


Will the changes make it harder to gather accurate data on the pay gap between men and women; on domestic violence against women; and on the health services women require?


Come and have your say on this controversial proposal.

Meeting hosted by Woman’s Place UK


The Woman's Place UK Five Demands:

1. Respectful and evidence based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard;

2. The principle of women only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

3. A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act which allow for single sex services or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job (such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice;

4. Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women only services and spaces;

5. Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay, and health statistics - and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.


FAQs


Are there ID or minimum age requirements to enter the event?

ID is required for each person attending and must match the name on the ticket. 
There is no minimum age. Babes in arms are encouraged. Please consider the suitablity of the event if bringing children. No unaccompanied children.


What can I bring into the event?

For the security of all attendees, please don't bring excessive belongings to the event. Bags may be searched.



How can I contact the organiser with any questions?

Please email AWomansPlaceUK@gmail.com


What's the refund policy?

Tickets bought may be refunded up to seven days before the event. Organisers reserve the right to refund and cancel any tickets ordered. A collection will also be made to cover costs of the meeting.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

Is there anyone speaking from a trans-inclusionary feminist viewpoint?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

No, don't think so.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Actually, I don't agree with the question, tbh.   I don't believe that we're exclusionary in the first place.  Women and girls have protected rights to female-only spaces for reasons of privacy and safety.   Not wanting male-bodied people and trans women in those spaces is just upholding those rights.  Male-bodied people, whether they identify as women or not, haven't been allowed into these spaces since the rights were established. Why would be change that based on the feelings of a tiny minority of people.  It doesn't make sense, imo.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

It is, of course, a different matter for TW who have transitioned.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

Here we go again!


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Here in Cardiff we already have a problem with inappropriate behaviour in the Village swimming mixed changing facitilites:

BBC NEWS | Wales | Concern over pool sex complaints

We know that predatory men go to extraordinary lengths to access their girls and women (boys/men too, of course), gaining employment in child-related work-places, befriending families in order to be close to children, targeting vulnerable women for abusive relationships, and so on.

Who is to say that some predatory men will not use self-ID to access women and girls?  That's what we're opposed to.  We aren't and never have been, anti-trans people.  Never.  Those of us who go back to the 70s and 80s in our fight for equality, and who achieved much for later generations, have always shown solidarity to trans ppl.  The accusations of transphobia are tedious and tiring.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Hey, I'm advertising an event, if people come along and comment, it's only polite to respond.  I'm not really up for it, but I get that posting what I have will draw some people in for discussion.  It's not what I want, as it's wearing for all of us.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Here in Cardiff we already have a problem with inappropriate behaviour in the Village swimming mixed changing facitilites:
> 
> BBC NEWS | Wales | Concern over pool sex complaints
> 
> ...


Article from 2009. Wow it's such a problem!!


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

But I will take responsibility for my post and reply as best I can I'm asked to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Who is to say that some predatory men will not use self-ID to access women and girls?  That's what we're opposed to.


you don't sound opposed to hypothetical questions


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

It's an on-going problem, but I just can't find the info.  Will try to get it on here later.  Nevertheless, whether is was 2009, 1909, or 2018, it shows men's propensity to do these kinds of things.  It's why seperate loos were established, much to men's dislike, in the first place.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't sound opposed to hypothetical questions



Perhaps I should be blunter and state, I know that men will exploit any loop-hole they can in order to access to girls and women, who are the target of their deviant sexuality.  I use the term deviant to include voyeurism and paedophilia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Perhaps I should be blunter and state, I know that men will exploit any loop-hole they can in order to access to girls and women, who are the target of their deviant sexuality.  I use the term deviant to include voyeurism and paedophilia.


So from your 'who's to say' a minute ago, we've moved to it's for you to say.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Sorry Pickmans, but I've not really got the time or inclination to get into nit-picking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Sorry Pickmans, but I've not really got the time or inclination to get into nit-picking.


Yeh. Nit-picking. It's always accusations of nit-picking or pedantry people fall back on when they're caught out. And why not? No one *wants* to be thought a bigot after all. But here you are, insisting that you're not an anti-trans bigot when you're convicted of such out of your own mouth. Of course it's that pesky nit-picking to point it out.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Actually, I don't agree with the question, tbh.   I don't believe that we're exclusionary in the first place.  Women and girls have protected rights to female-only spaces for reasons of privacy and safety.   Not wanting male-bodied people and trans women in those spaces is just upholding those rights.  Male-bodied people, whether they identify as women or not, haven't been allowed into these spaces since the rights were established. Why would be change that based on the feelings of a tiny minority of people.  It doesn't make sense, imo.


I can rephrase.   Are there any speakers representing feminist women like me, who support self identification? I.e. The other side of the debate.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I can rephrase.   Are there any speakers representing feminist women like me, who support self identification? I.e. The other side of the debate.



Tricky, given most appear to state there is #NoDebate.


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I can rephrase.   Are there any speakers representing feminist women like me, who support self identification? I.e. The other side of the debate.


It's not being advertised as a debate


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> It is, of course, a different matter for TW who have transitioned.


you don't even know that means


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

Thora said:


> It's not being advertised as a debate


I was using "debate" here in the same way as I might use "issue", "topic", etc.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Perhaps I should be blunter and state, I know that men will exploit any loop-hole they can in order to access to girls and women, who are the target of their deviant sexuality.  I use the term deviant to include voyeurism and paedophilia.


evidence?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Thora said:


> It's not being advertised as a debate


yeah, let's stop pretending its a debate, eh? These are hate rallies.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> you don't even know that means


She apparently means women without a penis are ok but if they have a penis they're dangerous!!!!!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Tricky, given most appear to state there is #NoDebate.


many of us are willing to take part in an honest debate, but this won't be that. It never is.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Gromit said:


> She apparently means women without a penis are ok but if they have a penis they're dangerous!!!!!


well, that's not what transitioning means. Also, does that mean she sanctions checking genitals at the door? Or maybe birth certificates. Sounds draconian.


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I was using "debate" here in the same way as I might use "issue", "topic", etc.


It's a meeting though, I don't see that there's any obligation to present opposing views. They aren't the BBC.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> well, that's not what transitioning means. Also, does that mean she sanctions checking genitals at the door? Or maybe birth certificates. Sounds draconian.


I know. But that was the sum of their message.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Gromit said:


> I know. But that was the sum of their message.


i wanted them to say it, but you're right.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Thora said:


> It's a meeting though, I don't see that there's any obligation to present opposing views. They aren't the BBC.


yeah, we wouldn't want anyone listening to the views of actual trans people, or having fake facts challenged would we?


----------



## Eeepet (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I can rephrase.   Are there any speakers representing feminist women like me, who support self identification? I.e. The other side of the debate.


It's a public meeting and the organisers have explicitly encouraged people from all constituencies (and none) to come along. My instinct is to support self-identification but that's currently from a position of almost total ignorance so I'm attending in order to better understand the issue and the emotions aroused. I agree that it would be really helpful to have speakers who support self-identification and am disappointed that they are not on the platform. I will contact the organisers to ask if that can be put right. But I wish members would not go so quickly in to attack mode - it's a rubbish way of encouraging contributions.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

Eeepet said:


> It's a public meeting and the organisers have explicitly encouraged people from all constituencies (and none) to come along. My instinct is to support self-identification but that's currently from a position of almost total ignorance so I'm attending in order to better understand the issue and the emotions aroused. I agree that it would be really helpful to have speakers who support self-identification and am disappointed that they are not on the platform. I will contact the organisers to ask if that can be put right. But I wish members would not go so quickly in to attack mode - it's a rubbish way of encouraging contributions.





> The Woman's Place UK Five Demands:
> 
> 1. Respectful and evidence based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard;



Who gets to determine who has a woman's voice?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

event advert/blurb said:
			
		

> Organisers reserve the right to refund and cancel any tickets ordered.


does this mean there will be cross checking of those that are not on message?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

how many public meetings charge for entry? 
and have the organisers decide in advance who can't attend? 
and what is the criteria for cancelling tickets?


----------



## baldrick (Apr 7, 2018)

As usual, the men have arrived to tell women that we're wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

baldrick said:


> As usual, the men have arrived to tell women that we're wrong.


Spanglechick's a woman, I believe. Who is saying she's wrong?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 7, 2018)

baldrick said:


> As usual, the men have arrived to tell women that we're wrong.



Are you assuming people’s gender?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

baldrick said:


> As usual, the men have arrived to tell women that we're wrong.


I'm a woman

But this is what usually happens when a trans woman - or even cis women at times - when we speak up against TERF ideology. We get accused of mansplaining or talking over women. It really isn't helpful if you genuinely want a debate.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

baldrick said:


> As usual, the men have arrived to tell women that we're wrong.


is asking questions and seeking clarification telling people they are wrong??


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Actually, I don't agree with the question, tbh.   I don't believe that we're exclusionary in the first place.  Women and girls have protected rights to female-only spaces for reasons of privacy and safety.   Not wanting male-bodied people and trans women in those spaces is just upholding those rights.  Male-bodied people, whether they identify as women or not, haven't been allowed into these spaces since the rights were established. Why would be change that based on the feelings of a tiny minority of people.  It doesn't make sense, imo.


That's exclusionary. You've essentially decided that the other side of the argument has no validity and aren't letting us speak.

You've also decided that trans women have always been excluded which is really not true. I personally know a trans woman who works in a women's refugee. Have a Google, and you'll see that trans women have been accepted as women for a long time now. 

You do realise that most cis women don't agree with your position.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> That's exclusionary. You've essentially decided that the other side of the argument has no validity and aren't letting us speak.
> 
> You've also decided that trans women have always been excluded which is really not true. I personally know a trans woman who works in a women's refugee. Have a Google, and you'll see that trans women have been accepted as women for a long time now.
> 
> You do realise that most cis women don't agree with your position.


That's blue touch paper lit...

The cat among the pigeons so to speak


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

I won’t even pretend to understand the subject, but it seems to me from reading various comments recently that this is a fucking mindfield. You have people standing up for women’s rights, and for the rights of people identifying as women, be them pre/post operative or for any other reason. Thenyiu have womenstating that only biological women are teal worn and they feel threatened by allowing any other type of non- biological woman rights to use female toilets etc.

Is there a way that there will ever be common ground?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> I won’t even pretend to understand the subject, but it seems to me from reading various comments recently that this is a fucking mindfield. You have people standing up for women’s rights, and for the rights of people identifying as women, be them pre/post operative or for any other reason. Thenyiu have womenstating that only biological women are teal worn and they feel threatened by allowing any other type of non- biological woman rights to use female toilets etc.
> 
> Is there a way that there will ever be common ground?


Yeh stand back lest you become embroiled in this clusterfuck


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Who gets to determine who has a woman's voice?


Women.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Women.


Is that anyone who identifies as a woman, a post/pre op woman or just biological women?


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Women.


Who defines women?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Women.


Oh good. When do I get my say then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Oh good. When do I get my say then?


Your slot was three hours and fifteen minutes ago


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> I won’t even pretend to understand the subject, but it seems to me from reading various comments recently that this is a fucking mindfield. You have people standing up for women’s rights, and for the rights of people identifying as women, be them pre/post operative or for any other reason. Thenyiu have womenstating that only biological women are teal worn and they feel threatened by allowing any other type of non- biological woman rights to use female toilets etc.
> 
> Is there a way that there will ever be common ground?


Most women, trans or cis, have had this worked out for years with no problem. Even self id has been a thing for years now. I have a female passport, I enter women only spaces, no-one cares except for a few extremists. 

The women in my union have had to make a statement of support for trans women after a male official took it upon himself to speak for women in attacking trans women. Cis women have that backs of trans women, with the exception of a small number.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Your slot was three hours and fifteen minutes ago


Oh, that was it was it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Oh, that was it was it?


There's another slot opened up in ten minutes time but after that it's a week on tuesday


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Nit-picking. It's always accusations of nit-picking or pedantry people fall back on when they're caught out. And why not? No one *wants* to be thought a bigot after all. But here you are, insisting that you're not an anti-trans bigot when you're convicted of such out of your own mouth. Of course it's that pesky nit-picking to point it out.



Nope.  Sorry, but don't and won't accept the accusation of bigotry for wanting to defend women and girls' safe spaces from male-bodied people, some of whom, possibly a teeny weeny minority, might self-id as a women in order to access them.  Laws exist, in part, to protect people against harmful behaviours.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Here in Cardiff we already have a problem with inappropriate behaviour in the Village swimming mixed changing facitilites:
> 
> BBC NEWS | Wales | Concern over pool sex complaints
> 
> ...


really confused by this
obviously the bloke was a dirty pervert man no question and there are many others, so imagine there'd be a more recent example
did they claim they were a woman?  why did you post this as an example shygirl ?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I can rephrase.   Are there any speakers representing feminist women like me, who support self identification? I.e. The other side of the debate.



There's nothing more we would like than to have rational, mature, respectful discussions.  Alas, it seems a signicant number of trans activists believe there is no debate, that we should be shouted down, and have no right to a platform.   I don't know if any of you saw those fucking disgraceful TRAs recently shouting down a trade unionist who stood on a picket line recently, because she had attended one of the Woman's Place UK meetings?  Well, that's the kind of thing anyone, but mainly women, are faced with for attempting to debate.  

Female trade union official ‘bullied off own union’s picket line on International Women’s Day’

(I believe she was on the picket line in solidarity with comrades from another union).


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

baldrick said:


> As usual, the men have arrived to tell women that we're wrong.


I don't care if it's a man, a woman, black or white is spouting bigotry I'll call that shit out. 
I feel for trans people because they get it in the neck from both sexes. 

You remind me of South Africa complaining about outsiders poking their nose into their affairs because they believed in Apartheid.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> There's nothing more we would like than to have rational, mature, respectful discussions.  Alas, it seems a signicant number of trans activists believe there is no debate, that we should be shouted down, and have no right to a platform.   I don't know if any of you saw those fucking disgraceful TRAs recently shouting down a trade unionist who stood on a picket line recently, because she had attended one of the Woman's Place UK meetings?  Well, that's the kind of thing anyone, but mainly women, are faced with for attempting to debate.
> 
> Female trade union official ‘bullied off own union’s picket line on International Women’s Day’
> 
> (I believe she was on the picket line in solidarity with comrades from another union).


how can you have "rational, mature, respectful discussions" if you're policing the attendees in advance?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> really confused by this
> obviously the bloke was a dirty pervert man no question and there are many others, so imagine there'd be a more recent example
> did they claim they were a woman?  why did you post this as an example shygirl ?



To show that predatory men, whether trans or not, will use loop-holes to gain access to women and girls.  I am NOT saying that transwomen have this as an agenda, but that some men are likely to use self-id as a way of accessing women and girls.  In the same way that some men pretend to be interested in youth work, teaching, etc in order to get their rocks off on being close to children.  Think boy scouts.  This shit happens.

We will not be able to distinguish between a man who is fraudulent in claiming to feel like a woman and someone who genuinely feels themselves to be a woman.   The law is there to protect us and given that 98 % of sexual violence on women and girls is committed by men, we need to be cautious.  There's rather a lot of instances in the US where trans-women (mostly are probably fraudulent in the way I described above) have spied on, assaulted, raped and murdered women and girls.   The law is a safety-net.   I hope that explains it for you Ddraig.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> how can you have "rational, mature, respectful discussions" if you're policing the attendees in advance?


Sounds like the BBC approach to Question Time audience participation!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Nope.  Sorry, but don't and won't accept the accusation of bigotry for wanting to defend women and girls' safe spaces from male-bodied people, some of whom, possibly a teeny weeny minority, might self-id as a women in order to access them.  Laws exist, in part, to protect people against harmful behaviours.


It's a thing that has never happened even though, practically, self id had been around for a long time already - I self id as a woman, I'm not sure what the alternative is -  and trans women accessing women only spaces happens now, and has been for a long time. 

Abusive men dont need to ride trans women's coat tails to be abusive, they just do it.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> how can you have "rational, mature, respectful discussions" if you're policing the attendees in advance?


For instance, I know I wouldn't be allowed in.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> There's rather a lot of instances *in the US *where trans-women (mostly are probably fraudulent in the way I described above) have spied on, assaulted, raped and murdered women and girls.   The law is a safety-net.   I hope that explains it for you Ddraig.



What's that got to do with Wales?
That something may or may not happen thousands of miles away is not evidence that there is a significant problem here. I also doubt how significant a problem there is in the states vrs ultra conservative hysteria.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> how can you have "rational, mature, respectful discussions" if you're policing the attendees in advance?



It has to 'police' because attendees who genuinely want to hear what WPUK and their invited speakers have to say are worried about their personal safety, indeed, are worried too for their livelihoods.  Such is the level of hatred directed at women who dare to ask questions that we have to be mindful of security.  You will all probably be aware of the woman who was punched down by two tall, strong trans-women at Hyde Park Corner, that's pretty scary.  The Morning Star article carries a picture of one of these two attackers, it's the top one where the TW is sticking their middle finger up at the picket line I mentioned earlier.  So even their recent arrest for assault has failed to deter them for behaving in an intimidating way towards women.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> To show that predatory men, whether trans or not, will use loop-holes to gain access to women and girls.  I am NOT saying that transwomen have this as an agenda, but that some men are likely to use self-id as a way of accessing women and girls.  In the same way that some men pretend to be interested in youth work, teaching, etc in order to get their rocks off on being close to children.  Think boy scouts.  This shit happens.
> 
> We will not be able to distinguish between a man who is fraudulent in claiming to feel like a woman and someone who genuinely feels themselves to be a woman.   The law is there to protect us and given that 98 % of sexual violence on women and girls is committed by men, we need to be cautious.  There's rather a lot of instances in the US where trans-women (mostly are probably fraudulent in the way I described above) have spied on, assaulted, raped and murdered women and girls.   The law is a safety-net.   I hope that explains it for you Ddraig.


yes there are disgusting predatory males but still don't understand why you posted this as some kind of example, really confusing
do you generally campaign against predatory males who identify as males??


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> It has to 'police' because attendees who genuinely want to hear what WPUK and their invited speakers have to say are worried about their personal safety, indeed, are worried too for their livelihoods.  Such is the level of hatred directed at women who dare to ask questions that we have to be mindful of security.  You will all probably be aware of the woman who was punched down by two tall, strong trans-women at Hyde Park Corner, that's pretty scary.  The Morning Star article carries a picture of one of these two attackers, it's the top one where the TW is sticking their middle finger up at the picket line I mentioned earlier.  So even their recent arrest for assault has failed to deter them for behaving in an intimidating way towards women.


do you worry these people will come to Cardiff?? can't you just ban these individuals who have done the attacking?
still confused, would I be able to attend for example? not that I want to jut wondering. And again, what is the criteria on which people will be refused entry or have their ticket cancelled and refunded? It doesn't look like a public meeting at all


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Who gets to determine who has a woman's voice?



Women.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> It has to 'police' because attendees who genuinely want to hear what WPUK and their invited speakers have to say are worried about their personal safety, indeed, are worried too for their livelihoods.  Such is the level of hatred directed at women who dare to ask questions that we have to be mindful of security.  You will all probably be aware of the woman who was punched down by two tall, strong trans-women at Hyde Park Corner, that's pretty scary.  The Morning Star article carries a picture of one of these two attackers, it's the top one where the TW is sticking their middle finger up at the picket line I mentioned earlier.  So even their recent arrest for assault has failed to deter them for behaving in an intimidating way towards women.


So if I was genuinely interested in hearing about this I wouldn’t be allowed in because I’m male? Sounds like discrimination to me!


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Women.


I’ll repeat my earlier question then. Who gets to define women?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> I’ll repeat my earlier question then. Who gets to define women?


We do. What is so hard about this?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> So if I was genuinely interested in hearing about this I wouldn’t be allowed in because I’m male? Sounds like discrimination to me!


it doesn't say that does it


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Women.


Which women?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> We will not be able to distinguish between a man who is fraudulent in claiming to feel like a woman and someone who genuinely feels themselves to be a woman.   The law is there to protect us and given that 98 % of sexual violence on women and girls is committed by men, we need to be cautious.  There's rather a lot of instances in the US where trans-women (mostly are probably fraudulent in the way I described above) have spied on, assaulted, raped and murdered women and girls.   The law is a safety-net.   I hope that explains it for you Ddraig.


The idea that cis men will make a legal declaration that they are a woman and then change pronouns and name - for life - in order to gain access to space that they can already gain access to seems a bit far fetched to me.

Also the US does not have self id so you have inadvertently supported my point.

Ireland does have self id and the UK has what is practically self id and has done for years.

Also, just saying that men use trans rights to attack or abuse women isn't enough. You have to prove that it is a significant risk if you're using that argument to remove rights from trans people.

If this is a debate why are no trans exclusionary responding to my points, made reasonably I think.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

On another point. If this is a commercial venture, charging an entrance fee, with a selection policy for attendees, has it been cleared with editor as it may well fall foul of the board policies!


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> We do. What is so hard about this?


Who’s we?


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> it doesn't say that does it


But if they are even defining who is a woman then by extension it seems that men wouldn’t be allowed!


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> That's exclusionary. You've essentially decided that the other side of the argument has no validity and aren't letting us speak.
> 
> You've also decided that trans women have always been excluded which is really not true. I personally know a trans woman who works in a women's refugee. Have a Google, and you'll see that trans women have been accepted as women for a long time now.
> 
> You do realise that most cis women don't agree with your position.



No I haven't decided that.   The messages we get loud and clear are that we're nazis, bigots, murderers, existence deniers, and such like, for raising concerns and that we shouldn't have an opportunity to debate.  TRAs have reported women to political parties and employers demanding their expulsion/sacking, and have succeeded in some cases in bringing this about.  And you say WE are not willing to debate.  It's a distortion of the truth and I suspect most of you know that already.

Of course there's a few examples of TW working in protected spaces now, but TW, up until recently have had access to these.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> We do. What is so hard about this?


Does we include me? 

Answer that.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> We do. What is so hard about this?


So when you say we you are saying you are part of the The Woman's Place UK?

Because the question is at The Woman's Place UK they have five demands, they will be enforcing those demands. You are one of the one's determining at that event whether someone had a woman's voice or not?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> That's exclusionary. You've essentially decided that the other side of the argument has no validity and aren't letting us speak.
> 
> You've also decided that trans women have always been excluded which is really not true. I personally know a trans woman who works in a women's refugee. Have a Google, and you'll see that trans women have been accepted as women for a long time now.
> 
> You do realise that most cis women don't agree with your position.



I forgot to address your last point, I don't accept 'cis'.  I am not a sub-set of woman, I am woman.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> No I haven't decided that.   The messages we get loud and clear are that we're nazis, bigots, murderers, existence deniers, and such like, for raising concerns and that we shouldn't have an opportunity to debate.  TRAs have reported women to political parties and employers demanding their expulsion/sacking, and have succeeded in some cases in bringing this about.  And you say WE are not willing to debate.  It's a distortion of the truth and I suspect most of you know that already.
> 
> Of course there's a few examples of TW working in protected spaces now, but TW, up until recently have had access to these.


That fails to address any of my points except one and I don't believe you. I know for a fact that trans women have been widely accepted as women for a long time now, including in women's refuges. Can you show me evidence to the contrary?


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I forgot to address your last point, I don't accept 'cis'.  I am not a sub-set of woman, I am woman.


But some women dont accept that, hence my original post! It’s a complete fuckfest!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I forgot to address your last point, I don't accept 'cis'.  I am not a sub-set of woman, I am woman.



So am I. I am a subset of woman. Pleased to meet you!


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> But if they are even defining who is a woman then by extension it seems that men wouldn’t be allowed!


no it doesn't, would be good to know if men are allowed to attend to confirm either way


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> yes there are disgusting predatory males but still don't understand why you posted this as some kind of example, really confusing
> do you generally campaign against predatory males who identify as males??



I'm not campaigning against anyone, I'm fighting to maintain protections for women and girls.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> No I haven't decided that.   The messages we get loud and clear are that we're nazis, bigots, murderers, existence deniers, and such like, for raising concerns and that we shouldn't have an opportunity to debate.  TRAs have reported women to political parties and employers demanding their expulsion/sacking, and have succeeded in some cases in bringing this about.  And you say WE are not willing to debate.  It's a distortion of the truth and I suspect most of you know that already.
> 
> Of course there's a few examples of TW working in protected spaces now, but TW, up until recently have had access to these.


And yet it's trans women who don't have a platform, don't have reams and reams of articles in national newspapers, have representation on national TV or radio. 

And here am I, and many, many others, happy to debate and discuss and all we hear from exclusionaries is you can't discuss anything with us because we're so evil.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I'm not campaigning against anyone, I'm fighting to maintain protections for women and girls.


You're not actually fighting. You're campaigning. And if you want to stop self id them that is a roll back of rights because we mostly have that now, with the exception of birth certificates.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

I'll answer who I think should determine who gets to decides who has a woman's voice. 

The elected government of the people by the people. If they say trans women are women then as far as I'm concerned they are women. Then by your own rule trans women are amongst those that get to decide.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> do you worry these people will come to Cardiff?? can't you just ban these individuals who have done the attacking?
> still confused, would I be able to attend for example? not that I want to jut wondering. And again, what is the criteria on which people will be refused entry or have their ticket cancelled and refunded? It doesn't look like a public meeting at all



Anyone who is genuinely interested in listening and sharing views in a respectful way is welcome to attend.  Each time WPUK has announced an event, TRAs have stated their intention to buy up all the tickets to prevent other people who want to learn more from attending.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> So if I was genuinely interested in hearing about this I wouldn’t be allowed in because I’m male? Sounds like discrimination to me!



Men and women are invited to attend. What made you think it was women onl?  The speakers are women, and I believe two of the WPUK events had trans-women on the panel.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Anyone who is genuinely interested in listening and sharing views in a respectful way is welcome to attend.  Each time WPUK has announced an event, TRAs have stated their intention to buy up all the tickets to prevent other people who want to learn more from attending.


I've heard of too many people having their tickets refused. I would actually take you up on this if I could, but I suspect I would be refused entry. Also, Cardiff is too far. 

I would respectfully be making lots of points and challenging anything that could be construed as hate speech, such as referring to trans women as parasites.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Gromit said:


> So when you say we you are saying you are part of the The Woman's Place UK?
> 
> Because the question is at The Woman's Place UK they have five demands, they will be enforcing those demands. You are one of the one's determining at that event whether someone had a woman's voice or not?



I support the aims of WPUK, I'm not a member of any group, oh, apart from the Labour Party which I joined 2 years ago.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Men and women are invited to attend. What made you think it was women onl?  The speakers are women, and I believe two of the WPUK events had trans-women on the panel.


He could attend but according to the rules he would have to remain silent unless it was determined (by who yet no one has clarified) that he was speaking with a women's voice. Which means as far as I can tell means agreeing with the organiser's already established viewpoints.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Men and women are invited to attend. What made you think it was women onl?  The speakers are women, and I believe two of the WPUK events had trans-women on the panel.


Let's be clear -  trans women who agree with you, and identify as men.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> no it doesn't, would be good to know if men are allowed to attend to confirm either way



Men are allowed.  Why don't you come along and listen to the speakers?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I support the aims of WPUK, I'm not a member of any group, oh, apart from the Labour Party which I joined 2 years ago.


That was to Weepiper not you.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Since 'cis' is effectively barred as a useful word in these discussions I hereby ban "trans" as a word too and propose that all women - trans and cis - now be referred to only as women.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Let's be clear -  trans women who agree with you, and identify as men.



Yes, transwomen who identify as transwomen and accept that biologically, they are men.  Or if they have transitioned, they accept they do not have the lived experience of natal women and girls who have been oppressed for millenia because they were born with vaginas.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Also, just saying that men use trans rights to attack or abuse women isn't enough. You have to prove that it is a significant risk if you're using that argument to remove rights from trans people.



I agree that the risks of trans inclusion are often overstated, and rarely supported by evidence.  But, in your view,  hypothetically, could there be a point at which the risk to cis women would be sufficient to justify cis women legitimately insisting upon spaces for cis women?  Or, could the risk to cis women (however high) never be a legitimate basis for such discrimination, on principle?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Yes, transwomen who identify as transwomen and accept that biologically, they are men.  Or if they have transitioned, they accept they do not have the lived experience of natal women and girls who have been oppressed for millenia because they were born with vaginas.


Ok. Well, I've established that as far as you're concerned at least, some women arent woman, and this isn't a debate.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> I agree that the risks of trans inclusion are often overstated, and rarely supported by evidence.  But, in your view,  hypothetically, could there be a point at which the risk to cis women would be sufficient to justify cis women legitimately insisting upon spaces for cis women?  Or, could the risk to cis women (however high) never be a legitimate basis for such discrimination, on principle?


Sorry, not arguing hypotheticals here. That just muddies the water. Start a new thread.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Men are allowed.  Why don't you come along and listen to the speakers?


not really interested in a closed shop "down with this kind of thing" non public event broadcasting to the allowed audience with no real debate possible
and i'm dole scum atm so have to choose which events that charge that I really want to go to


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> well, that's not what transitioning means. Also, does that mean she sanctions checking genitals at the door? Or maybe birth certificates. Sounds draconian.


I think this needs answering. This isn't a hypothetical, this is an issue that needs sorting out. Far from silencing some women, I'm actually asking for input and opinions.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> We do. What is so hard about this?



Who is we?

I'm a cis woman. I'm guessing I'm not included in your we though, because I support self-id and trans people and issues more broadly.


----------



## baldrick (Apr 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Spanglechick's a woman, I believe. Who is saying she's wrong?


Perhaps you could let her speak for herself.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

baldrick said:


> Perhaps you could let her speak for herself.


She did


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Can I re-iterate an earlier post I made in this thread - I created it in order to advertise a meeting in Cardiff.  I'm aware of the huge thread on these issues that was closed recently, not least because it caused distress to people on both sides of the argument.  It was not my intention to start a new debate, but I don't feel it would have been right to ignore questions people had about the event. 

I hear arguments, and accept them, that these debates can distress trans-people and in an ideal world I don't want that to happen.  Are you aware of how distressing it is for women like myself to be called names, shouted down, given labels (cis) we don't accept, to know that guidance given to schools on trans inclusion says that if girls aren't comfortable with trans girls in their private spaces, then they should be educated or move to another space?	Even if you can't or aren't interested in imagining our distress, let me tell you it's real.   We are taking risks with our jobs, friends, and emotional well-being in asking for debate, raising concerns, etc, it's not something we're doing for fun.  There's days I feel so stressed with it, I have to stay away from social media.  But I feel I have to do something in order to protect the rights women have fought for.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

How are women's rights at risk from people who've transitioned?? 

and at the protests against the anti abortionists outside the clinic in Cardiff there were, more often than not, trans women there showing solidarity and upholding the rights of women


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Is there anyone speaking from a trans-inclusionary feminist viewpoint?



Don't you have The Guardian (which doesn't allow comments on trannsgeder articles and when it does it invokes "rules" to delete dissenting voices) and the Indy already? It's a meeting to give voice to the usually no-platformed on this subject.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Who is we?
> 
> I'm a cis woman. I'm guessing I'm not included in your we though, because I support self-id and trans people and issues more broadly.


Of course you are included.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Don't you have The Guardian (which doesn't allow comments on trannsgeder articles and when it does it invokes "rules" to delete dissenting voices) and the Indy already? It's a meeting to give voice to the usually no-platformed on this subject.


Considering the articles are almost always transphobic, I feel that this is more about silencing trans voices than cis anti trans voices.

Why don't you just book yourself a slot in the radio four TERF slot?


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Sorry, not arguing hypotheticals here. That just muddies the water. Start a new thread.



It don't think it muddies anything. In fact, it cuts to the heart of the issue. Whether or not it can ever be legitimate for cis women to organise in the interests of cis women, when that necessarily means discriminating against trans women.  And who decides that question of legitimacy; whether, given the history of oppression of those born female by those born male, the latter have any right to decide.  Until those questions are addressed, it's just the same round-and- round.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Of course you are included.


Am I included?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

so it can be assumed
it's not public
it's not a debate
does that mean it's just preaching to the converted? and self validation of certain held views?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Considering the articles are almost always transphobic, I feel that this is more about silencing trans voices than cis anti trans voices.
> 
> Why don't you just book yourself a slot in the radio four TERF slot?



If that was a "TERF" slot Munroe Bergdorf would have been invited as a transwoman and this issue would have been discussed there with gender critical feminists present. It hasn't. You've got it too and women are having to organise meetings in locations kept secret until the very day. I think it's revealing of the misogyny inherent in the whole thing that UKIP gets given a lot of air time in most media and women with a problem about trans-ideology don't. But I'm not woke enough to forget my own lived experiences.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

This is a very interesting thread on the issue of self-id (self-id being the policy currently used as a tool to drum up hatred against trans people, specifically trans women, more widely):



I'll include it all below for those who don't want to scroll through on twitter:

--

The proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (2004) in order to allow trans people to self-identify, without the necessity for a medical diagnosis and two-years of treatment, has unsurprisingly been fodder for TERF trolls

But it also seems to have provoked a lot of anxiety among v. reasonable women who consider themselves allies to trans people, why?

Because, these people are worried that the proposed changes will mean that *anyone* could self-identify as “trans” and wander into women’s only spaces

So, here are some secrets (they’re not secret, this information is widely available, trans people are not hiding it from you) about being trans for cis people feeling concerned about the implications of this bill

1.We’re already allowed to use the spaces that align with our gender identity

The GRA is not the piece of law that protects a trans persons right to use spaces which align with their gender identity. That’s the Equality Act (2010). We've been here the whole time.

2. You do not need a Gender Recognition Certificate to be Trans*

In fact, a GRC is about the last thing any trans person will get as part of their transition. To get a GRC you have to have been “living in role” for 2 years, and be able to demonstrate this with official documentation, most commonly a name change.

What is “living in role”? Well, it’s bureaucracy speak for presenting in your preferred gender *to everyone*. That means not just coming out to a few friends, but changing your name by deed poll or statutory declaration, presenting full time in your preferred gender, etc.

So, that means, anyone obtaining a GRC will already have been known by their preferred name and pronouns for at least 2 years, they may also have been receiving medical treatment for that amount of time – sometimes longer

That’s right, you don’t necessarily need an official name change to begin medical intervention

So really, *and here’s the kicker*, to be a trans person in the UK, all you really have to do is *self-identify as trans*

Mostly, it goes a little bit like this: Me: I’m trans, I’ve been feeling this for a while and I’m finally ready to do something about it. Please refer me to a specialist. My GP: Okay.

*waits* *waits some more* GIC: So, you’re Trans* – tell me about your experience. Let’s check in in 6 months. *six months later* GIC: Still trans? Okay, if you want we’ll prescribe some hormones. Me: *starts hormones*

BUT, some trans people can’t or don’t want to take hormones, or receive medical interventions, that doesn’t make them any less trans, or make their gender identity any less valid.

Quick aside: I do wonder how cis people think trans people *become* trans if not by self-identifying. This isn’t Hogwarts, we don’t get picked out of a hat, or have a letter fall from the sky. My GRC didn’t just arrive in the post one day and then I sprouted a beard and was trans

For some people, myself included, it isn’t easy to get those official bits of paper the GRC needs you to have had for 2 years. Changing your name officially is very easy to do, but if you’re financially dependent on others, or have other things going on it can take a while

So many will have actually been “living in role” for a while before any of that official paperwork comes in, and may have started on treatment etc. too

Someone may have been taking hormones for several years before they get a GRC, where then do you draw the line and so, well you’re a *genuine* trans person?

3. The GRC doesn’t actually *do* very much.

It may have become apparent that I do not have a GRC, and I actually don’t need one to get by in my day-to-day life. I have a passport and driving licence both of which are in my preferred name and gender

You can apply for these as soon as your name change is official. To change the gender on your passport you also need a letter from your GP to confirm the change is likely to be permanent. Again, these are official documents you self-identify in order to get

The GRC itself really gets you very little. With a GRC you can apply to have your birth certificate changed. You also need it to change your gender with HMRC. Those are the only things I have not been able to change without a GRC

When was the last time anyone asked to see your birth certificate in daily life, let alone when you were trying to access a changing room or swim class? It doesn’t happen

It baffles me what people think they are asking for when they say trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s spaces. What is the test here? Are we going to have passport checks on the door?

Oh wait, I don’t need a GRC to get a passport.

The material difference this change will make to even trans peoples day-to-day existence is practically zero.

What it does make a difference to is the levels of bureaucracy, psychological stress, medicalization etc. we have to wade through, and time we have to wait, to bring all our paperwork into line and justify our existence.

4. Trans men exist.

I know its hard to believe that anyone would opt to be a man, I feel that way myself regularly, but it does happen

When cis women say they don’t want trans women in women's spaces – because the system might be abused, because they weren’t socialised along the same lines, etc. – I always wonder: does that mean they want me in there?

Or my bigger, hairier, more masculine trans brothers?

If the genitals maketh the gender then you are not just asking for trans women out, you are asking for trans men in, and in reality I don’t think that is what you want…

5. It’s much more dangerous for us than it is for you.

The first time I used the men’s room I was terrified: what if I was spotted? What if someone says something? What if I get hurt? The same fears exist for trans women.

According to Stonewall, over a third of trans people in the UK (41%) have been the victim of a hate crime in the last 12 months; more than a quarter have been the victim of domestic abuse; 1:4 have experienced homelessness.

Nearly half of all trans people (48%) avoid using public bathrooms for fear of harassment and discrimination. All these figures can be found in Stonewall’s comprehensive Trans Report

Entering a gendered space can be terrifying for a trans person, especially someone early in their transition. What they are doing is honest, and brave, and ultimately should not be a big deal. We all just want somewhere to pee.

6. Sexual harassment is illegal

That’s it really, this doesn’t need more explanation, changing the GRA will not change the fact that harassment is illegal.

--


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> If that was a "TERF" slot Munroe Bergdorf would have been invited as a transwoman and this issue would have been discussed there with gender critical feminists present. It hasn't. You've got it too and women are having to organise meetings in locations kept secret until the very day. I think it's revealing of the misogyny inherent in the whole thing that UKIP gets given a lot of air time in most media and women with a problem about trans-ideology don't. But I'm not woke enough to forget my own lived experiences.



Bit of a Fraudian there, comparing your treatment to fellow extremist reactionaries UKIP.

edit: I should say 'contrasting' rather than 'comparing' but I think my meaning was clear


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Am I included?



It may come as a surprise to you but the meetings are open to all who get a ticket. The only thing people are not allowed to do is make trouble or shout out speakers and people who are given the mic at the end. So you actually get to say something if you find it in yourself to attend a meeting and see for yourself instead of just projecting your fears onto the organisation.
Last meeting I was in Sophie Walker was there and spoke and three transwomen spoke at the end too.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Bit of a Fraudian there, comparing your treatment to fellow extremist reactionaries UKIP.


*nods* Yeh, that was it.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Bit of a Fraudian there, comparing your treatment to fellow extremist reactionaries UKIP.


I must admit. I couldn't see what the point was there. Media that gives too much time to UKIP also gives air time to TERFs, but not trans women. Hmmm


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It may come as a surprise to you but the meetings are open to all who get a ticket. The only thing people are not allowed to do is make trouble or shout out speakers and people who are given the mic at the end. So you actually get to say something if you find it in yourself to attend a meeting and see for yourself instead of just projecting your fears onto the organisation.
> Last meeting I was in Sophie Walker was there and spoke and three transwomen spoke at the end too.


But my point of view will not be given an equal platform and I will be attempting to make a point in what is an overwhelmingly hostile environment. After a whole meeting, the pro trans response is only going to be via a microphone, at the end, possibly, while being shouted down.

No thanks. Equal platform or nothing.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I'm not campaigning against anyone, I'm fighting to maintain protections for women and girls.


But we are trying to define who are women and girls and who gets to decide?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> not really interested in a closed shop "down with this kind of thing" non public event broadcasting to the allowed audience with no real debate possible
> and i'm dole scum atm so have to choose which events that charge that I really want to go to





ddraig said:


> How are women's rights at risk from people who've transitioned??
> 
> and at the protests against the anti abortionists outside the clinic in Cardiff there were, more often than not, trans women there showing solidarity and upholding the rights of women



The event on Thursday is about changes to the Gender Recognition Act that will allow self-ID.   So it's about the potential risks to women and girls from men who, as I said earlier, who might self-id in order to access women/girl only spaces for malevolent reason.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It may come as a surprise to you but the meetings are open to all who get a ticket. The only thing people are not allowed to do is make trouble or shout out speakers and people who are given the mic at the end. So you actually get to say something if you find it in yourself to attend a meeting and see for yourself instead of just projecting your fears onto the organisation.
> Last meeting I was in Sophie Walker was there and spoke and three transwomen spoke at the end too.


why do they caveat it with being able to cancel and refund tickets then? it's clearly not open to all who get a ticket and someone is deciding who should and can attend


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> The event on Thursday is about changes to the Gender Recognition Act that will allow self-ID.   So it's about the potential risks to women and girls from men who, as I said earlier, who might self-id in order to access women/girl only spaces for malevolent reason.


does this actually happen though? are there any examples or cases of this happening?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> But my point of view will not be given an equal platform and I will be attempting to make a point in what is an overwhelmingly hostile environment. After a whole meeting, the pro trans response is only going to be via a microphone, at the end, possibly, while being shouted down.
> 
> No thanks. Equal platform or nothing.



Last time I checked, trans were the ones who started the whole "We won't share platforms with "TERFs"" and along with no-platforming and the unbelievable abuse, plus the physical attacks on women, that's what's contributed to the toxicity of the debate now.
Women owe you nothing. Keep the Graund.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> The event on Thursday is about changes to the Gender Recognition Act that will allow self-ID.   So it's about the potential risks to women and girls from men who, as I said earlier, who might self-id in order to access women/girl only spaces for malevolent reason.


Can you just please read what vintage paw posted up and respond to the points there please.

Also, will any of that be represented at the meeting.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Last time I checked, trans were the ones who started the whole "We won't share platforms with "TERFs"" and along with no-platforming and the unbelievable abuse, plus the physical attacks on women, that's what's contributed to the toxicity of the debate now.
> Women owe you nothing. Keep the Graund.


I'm a woman.

Why can't you listen to those of us who support the changes to obtaining a GRC that won't make iota of difference to women who don't need that right.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Equal platform or nothing.



Not '#nodebate' then?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> why do they caveat it with being able to cancel and refund tickets then? it's clearly not open to all who get a ticket and someone is deciding who should and can attend



Because if there are leaks about venue locations, the venues tend to cancel the events altogether. A good example of this was the meeting organised by We Need to Talk, which was cancelled by the football club and ended up in a much too small room in the Houses of Parliament with no permission to film it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'm a woman.



To me you're a transwoman.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Because if there are leaks about venue locations, the venues tend to cancel the events altogether. A good example of this was the meeting organised by We Need to Talk, which was cancelled by the football club and ended up in a much too small room in the Houses of Parliament with no permission to film it.


that's not an answer to what i posted is it
you said anyone can attend and clearly they can not if the organisers are able to cancel tickets in advance


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> Not '#nodebate' then?


I don't know what you're even talking about


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> To me you're a transwoman.


To me you're a TERF

Sorry, I reject the word "trans". I'm a woman. I will not be labelled!!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> The event on Thursday is about changes to the Gender Recognition Act that will allow self-ID.   So it's about the potential risks to women and girls from men who, as I said earlier, who might self-id in order to access women/girl only spaces for malevolent reason.



You might want to read the thread I posted above. It explains how a GRC will have little to no impact on who is allowed in which space.


----------



## Lilith Morris (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> So if I was genuinely interested in hearing about this I wouldn’t be allowed in because I’m male? Sounds like discrimination to me!



It's a mixed-sex event.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> To me you're a transwoman.



To me you're a cis woman. But whatever we call each other and whatever we call ourselves it doesn't get rid of the fact we all coexist in the same space and we all want everyone to be safe and everyone to be afforded the same rights and protections.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> To me you're a TERF
> 
> Sorry, I reject the word "trans". I'm a woman. I will not be labelled!!



What other people think of me is their business. I don't like cis an I'm past fighting who calls me it beyond making sure the law does not enshrine such a regressive term.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Because if there are leaks about venue locations, the venues tend to cancel the events altogether. A good example of this was the meeting organised by We Need to Talk, which was cancelled by the football club and ended up in a much too small room in the Houses of Parliament with no permission to film it.


That suggests that the views being spouted at these events might be a tad unpopular.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What other people think of me is their business. I don't like cis an I'm past fighting who calls me it beyond making sure the law does not enshrine such a regressive term.


As long as we do away with trans too, and we can all just be women.


----------



## Lilith Morris (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> do you worry these people will come to Cardiff?? can't you just ban these individuals who have done the attacking?
> still confused, would I be able to attend for example? not that I want to jut wondering. And again, what is the criteria on which people will be refused entry or have their ticket cancelled and refunded? It doesn't look like a public meeting at all



Any organiser would want to be able to do this, in the context of a concerted campaign against their meetings taking place at all, which might necessitate change of venue, perhaps to one with a different capacity, cancelling or rescheduling the event.


----------



## Lilith Morris (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> On another point. If this is a commercial venture, charging an entrance fee, with a selection policy for attendees, has it been cleared with editor as it may well fall foul of the board policies!



It's not a commercial venture.  Venues are not free and grassroots campaigns sell tickets to subsidise the costs of meetings.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Actually, I don't agree with the question, tbh.   I don't believe that we're exclusionary in the first place.  Women and girls have protected rights to female-only spaces for reasons of privacy and safety.   Not wanting male-bodied people and trans women in those spaces is just upholding those rights.  Male-bodied people, whether they identify as women or not, haven't been allowed into these spaces since the rights were established. Why would be change that based on the feelings of a tiny minority of people.  It doesn't make sense, imo.





shygirl said:


> It is, of course, a different matter for TW who have transitioned.



Just coming back to these points.

"Male-bodied people, whether they identify as women or not, haven't been allowed into these spaces since the rights were established." Genitalia hasn't been a defining factor of whether trans people are considered their preferred gender or not, as explained in the long thread I quoted above. Self-id already happens because it is, practically speaking, the _only_ thing that can happen unless we deny the existence of trans people and their right to exist in public life altogether. Obtaining a GRC doesn't change this.

"It is, of course, a different matter for TW who have transitioned." What do you mean by 'transitioned'? You mean genital surgery, yes? That's not what transition means. Transition can involve genital surgery for some people, but it doesn't have to. Transition encompasses a range of things, and perhaps might broadly fall under the umbrella of 'presenting full-time as their preferred gender.' Commonly this will include name changes and hormone treatment, but as explained in the thread I posted some people are unable to undergo hormone treatment for a variety of reasons so even this isn't necessarily the absolute marker of transition. What constitutes transition will differ from person to person depending on their circumstances. But by no means is genital surgery the point which must be crossed in order for a person to magically be transitioned.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

1927 said:


> So if I was genuinely interested in hearing about this I wouldn’t be allowed in because I’m male? Sounds like discrimination to me!



Men are allowed in the events. Children are allowed in the events. No one is refused entry and only troublemakers are shown the door.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> As long as we do away with trans too, and we can all just be women.



Ha!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Men are allowed in the events. Children are allowed in the events. No one is refused entry and only troublemakers are shown the door.



Define troublemaker.


----------



## Lilith Morris (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I've heard of too many people having their tickets refused. I would actually take you up on this if I could, but I suspect I would be refused entry. Also, Cardiff is too far.
> 
> I would respectfully be making lots of points and challenging anything that could be construed as hate speech, such as referring to trans women as parasites.



That's simply untrue.  Films of the talks are available on the womansplaceuk.org website if anyone wants to check them out against your accusation of 'hate speech'.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Define troublemaker.



Person who takes exception to being told they shouldn't exist.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Lilith Morris said:


> That's simply untrue.  Films of the talks are available on the womansplaceuk.org website if anyone wants to check them out against your accusation of 'hate speech'.


I've seen really nasty stuff where trans women have been mocked. And facts are in very short supply. As for the refusal of entry, I will go back to see if I can find the evidence for this, but anecdotally I've read of quite a few allies who were refunded at the last minute.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> does this actually happen though? are there any examples or cases of this happening?



Interesting question, but one that is hard to determine as you only have the person's word for it.  If a man fraudulently asserts he feels like a woman, how can that be proved.  There are some cases reported in the media in US/Canada/UK of transwomen commiting violent/sexual crime against women and girls.  They might not be men who genuinely feel they are women, but we can only go by what they say.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I've seen really nasty stuff where trans women have been mocked. And facts are in very short supply. As for the refusal of entry, I will go back to see if I can find the evidence for this, but anecdotally I've read of quite a few allies who were refunded at the last minute.



Not at Woman's Place events.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

Will anyone who's been spewing disgusting bile about the YouTube shooter be allowed to attend?


----------



## Lilith Morris (Apr 7, 2018)

A troublemaker might be someone who posts on the event page a wish that the event should be blown up by ISIS?  I don't think it's reasonable to demand that such people's tickets have to be honoured.

Making sure A Woman’s Place is on the Platform – SocialistFeminist.network


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Interesting question, but one that is hard to determine as you only have the person's word for it.  If a man fraudulently asserts he feels like a woman, how can that be proved.  There are some cases reported in the media in US/Canada/UK of transwomen commiting violent/sexual crime against women and girls.  They might not be men who genuinely feel they are women, but we can only go by what they say.


so that's a no then, thanks


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

Lilith Morris said:


> A troublemaker might be someone who posts on the event page a wish that the event should be blown up by ISIS?  I don't think it's reasonable to demand that such people's tickets have to be honoured.
> 
> Making sure A Woman’s Place is on the Platform – SocialistFeminist.network


so not anyone with a ticket can attend then
thanks for clarifying your earlier claim is wrong


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Define troublemaker.



E.g. a male-bodied person in their 20s who punches a 60 year old woman in the face.

You're being a bit disingenous to try to suggest that the organisers' conditions are to exclude any dissenting opinion, rather than to prevent the abuse and violence towards women who want to attend (for which there is plenty of recent precedent).


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Person who takes exception to being told they shouldn't exist.



What they actually say is more akin to "There is no such thing as trans. It can only even make sense in a world where sexist stereotypes exist."


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Interesting question, but one that is hard to determine as you only have the person's word for it.  If a man fraudulently asserts he feels like a woman, how can that be proved.  There are some cases reported in the media in US/Canada/UK of transwomen commiting violent/sexual crime against women and girls.  They might not be men who genuinely feel they are women, but we can only go by what they say.


Firstly, self id already exists. The only difference will be regarding applying for a new birth certificate. I already enter female only spaces at will, and nobody has ever asked for my birth certificate.

If someone identifies as female but then makes absolutely no differences to the way they look, or dress, then alarm bells will ring, even for trans women, after all, we are just as vulnerable.

But as I asked before, why would a man make a legal declaration that he is a woman, change pronouns and gender on documents, new name and all the issues that brings with it, including being disowned by family, being sacked, being evicted, etc. Just so he could go into a ladies' changing room, which he could do now anyway, without even bothering to disguise himself? And sexual abuse remains illegal. 
This whole issue is being deliberately misrepresented in order to roll back trans rights.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> E.g. a male-bodied person in their 20s who punches a 60 year old woman in the face.
> 
> You're being a bit disingenous to try to suggest that the organisers' conditions are to exclude any dissenting opinion, rather than to prevent the abuse and violence towards women who want to attend (for which there is plenty of recent precedent).


Sorry, I consider this a thing to be discussed among women and trans men.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> E.g. a male-bodied person in their 20s who punches a 60 year old woman in the face.
> 
> You're being a bit disingenous to try to suggest that the organisers' conditions are to exclude any dissenting opinion, rather than to prevent the abuse and violence towards women who want to attend (for which there is plenty of recent precedent).



I had already explained that only people who shout out those who are given the mic are shown the door. It didn't prevent the trade unionist being recognised and then being targeted at a picket line.
Female trade union official ‘bullied off own union’s picket line on International Women’s Day’


----------



## Lilith Morris (Apr 7, 2018)

ddraig said:


> so not anyone with a ticket can attend then
> thanks for clarifying your earlier claim is wrong



As per the publicly stated right of organisers to cancel/refund tickets - which I think *any* responsible organiser or any event would state for just about any event. And also doesn't mean that anyone who has purchased a ticket has ever had it refunded.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

This.



Athos said:


> E.g. a male-bodied person in their 20s who punches a 60 year old woman in the face.
> 
> You're being a bit disingenous to try to suggest that the organisers' conditions are to exclude any dissenting opinion, rather than to prevent the abuse and violence towards women who want to attend (for which there is plenty of recent precedent).


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What they actually say is more akin to "There is no such thing as trans. It can only even make sense in a world where sexist stereotypes exist."


And yet they do, and we exist. 

And of course it makes sense without stereotypes unless you think hormonal and physiological differences can be abolished.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Firstly, self id already exists. The only difference will be regarding applying for a new birth certificate. I already enter female only spaces at will, and nobody has ever asked for my birth certificate.
> 
> If someone identifies as female but then makes absolutely no differences to the way they look, or dress, then alarm bells will ring, even for trans women, after all, we are just as vulnerable.
> 
> ...



It's always interesting that there's zero attempt to engage with any of these points about how self-id already exists and that a GRC has no impact on anything.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> This.


Ok. Well that's one person. So given that she can't be there, I assume everyone else is welcome even if we do disagree and reserve the right to say so.


----------



## Lilith Morris (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I had already explained that only people who shout out those who are given the mic are shown the door. It didn't prevent the trade unionist being recognised and then being targeted at a picket line.
> Female trade union official ‘bullied off own union’s picket line on International Women’s Day’



And to clarify, no one has ever done this, and no one has ever been shown the door.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is a very interesting thread on the issue of self-id (self-id being the policy currently used as a tool to drum up hatred against trans people, specifically trans women, more widely):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, this was an informative and interesting read.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Sorry, I consider this a thing to be discussed among women and trans men.


Funny that. Woman's Place does no such thing. We Need To Talk themselves, on finding themselves in a smaller venue asked men to give their places to women and I haven't heard a peep out of those men I know who had tickets about "the unfairness of it". They were only glad to give up their tickets for women given the circs.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Firstly, self id already exists. The only difference will be regarding applying for a new birth certificate. I already enter female only spaces at will, and nobody has ever asked for my birth certificate.
> 
> If someone identifies as female but then makes absolutely no differences to the way they look, or dress, then alarm bells will ring, even for trans women, after all, we are just as vulnerable.
> 
> ...




People keep conflating keeping women and girls' rights protected to being anti-trans or rolling back their rights.  The two are not the same.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Lilith Morris said:


> And to clarify, no one has ever done this, and no one has ever been shown the door.


Very true.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Lilith Morris said:


> As per the publicly stated right of organisers to cancel/refund tickets - which I think *any* responsible organiser or any event would state for just about any event. And also doesn't mean that anyone who has purchased a ticket has ever had it refunded.


Considering that someone recently tried to get me sacked from work for using the word TERF on social media, I think I'm on some sort of TERF list, oh, and my Twitter account is blocked by the new anti trans block list which is supposed to be for "transactivists" who are abusive ( I'm neither). So I'd be very surprised if I'm let in. I'm minded to test it out.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's always interesting that there's zero attempt to engage with any of these points about how self-id already exists and that a GRC has no impact on anything.



What do you think the effect of the proposed changes will be?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> People keep conflating keeping women and girls' rights protected to being anti-trans or rolling back their rights.  The two are not the same.


Explain please. They look the same to me.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Firstly, self id already exists.



What you mean is that organisations have been implementing self-id ahead of the law.
Which is why these demands are also my demands. Take a good look at 2 and 3.

 .


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> What do you think the effect of the proposed changes will be?


Should ask that of those who think it will impact negatively as so far they've not said.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Should ask that of those who think it will impact negatively as so far they've not said.



Yes, I'm interested to hear both sides. I've heard some of the TERF claims which have been pretty far-fetched. But, equally, I think there are some on the other side who are deliberately underestimating their effects.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Should ask that of those who think it will impact negatively as so far they've not said.



I don't bother to engage with him anymore. He's a sealion. It's textbook.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't bother to engage with him anymore. He's a sealion.



Convenient for you.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Actually, no, I'm tired.  If you want, you can explain to me why you think they're the same.   

As I said earlier, I'm not here for a big debate. I came on to advertise an event.  The arguments we're all putting forward here are the same as those on the other, now closed thread.  Do we really need to re-hash it all?  For what and whose benefit?  I, for one, do not have the energy.  That's not a personal slight to you or anyone who disagrees with my position.  I'm not saying people can't comment, but I might not be able to respond, as there's only so much I can take on.  I find it exhausting and distressing.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Should ask that of those who think it will impact negatively as so far they've not said.



Nor am I getting into that debate with you here. If I thought I'd get anywhere with you and many others here I would. But I reckon the only thing that will lead to is the thread getting binned. I've said most of what I had to say in the matter elsewhere. I've learnt much more since. I think it's much too important for women that they know a meeting of this nature is being held where they are welcome regardless of their position on trans "inclusion" and where they can still regard themselves as "cis" if they want to but be able to say "But we're different in many ways and that needs to be reflected in the law and by the courts and wider society" if they, unlike me, think that transwomen are women.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Just coming back to these points.
> 
> "Male-bodied people, whether they identify as women or not, haven't been allowed into these spaces since the rights were established." Genitalia hasn't been a defining factor of whether trans people are considered their preferred gender or not, as explained in the long thread I quoted above. Self-id already happens because it is, practically speaking, the _only_ thing that can happen unless we deny the existence of trans people and their right to exist in public life altogether. Obtaining a GRC doesn't change this.
> 
> "It is, of course, a different matter for TW who have transitioned." What do you mean by 'transitioned'? You mean genital surgery, yes? That's not what transition means. Transition can involve genital surgery for some people, but it doesn't have to. Transition encompasses a range of things, and perhaps might broadly fall under the umbrella of 'presenting full-time as their preferred gender.' Commonly this will include name changes and hormone treatment, but as explained in the thread I posted some people are unable to undergo hormone treatment for a variety of reasons so even this isn't necessarily the absolute marker of transition. What constitutes transition will differ from person to person depending on their circumstances. But by no means is genital surgery the point which must be crossed in order for a person to magically be transitioned.



I'm sorry you find this tiring shygirl - I expect many trans women do too when they're constantly having to defend their existence.

If you do find that you have the energy to respond, I'd appreciate you taking a look at the post I've quoted here, since I think you missed it earlier.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm sorry you find this tiring shygirl - I expect many trans women do too when they're constantly having to defend their existence.
> 
> If you do find that you have the energy to respond, I'd appreciate you taking a look at the post I've quoted here, since I think you missed it earlier.



_'... bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent. The troll who uses this tactic also uses fake civility....'_


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What you mean is that organisations have been implementing self-id ahead of the law.
> Which is why these demands are also my demands. Take a good look at 2 and 3.
> 
> View attachment 132186 .


No. I don't. Self id for everything except birth certificates has existed for years. I have a female passport. I'm legally a woman. Please don't try to explain my own rights to me.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> _'... bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent. The troll who uses this tactic also uses fake civility....'_


If there is a case of a man telling women they're wrong on this thread its here.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Nor am I getting into that debate with you here. If I thought I'd get anywhere with you and many others here I would. But I reckon the only thing that will lead to is the thread getting binned. I've said most of what I had to say in the matter elsewhere. I've learnt much more since. I think it's much too important for women that they know a meeting of this nature is being held where they are welcome regardless of their position on trans "inclusion" and where they can still regard themselves as "cis" if they want to but be able to say "But we're different in many ways and that needs to be reflected in the law and by the courts and wider society" if they, unlike me, think that transwomen are women.


If that's all this meeting was it wouldn't have to be kept secret. 

So, repeatedly you say you don't want to debate this. And you've decided I'm not a woman. 

And you're not taking any of my points on board.

Just so we're clear here.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> If there is a case of a man telling women they're wrong on this thread its here.



I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of her 'sealion' nonsense.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> No. I don't. Self id for everything except birth certificates has existed for years. I have a female passport. I'm legally a woman. Please don't try to explain my own rights to me.



Girl Guiding UK has adopted a self-id policy which states parents would not be informed if their daughter's group includes a trans identified boy. This despite a report by the NSPCC on peer sexual abuse (child-on-child sexual offenses) - counting only the calls made to them - affecting mainly girls (see page 12).


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't bother to engage with him anymore. He's a sealion. It's textbook.


Yes. I recognised that too.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not at Woman's Place events.


I think we differ in what constitutes hate speech.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Yes. I recognised that too.



Yeah, yeah, course you did.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Girl Guiding UK has adopted a self-id policy which states parents would not be informed if their daughter's group includes a trans identified boy. This despite a report by the NSPCC on peer sexual abuse (child-on-child sexual offenses) - counting only the calls made to them - affecting mainly girls (see page 12).


Children don't usually apply for passports


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

I'll just repeat it for anyone to read, not bothered who responds:

"Male-bodied people, whether they identify as women or not, haven't been allowed into these spaces since the rights were established." Genitalia hasn't been a defining factor of whether trans people are considered their preferred gender or not, as explained in the long thread I quoted above. Self-id already happens because it is, practically speaking, the _only_ thing that can happen unless we deny the existence of trans people and their right to exist in public life altogether. Obtaining a GRC doesn't change this.

"It is, of course, a different matter for TW who have transitioned." What do you mean by 'transitioned'? You mean genital surgery, yes? That's not what transition means. Transition can involve genital surgery for some people, but it doesn't have to. Transition encompasses a range of things, and perhaps might broadly fall under the umbrella of 'presenting full-time as their preferred gender.' Commonly this will include name changes and hormone treatment, but as explained in the thread I posted some people are unable to undergo hormone treatment for a variety of reasons so even this isn't necessarily the absolute marker of transition. What constitutes transition will differ from person to person depending on their circumstances. But by no means is genital surgery the point which must be crossed in order for a person to magically be transitioned.

I hope that a meeting that claims to want to look at the 'evidence' is going to take all of this into consideration, including all of what I quoted from the twitter thread on what the GRA and GRC and self-id actually means in practice.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yeah, yeah, course you did.


Explain


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Interesting question, but one that is hard to determine as you only have the person's word for it.  If a man fraudulently asserts he feels like a woman, how can that be proved.  There are some cases reported in the media in US/Canada/UK of transwomen commiting violent/sexual crime against women and girls.  They might not be men who genuinely feel they are women, but we can only go by what they say.


And again. No evidence or any kind of rational, logical argument or explanation is offered. Nor are any points that myself or vintage paw made being acknowledged.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Girl Guiding UK has adopted a self-id policy which states parents would not be informed if their daughter's group includes a trans identified boy. This despite a report by the NSPCC on peer sexual abuse (child-on-child sexual offenses) - counting only the calls made to them - affecting mainly girls (see page 12).


have any girls in the guides been attacked and/or sexually abused by "trans identified boys"?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> And again. No evidence or any kind of rational, logical argument or explanation is offered. Nor are any points that myself or vintage paw made being acknowledged.


pick and choose style of "debate"
pick the things that are easy, dodge or gloss over the things that would show the reality of the real "argument"


----------



## iona (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> > When cis women say they don’t want trans women in women's spaces – because the system might be abused, because they weren’t socialised along the same lines, etc. – I always wonder: does that mean they want me in there?
> >
> > Or my bigger, hairier, more masculine trans brothers?
> >
> > If the genitals maketh the gender then you are not just asking for trans women out, you are asking for trans men in, and in reality I don’t think that is what you want…



This always baffles me too (well, that and what exactly is the problem with self ID given the points made in the rest of the thread you quoted).


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Girl Guiding UK has adopted a self-id policy which states parents would not be informed if their daughter's group includes a trans identified boy. This despite a report by the NSPCC on peer sexual abuse (child-on-child sexual offenses) - counting only the calls made to them - affecting mainly girls (see page 12).


If there was anything in that report that was pertinent to transgender people self IDing I couldn't find it, or indeed anything to do with trans at all. Maybe you can point me towards that part.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Girl Guiding UK has adopted a self-id policy which states parents would not be informed if their daughter's group includes a trans identified boy. This despite a report by the NSPCC on peer sexual abuse (child-on-child sexual offenses) - counting only the calls made to them - affecting mainly girls (see page 12).


By the way "trans identified boy" is not a real thing. Transgender girl or transgender boy would be correct. 

If you do insist on using bizarre language that is recognised by nobody except yourselves then you shouldn't be surprised if people lose patience with you and give up.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> If that's all this meeting was it wouldn't have to be kept secret.
> 
> So, repeatedly you say you don't want to debate this. And you've decided I'm not a woman.
> 
> ...



Were the meeting secret Woman's Place would not advertise it. They have a website. Find it also on Facebook and Twitter. Oh and a YouTube channel with all of their speakers speeches.
I have taken your points on board. I can do that and still not accept your claims or your reasoning.

I'm very vocal and quite clear. Do you see me quaking in my boots as you call me a TERF? I sign petitions like this and share them openly and as widely as I can. I may cringe and even criticise people who say racist stuff but I don't hide in secret groups trying to expel people from a party or create petitions to get people ousted of trade union positions while thoroughly misrespresenting them. I won't jeopardise this thread though. You're the one slinging the slurs here. I won't report them though.
Ask your trans inclusive friends to do it if you want the thread binned that bad.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> If there was anything in that report that was pertinent to transgender people self IDing I couldn't find it, or indeed anything to do with trans at all. Maybe you can point me towards that part.



The reason to keep, indeed, strengthen, sex-based protections and exemptions is nothing to do with trans. It's all to do with sexism. You know, the sexism of Lily Madigan's as they equate their fear of black women with women's very founded caution around men.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Were the meeting secret Woman's Place would not advertise it. They have a website. Find it also on Facebook and Twitter. Oh and a YouTube channel with all of their speakers speeches.
> I have taken your points on board. I can do that and still not accept your claims or your reasoning.


You haven't taken my points board because you're still posting the same untrue drivel you were before i debunked them. 



> I'm very vocal and quite clear. Do you see me quaking in my boots as you call me a TERF?


Why, is someone calling you a trans exclusionary radical feminist something that is supposed to make you quake in your boots? 




> I sign petitions like this and share them openly and as widely as I can. I may cringe and even criticise people who say racist stuff but I don't hide in secret groups trying to expel people from a party or create petitions to get people ousted of trade union positions while thoroughly misrespresenting them. I won't jeopardise this thread though. You're the one slinging the slurs here. I won't report them though.
> Ask your trans inclusive friends to do it if you want the thread binned that bad.


and yet you won;t debate with women like me who are reasonable and genuinely trying to answer your points.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The reason to keep, indeed, strengthen, sex-based protections and exemptions is nothing to do with trans. It's all to do with sexism. You know, the sexism of Lily Madigan's as they equate their fear of black women with women's very founded caution around men.



trans women aren't men. And if you're going to accuse someone of racism i think you need to show evidence. Also no trans women are Lilly Madigan except Lilly Madigan.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> By the way "trans identified boy" is not a real thing. Transgender girl or transgender boy would be correct.
> 
> If you do insist on using bizarre language that is recognised by nobody except yourselves then you shouldn't be surprised if people lose patience with you and give up.



I don't hold much with the notion of "trans children" either. You think what you think. I think what I think.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

I've had a lovely day with my friend and her daughters - and now I'm going to make myself something to eat, so please excuse me. I might not be back for a couple of days.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I don't hold much with the notion of "trans children" either. You think what you think. I think what I think.


i was a trans child so that's a hard one to convince me about. Why don;t you tell me all about why I wasn't actually a trans child and explain what was really going on - and I can come back later and read it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> trans women aren't men. And if you're going to accuse someone of racism i think you need to show evidence. Also no trans women are Lilly Madigan except Lilly Madigan.



I repeat with bold quotes.



MochaSoul said:


> It's all to do with *sexism*. You know, the *sexism* of Lily Madigan's as they equate their fear of black women with women's very founded caution around men.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Why don;t you tell me all about why I wasn't actually a trans child and explain what was really going on - and I can come back later and read it.



Keep trying! It may work... eventually.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I don't hold much with the notion of "trans children" either. You think what you think. I think what I think.



Thankfully you're not in control of their lives, and we're moving ever forward in coming to understand how to help young trans people navigate their childhood, teens, and early adulthood with the minimum of discomfort and trauma.



I know you don't like PinkNews, and I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that you don't like Shon Faye either, so here's a link to the study itself http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext


----------



## Poot (Apr 7, 2018)

I don't have any good arguments and I'm not clever enough to defend myself in any way on this subject. But I wanted to say that I think Sea Star quite often seems to get it in the neck from all sides and I think it's unfair. Anyone in a minority seems to have to spend a whole lot of time and energy defending themselves, or at least having to speak out for their minority group and I imagine it's exhausting. 

That's all, really.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Thankfully you're not in control of their lives, and we're moving ever forward in coming to understand how to help young trans people navigate their childhood, teens, and early adulthood with the minimum of discomfort and trauma.




A good thing too that I'm not the mother of a gender non conforming lesbian daughter in the clutches of Mermaids:
Mermaids UK charity ban as boy forced to live as girl

The Royal College of Psychiatrists now advocating a 'watch and wait' approach to GNC children.
Dr Polly Carmichael of the Tavistock Gender Identification Development Service used the phrase ‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’ in a presentation and addressed it as an actually occurring issue. She also cited Transgender Trend as a source of information.

Dr Margaret McCartney’s article in the British Medical Journal calling for discussion: “No blood test or brain scan can tell which person with gender dysphoria will do better or worse with the medical and irreversible surgical treatments on offer [...] We need better long term data, but research into rates of de-transition has been stymied by ethics committees apparently more concerned about controversy than helping people to make good decisions”
https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1312


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

Thora said:


> It's a meeting though, I don't see that there's any obligation to present opposing views. They aren't the BBC.



If there's no spectrum of opinions, what's the point? If people were genuinely interested in exploring or making decisions about what constitutes womanhood from an open minded position, how will an echo chamber help them? 



MochaSoul said:


> Don't you have The Guardian (which doesn't allow comments on trannsgeder articles and when it does it invokes "rules" to delete dissenting voices) and the Indy already? It's a meeting to give voice to the usually no-platformed on this subject.



Both the Guardian and the Independent regularly give voice to biologically-protective women.  I'm not sure comments sections should be the gold standard of reasoned debate, though - attracting as it does, the worst of either side.  


What I do find, though, is that biologically protective women invariably claim to speak for all cis/natal/not-trans women and girls.  It's a poor kind of feminist who dismisses the considered and reasoned views of other women.  At worst, they describe us as deluded, brainwashed etc.   


The first demand of the group organising this symposium, is for discussion to be evidence based.  Vintage Paw has twice posted an excellent, entirely factual analysis of the proposed law change, but is consistently ignored.  

How are women (even by the narrowest definition) supposed to agree on this complex issue if no one is prepared to have a reasoned discussion about facts.  

Evidence has been offered of non trans men committing offenses, and of problems in America which has not implemented a change in legal identification.  But no one seems interested in looking at what has actually happened in countries that have introduced self id.  

And still people claim to speak for me as a woman, without being interested in speaking *to* me.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Thankfully you're not in control of their lives, and we're moving ever forward in coming to understand how to help young trans people navigate their childhood, teens, and early adulthood with the minimum of discomfort and trauma.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you don't like PinkNews, and I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that you don't like Shon Faye either, so here's a link to the study itself http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext



The Shon Faye that said this? Not so much about whether we like him, so much as whether we should listen to a word he says about children.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

18 and 19 year olds aren't children.

It's 'she'.

She's irreverant and funny.

How does any of that relate to the statistic of 65% of young trans people being less likely to attempt suicide if allowed to use their preferred name, as per the report?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> The Shon Faye that said this? Not so much about whether we like him, so much as whether we should listen to a word he says about children.
> 
> View attachment 132194


Is Shon Faye a trans woman?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> 18 and 19 year olds aren't children.
> 
> It's 'she'.
> 
> ...


Really? You think paraphrasing your talks to schoolchildren as 'suck dick, get tits early' is irreverent and funny? Ok. Regarding the study, I will read it.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Really? You think paraphrasing your talks to schoolchildren as 'suck dick, get tits early' is irreverent and funny? Ok. Regarding the study, I will read it.


You'd call 18/19 school children?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> You'd call 18/19 school children?


Read his reply to his own tweet.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Read his reply to his own tweet.


Why do you keep calling her by male pronouns? Do you do that to trans adults or youngsters that you know in person?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Why do you keep calling her by male pronouns? Do you do that to trans adults or youngsters that you know in person?


Because he is a man. I'm not going to go along with him. And edit, no, I call my daughter's trans boy friends by their chosen names and refer to them as 'him'. They're very unhappy children.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> If there's no spectrum of opinions, what's the point? If people were genuinely interested in exploring or making decisions about what constitutes womanhood from an open minded position, how will an echo chamber help them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fine. Lobby with transwomen who want the changes. Join Sisters Uncut. They're vocal enough. Some of them even urge each other to use their fists.

These meetings are for the voices of the unheard and no-platformed because they are the one's being threatened and intimidated including transwomen like Kristina Harrison and Debbie Hayton who regularly feel the backlash from women in reactive mode and the trans community itself within which they note the fear of other transwomen to put their heads above the parapet lest they lose the support of their own community.

It's a bit much to also demand Woman's Place that they give you representation on the stage when your position is more than advertised already to the point of the tories attempting to change the law and all political parties being on side with it and also given obstacle track they have to cross and which includes women who share your position on this issue hounding the venues entrances with shouts of "Burn it to ground!" as I heard as I went in the Baptist church which held the meeting in London.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Because he is a man. I'm not going to go along with him. And edit, no, I call my daughter's trans boy friends by their chosen names and refer to them as 'him'. They're very unhappy children.



Yes.  Being trans as a kid must be very hard. Though I'm sure it'd be easier and happier if self ID was less of a big deal for everyone. 

I'm left wondering why the compassion extends to trans boys you know but not trans women you don't.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Fine. Lobby with transwomen who want the changes. Join Sisters Uncut. They're vocal enough. Some of them even urge each other to use their fists.
> 
> These meetings are for the voices of the unheard and no-platformed because they are the one's being threatened and intimidated including transwomen like Kristina Harrison and Debbie Hayton who regularly feel the backlash from women in reactive mode and the trans community itself within which they note the fear of other transwomen to put their heads above the parapet lest they lose the support of their own community.
> 
> It's a bit much to also demand Woman's Place that they give you representation on the stage when your position is more than advertised already to the point of the tories attempting to change the law and all political parties being on side with it and also given obstacle track they have to cross and which includes women who share your position on this issue hounding the venues entrances with shouts of "Burn it to ground!" as I heard as I went in the Baptist church which held the meeting in London.


Are you interested in having a moderate and polite conversation about the article Vintage Paw posted?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Nope.  Sorry, but don't and won't accept the accusation of bigotry for wanting to defend women and girls' safe spaces from male-bodied people, some of whom, possibly a teeny weeny minority, might self-id as a women in order to access them.  Laws exist, in part, to protect people against harmful behaviours.


Yeh. Don't accept it then, go back and edit your posts to remove all signs of it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Are you interested in having a moderate and polite conversation about the article Vintage Paw posted?



Nope. This is only a message board and this thread will be pulled at the least sign of whatever. The action is elsewhere.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Yes.  Being trans as a kid must be very hard. Though I'm sure it'd be easier and happier if self ID was less of a big deal for everyone.
> 
> I'm left wondering why the compassion extends to trans boys you know but not trans women you don't.



She's referring to trans girls afaik and misgendering them.

Edit: re-reading I'm not certain, but if I'm wrong then I'm very confused as to why a person so obviously hostile to trans people and who refuses to accept they exist and who refuses to allow them the courtesy of politely using their preferred pronouns in most cases would be polite in person.

Ah, probably because it's easier to be cruel online.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Nope. This is only a message board and this thread will be pulled at the least sign of whatever. The action is elsewhere.



It's refreshing, in a way, that there's no chance with you of the mask slipping because you don't wear one to begin with. You're quite open about your hatred of trans people and your denial of their rights, of their selfhood, and that you will insist on misgendering them and fighting against their existence with every chance you get.

I do wonder how this sits with those women who claim they do support trans people and don't want to exclude them or be cruel to them, but are just concerned about self-id. I wonder how aligning themselves with your rhetoric sits with that.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 7, 2018)

Easier to be cruel online, yes, that must be it. I'll leave you to it.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm sorry you find this tiring shygirl - I expect many trans women do too when they're constantly having to defend their existence.
> 
> If you do find that you have the energy to respond, I'd appreciate you taking a look at the post I've quoted here, since I think you missed it earlier.



Why all the bleeding hearts for trans women?  Where's the empathy towards women who experience the full force of patriarchy from the time we're born?   On average 2-3 WOMEN MURDERED EACH WEEK by current or ex partners, the vast majority, if not all of whom are men.  Why all the anger directed at women when it's patently MEN who violate and intimidate trans women?  Why the fuck are you not focusing your energy on challenging gender stereo-types, toxic masculinity and murderous men?  

I ask these questions because I cannot help but think that much of men's so called supporting trans rights agenda is really about fucking over women cos we called you out on your shit and shit had to change, you are no longer 'allowed' to do the stuff that you've always done.


Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Don't accept it then, go back and edit your posts to remove all signs of it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

I'm a woman, shygirl.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 7, 2018)

Also lol, wow.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Why all the bleeding hearts for trans women?  Where's the empathy towards women who experience the full force of patriarchy from the time we're born?   On average 2-3 WOMEN MURDERED EACH WEEK by current or ex partners, the vast majority, if not all of whom are men.  Why all the anger directed at women when it's patently MEN who violate and intimidate trans women?  Why the fuck are you not focusing your energy on challenging gender stereo-types, toxic masculinity and murderous men?
> 
> I ask these questions because I cannot help but think that much of men's so called supporting trans rights agenda is really about fucking over women cos we called you out on your shit and shit had to change, you are no longer 'allowed' to do the stuff that you've always done.


Enjoy your meeting about attacking trans women's rights then. I'm sure that's going to pull the patriarchy down.

My support - and I understand this is true for pretty much any trans woman who is in work, in politics, etc. Is 90% from women. Most men I see either don't get involved or side with the exclusionaries, and because I'm on Twitter, that's a large sample of men.
You have no idea of the things that trans women do to further women's rights and gender equality. A damned sight more than most TERFs. Look at any TERF website, Facebook feed, Twitter feed, etc, it's obsessively about attacking trans women.
Look at trans women's feeds - my own for example - a much more rounded and varied selection of issues that affect women. However, the need to constantly defend ourselves is a severe strain and stopped me from doing the things I used to do - such as environmental work.
When I stood for election in 2015 I didn't stand on trans rights, I stood on a raft of policies, including policies that would benefit women. But still, TERFs tried to get me deselected. Again, this isn't just me, it's any trans woman who tries to do anything that puts her into the public eye.

If you left trans women alone we would just get on with our lives, and some of us would be successful activists fighting for all women.

We do not set ourselves up against women

We are women

We merely stand up against those who try to destroy us and remove our rights.

Over and over again it is shown most women support trans rights and recognise trans women as women.

You only speak for a handful of women. Probably only a few thousand in total.

So give up this ludicrous attack on women like me, please, and let us just be.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Why the fuck are you not focusing your energy on challenging gender stereo-types, toxic masculinity and murderous men?



Why aren't you?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Nope. This is only a message board and this thread will be pulled at the least sign of whatever. The action is elsewhere.


Away from people who might disagree with you, and know what they're talking about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Why all the bleeding hearts for trans women?  Where's the empathy towards women who experience the full force of patriarchy from the time we're born?   On average 2-3 WOMEN MURDERED EACH WEEK by current or ex partners, the vast majority, if not all of whom are men.  Why all the anger directed at women when it's patently MEN who violate and intimidate trans women?  Why the fuck are you not focusing your energy on challenging gender stereo-types, toxic masculinity and murderous men?
> 
> I ask these questions because I cannot help but think that much of men's so called supporting trans rights agenda is really about fucking over women cos we called you out on your shit and shit had to change, you are no longer 'allowed' to do the stuff that you've always done.


Excellent whataboutery


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 7, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's refreshing, in a way, that there's no chance with you of the mask slipping because you don't wear one to begin with. You're quite open about your hatred of trans people and your denial of their rights, of their selfhood, and that you will insist on misgendering them and fighting against their existence with every chance you get.
> 
> I do wonder how this sits with those women who claim they do support trans people and don't want to exclude them or be cruel to them, but are just concerned about self-id. I wonder how aligning themselves with your rhetoric sits with that.



I know your tactics now. Guess what. The thread about the woman who was attacked in Speaker's Corner was *the *thread that got me thinking hard. I quite like a good natter but you're among those who have taught me to choose well where to hold certain conversations. This thread ain't one of those places. It's much too important for that. On this side of the debate there are people like this and this whose fears include the erasure of their lived experience as well as their abhorrence for the misogyny rampant in the proposals, the way they are being implemented as well as the homophobia, especially the lesbophobia, inherent in the blurring of the sex and gender (twitter thread). I'm talking to them as well as women who are worried about the proposals for too many reasons to get to here.It's only now that some of these people are being heard and that is in large part due to the work of Woman's Place has been doing. Suffice to say that the persecution of transwomen like Miranda Yardley and the gift that keeps on giving that is Lily Madigan are doing an awful lot to peak trans the nation.

You can think whatever you want about me, accuse me of whatever, imply some more. I've been called a TERF in person and told to suck too many "lady dicks" online to care.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Keep trying! It may work... eventually.


So being afraid of black women isn't racism? I stand corrected. 

By the way - I saw that on Twitter and you are completely misrepresenting what happened, but hey ho, why am I no longer surprised?

Why can't we keep the discussion to what's being said on this thread and not keep pulling in random crap from elsewhere. I'm not going to try to defend Lilly Madigan any more than I'm going to ask you to defend some random cis person. What would be the point?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

I'll put this here as an example. 

This is written by women for the header of a Facebook forum for women members of a trade union. No trans women were involved - this was a spontaneous show of support by cis women. Since then a prominent TERF, and a prominent member of the union, who attacked me in the forum, has been ejected, and they have had to write a further statement, this time for the TU leadership, who made a statement in the press that women in his union were concerned about trans people gaining the right to self ID for a GRC. They've told him in no unc retain terms to stop talking over women and that they do not have serious concerns, but instead are addressing any concerns by discussion. I've been part of that debate too. 

Anyway - some might call them traitor to women. In fact one TERF did say that before she stormed out. Oh hum. No loss. 



> There has been a discussion on this group about trans women. The admins of this group would like to make it clear that xxxxx has traditionally organised on the basis that trans women are women. As such, trans sisters are welcome to stand on our women's committee, stand as women's officers, and be part of this group. The admins of this group do not welcome comments that attack the identity of trans women as women or that of any of our sisters.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> So being afraid of black women isn't racism? I stand corrected.
> 
> By the way - I saw that on Twitter and you are completely misrepresenting what happened, but hey ho, why am I no longer surprised?
> 
> Why can't we keep the discussion to what's being said on this thread and not keep pulling in random crap from elsewhere. I'm not going to try to defend Lilly Madigan any more than I'm going to ask you to defend some random cis person. What would be the point?



Whatevs


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Whatevs



ha ha! bye.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'll put this here as an example.
> 
> This is written by women for the header of a Facebook forum for women members of a trade union. No trans women were involved - this was a spontaneous show of support by cis women. Since then a prominent TERF, and a prominent member of the union, who attacked me in the forum, has been ejected, and they have had to write a further statement, this time for the TU leadership, who made a statement in the press that women in his union were concerned about trans people gaining the right to self ID for a GRC. They've told him in no unc retain terms to stop talking over women and that they do not have serious concerns, but instead are addressing any concerns by discussion. I've been part of that debate too.
> 
> Anyway - some might call them traitor to women. In fact one TERF did say that before she stormed out. Oh hum. No loss.



Yes, and that's precisely the kind of stifling of debate that has led to Woman's Place so thanks for that.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Yes, and that's precisely the kind of stifling of debate that has led to Woman's Place so thanks for that.


no - it stifles abuse and encourages productive and respectful debate.

And don't thank me - it was nothing to do with me or as far as i know, any woman who is transgender.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 8, 2018)

ddraig said:


> so it can be assumed
> it's not public
> it's not a debate
> does that mean it's just preaching to the converted? and self validation of certain held views?



yeh this is what this subset of conspiracy theory is about.

Really low standards on here. let me know if anything interesting crops up. I'm off.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> no - it stifles abuse and encourages productive and respectful debate.
> 
> And don't thank me - it was nothing to do with me or as far as i know, any woman who is transgender.



Given that using the "wrong" pronouns towards you is now cited as "abuse" I am skeptical of what may have gone on. Oh and my "thank you" was rhetorical.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Given that using the "wrong" pronouns towards you is now cited as "abuse" I am skeptical of what may have gone on. Oh and my "thank you" was rhetorical.



oh, i thought your thankyou was ironic. OK. A rhetorical thankyou. First time for everything!

Um, why don;t you think deliberately misgendering a trans woman who suffers from gender dysphoria and is possibly suffering severe depression, or is suicidal, isn't abuse? Asking for a friend.

Why - if you genuinely want a debate can't you just be polite and respectful? Would you misgender me?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> oh, i thought your thankyou was ironic. OK. A rhetorical thankyou. First time for everything!
> 
> Um, why don;t you think deliberately misgendering a trans woman who suffers from gender dysphoria and is possibly suffering severe depression, or is suicidal, isn't abuse? Asking for a friend.
> 
> Why - if you genuinely want a debate can't you just be polite and respectful? Would you misgender me?



Guess!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Guess!


consider that question rhetorical. I just hope i never meet you in real life.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> consider that question rhetorical. I just hope i never meet you in real life.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Whatevs


It strikes me that you aren't a very good advert for the non-inclusionary side.  As soon as anyone attempts to engage you in intelligent or substantive debate, you demur. Meanwhile you have plenty of time and energy to argue the toss over tabloid-style hyperbole. 

So, either you know you are out of your depth... or you know your argument is flawed.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> It strikes me that you aren't a very good advert for the non-inclusionary side.  As soon as anyone attempts to engage you in intelligent or substantive debate, you demur. Meanwhile you have plenty of time and energy to argue the toss over tabloid-style hyperbole.
> 
> So, either you know you are out of your depth... or you know your argument is flawed.


This


MochaSoul said:


> I know your tactics now. Guess what. The thread about the woman who was attacked in Speaker's Corner was *the *thread that got me thinking hard. I quite like a good natter but you're among those who have taught me to choose well where to hold certain conversations. This thread ain't one of those places. It's much too important for that. On this side of the debate there are people like this and this whose fears include the erasure of their lived experience as well as their abhorrence for the misogyny rampant in the proposals, the way they are being implemented as well as the homophobia, especially the lesbophobia, inherent in the blurring of the sex and gender (twitter thread). I'm talking to them as well as women who are worried about the proposals for too many reasons to get to here.It's only now that some of these people are being heard and that is in large part due to the work of Woman's Place has been doing. Suffice to say that the persecution of transwomen like Miranda Yardley and the gift that keeps on giving that is Lily Madigan are doing an awful lot to peak trans the nation.
> 
> You can think whatever you want about me, accuse me of whatever, imply some more. I've been called a TERF in person and told to suck too many "lady dicks" online to care.



and whatevs


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is a very interesting thread on the issue of self-id (self-id being the policy currently used as a tool to drum up hatred against trans people, specifically trans women, more widely):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The thing you have quoted is interesting and does it good job of explaining why self-identity is a reasonable basis for obtaining a GRC as things currently stand.

It’s not particularly relevant to the topic being raised in the OP’s event, though, unless it is a GRC that grants access to women-only spaces.  They’re talking about individuals turning up to such spaces and requesting access based on self-indentifcation _at the point of entry_, which is nothing to do with name changes or a two-year history of living as a woman.  (Unless your proposal is indeed that a GRC be shown in order to grant access to the space for those with male bodies?)

I don’t have an opinion, particularly, on the answer to that issue.  I can understand why it is an issue that those most affected by it needs proper discussion, though.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The thing you have quoted is interesting and does it good job of explaining why self-identity is a reasonable basis for obtaining a GRC as things currently stand.
> 
> It’s not particularly relevant to the topic being raised in the OP’s event, though, unless it is a GRC that grants access to women-only spaces.  They’re talking about individuals turning up to such spaces and requesting access based on self-indentifcation _at the point of entry_, which is nothing to do with name changes or a two-year history of living as a woman.  (Unless your proposal is indeed that a GRC be shown in order to grant access to the space for those with male bodies?)
> 
> I don’t have an opinion, particularly, on the answer to that issue.  I can understand why it is an issue that those most affected by it needs proper discussion, though.


Isn't the point that trans people have been accessing spaces based on nothing more than their own say so for generations? And that the current fears (triggered by the law change) that this is going to begin to be a problem are therefore unfounded.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The thing you have quoted is interesting and does it good job of explaining why self-identity is a reasonable basis for obtaining a GRC as things currently stand.
> 
> It’s not particularly relevant to the topic being raised in the OP’s event, though, unless it is a GRC that grants access to women-only spaces.  They’re talking about individuals turning up to such spaces and requesting access based on self-indentifcation _at the point of entry_, which is nothing to do with name changes or a two-year history of living as a woman.  (Unless your proposal is indeed that a GRC be shown in order to grant access to the space for those with male bodies?)
> 
> I don’t have an opinion, particularly, on the answer to that issue.  I can understand why it is an issue that those most affected by it needs proper discussion, though.


None of this is part of the proposed changes though. What you are describing here is never going to happen. It would be happening now if that was the case because the only change that self id is going to bring is demedicalisation of the GRC process. It will still be a legal process. Therefore quite a commitment for anyone, with legal consequences for anyone who misuses the process. And to be clear, trans women with GRC's can still be excluded from certain women only spaces, and are, because these things are often judged on a case by case basis. There is no over arching right for trans women to access things like shelters and refuges. And right now, there are no laws that govern use of spaces such as toilets and changing rooms except in the workplace where trans people do have the right to access gender appropriate changing rooms and toilets, etc. But if this was ever abused the person could be prosecuted and sacked, or just have their access privileges withdrawn.

Trans people themselves tend to be extremely cautious when it comes to using such facilities. I stick to the disabled toilets as much as possible and after 6 months I'm still too scared to use the locker/ changing rooms to have a shower. 

And that's because I know that if one woman raises a concern about my presence there I could be at risk of losing my job.

The proposed changes to the GRA will not affect this in the least.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Really? You think paraphrasing your talks to schoolchildren as 'suck dick, get tits early' is irreverent and funny? Ok. Regarding the study, I will read it.



This is the evidence base page on the Tavistock GIDS website. I don't think it mentions this study, although I haven't checked, but I don't think that study on its own makes much difference to anything really, as would be the case in any other area of mental health care, it's a small study in a highly complex and contested field.

Evidence base | GIDS

It's clear about the limits of our knowledge and the complexity involved and I don't see any unequivocal statements about a particular course of action being the right one.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> And to be clear, trans women with GRC's can still be excluded from certain women only spaces, and are, because these things are often judged on a case by case basis. There is no over arching right for trans women to access things like shelters and refuges.



And is that something you support? 

Because it seems that some of women's unease about the proposed change comes not from its immediate consequences but the fact that it's another step along the road to removing those sex-based exemptions (which is what the select committee proposed, having chosen not to hear live evidence from those women who raised concerns).


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> This is the evidence base page on the Tavistock GIDS website. I don't think it mentions this study, although I haven't checked, but I don't think that study on its own makes much difference to anything really, as would be the case in any other area of mental health care, it's a small study in a highly complex and contested field.
> 
> Evidence base | GIDS
> 
> It's clear about the limits of our knowledge and the complexity involved and I don't see any unequivocal statements about a particular course of action being the right one.



I don't know why you're holding that website up as the font of all knowledge about trans. Actually, there is clear best practice and good science to beck it up.

And this isn't primarily a mental health issue.

This is a much better site for up to date scientific information about trans

Gender Analysis


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> And is that something you support?
> 
> Because it seems that some of women's unease about the proposed change comes not from its immediate consequences but the fact that it's another step along the road to removing those sex-based exemptions (which is what the select committee proposed, having chosen not to hear live evidence from those women who raised concerns).


Have you not read posts by all the women who are very much at ease with the proposed changes?

Try actually listening to all women and not the just the ones who agree with you.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Have you not read posts by all the women who are very much at ease with the proposed changes?
> 
> Try actually listening to all women and not the just the ones who agree with you.



I know many are happy with it (which is why I referred to "*some* women's unease").  Good for them: as it happens, I think it would better more were. But we can't wish away the fact that quite a few aren't.  In part, for the reason I suggested i.e. that this seems like a move towards the end of the sex-based exemptions.  Can you give an honest answer about where you stand on that, please?  Should they be preserved, or abolished?


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I don't know why you're holding that website up as the font of all knowledge about trans. Actually, there is clear best practice and good science to beck it up.
> 
> And this isn't primarily a mental health issue.
> 
> ...



I didn't say that it was the font of all knowledge. But it is the most specialist service for trans young people in the UK.

It is often a mental health issue in that many trans children and young people are in mental distress. The Tavistock recognises that trans young people are not always in distress and also that distress can be caused by bullying and other forms of abuse rather than the experience of being trans itself. However, suicidality is a mental health issue. whether it has an internal or external cause. And while young people are accessing help via mental health services, then it is an issue for those services. 

There isn't clear best practice for young people.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> I know many are happy with it (which is why I referred to "*some* women's unease").  Good for them: as it happens, I think it would better more were. But we can't wish away the fact that quite a few aren't.  In part, for the reason I suggested i.e. that this seems like a move towards the end of the sex-based exemptions.  Can you give an honest answer about where you stand on that, please?  Should they be preserved, or abolished?


This is outside the scope of this thread. This thread is about the proposed changes, and I'm going to stick to that, not, yet again, some hypothetical end point that will never happen. Sex based exemptions are never going to end, but why do you think they should apply to trans people? Do you think we're a threat to cis women?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I didn't say that it was the font of all knowledge. But it is the most specialist service for trans young people in the UK.
> 
> It is often a mental health issue in that many trans children and young people are in mental distress. The Tavistock recognises that trans young people are not always in distress and also that distress can be caused by bullying and other forms of abuse rather than the experience of being trans itself. However, suicidality is a mental health issue. whether it has an internal or external cause. And while young people are accessing help via mental health services, then it is an issue for those services.
> 
> There isn't clear best practice for young people.


Why do you think there isn't clear best practice for children?


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This is outside the scope of this thread. This thread is about the proposed changes, and I'm going to stick to that, not, yet again, some hypothetical end point that will never happen. Sex based exemptions are never going to end, but why do you think they should apply to trans people? Do you think we're a threat to cis women?



Come on, that's a cop out. The issue of the potential real-world knock-on effect of the proposed changes to the GRA to the sex-based exceptions of the Equality Act is very much the subject of this thread. In fact, it's explicitly addressed in one of the organisers' numbered points. It's not some  fantastical hypothetical point - it's what the select committee proposed.  I think you're being a bit disingenuous to duck it.

No, I don't thinks the evidence supports the assertion that trans women in shelters etc. are a threat to the other women there.  Which is why I'm broadly pro-inclusion (though I don't think it's really a decision for me as a man). But I do think there's a risk that some men would exploit the abolition of  the sex-based exemptions, and so I would favour them continuing for use in exceptional circumstances.

Why can't you be honest and say that you'd like to see those protections removed?  That's a perfectly legitimate position, if you feel the harm to trans women of them remaining outweighs the harm to cis women of them being abolished.  But unless and until there's an honest and frank discussion about it, it's just more of the same.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Why do you think there isn't clear best practice for children?



I don't think there is clear best practice because of the psychological complexity, distress, co-morbidity, whatever you want to call it that is commonly felt by trans young people, which makes it an issue for mental health services, in which there is debate, as with anything else in that field. And as described on the Tavi website. I understand you think this service medicalises something that isn't a medical issue, but I think the Tavi describe well the issues. AFAIK each young person will be worked with as an individual, practice guided by the needs of the young person.

If you say its not a mental health issue in itself but also that all psychological distress is caused by others attitudes then I'm guessing best practice may appear to be clearer. My experience working with young people in distress is that it is never clear, in that cause is always complex.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> Come on, that's a cop out. The issue of the potential real-world knock-on effect of the proposed changes to the GRA to the sex-based exceptions of the Equality Act is very much the subject of this thread. In fact, it's explicitly addressed in one of the organisers' numbered points. It's not some  fantastical hypothetical point - it's what the select committee proposed.  I think you're being a bit disingenuous to duck it.
> 
> No, I don't thinks the evidence supports the assertion that trans women in shelters etc. are a threat to the other women there.  Which is why I'm broadly pro-inclusion (though I don't think it's really a decision for me as a man). But I do think there's a risk that some men would exploit the abolition of  the sex-based exemptions, and so I would favour them continuing for use in exceptional circumstances.
> 
> Why can't you be honest and say that you'd like to see those protections removed?  That's a perfectly legitimate position, if you feel the harm to trans women of them remaining outweighs the harm to cis women of them being abolished.  But unless and until there's an honest and frank discussion about it, it's just more of the same.


let's not put words in each other's mouths, eh?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Isn't the point that trans people have been accessing spaces based on nothing more than their own say so for generations? And that the current fears (triggered by the law change) that this is going to begin to be a problem are therefore unfounded.


That’s definitely a point worth making, but it’s also true that once public attention focuses on something, the potential for people  identifying that thing as a target for misuse increases exponentially.  The exposure shift makes historic data analysis less credible as a guide to future experience.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think there is clear best practice because of the psychological complexity, distress, co-morbidity, whatever you want to call it that is commonly felt by trans young people, which makes it an issue for mental health services, in which there is debate, as with anything else in that field. And as described on the Tavi website. I understand you think this service medicalises something that isn't a medical issue, but I think the Tavi describe well the issues. AFAIK each young person will be worked with as an individual, practice guided by the needs of the young person.
> 
> If you say its not a mental health issue in itself but also that all psychological distress is caused by others attitudes then I'm guessing best practice may appear to be clearer. My experience working with young people in distress is that it is never clear, in that cause is always complex.



it's probably easy to reject best practice if you keep disregarding the latest research, as you seem to be doing.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> let's not put words in each other's mouths, eh?



Ok. In your own words, then, do you favour the retention or abolition of the sex-based exceptions?

Because it's a bit disingenous for the people who are telling women not to worry about the  proposed changes to the GRA because they'll still have the protection of the sex-based exemptions to the Equality Act, to be the same people who are trying to see those exemptions abolished!


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> it's probably easy to reject best practice if you keep disregarding the latest research, as you seem to be doing.



You seem determined to make every communication with me adversarial. I am not interested in talking to you any further.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> Come on, that's a cop out. The issue of the potential real-world knock-on effect of the proposed changes to the GRA to the sex-based exceptions of the Equality Act is very much the subject of this thread. In fact, it's explicitly addressed in one of the organisers' numbered points. It's not some hypothetical point.  I think you're being a bit disingenuous to duck it.
> 
> No, I don't thinks the evidence supports the assertion that trans women in shelters etc. are a threat to the other women there.  Which is why I'm broadly pro-inclusion (though I don't think it's really a decision for me as a man). But I do think there's a risk that some men would exploit the abolition of  the sex-based exemptions, and so I would favour them continuing for use in exceptional circumstances.
> 
> Why can't you be honest and say that you'd like to see those protections removed?  That's a perfectly legitimate position, if you feel the harm to trans women of them remaining outweighs the harm to cis women of them being abolished.  But unless and until there's an honest and frank discussion about it, it's just more of the same.



I really appreciate the points you make.  I'm aware that you won't necessarily share my views, but it surprises me that you use the term 'cis'.  We don't have a choice about the sex we're born into.  Neither, at the moment, do we have a choice about the 'gender' and all the stereo-types that go along with it imposed upon us by dint of our sex at birth.  We are socialised, even brain-washed into the social construct that is gender which we were assigned at birth due to our sex.  There's no choice involved, so why assume that women on the whole are comfortable with it?  I'm really pissed off at the impact that having gender imposed on me as a baby has had on my life.  Really pissed off, and not in the least bit comfortable with it.	I hate too that the use of 'cis' implies that we are a subset of woman.  It's a term that I totally reject.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I really appreciate the points you make.  I'm aware that you won't necessarily share my views, but it surprises me that you use the term 'cis'.  We don't have a choice about the sex we're born into.  Neither, at the moment, do we have a choice about the 'gender' and all the stereo-types that go along with it imposed upon us by dint of our sex at birth.  We are socialised, even brain-washed into the social construct that is gender which we were assigned at birth due to our sex.  There's no choice involved, so why assume that women on the whole are comfortable with it?  I'm really pissed off at the impact that having gender imposed on me as a baby has had on my life.  Really pissed off, and not in the least bit comfortable with it.	I hate too that the use of 'cis' implies that we are a subset of woman.  It's a term that I totally reject.



I understand that some people (of which you're one)  don't like, and I would not use it towards them. But, in more general  discussion, it's a convenient  way to make the distinction (though I accept that it's imperfect, even for that purpose, since there are people who are neither cis nor trans).


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> And is that something you support?
> 
> Because it seems that some of women's unease about the proposed change comes not from its immediate consequences but the fact that it's another step along the road to removing those sex-based exemptions (which is what the select committee proposed, having chosen not to hear live evidence from those women who raised concerns).





Athos said:


> I know many are happy with it (which is why I referred to "*some* women's unease").  Good for them: as it happens, I think it would better more were. But we can't wish away the fact that quite a few aren't.  In part, for the reason I suggested i.e. that this seems like a move towards the end of the sex-based exemptions.  Can you give an honest answer about where you stand on that, please?  Should they be preserved, or abolished?




No. you wrote "some of women's unease" i.e.: some of the unease felt by women.   Not the unease felt by some women.  

People would respect you more if you acknowledge that you have an agenda which (as it does with everyone) occasionally clouds your accuracy and objectivity. 

Instead of barefaced lying about what you wrote.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I really appreciate the points you make.  I'm aware that you won't necessarily share my views, but it surprises me that you use the term 'cis'.  We don't have a choice about the sex we're born into.  Neither, at the moment, do we have a choice about the 'gender' and all the stereo-types that go along with it imposed upon us by dint of our sex at birth.  We are socialised, even brain-washed into the social construct that is gender which we were assigned at birth due to our sex.  There's no choice involved, so why assume that women on the whole are comfortable with it?  I'm really pissed off at the impact that having gender imposed on me as a baby has had on my life.  Really pissed off, and not in the least bit comfortable with it.	I hate too that the use of 'cis' implies that we are a subset of woman.  It's a term that I totally reject.


What term do you tolerate, when needing to clearly specify that you are only talking about people who were assigned female at birth and who are also not now trans men.   

Because names are necessary.  I sometimes have to refer to myself in broader terms than just "human" or "woman"... and some of those are not entirely accurate ("white" being one example). However it's the best fit because (a) I'm not black or brown, and (b) to label every person to the precise shade of their skin combined with the nuances of their heritage is a level of specificity that is - in almost every context - going to be actively unhelpful.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> No. you wrote "some of women's unease" i.e.: some of the unease felt by women.   Not the unease felt by some women.
> 
> People would respect you more if you acknowledge that you have an agenda which (as it does with everyone) occasionally clouds your accuracy and objectivity.
> 
> Instead of barefaced lying about what you wrote.



Fair enough,  you're right, I did misquote myself. But " some of women's unease" doesn't imply that all women share that unease; it can mean (and, it was obvious from the context that I meant) 'some of some women's unease.'  You're making a bit of a semantic non-point. It's certainly not something there'd be any reason or advantage to me to lie about.  

Of course I have an agenda; but it's  not the one some find it convenient to attribute to me - it's that there should be an open and honest discussion, where women can discuss changes that  might be imposed upon then (accepting of course, that many are happy with then, and wouldn't consider it any imposition) without fear of abuse.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> What term do you tolerate, when needing to clearly specify that you are only talking about people who were assigned female at birth and who are also not now trans men.
> 
> Because names are necessary.  I sometimes have to refer to myself in broader terms than just "human" or "woman"... and some of those are not entirely accurate ("white" being one example). However it's the best fit because (a) I'm not black or brown, and (b) to label every person to the precise shade of their skin combined with the nuances of their heritage is a level of specificity that is - in almost every context - going to be actively unhelpful.



Trans-men (i.e. women who identify as men).


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

Sorry, I've mis-read your question, give me a mo.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

Women.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Trans-men (i.e. women who identify as men).


While we wait.  Do you never find it confusing to use "trans men" to mean the precise opposite of medical, legal, media and general anglophone common usage?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

That's a bit verbose.  It confuses a lot of people, many think that transwoman is a woman who identifies as trans, and same for trans man.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Women.


You never need to specify that you're not talking about trans women and trans men? I don't believe you.   

Q: Who should have access to women's spaces? 
A: women
Q: including trans women? 
A: you mean trans-men? No. I mean women raised as girls. Without penises.  
Q: so can trans men access those spaces?
A: you mean trans-women? 
Q: I'm really confused now.  I mean like my mate Tom, who was born as Jennifer but now has a big bushy beard	 - can he access women's spaces like refuges?
A: no. He might frighten the women.  
Q: so it's only people assigned female at birth and still living with that gender identity?
A: yes. 
Q: So not all the people a person might think of when you say "women" at all, then?
A: it doesn't matter what you think.  I know what I mean, and I'm happier having this conversation than I am calling myself anything other than "woman".


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

I just use woman, man, or trans woman or trans man.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> That's a bit verbose.  It confuses a lot of people, many think that transwoman is a woman who identifies as trans, and same for trans man.


Do they? 

Have you ever seen your preferred usage in the media, or the dictionary? 


Why is it verbose, btw? I made a list of three types of usage.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I just use woman, man, or trans woman or trans man.


And if people think you're including trans people when you say "woman", there's no problem for you? Or for them? 


Do you do the same with ethnicity? Person; black person; Asian person...


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> And if people think you're including trans people when you say "woman", there's no problem for you? Or for them?
> 
> 
> Do you do the same with ethnicity? Person; black person; Asian person...



I have to be honest and say that you've lost me here.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I have to be honest hear and say that you've lost me here.


I'm trying to get past what I can only imagine is disingenuousness- but...


-You are someone who is interested in talking about women's only spaces.  

-You only use the word "woman", without any prefixes such as "cis" or "natal" or "afab", to refer to women who were born and raised as girls and who still identify as women.  

-Lots of women think trans women are a subset of the concept "woman".  

Therefore, when talking to people who don't exclude trans women from the category "woman", wouldn't it be less confusing to have a more specific way of referring to the type of women you mean?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone is as bright as you, and that perhaps my mind is muddled by your questions?  I mean, isn't it okay to be a bit, er, slow, for want of a better word.  I don't generally disingenous, fwiw.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

I sometimes say natal women, but even that is annoying.  Cos in my view, woman is woman.  Trans woman is trans woman.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2018)

Theresa May, with her introduction of her eponymous syllogism, has a lot to answer for


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Theresa May, with her introduction of her eponymous syllogism, has a lot to answer for



What does this mean in clear English?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> What does this mean in clear English?


You employ the mayism 'woman is woman'. Theresa May through her introduction of the mayism - "Brexit means Brexit" and phrases in similar form - into political discourse has encouraged the spread of vapid dross like 'trans woman is trans woman'. Woman is woman -  has that any actual meaning? Does it explain or clarify? Does it serve any purpose whatsoever? For me the answers are no, no and again no.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

Thanks for explaining what you meant.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

I can only answer one of the three, that is, the definition of woman is an adult female.  Of course, you'd have to then look at what makes a person a woman, for which you'd get an explanation based on biology (not a feeling).  As for transwoman is a woman, that makes no sense whatsoever.  I think I've missed your point but hey, what the heck.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> You seem determined to make every communication with me adversarial. I am not interested in talking to you any further.


is this an attitude you carry across the whole of Urban 75 when people disagree with you? Grab all your toys and storm off? I thought we were just discussing things. But it's your right to sulk if you want to.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> That’s definitely a point worth making, but it’s also true that once public attention focuses on something, the potential for people  identifying that thing as a target for misuse increases exponentially.  The exposure shift makes historic data analysis less credible as a guide to future experience.


so you're saying that because transphobes have made a big fuss about a basic and simple change to the law to improve thousands of people's lives, and strongly suggested that abusive men would be able to use it as a loophole (unsubstantiated i hasten to add) then now those  thousands of people should now just accept 2nd class citizenship. I'm damned sure nobody else on this forum sits back and accepts that, so why should trans people?

eta - and please note that your post quoted here seems to imply you'd like trans rights to be rolled back to almost before living memory.

What nobody is talking about here is how, practically, you enforce a roll back of rights. How are you going to identify trans women in order to ensure they don't access the same rights as cis women? Will it be checking genitals? Mandatory birth certificate checks? Remember this will affect all women, unless maybe you target the more masculine women, which I'm sure feminists everywhere will love.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> so you're saying that because transphobes have made a big fuss about a basic and simple change to the law to improve thousands of people's lives, and strongly suggested that abusive men would be able to use it as a loophole (unsubstantiated i hasten to add) then now those  thousands of people should now just accept 2nd class citizenship. I'm damned sure nobody else on this forum sits back and accepts that, so why should trans people?
> 
> eta - and please note that your post quoted here seems to imply you'd like trans rights to be rolled back to almost before living memory.
> 
> What nobody is talking about here is how, practically, you enforce a roll back of rights. How are you going to identify trans women in order to ensure they don't access the same rights as cis women? Will it be checking genitals? Mandatory birth certificate checks? Remember this will affect all women, unless maybe you target the more masculine women, which I'm sure feminists everywhere will love.



This is alarmist hyperbole.  Not enacting the proposed changes to the GRA wouldn't entail any roll-back of rights; literally, it wouldn't be any change from the _status quo - _nobody would be checking genitalia.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> ... those  thousands of people should now just accept 2nd class citizenship. I'm damned sure nobody else on this forum sits back and accepts that, so why should trans people?



Should tens of millions of women in this country just accept the gradual erosion of their hard-won protections, such as the sex-based exceptions to the Equality Act, which seems to be a goal of much of the trans lobby (albeit that you've repeatedly refused to give a full and frank answer about where you stand on that point)?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I can only answer one of the three, that is, the definition of woman is an adult female.  Of course, you'd have to then look at what makes a person a woman, for which you'd get an explanation based on biology (not a feeling).  As for transwoman is a woman, that makes no sense whatsoever.  I think I've missed your point but hey, what the heck.


The word "woman" is a classification of gender, not sex.  The word for female biology is "female".  


Transwomen cannot be fully female, but gender is not the same thing as sex.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> The word "woman" is a classification of gender, not sex.  The word for female biology is "female".



Woman is the classification of a female human, as opposed to a female dog or cat.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> The word "woman" is a classification of gender, not sex.  The word for female biology is "female".
> 
> 
> Transwomen cannot be fully female, but gender is not the same thing as sex.



Both of those statements are disputed by many.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Woman is the classification of a female human, as opposed to a female dog or cat.



An adult, female human, more precisely.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> An adult, female human, more precisely.



Good point.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Transwomen cannot be fully female, but gender is not the same thing as sex.


That sentence is enough to put you in the bigot box with me.


----------



## Eeepet (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> -You only use the word "woman", without any prefixes such as "cis" or "natal" or "afab", to refer to women who were born and raised as girls and who still identify as women.


Therefore, when talking to people who don't exclude trans women from the category "woman", wouldn't it be less confusing to have a more specific way of referring to the type of women you mean?[/QUOTE]


I get the principle Spanglechick but there's a problem of imposed categories/labels on people which goes for both sides of the debate. I'm a woman. To be told that I can't use that term but must refer to myself as a cis-woman or natal-woman feels extraordinarily disempowering - distressingly so. And it's particularly hard when the pressure to change appears to be coming from those who were not born female. I understand that how I feel isn't the same as how it is of course. But language has long been a battle-ground for the women's movement and this certainly feels like a backwards step.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> That sentence is enough to put you in the bigot box with me.



When a group of trade unionists decided their union's place was to put women in their place... They got jumped on by anti-woman activists too.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> That sentence is enough to put you in the bigot box with me.


you wish. Sadly, not.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> And if people think you're including trans people when you say "woman", there's no problem for you? Or for them?
> 
> Do you do the same with ethnicity? Person; black person; Asian person...



Do you not see the problem with that kind of argument?




Or do you think I bleed through my ears and give birth though my stomach... or sumink?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Eeepet said:


> I get the principle Spanglechick but there's a problem of imposed categories/labels on people which goes for both sides of the debate. I'm a woman. To be told that I can't use that term but must refer to myself as a cis-woman or natal-woman feels extraordinarily disempowering - distressingly so. And it's particularly hard when the pressure to change appears to be coming from those who were not born female. I understand that how I feel isn't the same as how it is of course. But language has long been a battle-ground for the women's movement and this certainly feels like a backwards step.



as this thing does revolve so much about language - a quick explanation which will ignored I'm pretty sure.

trans means transgender in this context as cis means cisgender. Cisgender women and transgender women, just like autistic women, black women, French women, wealthy women, unemployed women, are just different ways of describing attributes that some women have. When you write it trans-woman, or cis-woman, or even transwoman, then you're breaking that convention and making it seem like we're asking for something we aren't. All cis women are women. All cis women can say they are a woman without being transphobic or excluding trans women.

But if you describe yourself as a woman and then call a trans woman a trans woman, or a transwoman, or a trans- woman and not just a woman then you're pretty much implying that trans women aren't women. And that's why trans women have a problem with that, because we know who we are and we don;t need anyone telling us we're not.

(and i expect to be called out for pedantry by all sides now. Oh hum. If I am then fuck this and I'm not going to waste me time here)


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

OMG!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you not see the problem with that kind of argument?
> 
> 
> View attachment 132264
> ...


you're one for missing the bleeding point aren't you?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> you're one for missing the bleeding point aren't you?



I don't exist for the validation of your claim to womanhood if that's what you mean.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I don't exist for the validation of your claim to womanhood if that's what you mean.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

*SMH*

i give up


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

I doubt it! Womanhood is not a prize and I won't have you trampling all over me for you to get it.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> That sentence is enough to put you in the bigot box with me.


Why?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I doubt it! Womanhood is not a prize and I won't have you trampling all over me for you to get it.


get a life.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you not see the problem with that kind of argument?
> 
> 
> View attachment 132264
> ...


I don't understand - are you equating womanhood with periods and childbirth?? Surely not.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> get a life.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> That sentence is enough to put you in the bigot box with me.


Really struggling here.  

I'm assuming that you're not troubled by my saying that regardless of medical treatment, trans people cannot fully biologically become the opposite sex.  

So I'm left with you objecting to my saying that gender is different to biological sex, and that this is somehow bigoted.  Which is more extreme than anything I've come across before so I'm going to need some help understanding why.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I don't understand - are you equating womanhood with periods and childbirth?? Surely not.



Last time I checked the ability to give birth was not what prevented women for getting the vote for as long as they did in this country and it's not what prevents them from property rights in many others still today as per:
Women own less than 20% of the world's land. It's time to give them equal property rights


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Last time I checked the ability to give birth was not what prevented women for getting the vote for as long as they did in this country and it's not what prevents them from property rights in many others still today as per:
> Women own less than 20% of the world's land. It's time to give them equal property rights


Right.  So why did you bring up bleeding and childbirth? 

And as a second question, do you imagine trans women are not victims of sexism and misogyny?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> so you're saying that because transphobes have made a big fuss about a basic and simple change to the law to improve thousands of people's lives, and strongly suggested that abusive men would be able to use it as a loophole (unsubstantiated i hasten to add) then now those  thousands of people should now just accept 2nd class citizenship. I'm damned sure nobody else on this forum sits back and accepts that, so why should trans people?
> 
> eta - and please note that your post quoted here seems to imply you'd like trans rights to be rolled back to almost before living memory.


To be frank, I don’t have a position that I’d like to enact.  I see a lot of women who have ended up in shitty positions through no fault of their own — both trans and cis — who are having to put up with a society that is not built in their interests.  What I’d like is not to live in that world at all.  All I’m saying is that circumstances change and when they do, innocent people may end up as collateral damage to absolutist principles.



> What nobody is talking about here is how, practically, you enforce a roll back of rights. How are you going to identify trans women in order to ensure they don't access the same rights as cis women? Will it be checking genitals? Mandatory birth certificate checks? Remember this will affect all women, unless maybe you target the more masculine women, which I'm sure feminists everywhere will love.


Ah, well, on that score, the situation is made harder by including anybody who self-identifies purely at the point of entry.  A rule that says “nobody with male bodies” can certainly be circumvented, but only to the point that somebody reveals their naked self, and it is arguable that as long as they stay unidentifiable, there is little practical effect.  But a rule that requires nothing but self-identification presents considerable more difficulty when it comes to drawing an absolute line of behaviour that is unacceptable.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Right.  So why did you bring up bleeding and childbirth?
> 
> And as a second question, do you imagine trans women are not victims of sexism and misogyny?



The moment you are born people separate you because you are a human female... meaning you have a vagina.

The sexism that affects men and which includes "men don't cry" and similarly alienating and ultimately harmful ideas is a product of gender.

Gender is a social police mechanism of the sexes. That it is now being equated to sex is what lays at the heart of this question.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> T
> 
> Ah, well, on that score, the situation is made harder by including anybody who self-identifies purely at the point of entry.



This though - is not what is proposed. No more than it is already. Try walking in to a women's changing room now and telling them you're a woman - and i guarantee you'll be asked to leave. This will not change.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This though - is not what is proposed. No more than it is already. Try walking in to a women's changing room now and telling them you're a woman - and i guarantee you'll be asked to leave. This will not change.


I guess I’m confused as to what the parameters are of the “women’s space” we were discussing.  I’d interpreted it as refuges and so on, not changing rooms.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This though - is not what is proposed. No more than it is already. Try walking in to a women's changing room now and telling them you're a woman - and i guarantee you'll be asked to leave. This will not change.



Because women have no way to distinguish between transexuals and all manner of fetishists from the voyeur to the flasher who we know to be creative in their pursuits. The explosion of porn online is giving them more and more ideas. It's particularly worrying that people like Eddie Izzard go on mainstream media to describe groups of young girls in female toiltes as "terrifying" for grown men like him. It encourages young girls in particular to let their guard down when we know from what happened with the rugby players that women may well have to face the fact of their vaginas giving them a second class status in the "who to believe" stakes when they report sexual offenses.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This though - is not what is proposed. No more than it is already. Try walking in to a women's changing room now and telling them you're a woman - and i guarantee you'll be asked to leave. This will not change.



Not immediately, as a consequence of the proposed chnges to the GRA, maybe.  But that's certainly the direction of travel, and something much of the trans lobby are pushing for i.e. the idea that what someone claims about their gender becomes unassailable e.g. that a male-bodied person, calling themself John, with a full beard, and dressing in stereotypically male clothes, but who (on that day, at least) says they 'identifiy as' a woman, ought to be able to use a women's changing room without challenge.  What do you think?   Do women have the right to excude that person, given that there's absolutely no way to check his motives and whether he's acting in good faith, and given the history of sexual violence by people born male against people born female?  (Cue another evasive non-answer.)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you not see the problem with that kind of argument?
> 
> 
> View attachment 132264



This logic only works if being a woman in the natal sense is fundamentally the preserve of white cis women.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I guess I’m confused as to what the parameters are of the “women’s space” we were discussing.  I’d interpreted it as refuges and so on, not changing rooms.


even tighter rules for refuges. I was going with an example that I thought people were most likely to just rock up to and enter.

i've been using women's toilets now for 5 years - and no-one has checked any of my id or asked me to leave. When i first started using ladies toilets i hadn't even changed my name. Nothing stopped me from going in but because i was presenting as female, i was never challenged. i was in a toilet a few weeks ago and a man came in - he was doing some work in there, but there was immediately a change of atmosphere and he was challenged to prove he was there for a legitimate reason. This won't change.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Really struggling here.
> 
> I'm assuming that you're not troubled by my saying that regardless of medical treatment, trans people cannot fully biologically become the opposite sex.
> 
> So I'm left with you objecting to my saying that gender is different to biological sex, and that this is somehow bigoted.  Which is more extreme than anything I've come across before so I'm going to need some help understanding why.



Whereas for a long time we'd come to understand that gender and sex were different constructs, now anti-trans reactionaries argue that gender is sex. It's been so commonsense that they are different for so long that it's a bit of a lightbulb moment when you first realise the anti-trans reactionaries are arguing from the opposite position.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 8, 2018)

Be fucking bonkers if we all stood together to oppose patriarchy instead of blaming trans women for it.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Whereas for a long time we'd come to understand that gender and sex were different constructs, now anti-trans reactionaries argue that gender is sex. It's been so commonsense that they are different for so long that it's a bit of a lightbulb moment when you first realise the anti-trans reactionaries are arguing from the opposite position.



Surely, what your opponents are saying isn't that sex and gender are the same thing, but that gender (in the sense of a socially costructed phenomenon, as opposed to individualistic 'gender identity') is a product of sex i.e. that it's a set of social expectations which are applied to people because of, and according to, their sex?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> Not immediately, as a consequence of the proposed chnges to the GRA, maybe.  But that's certainly the direction of travel, and something much of the trans lobby are pushing for i.e. the idea that what someone claims about their gender becomes unassailable e.g. that a male-bodied person, calling themself John, with a full beard, and dressing in stereotypically male clothes, but who (on that day, at least) says they 'identifiy as' a woman, ought to be able to use a women's changing room without challenge.  What do you think?   Do women have the right to excude that person, given that there's absolutely no way to check his motives and whether he's acting in good faith, and given the history of sexual violence by people born male against people born female?  (Cue another evasive non-answer.)


dammit, Athos. I want to stick to the point at hand and not muddy the water with what ifs and having to discuss the mythical trans lobby, wherever they are. 

But, OK - I would ask them to leave myself because as a woman, I would not be happy with people who present as men entering a female toilet or any female only space. And if I was asked to leave I would probably leave myself because i hate confrontation. Now please, can we stick to the subject at hand?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Aww, I'm flattered Sea Star 





Rutita1 said:


> This logic only works if being a woman in the natal sense is fundamentally the preserve of white cis women.



Go online and find out what they actually mean by "white feminism".


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

DP


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Aww, I'm flattered Sea Star
> 
> 
> 
> .




Fucks sake Sea Star


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Fucks sake Sea Star


i don't even know what you're saying fucks sake at.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> dammit, Athos. I want to stick to the point at hand and not muddy the water with what ifs and having to discuss the mythical trans lobby, wherever they are.
> 
> But, OK - I would ask them to leave myself because as a woman, I would not be happy with people who present as men entering a female toilet or any female only space. And if I was asked to leave I would probably leave myself because i hate confrontation. Now please, can we stick to the subject at hand?



So you wouldn't respect that they were a woman based on their account of their self-identity?  But, isn't this exactly what you want others to do?  What the whole move towards legal recognition of self-identification is all about?  I can't see how you can hold this view and fail to empathise with cis women who feel essentially the same!?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> i don't even know what you're saying fucks sake at.



What’s your point?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The moment you are born people separate you because you are a human female... meaning you have a vagina.
> 
> The sexism that affects men and which includes "men don't cry" and similarly alienating and ultimately harmful ideas is a product of gender.
> 
> Gender is a social police mechanism of the sexes. That it is now being equated to sex is what lays at the heart of this question.


And that socialisation does vary. But yes, lots of gender indoctrination happens before trans people transition. Lots of it happens after, too.  And the way I am treated on the street and by the media is also inflicted upon trans women.   Trans women are also victims of domestic violence, of male sexual violence and of assault and harassment.  There are a great many experiences of misogyny that apply to transwomen, and from a feminist perspective I see strength in trans women and natal women organising together on those issues.   

Conversely, on issues related to maternity care, I don't see any need for trans women to participate in sharing experiences... but, as an infertile woman, not do I.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s your point?


what's your point? You started this.


----------



## Edie (Apr 8, 2018)

This is a difficult subject isn’t it.

On the one hand you obviously want to support people who feel uncomfortable in their own skin and want to live as the opposite gender. You don’t want to make their lives any more shit or difficult, and their persecution is miserable. And on that level it’s none of mine or anyone else’s business what they call themselves, how they dress, whether they take hormones or have surgery to feel more at peace. Good luck to them.

On the other hand, when it comes to trans women asserting their ‘rights’ (wrong word?) to be in female places like toilets or changing rooms or prisons or refuges, or even in women’s positions like as elected officers, then that raises questions about whether women feel comfortable with that. And not all do.

I feel like these spaces exist to try and help mitigate the disadvantages of being a woman. To try to help make us safer, and yes that means from men. The same concerns aren’t as great the other way round, women are more at risk from men. So of course it’s alarming and will be challenged if men who now identify as women can now use that space. It raises all sorts of questions.

I don’t know what’s to be done about it, but non gendered toilet cubicles and changing cubicles are an obvious start. I’d also suggest that trans women not rushing to be elected as women’s officers (Lily M) would be wise. And in the other direction, just accepting that some people have a very complicated relationship with gender and trying to make the world a bit easier and less judgemental for them seems a good idea.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> This logic only works if being a woman in the natal sense is fundamentally the preserve of white cis women.


That wasn't my logic.  I was highlighting the attitude that people in the majority don't see the need to describe themselves to the same extent as those in the minority.  My mum has a similar objection to describing herself as straight.  She is "normal" and therefore shouldn't  have a label.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> And that socialisation does vary. But yes, lots of gender indoctrination happens before trans people transition. Lots of it happens after, too.  And the way I am treated on the street and by the media is also inflicted upon trans women.   Trans women are also victims of domestic violence, of male sexual violence and of assault and harassment.  There are a great many experiences of misogyny that apply to transwomen, and from a feminist perspective I see strength in trans women and natal women organising together on those issues.
> 
> Conversely, on issues related to maternity care, I don't see any need for trans women to participate in sharing experiences... but, as an infertile woman, not do I.



Socialisation is key. What do you think of this in regard of the socialisation of young girls?

Thread by @helensaxby11: "Allsorts have now jumped on the bandwagon of criticising the @Transgendertrd school resource pack with no evidence to back up their claims S […]"


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Because women have no way to distinguish between transexuals and all manner of fetishists from the voyeur to the flasher who we know to be creative in their pursuits. The explosion of porn online is giving them more and more ideas. It's particularly worrying that people like Eddie Izzard go on mainstream media to describe groups of young girls in female toiltes as "terrifying" for grown men like him. It encourages young girls in particular to let their guard down when we know from what happened with the rugby players that women may well have to face the fact of their vaginas giving them a second class status in the "who to believe" stakes when they report sexual offenses.


Groups of young girls are sometimes terrifying.  And more so to those who were never teenaged girls themselves.  

That's something positive about girlhood.  It's fierce and spiky and loud.  Girls should own that power.  

Teaching teenage girls that they are never terrifying, and that no matter how many of them are present, a man is always more powerful, is a really, really unhelpful thing.


----------



## B.I.G (Apr 8, 2018)

Some women don't feel comfortable around women that find them attractive.

Prejudice is prejudice, however you pretend its about safe spaces.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 8, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> Some women don't feel comfortable around women that find them attractive.
> 
> Prejudice is prejudice, however you pretend its about safe spaces.



It sounds awfully like arguments that gay men shouldn't be allowed in spaces with young boys. Just in case.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Socialisation is key. What do you think of this in regard of the socialisation of young girls?
> 
> Thread by @helensaxby11: "Allsorts have now jumped on the bandwagon of criticising the @Transgendertrd school resource pack with no evidence to back up their claims S […]"


I tried to read that, but the writer's agenda was so transparent I gave up on trying to sieve the neutral facts from it.  

However, I am a teacher and we have a trans boy at our school.  His mother (both deeply religious and a chaotic alcoholic) is not aware, and thinks the lad is a gender-non-conforming lesbian (which she struggles with enough).  The school's role has been to provide a listening ear, and to smooth over any potential issues (his ID  card now has his first initial rather than his female name; and he has been given access to the disabled loos - at his request and in preference to the boys').  And that's it.  As a school our duty is to support the child.  We don't prescribe meds or change existing legal documents.  Nothing that happens at school is irreversible, and when he applies to uni or whatever, he'll put down his gender as male, as is his right.


----------



## Edie (Apr 8, 2018)

And btw shygirl I would of liked to go to an event like that if it’d been in the north, although I agree that it may have been better if trans women were represented by speaker(s). 

Somehow this debate needs to become less confrontational, because it seems to have scared people on both sides and a compromise needs to be reached.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> what's your point? You started this.


If you have mochasoul on ignore, it might help you to show ignored content.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I tried to read that, but the writer's agenda was so transparent I gave up on trying to sieve the neutral facts from it.
> 
> However, I am a teacher and we have a trans boy at our school.  His mother (both deeply religious and a chaotic alcoholic) is not aware, and thinks the lad is a gender-non-conforming lesbian (which she struggles with enough).  The school's role has been to provide a listening ear, and to smooth over any potential issues (his ID  card now has his first initial rather than his female name; and he has been given access to the disabled loos - at his request and in preference to the boys').  And that's it.  As a school our duty is to support the child.  We don't prescribe meds or change existing legal documents.  Nothing that happens at school is irreversible, and when he applies to uni or whatever, he'll put down his gender as male, as is his right.



Since when has it become acceptable (or even desirable) to change the individual to fit the crafted structure rather than to change the system?
Are we really so few to think that children should be given the support to navigate the inequalities of the world, rather than changing themselves to "blend in"?

Do you not see the danger of such unquestioning affirmation in, say, a young girl who is the victim of sexual abuse and goes on to regard their abused body and the source of their vulnerability with hatred but doesn't have it herself to report the abuse?

As per, the girl who may feel uncomfortable with the presence of a boy in their changing rooms? Do you not think that it's a dangerous message to give them that the feelings" of boys have primacy of place over their own and therefore the girls themselves should be moved onto other activities? The screenshots of the "guidance" are pretty clear to everyone regardless of the "agenda" of the messenger.


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Because women have no way to distinguish between transexuals and all manner of fetishists from the voyeur to the flasher who we know to be creative in their pursuits. The explosion of porn online is giving them more and more ideas. It's particularly worrying that people like Eddie Izzard go on mainstream media to describe groups of young girls in female toiltes as "terrifying" for grown men like him. It encourages young girls in particular to let their guard down when we know from what happened with the rugby players that women may well have to face the fact of their vaginas giving them a second class status in the "who to believe" stakes when they report sexual offenses.


I keep re-reading this and trying to understand what you mean but it's just not making any sense.

Do you genuinely believe that 'all manner of fetishists from the voyeur to the flasher', fuelled by ideas gleaned from porn, are currently holding off entering women's spaces, waiting for the moment when they can change their birth certificate more easily, and then they'll be right in there, perving over those of us with vaginas?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> And btw shygirl I would of liked to go to an event like that if it’d been in the north, although I agree that it may have been better if trans women were represented by speaker(s).
> 
> Somehow this debate needs to become less confrontational, because it seems to have scared people on both sides and a compromise needs to be reached.



A Woman's Place is Standing Her Ground

There are more on the pipeline. Contact a Woman's Place and suggest a meeting near you. Chances are they are already working on it and will be glad to hear from you.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> I keep re-reading this and trying to understand what you mean but it's just not making any sense.
> 
> Do you genuinely believe that 'all manner of fetishists from the voyeur to the flasher', fuelled by ideas gleaned from porn, are currently holding off entering women's spaces, waiting for the moment when they can change their birth certificate more easily, and then they'll be right in there, perving over those of us with vaginas?



Hmm... Imagine some perverts going so far as becoming gynecologists.



> “Patwardhan is a highly manipulative individual, having used his position of trust and authority to prey on the victims under his medical care believing that they would be too embarrassed to report such offences to police.
> “Thankfully he was mistaken and I commend the victims for their courage in speaking out despite the sensitivity surrounding their personal medical concerns.


Former gynaecologist guilty of sex assaults on patients


----------



## weepiper (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Really struggling here.
> 
> I'm assuming that you're not troubled by my saying that regardless of medical treatment, trans people cannot fully biologically become the opposite sex.
> 
> So I'm left with you objecting to my saying that gender is different to biological sex, and that this is somehow bigoted.  Which is more extreme than anything I've come across before so I'm going to need some help understanding why.


I'm not troubled with or objecting to anything in your sentence, I agree with what you said. My point was that the level of ''trans women are women" insistence has now got to the point that many trans activists would decide your sentence makes you a TERF. We're not allowed to say things like 'trans women will never fully be female' or that gender and sex are different. People like Lily Madigan say they've always been female and will just block anyone who disagrees.


----------



## B.I.G (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Hmm... Imagine some perverts going so far as becoming gynecologists.
> 
> 
> Former gynaecologist guilty of sex assaults on patients



Idiot.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 8, 2018)

Edie really pleased to see you posting again


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Hmm... Imagine some perverts going so far as becoming gynecologists.
> 
> 
> Former gynaecologist guilty of sex assaults on patients


What on earth has this got to do with trans people?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I'm not troubled with or objecting to anything in your sentence, I agree with what you said. My point was that the level of ''trans women are women" insistence has now got to the point that many trans activists would decide your sentence makes you a TERF. We're not allowed to say things like 'trans women will never fully be female' or that gender and sex are different. People like Lily Madigan say they've always been female and will just block anyone who disagrees.



Egged on by trans-hacked brains such as Peter Tatchell's who doesn't even bother to read articles before tweeting this kind of life endangering lunacy:


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I'm not troubled with or objecting to anything in your sentence, I agree with what you said. My point was that the level of ''trans women are women" insistence has now got to the point that many trans activists would decide your sentence makes you a TERF. We're not allowed to say things like 'trans women will never fully be female' or that gender and sex are different. People like Lily Madigan say they've always been female and will just block anyone who disagrees.


What are the necessary conditions for being fully female, in your opinion?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> What on earth has this got to do with trans people?



How many times is it necessary to say it's nothing to do with trans and all to do with men and women's difficulties in a world dominated by them?

Doesn't that example give you a pretty good idea of the lengths a sexual ofender will go to given the tools to feed their sexual wants? If that guy had decided to id as a woman do you really feel that the bigotry charge on top of the women's abuse trauma is acceptable?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> What are the necessary conditions for being fully female, in your opinion?


Why aren't you asking spanglechick that? I was quoting her.


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Egged on by trans-hacked brains such as Peter Tatchell's who doesn't even bother to read articles before tweeting this kind of life endangering lunacy:



'trans-hacked brains'. 

You're just a bigot, then.


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Why aren't you asking spanglechick that? I was quoting her.


You said "we're not allowed to say..." so I was assuming you have an opinion on it.


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> How many times is it necessary to say it's nothing to do with trans and all to do with men and women's difficulties in a world dominated by them?
> 
> Doesn't that example give you a pretty good idea of the lengths a sexual ofender will go to given the tools to feed their sexual wants? If that guy had decided to id as a woman do you really feel that the bigotry charge on top of the women's abuse trauma is acceptable?


If you think it's nothing to do with being trans then why are you posting it here?

Sexual predators do not need to pretend to be women in order to abuse women, but in the unlikely event that someone wanted to, they could do so already.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> 'trans-hacked brains'.
> 
> You're just a bigot, then.



What you think of me is your business but when people conflate gender with sex as they increasingly are without as much as thinking of the consequences of their reasoning I think it's fair to say their brains have been "hacked", and in this case by the latest developments in genderology - "trans-hacked".


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> If you think it's nothing to do with being trans then why are you posting it here?
> 
> Sexual predators do not need to pretend to be women in order to abuse women, but in the unlikely event that someone wanted to, they could do so already.



They have and how nice of Pink news to frame it as an abuse of "trans rules" rather than an attack on women and girls.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/18/man-abuses-trans-rules-to-strip-in-womans-bathroom/


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> If you think it's nothing to do with being trans then why are you posting it here?
> 
> Sexual predators do not need to pretend to be women in order to abuse women, but in the unlikely event that someone wanted to, they could do so already.



We all know sexual offenders will offend. Do you think the law should make it easier for them and aren't women well within their rights to point out the ways in which proposed laws may make their lives that much more difficult?


----------



## Edie (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> If you think it's nothing to do with being trans then why are you posting it here?
> 
> Sexual predators do not need to pretend to be women in order to abuse women, but in the unlikely event that someone wanted to, they could do so already.


I think that’s true, and it’s pushing common sense to suggest that any significant threat would come from men ‘pretending’ to be women solely to gain access to abuse. I mean I’m sure it would happen, in the sense that given enough people at least a small number would be so damaged, but I’m not sure we should take it into account.

The thing that troubles me more is much more common or garden. And that’s simply that in a female space like a changing room where you’re temporarily naked, or in a toilet block, having a woman only space let’s you let your guard down a bit. Having people in there who are biologically male would feel threatening to me. Maybe that’s something that I could overcome, and in the future it’ll seem silly to of thought that. You just don’t know.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> That wasn't my logic.  I was highlighting the attitude that people in the majority don't see the need to describe themselves to the same extent as those in the minority.  My mum has a similar objection to describing herself as straight.  She is "normal" and therefore shouldn't  have a label.



I was commenting on the logic in that tweet, highlighting that the logic used in it was that 'White cis women' are 'normal' by default even though it's trying to argue against that premise. I don't agree that being described as a black woman is the same as being  described as a trans woman in the way it's being used in that tweet as a comparative.


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What you think of me is your business but when people conflate gender with sex as they increasingly are without as much as thinking of the consequences of their reasoning I think it's fair to say their brains have been "hacked", and in this case by the latest developments in genderology - "trans-hacked".


I guess it must seem like that if you don't follow the reasoning, aside from whether you agree with it. I'm going to bow out of talking about this with you because I don't know how to have a conversation that doesn't have any logic to it. And that probably sounds patronising


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> I think that’s true, and it’s pushing common sense to suggest that any significant threat would come from men ‘pretending’ to be women solely to gain access to abuse. I mean I’m sure it would happen, in the sense that given enough people at least a small number would be so damaged, but I’m not sure we should take it into account.
> 
> The thing that troubles me more is much more common or garden. And that’s simply that in a female space like a changing room where you’re temporarily naked, or in a toilet block, having a woman only space let’s you let your guard down a bit. Having people in there who are biologically male would feel threatening to me. Maybe that’s something that I could overcome, and in the future it’ll seem silly to of thought that. You just don’t know.



This is a good read on gender neutral toilets - The Thing about Toilets
The comments are telling. When it comes to girls starting puberty I cringe to think of schools policies on the subject.

Also this Miscarriages in pub toilets. Is gender neutral ready? is a good read on a forgotten aspect.


----------



## Poot (Apr 8, 2018)

Nice to see you back Edie 

These threads always make me a bit sad because we agree so strongly with so many things that I don't discuss irl because I know that I will be shouted down - even very simple feminism is difficult to discuss in many contexts irl. And my frustration is mainly that I can see it from both sides. On one hand I believe that trans women are women full stop. But on the other I couldn't possibly deny a woman's experience of needing a safe space which they view in a certain way. I think we've all said 'this is my experience, this should be what I am entitled to' and not been believed before. It sucks. So I wouldn't belittle that. But on reflection, for me, trans women are women and need to be treated as such. Everything else should be solved with cubicles/more toilets/changing rooms. Practical solutions. It's the least we ALL deserve, surely.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> And btw shygirl I would of liked to go to an event like that if it’d been in the north, although I agree that it may have been better if trans women were represented by speaker(s).
> 
> Somehow this debate needs to become less confrontational, because it seems to have scared people on both sides and a compromise needs to be reached.



Yes, it has Edie, and it's a crying shame.  The aggression, no-platforming, as well as actual violence, and accusations of nazism and bigotry have largely come from trans-activists.  Women have been vilified, abused and threatened for daring to raise concerns about proposed changes to the GRA. They have lost jobs, been thrown out of political parties and investigated for merely stating truths.  The voices of transwomen who do not seek to bully their way into women and girls' safe spaces have experienced the same level of venom.   I'm not surprised at the rage that some of us feel and express at attempts to close us down, stop us talking about our biology (it's apparently exclusionary to talk about our vaginas and breasts cos trans women didn't have that "privilege"at birth), to label us as 'cis', to call for a re-definition of woman, and to see meagre number of places reserved for women in political parties being shared with male-born and  male-bodied people who identify as women.  We're not gonna sit back and be nice and caring whilst the trans-agenda rides rough-shod over everything we ever fought for.


----------



## colacubes (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> This is a good read on gender neutral toilets - The Thing about Toilets
> The comments are telling. When it comes to girls starting puberty I cringe to think of schools policies on the subject.
> 
> Also this Miscarriages in pub toilets. Is gender neutral ready? is a good read on a forgotten aspect.



I’ve had the worst of a miscarriage in a pub toilet. And in that moment of pain, agony and blood, I could not have given the slightest fuck about who was in that toilet. I also have endometriosis and bleed heavily every month and no longer care who sees it. All I care about is whether I can get to the basin to wash my hands.
And you can solve that by having sinks in toilet cubicles.


----------



## Mation (Apr 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> I think that’s true, and it’s pushing common sense to suggest that any significant threat would come from men ‘pretending’ to be women solely to gain access to abuse. I mean I’m sure it would happen, in the sense that given enough people at least a small number would be so damaged, but I’m not sure we should take it into account.
> 
> The thing that troubles me more is much more common or garden. And that’s simply that in a female space like a changing room where you’re temporarily naked, or in a toilet block, having a woman only space let’s you let your guard down a bit. Having people in there who are biologically male would feel threatening to me. Maybe that’s something that I could overcome, and in the future it’ll seem silly to of thought that. You just don’t know.


Yep, I totally get that it matters who is around when you're in a vulnerable state, as you are when changing. I recently complained at my gym when one of the women instructors came in to the changing room just after a class I'd been in to fiddle about with the lockers. I was naked, she was clothed. It felt weird as fuck to have someone who had just been teaching to just march in and see me naked, when she has the instructors changing rooms to change in. Total power imbalance. I'm bisexual and it wasn't about worry about any perceived sexual intent. I'd have been perfectly happy to change in front of her had the situation been equal. Similarly (but more so, cos men) I'd have been furious if a man had come into the room. But I imagine that women with male bodies would be sensitive to the idea that bodies evoke strong reactions in people, both in terms of other people's comfort as well as their own safety. I am totally at a loss to understand why anyone would think a change in the way people can correct their birth certificates would have any effect on how individuals behave in sensitive situations.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> I am totally at a loss to understand why anyone would think a change in the way people can correct their birth certificates would have any effect on how individuals behave in sensitive situations.



Except if that change means pretty much download a form, fill it, send it et voilá... you're the other sex, it means neither women nor transwomen would be safe. I'm a totally at a loss as to why someone who calls themselves my "sister" would be so blind to my safety in that way. I've seen Kris Harrison on twitter defending a wide consultation and asserting the need for third spaces in some circumstances to no avail.
It's almost as if the validation of male "feelings" has to come at any price including their own safety. That alone poses more questions.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

I'm just gonna keep using the disabled toilets and being too scared to use the locker rooms or showers. And as for gyms/ pools - no chance ever again! It's fucking shit!


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'm just gonna keep using the disabled toilets and being too scared to use the locker rooms or showers. And as for gyms/ pools - no chance ever again! It's fucking shit!



Disabled toilets were my way of respecting women's privacy when my son was not old enough to be left on his own outside but was old enough for me to think of the impact of his presence in a female toilet but I'm a woman who's had to wash her knickers in a public toilet sink when I was young so I'd think this way.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I'm not troubled with or objecting to anything in your sentence, I agree with what you said. My point was that the level of ''trans women are women" insistence has now got to the point that many trans activists would decide your sentence makes you a TERF. We're not allowed to say things like 'trans women will never fully be female' or that gender and sex are different. People like Lily Madigan say they've always been female and will just block anyone who disagrees.




Oh.  Right.  Well none of the trans people I know believe that biology doesn't exist, and the word "female" is purely biological.


Edited to try and correct quote weirdness.


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Oh.  Right.  Well none of the trans people I know believe that biology doesn't exist, and the word "female" is purely biological.



Something's gone wrong with the quote function; it's attributing that comment to Vintage Paw, rather than weepiper (who was the one who wrote it).


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Oh.  Right.  Well none of the trans people I know believe that biology doesn't exist, and the word "female" is purely biological.



Not for trans who call themselves lesbians and call lesbians who reject them "vagina fetishists".


Here's Lynne Harne speaking on behalf of the Lesbian Rights Alliance


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> We all know sexual offenders will offend. Do you think the law should make it easier for them and aren't women well within their rights to point out the ways in which proposed laws may make their lives that much more difficult?



What practical change will the law change bring that will make male sex offenders more able to access vulnerable women? 

Because it's going to have to be a situation that currently requires people to prove their femaleness by showing their birth certificate.  

And I've only had to do that three times as an adult: to apply for a student loan; to apply for a passport; and to apply for a marriage licence.  Not to access a female hospital ward; not to be granted access to children as a teacher; not to get into spas or changing rooms or loos.   

The only thing that will change with this law is access to changed birth certificates.  





colacubes said:


> I’ve had the worst of a miscarriage in a pub toilet. And in that moment of pain, agony and blood, I could not have given the slightest fuck about who was in that toilet. I also have endometriosis and bleed heavily every month and no longer care who sees it. All I care about is whether I can get to the basin to wash my hands.
> And you can solve that by having sinks in toilet cubicles.




I am heartened by my sixth formers who are quite strident about talking about periods.  "You do it, I'm bleeding", or "I need the loo because of that thing where you poo loads on your period".  

This coy secrecy is both a symptom and a cause of one fractional part of patriarchal oppression.  We should stop protecting men from the ugly realities of menstruation.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not for trans who call themselves lesbians and call lesbians who reject them "vagina fetishists".
> 
> 
> Here's Lynne Harne speaking on behalf of the Lesbian Rights Alliance



But I know several trans lesbians and none of them hold those views.  A small handful of trans women don't speak for all, any more than that awful EDF woman Jayda Fransen gets to speak for me as a fellow British white woman with dodgy dyed hair.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> The only thing that will change with this law is access to changed birth certificates.



Which means they can then a la Madigan then claim to represent women in political parties. I hope we can see the Labour Party in court about it.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Which means they can then a la Madigan then claim to represent women in political parties. I hope we can see the Labour Party in court about it.


Madigan has done this before the law change.  No one needed to see her birth certificate.  

What will change after the law that will harm vulnerable or oppressed women who are currently safe because of the law being in its current form?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> But I know several trans lesbians and none of them hold those views.  A small handful of trans women don't speak for all, any more than that awful EDF woman Jayda Fransen gets to speak for me as a fellow British white woman with dodgy dyed hair.



Watch Lynne Harne. Also pay attention to how the mainstream media is now relegating lesbianism to a sexual preference.

What’s Wrong With the ‘No Trans’ Dating Preference Debate


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Madigan has done this before the law change.  No one needed to see her birth certificate.
> 
> What will change after the law that will harm vulnerable or oppressed women who are currently safe because of the law being in its current form?



Madigan has been allowed to do this because the Labour Party decided to stand "ahead of the law".


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> But I know several trans lesbians and none of them hold those views.  A small handful of trans women don't speak for all, any more than that awful EDF woman Jayda Fransen gets to speak for me as a fellow British white woman with dodgy dyed hair.


Jayda Fransen Britain First

Also think EDF do energy not fascism


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Jayda Fransen Britain First
> 
> Also think EDF do energy not fascism



EDF are cunts tbf. She’d fit right in.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

The Left Are Abandoning Women; and in Doing So, Abandoning Everything They Stand For


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Oh.  Right.  Well none of the trans people I know believe that biology doesn't exist, and the word "female" is purely biological.


Why is that quote attributed to Vintage Paw? I was mildly concerned for a second until I realised it's an error.


----------



## Edie (Apr 8, 2018)

Mation said:


> Yep, I totally get that it matters who is around when you're in a vulnerable state, as you are when changing. I recently complained at my gym when one of the women instructors came in to the changing room just after a class I'd been in to fiddle about with the lockers. I was naked, she was clothed. It felt weird as fuck to have someone who had just been teaching to just march in and see me naked, when she has the instructors changing rooms to change in. Total power imbalance. I'm bisexual and it wasn't about worry about any perceived sexual intent. I'd have been perfectly happy to change in front of her had the situation been equal. Similarly (but more so, cos men) I'd have been furious if a man had come into the room. But I imagine that women with male bodies would be sensitive to the idea that bodies evoke strong reactions in people, both in terms of other people's comfort as well as their own safety. I am totally at a loss to understand why anyone would think a change in the way people can correct their birth certificates would have any effect on how individuals behave in sensitive situations.


Yes I’m sure you’d be right about the sensitivity. 

I was thinking about the loos as a place of refuge. You know when you’ve had some pissed bloke who won’t take a graceful end to a come on persuing you a bit much, and you duck into the bogs so he fucks off. And it’s nice to have that female space to stand by the sink and chat, have a breather etc. And I was thinking that a trans woman having access to the toilet mightn’t really effect that, but having *shared* unisex facilities would.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> EDF are cunts tbf. She’d fit right in.








I think the bit where they had more qualms about writing the whole of the twitter handle to include "idiots in" rather than the lying on a medical form has a je ne se quois about it. 

Forgot this one:


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> What practical change will the law change bring that will make male sex offenders more able to access vulnerable women?
> 
> Because it's going to have to be a situation that currently requires people to prove their femaleness by showing their birth certificate.
> 
> ...


And trans women don't even need protecting. We're not squeamish men. We can deal with natural bodily functions for fucks sake. I had to a daughter who went through it. It didn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 8, 2018)

The fact that we say we're *transgender* women shows we are fully aware and acknowledge the biological differences. We just don't think it means we're not women, or not female.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Why is that quote attributed to Vintage Paw? I was mildly concerned for a second until I realised it's an error.



I've sent her a message asking to change it, but I don't think she's around at the moment. Hopefully everyone knows those are not my views!


----------



## weepiper (Apr 8, 2018)




----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

Oh dear!


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 8, 2018)

"The genetic difference between a man and a woman is 15 times the genetic difference between two men or between two women."


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 9, 2018)

This thread has really descended into the shit now


Time to bin?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 9, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Watch Lynne Harne. Also pay attention to how the mainstream media is now relegating lesbianism to a sexual preference.
> 
> What’s Wrong With the ‘No Trans’ Dating Preference Debate


I just said a small proportion of trans lesbians hold those views.  Not sure of how your post refutes mine.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 9, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Jayda Fransen Britain First
> 
> Also think EDF do energy not fascism


Actual LOL.


----------



## Eeepet (Apr 9, 2018)

TERF is a slur
I have just put TERF in as a search term (part of my efforts to understand the issues) and found this site. It's frightening and misogynistic.
This thread began with a post about a public event. I was surprised that it almost immediately turned in to an interrogation of the poster, questioning the integrity of the organisers, their right to organise, the cost of the tickets, the need for a secret venue, and challenging their right to cancel & refund tickets. Within a few posts the event had been called a 'hate rally'. I've looked at the videos of previous events and there's no evidence of hate. No threats, no suggestion of violence. 
A comparison with the comments on the website suggests that the hatred is predominantly and powerfully in one direction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2018)

is there any information about when the consultation promised in parliament on 9 january might begin? - this would meet at least two of the demands mentioned in the op


----------



## Edie (Apr 9, 2018)

Eeepet said:


> TERF is a slur
> I have just put TERF in as a search term (part of my efforts to understand the issues) and found this site. It's frightening and misogynistic.
> This thread began with a post about a public event. I was surprised that it almost immediately turned in to an interrogation of the poster, questioning the integrity of the organisers, their right to organise, the cost of the tickets, the need for a secret venue, and challenging their right to cancel & refund tickets. Within a few posts the event had been called a 'hate rally'. I've looked at the videos of previous events and there's no evidence of hate. No threats, no suggestion of violence.
> A comparison with the comments on the website suggests that the hatred is predominantly and powerfully in one direction.


Yes but that’s Twitter. I never go on there myself, it always seems to be a collection of the most extreme and nasty batshit statements that are totally detatached from reality. I’m sure you could find just as many in the opposite direction. I’m not sure it says much. Maybe I’m wrong.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 9, 2018)

Fuck it's on till 9pm?

didn't think it would be that late, ah well more time with my lad


----------



## Eeepet (Apr 9, 2018)

Edie said:


> Yes but that’s Twitter. I never go on there myself, it always seems to be a collection of the most extreme and nasty batshit statements that are totally detatached from reality. I’m sure you could find just as many in the opposite direction. I’m not sure it says much. Maybe I’m wrong.



I genuinely hope you are right Edie. Decades ago and way before twitter I did a Women's Studies MSc. It included an enlightening course on sex and gender but also opened my (unwilling) eyes to the extent and depth of misogyny in society - enacted in laws, traditions, behaviour, social & cultural attitudes, history, literature, and everyday life. It was frightening. 
I just hadn't expected to see these attitudes replicated within the trans community and their allies. It might be a very small number but the intensity of the hatred makes these voices sound very loud. I have looked for equivalences, and looked for sites where trans people challenge these extreme views but I can't find either.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 9, 2018)

Eeepet said:


> I genuinely hope you are right Edie. Decades ago and way before twitter I did a Women's Studies MSc. It included an enlightening course on sex and gender but also opened my (unwilling) eyes to the extent and depth of misogyny in society - enacted in laws, traditions, behaviour, social & cultural attitudes, history, literature, and everyday life. It was frightening.
> I just hadn't expected to see these attitudes replicated within the trans community and their allies. It might be a very small number but the intensity of the hatred makes these voices sound very loud. I have looked for equivalences, and looked for sites where trans people challenge these extreme views but I can't find either.



A good article on the subject.


> The term, “TERF,” is itself an intentional manipulation, intended to reframe feminist ideas and activism as “exclusionary,” rather than foundational to the women’s liberation movement. In other words, it is an attack on women-centered political organizing and the basic theory that underpins feminist analysis of patriarchy.


‘TERF’ isn’t just a slur, it’s hate speech


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2018)

yeh i particularly like the way it suggests everyone who uses the term is a nazi

oh, and

more famously associated with goebbels than hitler as per Joseph Goebbels On the "Big Lie"

calling people nazis designed to show things in a reasonable light i suppose.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 9, 2018)

Eeepet said:


> TERF is a slur
> I have just put TERF in as a search term (part of my efforts to understand the issues) and found this site. It's frightening and misogynistic.
> This thread began with a post about a public event. I was surprised that it almost immediately turned in to an interrogation of the poster, questioning the integrity of the organisers, their right to organise, the cost of the tickets, the need for a secret venue, and challenging their right to cancel & refund tickets. Within a few posts the event had been called a 'hate rally'. I've looked at the videos of previous events and there's no evidence of hate. No threats, no suggestion of violence.
> A comparison with the comments on the website suggests that the hatred is predominantly and powerfully in one direction.


There clearly is some horrible behaviour from extremist trans activists.  Those who propose violence against biologically exclusive female activists, for example.  

And although an analysis of twitter would show some highly revolting and hateful people on the other side, I dare say a lot of the most empassioned extremism is from the trans inclusive side.  

I'd suggest though, two things: (a) trans people are fighting for their very existence to be acknowledged.  They are a small minority and are subject to attack, assault, murder, humiliation and ridicule in even greater proportion than natal women.  Those under oppression and fear because of a continual background of violence against them are likely to lash out with acts of violence.  Look at the ANC planting bombs under apartheid, or the PLO. 
I think that's also why it is trans-cautionary or anti-trans women's voices are louder than men's.  Because it would be erroneous to think that natal men are on the whole trans-inclusionary. 

Secondly, I think misogyny as a word is fraught here.  It's my personal nuance ultimately, but I think misogyny implies that the aggressive factor is masculinity rather than patriarchy.  And by masculinity I mean the expression of male gender roles.  I don't the know that's what extremist trans activism always is, but in the lesbian rape threats it's hard to see it as other than internalised misogyny.  But I'd be very wary of calling every aggression towards women misogynistic.  Especially given that some anti trans bigots (who obviously do exist), are keen to rush to call trans women "men" at every opportunity.


----------



## Voley (Apr 9, 2018)

Edie said:


> Twitter* ... *the most extreme and nasty batshit statements that are totally detatached from reality.


I am on Twitter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> There clearly is some horrible behaviour from extremist trans activists.  Those who propose violence against biologically exclusive female activists, for example.
> 
> And although an analysis of twitter would show some highly revolting and hateful people on the other side, I dare say a lot of the most empassioned extremism is from the trans inclusive side.
> 
> ...


To be fair the anc and plo suffered great, frequent and indeed often fatal violence for many years  from two of the more repressive regimes of the last century.


----------



## Edie (Apr 9, 2018)

Voley said:


> I am on Twitter.


What do you aim your 40 characters of tweet hatred towards Voley


----------



## Voley (Apr 9, 2018)

Edie said:


> What do you aim your 40 characters of tweet hatred towards Voley


The enemies of Penzance Football Club.


----------



## Edie (Apr 9, 2018)

Voley said:


> The enemies of Penzance Football Club.


----------



## Poot (Apr 9, 2018)

Voley said:


> The enemies of Penzance Football Club.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 9, 2018)

SWAF said:
			
		

> Later on in evening Cardiff LGBT Social Network and Cardiff Trans Singershave organised "The Fantastic Woman Festival" to counter the TERFs hate, and to put a stop to their narrative of "feminism vs trans". they are going to celebrate the wonderful power intersectionality and diversity have in our movement.
> 
> Now more than ever, ensuring that minority voices are heard and respected.
> 
> Our Feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> To be fair the anc and plo suffered great, frequent and indeed often fatal violence for many years  from two of the more repressive regimes of the last century.


Which is why I chose those examples. (Albeit that the level of violence is significantly more severe.  But then, so is the level of retaliation).  Hate crime against trans people is horrifyingly common.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Which is why I chose those examples. (Albeit that the level of violence is significantly more severe.  But then, so is the level of retaliation).  Hate crime against trans people is horrifyingly common.


TBH if your point is violence against a minority then the south african one is the other way round.

not to mention that the plo founded in 1964, some years after the expulsion of most palestinians from the zionist entity


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> TBH if your point is violence against a minority then the south african one is the other way round.
> 
> not to mention that the plo founded in 1964, some years after the expulsion of most palestinians from the zionist entity


It wasn't about minorities otherwise I'd have said so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I'd suggest though, two things: (a) trans people are fighting for their very existence to be acknowledged.  They are a small minority and are subject to attack, assault, murder, humiliation and ridicule in even greater proportion than natal women.  Those under oppression and fear because of a continual background of violence against them are likely to lash out with acts of violence. Look at the ANC planting bombs under apartheid, or the PLO.
> I think that's also why it is trans-cautionary or anti-trans women's voices are louder than men's.  Because it would be erroneous to think that natal men are on the whole trans-inclusionary.


yeh cos obvs you don't mention anything about minorities. and as you're suggesting TWO things, that suggests your a) is ONE thing. but i don't see this as something worth continuing with, unless you'd like to.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

ddraig said:


>




"The hate campaigns are coming to Wales threatening to create a more hostile and abusive environment for trans people. Join other members of our communities in Wales and stand up to show support for the trans community and stop the spread of hate into Wales."

What a fucking lie, 'hate campaigns'.  This is the dirty, nasty side of trans-activism.  THIS is why the meetings are being held in secret, because we are being horribly misrepresented as bigots and haters and the potential consequences of that shit, are scary.  Just ask Helen Steel or the woman who was punched in Hyde Park Corner.

As you've chosen to share this flier ddraig, do you honestly believe that Woman's Place UK and the people who plan to attend the meeting are spreading hate in wanting to question the impact of potential changes to the GRA on girls and women?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> There clearly is some horrible behaviour from extremist trans activists.  Those who propose violence against biologically exclusive female activists, for example.
> 
> And although an analysis of twitter would show some highly revolting and hateful people on the other side, I dare say a lot of the most empassioned extremism is from the trans inclusive side.
> 
> ...



Evidence for TW being at greater risk than women please.  When did you last hear of a TW being murdered in the UK?   THREE women a week have been murdered in the UK since the start of the year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Evidence for TW being at greater risk than women please.  When did you last hear of a TW being murdered in the UK?   THREE women a week have been murdered in the UK since the start of the year.


could you share your source?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

Do you doubt it Pickman's?


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 10, 2018)

My ex had a sticker up saying "No Woman has a penis" i saw it the other week on a clock in the house.

She's going to this thing. i have nothing else to add or any knowledge other than these stated FACTS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Do you doubt it Pickman's?


do you have a source?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> "The hate campaigns are coming to Wales threatening to create a more hostile and abusive environment for trans people. Join other members of our communities in Wales and stand up to show support for the trans community and stop the spread of hate into Wales."
> 
> What a fucking lie, 'hate campaigns'.  This is the dirty, nasty side of trans-activism.  THIS is why the meetings are being held in secret, because we are being horribly misrepresented as bigots and haters and the potential consequences of that shit, are scary.  Just ask Helen Steel or the woman who was punched in Hyde Park Corner.
> 
> As you've chosen to share this flier ddraig, do you honestly believe that Woman's Place UK and the people who plan to attend the meeting are spreading hate in wanting to question the impact of potential changes to the GRA on girls and women?


I am simply sharing an event, as you have


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl i didn't doubt your claim that THREE women have been killed in the uk every week this year until you refused to share your source. according to 2018 19 women had been killed in the uk (i'm ignoring the murder in australia as not happening in uk) to 10/3/18. that's 1.9 women killed per week. i appreciate you may have different information and would be glad to see it, as you're making it sound even worse than the source i've found suggests.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 10, 2018)

The average accepted stat is 2 women a week, I’ve never heard the 3 women a week. I believe (well I don’t believe really, I’ve heard it at conferences) it’s phrased as 2 women a week or one woman every 3 days - perhaps that’s where the 3 comes from? 

The easiest source for this is the Femicide Census: 

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-influencing/femicide-census/


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> The average accepted stat is 2 women a week, I’ve never heard the 3 women a week. I believe it’s phrased as 2 women a week or one woman every 3 days - perhaps that’s where the 3 comes from?
> 
> The easiest source for this is the Femicide Census:
> 
> https://www.womensaid.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-influencing/femicide-census/


cheers! but not seeing any 2018 figures there.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> cheers! but not seeing any 2018 figures there.



No there won’t be yet, too early in the year innit - the source you’ve provided from Karen will be the most up to date for 2018 so far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> No there won’t be yet, too early in the year innit - the source you’ve provided from Karen will be the most up to date for 2018 so far.


yeh - i'll be interested to see where shygirl gets her information from.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

ddraig said:


> I am simply sharing an event, as you have



Of course, I see that.  I was simply asking you if you agree with their statements.  I mean, I shared an event because I support it, I wouldn't have shared it if I didn't.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

Karen ingala smith Counting Dead Women.   I'm in work at mo, so just jumping on here when I can.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

2018


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> shygirl i didn't doubt your claim that THREE women have been killed in the uk every week this year until you refused to share your source. according to 2018 19 women had been killed in the uk (i'm ignoring the murder in australia as not happening in uk) to 10/3/18. that's 1.9 women killed per week. i appreciate you may have different information and would be glad to see it, as you're making it sound even worse than the source i've found suggests.



Just saw that you've already sourced the link I sent.  I didn't refuse to share source, btw, I just asked you if you doubted the figure.   I'm at work, so can't be on every point straight away.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

2 - 3 women per week murdered.  Just let that sink in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Karen ingala smith Counting Dead Women.   I'm in work at mo, so just jumping on here when I can.





shygirl said:


> 2018


cheers - that's the one i link to in #425. she lists 20 women killed to 10 march. one of the killings took place in australia, so i'm discounting that as not in the uk. that's 19 killings in 10 weeks, which by my calculation is 1.9 women killed per week. while horrific this isn't three women killed a week.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

I read somewhere else, on FB I think, that the figure is currently 3 per week so far this year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I read somewhere else, on FB I think, that the figure is currently 3 per week so far this year.


unless there's been a great upsurge since 10/3/18 then it's just not true. 

that isn't to say that 1.9/2 is an acceptable rate of violence.


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

Why does it matter? Two women, three, one every three days, it’s still terrible. As is the violence and hatred meted out to trans gender folk.

It’s fucking crass to turn this into ‘whose more fucked by patriarchy’ debate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> Why does it matter? Two women, three, one every three days, it’s still terrible. As is the violence and hatred meted out to trans gender folk.
> 
> It’s fucking crass to turn this into ‘whose more fucked by patriarchy’ debate.


i'm not turning this into a who's more fucked by patriarchy debate. i've not denied it's still terrible, in fact i have said explicitly it's terrible. but let's not let that get in the way of a barney.


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

Has there been any attempts to have meetings where both sides put their worries forward and actual conversations are had about solutions? In the real world I mean, not on bloody social media where all the idiots hide.


----------



## nogojones (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Evidence for TW being at greater risk than women please.  When did you last hear of a TW being murdered in the UK?



*Naomi Hersi*, 36, was found stabbed to death at Heathrow Palace in London at 10:30 on Sunday 18 March 2018

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/26/transgender-woman-naomi-hersi-murdered-london-in-hotel-room/


----------



## Eeepet (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> Has there been any attempts to have meetings where both sides put their worries forward and actual conversations are had about solutions? In the real world I mean, not on bloody social media where all the idiots hide.



The Cardiff event that Shygirl posted up included an explicit invitation to trans people to come along (from Helen Mary Jones). I am attending with this exact intention and a desire to understand different vantage points in order to clarify my own. Postings that speak of the need to 'counter Terf hate' & 'hate campaigns' suggest that an open debate will be difficult however. I'm trying to stay hopeful but to be honest my current feelings are a combination of fear and distress.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

More broadly, why is it necessary to support self-ID in order to support the rights of trans people around housing, sexual, domestic (and any other forms) of violence) and discrimination at work?

Can’t one be opposed to (and support the fight against) discrimination and violence against trans people, and still oppose self-ID/‘trans women are women’?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Evidence for TW being at greater risk than women please.  When did you last hear of a TW being murdered in the UK?   THREE women a week have been murdered in the UK since the start of the year.


I won't address the second part of the post, since you've been fairly comprehensively shown that the number is two rather than three (still shocking).  

The problem with answering your question is twofold.   Firstly, we're talking small numbers, both of trans women in the uk population, and of uk murder rates. One murder in a year can skew even long-term stats.  In the US where both those things are higher the figure most often cited is 4.3x higher than any other group.  But that isn't what you asked.  You asked about the uk.  

The second problem is knowing how many trans people and trans women there actually are.  Estimates vary between 0.1 and 1% (depending, I guess, on definition of terms, and on the level at which a trans woman has formalised her status).  The rate of trans people being murdered in the last ten years is somewhere between one every 14-18months.  (Again this figure depends who you ask - and your terms.  Does death following a violent hate attack count? Etc). Obviously that's minuscule compared to the rates of violent killing of women.  But natal women are half the uk population.  

I'm not a fan of maths but even from fairly quick mental arithmetic it becomes clear that drawing a definitive conclusion when the 0.1-1% variable is so large, and the number of victims so small in numerical terms, with such scope for variance given one fewer or more murder in a year... is essentially so unreliable as to be meaningless.  

I will absolutely concede, though, that I was guilty of repeating the rate ofviolence as a truism without investigating the facts such as they are.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> More broadly, why is it necessary to support self-ID in order to support the rights of trans people around housing, sexual, domestic (and any other forms) of violence) and discrimination at work?
> 
> Can’t one be opposed to (and support the fight against) discrimination and violence against trans people, and still oppose self-ID/‘trans women are women’?


That's kind of the point trans activists are making. 

Self ID doesn't impact on any of those things.  The law change won't change any of those things.  

It therefore won't make any change to the safety of women.  Trans people will not have more access than they have already.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> That's kind of the point trans activists are making.
> 
> Self ID doesn't impact on any of those things.  The law change won't change any of those things.
> 
> It therefore won't make any change to the safety of women.  Trans people will not have more access than they have already.



I think we may be talking at cross purposes. 

The point I’m getting at is that I support the rights of trans people to be treated as human beings, not to be subject to violence and discrimination. 

I don’t agree with self-ID of ‘gender’ (because I don’t agree that’s how gender works), I don’t think ‘trans women are women’ (because I agree with sex based definitions). 

I don’t accept there’s any incongruence in my position. I’m happy to be shown I’m wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I don’t agree with self-ID of ‘gender’ (because I don’t agree that’s how gender works).



Do you have a viewpoint on how it _does _work?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I think we may be talking at cross purposes.
> 
> The point I’m getting at is that I support the rights of trans people to be treated as human beings, not to be subject to violence and discrimination.
> 
> ...


do you think people have any agency wr2 gender?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

8ball said:


> Do you have a viewpoint on how it _does _work?



Yes 

There was even a whole thread (‘transgender/perplexed’) where the nature and function of gender was discussed. 

I recall stating the view that gender operates as a social process assigning obligations/roles/‘sins’ to people based on their sex, and that men get a somewhat better deal out of this process. 

I can’t claim it to be a novel idea.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think people have any agency wr2 gender?



Depends what you mean.

I can (and do) defy the gendered expectations of me (eg I work in Early Years). I can’t choose for society not to have those gendered expectations society has of me (eg I have to put up with ‘jokes’/insinuations that I do my job to abuse children - coz why else would a man do a ‘woman’s’ job)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Depends what you mean.
> 
> I can (and do) defy the gendered expectations of (eg I work in Early Years). I can’t choose for society not to have those gendered expectations of me (eg I have to put up with ‘jokes’/insinuations that I do my job to abuse children - coz why else would a man do a ‘woman’s’ job)


what i mean is, do you think that people have any control over their own gender, over how they 'play' male, female etc? after all, gender in the eighteenth century looked rather different from its twenty-first century counterpart. you seem to suggest you have some agency over how you 'play' your gender, but don't seem to believe that someone can decide to 'play' a different gender. i'm not sure it's the case either that you can't affect the expectations other people, i.e. society, have of you - you may not be able to control those expectations, but i think you can at least influence them.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ...I have to put up with ‘jokes’/insinuations that I do my job to abuse children - coz why else would a man do a ‘woman’s’ job)


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

8ball said:


>



Well, a quick comment on my part about making complaints to management about it soon shuts them up, and it’s not on par with the oppression women face for being, well, women.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> what i mean is, do you think that people have any control over their own gender, over how they 'play' male, female etc? after all, gender in the eighteenth century looked rather different from its twenty-first century counterpart. you seem to suggest you have some agency over how you 'play' your gender, but don't seem to believe that someone can decide to 'play' a different gender. i'm not sure it's the case either that you can't affect the expectations other people, i.e. society, have of you - you may not be able to control those expectations, but i think you can at least influence them.



I’d like to think that I do, in a small way, influence the expectations of others, and that is true for all of us. But on an inidividual level, none of us can make *that* much difference. It requires a social shift, achieved by social movements. Hence I don’t think that individuals ‘choosing’ their ‘gender indentity’ is of much revolutionary value. I’m more inclined to want to work towards getting rid of gender.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

Which is not to say I’m dismissive of those with full on gender dysphoria, or of their identifying with the gender of their choice, but I don’t think it achieves much it terms of breaking down gendered expectations.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

I’ve been (fairly) open about my own dysphoria, but I don’t make sense of it by reference to not being a man. Hence I find the CIS label both offensive and innacurate when describing myself.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’d like to think that I do, in a small way, influence the expectations of others, and that is true for all of us. But on an inidividual level, none of us can make *that* much difference. It requires a social shift, achieved by social movements. Hence I don’t think that individuals ‘choosing’ their ‘gender indentity’ is of much revolutionary value. I’m more inclined to want to work towards getting rid of gender.


To put it another way, identity is as much about the identity imposed on us by others as it is about the identity we choose for ourselves.  It's the dialogue (and tension) between these that creates the identity we wear.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

kabbes said:


> To put it another way, identity is as much about the identity imposed on us by others as it is about the identity we choose for ourselves.  It's the dialogue (and tension) between these that creates the identity we wear.



Quite. Choosing ones own identity isn’t ‘bad’, but it is pretty futile.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Quite. Choosing ones own identity isn’t ‘bad’, but it is pretty futile.



If others choose your identity for you, though, then they need to take accountability for that.  In this case, we’re talking about a group denying resources to another based on *their* view of identity, and who should mediate claims on identity.

It’s problematic from both perspectives imo.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> Has there been any attempts to have meetings where both sides put their worries forward and actual
> conversations are had about solutions? In the real world I mean, not on bloody social media where all the idiots hide.



Yes, last September, but trans-activists seem to believe there is no debate and that anyone raising any kind of challenge to their thinking is a nazi, and mustn't be given a platform.  The organisers of the meeting then, I believe, decided to get together at Speaker's Corner and this is where a 'rad-fem' was punched by two young, strong fully male-bodied transwomen.   A month or two later, a woman was surrounded and abused by trans activists at the Anarchist Book Fair, for handing out leaflets setting out concerns about self-id.   Helen Steel stepped in to protect the woman, then she too was subjected to the same abuse.   The message to women was loud and clear, you're either with us or against us.   Then you've got the whole, kill a terf, punch a terf, the only good terf is a dead terf, etc abuse on social media, none of which is conducive to debate.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

nogojones said:


> *Naomi Hersi*, 36, was found stabbed to death at Heathrow Palace in London at 10:30 on Sunday 18 March 2018
> 
> https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/26/transgender-woman-naomi-hersi-murdered-london-in-hotel-room/



That's tragic.


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes
> 
> There was even a whole thread (‘transgender/perplexed’) where the nature and function of gender was discussed.
> 
> ...




That’s pretty much my understanding of it too.

Being female in our society has many advantages. As generalisations, you aren’t expected so much to be protector and provider (and that can be a heavy burden on men), you can show your emotions more, you enjoy close emotionally intimate friendships more than men, you more frequently are the main carer to your children or the elderly or your neighbours. All of these can be double edged swords of course, burdens even, but on the whole I see them as gifts.

There are disadvantages too. Loss of social and economic power when caring. Periods and hormonal nonsense. Pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and childbirth aren’t to be sniffed at. And the vulnerability that comes with those, and then having small children and maybe having no job. Men who find themselves in that position are also vulnerable imo, as it’s hard raising kids and providing for them single handed.

I’m not trans gender, so I say this with caution. But maybe ‘feeling’ the wrong gender is feeling you are better suited to that position in society? Maybe hormones in utero, or the structure of your brain, or your natural disposition, or just a choice. No mind why, other than from scientific curiosity.

But I think I’m more like MadeInBedlam when I think that maybe the better solution is to allow people to cherry pick the parts of gender roles that fit and sod the rest. A gentle loving boy like my younger son who cares for people and likes to sometimes wear nail varnish and make up, is just a lad who happens to like those things and be naturally inclined that way. More power to him. And good for you MadeInBedlam  for taking on the important role of caring for the most littlies, and good for people like weepiper who are good with their hands and engineering and fix bikes for a living and no matter she’s a woman.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> That’s pretty much my understanding of it too.
> 
> Being female in our society has many advantages. As generalisations, you aren’t expected so much to be protector and provider (and that can be a heavy burden on men), you can show your emotions more, you enjoy close emotionally intimate friendships more than men, you more frequently are the main carer to your children or the elderly or your neighbours. All of these can be double edged swords of course, burdens even, but on the whole I see them as gifts.
> 
> ...



I’d be fucked if I had to make my living from fixing bikes/cars/anything mechanical tbf


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Yes, last September, but trans-activists seem to believe there is no debate and that anyone raising any kind of challenge to their thinking is a nazi, and mustn't be given a platform.  The organisers of the meeting then, I believe, decided to get together at Speaker's Corner and this is where a 'rad-fem' was punched by two young, strong fully male-bodied transwomen.   A month or two later, a woman was surrounded and abused by trans activists at the Anarchist Book Fair, for handing out leaflets setting out concerns about self-id.   Helen Steel stepped in to protect the woman, then she too was subjected to the same abuse.   The message to women was loud and clear, you're either with us or against us.   Then you've got the whole, kill a terf, punch a terf, the only good terf is a dead terf, etc abuse on social media, none of which is conducive to debate.


Missed that as not been on here. That sounds alarming though.


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’d be fucked if I had to make my living from fixing bikes/cars/anything mechanical tbf


Weeps is a fucking legend and no mistake. But then I haven’t the patience for a room full of small ones, and anyone who works with kids (of any age) is a hero in my eyes anyway. I’d go spare.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> Weeps is a fucking legend and no mistake. But then I haven’t the patience for a room full of small ones, and anyone who works with kids (of any age) is a hero in my eyes anyway. I’d go spare.



Ha tbh it’s the staff that drive me mental.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 10, 2018)

8ball said:


> If others choose your identity for you, though, then they need to take accountability for that.  In this case, we’re talking about a group denying resources to another based on *their* view of identity, and who should mediate claims on identity.
> 
> It’s problematic from both perspectives imo.


It's not about accountability or blame.  It's just about how the process of identity works, and what consequences flow from it.  You can only choose the identity you present, you cannot choose the identity that is imposed.  It's been studied a lot, going back at least 30 years.

One of the seminal pieces of research was this one concerning the identity that comes with being homeless, written way back in 1987, and it's well worth a read.  If you can't be arsed to read the whole thing, I suggest focusing on the conclusion that starts on p29 of the pdf (which is p1363 of the journal).  That's where he discusses the implications of his ethnographic research for our understanding of the wider model of identity.  On p1367 he starts getting into tension between imposed (i.e. "social") and adopted (i.e. "personal") identity:



> The theoretical implications of these observations for understanding the relationships among role, self, and identity are several. The first and most basic pertains to the conditions under which role-based social identities and personal identities are likely to be congruent, as in embracement, or incongruent, as in distancing. Our findings suggest a set of two propositions, the first consistent with the role-identity model's structural emphasis, the second highlighting the importance of improvisation and negotiation



In his concluding paragraph, he sums up the central question:



> The central question is not whether structurally based roles and personal identities are congruent or incongruent but under what conditions they are one or the other.



This basic idea gets missed _a lot_ when debates solely concentrate on the identities people claim for themselves.  It's like one half of 30 years of research has been totally ignored or, more realistically, that people are using concepts like "identity" without understanding that although this is straightforward on the surface, there's actually a lot of depth to it that goes beyond what you can fit into a twitter soundbite.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It's not about accountability or blame.  It's just about how the process of identity works, and what consequences flow from it.  You can only choose the identity you present, you cannot choose the identity that is imposed.



No, but if moving as part of a group to impose conditions of identities on others, then you bear a burden of proof (which is what I meant by accountability, not “blame”).


----------



## kabbes (Apr 10, 2018)

8ball said:


> No, but if moving as part of a group to impose conditions of identities on others, then you bear a burden of proof (which is what I meant by accountability, not “blame”).


A burden of what proof?  There is nothing to prove.  You live in a society, that society has roles, those roles are associated with identities, you thus have a social identity.  What are you asking here, that every person you ever come into contact with be asked to explain what identity they think you have and justify themselves for it?

Did you read anything from what I linked, or did I lay it out for you for nothing?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

Handy tip: if you don’t understand a post, it’s not a good look to come over as quite the pompous, overbearing prick.

I may have time for this later.  I don’t right now.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

8ball said:


> Handy tip: if you don’t understand a post, it’s not a good look to come over as quite the pompous, overbearing prick.



My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.


always with the binaries


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> always with the binaries



Can you post that basil brush picture to indicate my appreciation/disdain for your witty pun?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.



I think your calling may be more in the area of being a conduit for irony, rather than an appreciator of it.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.


I'd assumed it was directed at himself, in a moment of self-deprecation.  If it was aimed at me, I don't know what it is I was supposed to have misunderstood.  Also, I'm a pompous prick _all_ the time, not just when I don't understand things.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think your calling may be more in the area of being a conduit for irony, rather than an appreciator of it.



Haha


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I'd assumed it was directed at himself, in a moment of self-deprecation.  If it was aimed at me, I don't know what it is I was supposed to have misunderstood.  Also, I'm a pompous prick _all_ the time, not just when I don't understand things.



You do seem to have become more generally combative recently, it's true.  Anyway, my point was about the attribution of identity in order to exercise authority (what follows below is just my opinion).  

Because society generally, as well as both sides in this group, agree on certain basic principles* and how they should be applied to particular groups and their rights, the battle has moved to who gets control of the labels and definitions (and who goes in which box).  The labels are a proxy to control of certain resources so imv any authority exercised has a duty to demonstrate legitimacy as with any resource dispute.  Although this is particularly messy and complicated case, it is nothing new. 

I have no particular quarrels with what you're saying about the mediated nature of identity, though your apparent view of power relations as something more like the weather than something with any moral dimension doesn't sit well.

* - for example - neither side in this dispute, nor society in general, would agree with the proposition "men should have unfettered access to women-only spaces"


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2018)

One of the things that has been a learning curve for me with this debate was the realisation that not everyone has a gender identity beyond the societal roles and biological sex.  I've tried to explain it, but I haven't convinced the skeptics.  I don't know if it's innate or learned, but I do know that I could not  feel more passionately "team woman" despite my serious and deliberate nonconforming to many social expectations and my not having had babies and so being a "fully-potentiated" bio woman. 

The best was I can explain, is that if I woke up tomorrow with a male body and fulfilling male social expectations, I am certain that I would still feel like a woman. 

And I honestly thought, my whole life, that everybody had this.  Or almost everyone.  But it turns out lots of people don't.  Women I love and admire have talked about the "gender prison" of being born female - and it fills me with sadness.  Society can get to fuck, misogyny is terrible - the patriarch is vile, and having periods is fully, fully shit - but being a woman is wonderful, despite that I'd change all the crap stuff if I could.  


So if gender identity exists for me, why wouldn't it exist for others - even if we are a minority? And if that's the case, why is it so hard to see that some of those people's gender identity is different from their biological sex?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> One of the things that has been a learning curve for me with this debate was the realisation that not everyone has a gender identity beyond the societal roles and biological sex.  I've tried to explain it, but I haven't convinced the skeptics.  I don't know if it's innate or learned, but I do know that I could feel more passionately "team woman" despite my serious and deliberate nonconforming to many social expectations and my not having had babies and so being a "fully-potentiated" bio woman.
> 
> The best was I can explain, is that if I woke up tomorrow with a male body and fulfilling male social expectations, I am certain that I would still feel like a woman.
> 
> ...



If 'gender identity' is just 'how you see yourself', then it's not hard to see that some others may have their own 'gender identity', or that it could be at odds with their sex (in fact, unless you think every trans person is lying, it's pretty undeniable).  But, so what?  Why is how people see themselves determinative of what they are?  Some people think they're the reincarnation of Napoleon, or that they're God's messenger.  Why should an individualistic conception of gender trump a socially constructed one?  Particularly for feminists?  After all, historically, women have been oppressed as a result of the material reality of their (as a class) biology, not because of how they saw themselves; and that oppresssion has been enacted upon them by society, not from within the individual.  All of which is a different question from whether or not we should treat people compassionately, although it becomes blurred where they overlap - the philosphical question of 'what is a woman', and the moral question of how a society should treat trans people.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

Where did I leave those deckchairs..?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> If 'gender identity' is just 'how you see yourself', then it's not hard to see that some others may have their own 'gender identity', or that it could be at odds with their sex (in fact, unless you think every trans person is lying, it's pretty undeniable).  But, so what?  Why is how people see themselves determinative of what they are?  Some people think they're the reincarnation of Napoleon, or that they're God's messenger.  Why should an individualistic conception of gender trump a socially constructed one?  Particularly for feminists?  After all, historically, women have been oppressed as a result of the material reality of their (as a class) biology, not because of how they saw themselves; and that oppresssion has been enacted upon them by society, not from within the individual.  All of which is a different question from whether or not we should treat people compassionately, although it becomes blurred where they overlap - the philosphical question of 'what is a woman', and the moral question of how a society should treat trans people.



so what eh!! if they're not normal fuck em, they should fit in or fuck off


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2018)

ddraig said:


> so what eh!! if they're not normal fuck em, they should fit in or fuck off



Errr, is that addressed at me?  If so, you don't seem to have read/understood what I wrote.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> Errr, is that addressed at me?  If so, you don't seem to have read/understood what I wrote.


oh come on



Athos said:


> But, so what? Why is how people see themselves determinative of what they are? Some people think they're the reincarnation of Napoleon, or that they're God's messenger.


you don't see this as problematic?
'all kinds of nutters making all kinds of claims' comparing people with gender dysphoria to deluded people



Athos said:


> Why should an individualistic conception of gender trump a socially constructed one?


 society/the majority knows best/ fit in or fuck off (or at the very least keep quiet)


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2018)

ddraig said:


> oh come on
> 
> 
> you don't see this as problematic?
> ...



Please don't put things I didn't say in inverted commas; they are for direct quotes.  The point wasn't about whether or not being trans is a delusion (I don't think it is), but to say that identities are largely socially (rather then individually) constructed; that's not something that can be wished away.  And it's not value judgement; it's not to suggest that society 'knows best', or that trans people should "fit in or fuck off".


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2018)

Wow, that escalated even quicker than expected!


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 10, 2018)

I don't think that either gender identity as expression of biological sex or societal roles is adequate really. I think something important that could be taken from this is that it shows how complex the development of a sense of self is. I work with children every day who struggle to know who they are, they may have been abused by their parents, they don't want to identify with a father who was violent towards their mother, they don't want identify with a mother who drank and died from alcohol related causes. Who are they then? From who do they come from? Who will they become? Who am I? isn't a simple question answered by biology or socially ascribed roles. These questions are much starker to those who have suffered early trauma in their families, but I think these struggles are common to us all. And a sense of being a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman, is part of this very complex process of finding things in common, discovering difference, in those with whom we live*.

* eta because there is so much potential for misunderstanding here, that those differences and commonalities may not be obvious, visible, or expected. Don't know if that's clearer, probably not.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> 2 - 3 women per week murdered.  Just let that sink in.



Do trans people kill them?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Do trans people kill them?



Sometimes, yes.  Why?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I think we may be talking at cross purposes.
> 
> The point I’m getting at is that I support the rights of trans people to be treated as human beings, not to be subject to violence and discrimination.
> 
> ...



Am I wrong?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 10, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It's not about accountability or blame.  It's just about how the process of identity works, and what consequences flow from it.  You can only choose the identity you present, you cannot choose the identity that is imposed.  It's been studied a lot, going back at least 30 years.
> 
> One of the seminal pieces of research was this one concerning the identity that comes with being homeless, written way back in 1987, and it's well worth a read.  If you can't be arsed to read the whole thing, I suggest focusing on the conclusion that starts on p29 of the pdf (which is p1363 of the journal).  That's where he discusses the implications of his ethnographic research for our understanding of the wider model of identity.  On p1367 he starts getting into tension between imposed (i.e. "social") and adopted (i.e. "personal") identity:
> 
> ...



This.
Identity versus identification. My annoyance with the current politics around identity[ies] stems from this (when talking about race, "class", mental health and such)... and my frustration with how self-id is [not] being debated when man/woman are both natural categories (different because biologies and whatnot) and identifications in society.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Do trans people kill them?



If you follow the thread, you'll see that


spanglechick said:


> I just said a small proportion of trans lesbians hold those views.  Not sure of how your post refutes mine.



What's a trans lesbian?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Do trans people kill them?



Er, not sure your question is relevant.  If you look at the posts leading up to mine, you'll understand the context.


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> If you follow the thread, you'll see that
> 
> 
> What's a trans lesbian?


What is the connection between sexuality and trans gender? Are most trans gender people straight (ie if they remained their original gender they would be gay)? A trans lesbian would be a trans gender woman who fancies women.


----------



## iona (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> What is the connection between sexuality and trans gender? Are most trans gender people straight (ie if they remained their original gender they would be gay)? A trans lesbian would be a trans gender woman who fancies women.



There's not any connection in the sense of one causing the other. Trans people can be straight, gay, bi or any other sexual orientation just like cis/non trans/[insert preferred terminology here] people.

There's probably stats somewhere but I cba to look right now  (my head's telling me I've read something saying trans people are more likely to be LGB+ but I might be confusing multiple half-remembered facts there)


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

I don't accept that a transwoman can be a lesbian.  There seem to be a lot of male-bodied TW accusing lesbians of transphobia cos they don't want to suck cock.  There's many trans women who would never make this demand, but the loudest voices out there at the moment are from the former.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

iona said:


> There's not any connection in the sense of one causing the other. Trans people can be straight, gay, bi or any other sexual orientation just like cis/non trans/[insert preferred terminology here] people.
> 
> There's probably stats somewhere but I cba to look right now  (my head's telling me I've read something saying trans people are more likely to be LGB+ but I might be confusing multiple half-remembered facts there)



That sounds about right from stuff I've seen/read in the last year.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Apr 10, 2018)

Lily Madigan got some stick recently for coming out as a gay woman.  I.e. is a male bodied person who is attracted to female bodied people really gay?  I know the response is they're a woman on the inside and have always been a woman.  It comes back to that key sticking point: whether you think dysphoria means you _are_ a woman and internal identity matters more than physical reality.


----------



## iona (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> <snip> I’m not trans gender, so I say this with caution. But maybe ‘feeling’ the wrong gender is feeling you are better suited to that position in society? Maybe hormones in utero, or the structure of your brain, or your natural disposition, or just a choice. No mind why, other than from scientific curiosity.
> 
> But I think I’m more like MadeInBedlam when I think that maybe the better solution is to allow people to cherry pick the parts of gender roles that fit and sod the rest. <snip>



(Obligatory "can't speak for any other trans people besides myself" disclaimer)

Transition isn't just about that stuff though. I completely agree that people should be free to be & do what they want without pressure to conform to gender roles, but I don't see that necessarily being a solution or alternative to transition.

My breasts aren't gender roles. My voice pitch isn't a gender role. The hair on my face—and my chest and my stomach and increasingly everyfuckingwhere—isn't a gender role. Neither are my genitals or the hormone levels that affect those things. If I woke up tomorrow to find the patriarchy had been dismantled and gender roles abolished and all the rest of it I'd be pleased, but I'd still be trans.


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I don't accept that a transwoman can be a lesbian.  There seem to be a lot of male-bodied TW accusing lesbians of transphobia cos they don't want to suck cock.  There's many trans women who would never make this demand, but the loudest voices out there at the moment are from the former.


To be honest it’s not really up to you? If a trans woman is attracted to women, then that’s just how it is?

It is of course utterly unacceptable that any person (trans woman or not) should demand anyone else perform sex acts on them. And would very much hope and expect that not to happen in real life?


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

iona said:


> (Obligatory "can't speak for any other trans people besides myself" disclaimer)
> 
> Transition isn't just about that stuff though. I completely agree that people should be free to be & do what they want without pressure to conform to gender roles, but I don't see that necessarily being a solution or alternative to transition.
> 
> My breasts aren't gender roles. My voice pitch isn't a gender role. The hair on my face—and my chest and my stomach and increasingly everyfuckingwhere—isn't a gender role. Neither are my genitals or the hormone levels that affect those things. If I woke up tomorrow to find the patriarchy had been dismantled and gender roles abolished and all the rest of it I'd be pleased, but I'd still be trans.


I see. Thanks for that iona

So it’s much more ‘wrong body’ for you?

(Apologies for crude phrasing).

Iona what would you like to see in terms of changes? (To society, not yourself xx)


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> To be honest it’s not really up to you? If a trans woman is attracted to women, then that’s just how it is?
> 
> It is of course utterly unacceptable that any person (trans woman or not) should demand anyone else perform sex acts on them. And would very much hope and expect that not to happen in real life?



I respect your point, but I don't accept that a male who identifies as female can be a lesbian.  It's not from a place of bigotry, it just doesn't make sense to me.   Transwomen who are attracted to women are, imo, basically straight.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 10, 2018)

For me, the definition of a lesbian is a female who is attracted to other females. Perhaps I'm too long in the tooth to see it otherwise.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I don't accept that a transwoman can be a lesbian.  There seem to be a lot of male-bodied TW accusing lesbians of transphobia cos they don't want to suck cock.  There's many trans women who would never make this demand, but the loudest voices out there at the moment are from the former.


Do you know any trans women?  


Anyway.  One of the trans lesbians I know transitioned in their early twenties and has only had girlfriends before and after.  Another was married and in their thirties, and she is still with her wife.  


Edie Trans seems to be unrelated to sexuality.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> For me, the definition of a lesbian is a female who is attracted to other females. Perhaps I'm too long in the tooth to see it otherwise.


So what would you call a cis lesbian, who was happy to be in a relationship with their trans woman partner, but not with cis men? 

Because they do exist, and I'd say they get to have the last word on whether they're in a lesbian relationship or not.


----------



## Edie (Apr 10, 2018)

shygirl said:


> For me, the definition of a lesbian is a female who is attracted to other females. Perhaps I'm too long in the tooth to see it otherwise.


I’m pretty long in the tooth too, and I find it gets very complicated quickly when you add in trying to think about sexuality. I guess by that stage it very definitely isn’t any of our business though. After all trans women cannot demand that lesbians find them attractive, any more than lesbians can or would demand that straight women find them attractive.

I think that us non trans women can raise concerns about trans women being in spaces where we feel vulnerable (wards, changing rooms) and in representing us in politics, but it’s surely not our concern whether they consider themselves lesbians?

The more I think about this issue the harder it is to pin down what exactly it is that feels threatening. The likelihood of a trans woman who is gay raping me in a changing room seems very improbable. She’d probably be more concerned with getting her cossie on under a towel while not dropping her knickers in a puddle like me. But nonetheless it still makes me anxious that I might not know a male bodied person was there.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 10, 2018)

The conflation of sex and gender in law will become a problem for lesbians if they are prevented from free associating with the kind of people who coined the word for themselves in the first place (women).

The Vanishing Point: A Reflection Upon Lesbian Erasure


----------



## iona (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> I see. Thanks for that iona
> 
> So it’s much more ‘wrong body’ for you?
> 
> ...



I mean it's complicated and shit but more or less, basically, yes.

Not ignoring second question but I'm going bed now.. (fully automated luxury gay space communism would be nice though)


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2018)

Edie said:


> I’m pretty long in the tooth too, and I find it gets very complicated quickly when you add in trying to think about sexuality. I guess by that stage it very definitely isn’t any of our business though. After all trans women cannot demand that lesbians find them attractive, any more than lesbians can or would demand that straight women find them attractive.
> 
> I think that us non trans women can raise concerns about trans women being in spaces where we feel vulnerable (wards, changing rooms) and in representing us in politics, but it’s surely not our concern whether they consider themselves lesbians?
> 
> The more I think about this issue the harder it is to pin down what exactly it is that feels threatening. The likelihood of a trans woman who is gay raping me in a changing room seems very improbable. She’d probably be more concerned with getting her cossie on under a towel while not dropping her knickers in a puddle like me. But nonetheless it still makes me anxious that I might not know a male bodied person was there.



This feels like a very honest and open post. I don't think there are many trans people who would take umbrage with what you've said (not that I can speak for them). The last paragraph is what this latest self-id argument is coming down to. 

1) You're right, trans women will have the same things on their mind as you when in these spaces.

2) Self-id for the GRC will have no effect on trans women being in a changing room (or other places like that) because they're already there, self-id already exists, we already don't have checkpoints with people asking to see birth certificates on entry.

3) While male violence towards women exists, there is nothing inherently violent about a penis, and it's not particularly helpful in the long-term to mix up rightful fear and anxiety about male violence with the fact that some (not all) trans women have a penis.

4) If a trans person is violent, that is unlikely to change the day they undergo genital surgery, so a focus on the genitalia isn't particularly helpful in this regard.

5) Where do trans men go? Would you feel more comfortable around a big, hairy, muscular, burly trans man in the same changing room as you, even if you knew he didn't have a penis? If not, why? If we're trying to smash gender stereotypes so everyone can feel comfortable wearing what they want and presenting as they want but without feeling the need to change their gender (which is what many anti-trans feminists suggest) then we should feel very comfortable in a changing room with an afab person who presents outwardly as very masculine - up until the point they turn around and say "I'm a man"? 

These are complex issues, but it's important we try to drill down to get at where our anxieties lie, what preconceptions inform them, and which structures shape them.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't think there are many trans people who would take umbrage with what you've said (not that I can speak for them).



Lol! Seriously?  If a woman posted any of the three quotes below on Twitter it'd not be long before they were, at best, branded a bigot, or, more likely, told to choke on a girl-dick, or abused in some other violent and misogynistic terms.



Edie said:


> ... trans women cannot demand that lesbians find them attractive, any more than lesbians can or would demand that straight women find them attractive.





Edie said:


> I think that us non trans women can raise concerns about trans women being in spaces where we feel vulnerable (wards, changing rooms) and in representing us in politics...





Edie said:


> ... it still makes me anxious that I might not know a male bodied person was there.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. Nice to see you again @Edie x


Oh my darling.   I'm so sorry you feel this way.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x



That's really shit. Not everyone thinks that way. Sorry you are dealing with this shit xx


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now.


Don’t do that. It’s only a handful of people you’re referring to.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

Thanks for this Vintage Paw. I think a lot of what you say is true.



Vintage Paw said:


> 1) You're right, trans women will have the same things on their mind as you when in these spaces.


Yep, important to remember that the vast majority of people no matter what orientation are just good decent folk going about there lives with absolutely no interest in you.



Vintage Paw said:


> 2) Self-id for the GRC will have no effect on trans women being in a changing room (or other places like that) because they're already there, self-id already exists, we already don't have checkpoints with people asking to see birth certificates on entry.


What are the benefits of self ID for trans? Being able to escape the medicalisation and beaurocracy of it? Not to underestimate this. A massive thing. Not to have to prove yourself to the state and doctors.

Do you think it will lead to more men just ‘trying it out’ for a short amount of time without any real intention or feeling that they’re a woman (is that a stupid question? It sounds daft). Or that some men may use it as a defence for being in woman’s spaces? What about psychiatric wards or prisons where women are very vulnerable? Or do you think there should be ‘third’ spaces, but how would this work with such low numbers?



Vintage Paw said:


> 3) While male violence towards women exists, there is nothing inherently violent about a penis, and it's not particularly helpful in the long-term to mix up rightful fear and anxiety about male violence with the fact that some (not all) trans women have a penis.


This is true. But some women do feel really scared of this, especially if the person is drunk?



Vintage Paw said:


> 4) If a trans person is violent, that is unlikely to change the day they undergo genital surgery, so a focus on the genitalia isn't particularly helpful in this regard.


Agreed



Vintage Paw said:


> 5) Where do trans men go? Would you feel more comfortable around a big, hairy, muscular, burly trans man in the same changing room as you, even if you knew he didn't have a penis? If not, why? If we're trying to smash gender stereotypes so everyone can feel comfortable wearing what they want and presenting as they want but without feeling the need to change their gender (which is what many anti-trans feminists suggest) then we should feel very comfortable in a changing room with an afab person who presents outwardly as very masculine - up until the point they turn around and say "I'm a man"?


This is also true. It’s absolutely crazy that the fear is so based around a penis, and whether the thought of a big masculine trans man just isn’t as frightening if they don’t have a penis.

A lot of it doesn’t make rational sense if you try to pin it down. But how would you feel if you were a woman locked in a cell or locked on a ward with a trans woman with a penis? It’s cringey writing this stuff about penises but that is largely what it comes down to, that fear that someone bigger and stronger than you who may want something you don’t want to give could hurt you?

There’s also what was mentioned up thread about voyers and flashers and upskirters and men that like to rub up against you. This shit is *common*. Most women have encountered multiple disgusting men of this kind and they obviously have no morals at all. I’ve been flashed three times in totally different places (on a bridge in Dublin, out running in Leeds and on an estate walking home in Brixton). These men get their kicks from basically shocking women with their dicks. This would be a green card for them? I don’t worry so much for myself as I’ve seen enough dicks to give the disgusted look and get the hell out of there, but I worry for younger girls in changing rooms.

To be clear I’d very much doubt any of those flashers was trans and there’s probably no connection between trans and sex crimes.


----------



## chilango (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x



Don't go.

You have useful things to say. 

A rare commodity these days.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x


i hope you reconsider and decide to stay


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x


Don’t do that, please.

You are actually someone I hold in my heart when thinking about issues around gender. Because your dignity, what you have been through, and your rights as a person to not have a life filled with absolute bollocks and violence just to fucking be, is so important.

I always think of you as a woman, always have. No question mate.

I feel I might of said some wrong things, so pull me up or rely on Vintage Paw or Spanglechick if you’re too fucking tired.

But ‘knowing’ you a bit, listening to what you’ve been through, it has (for however pathetically worth it this is in the face of what you’ve been through) made me stop and think about what all this may mean for you.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

I mean, Christ, I'm not even a huge fan of the self-ID changes for the GRA personally, but I granted people on here a bit more than to just regurgitate shit from social media whatever the positioning as some sort of argument line. Its full of nutcases and trolls and I don't think I ever meet anyone who believes half the shit that gets said on there. We've had ten years of radfem vs transactivist blog wars which doesn't offer anything except just making wild claims, harassment (and radfems were the ones to ramp this shit up first), and they still quoted openly as sensible sources. I utterly despair sitting in the middle, just looking at this all and thinking, just use a bit of everyday humanity, experience, and logic in all this. Not because some unhinged lookatmememe cunt on the internet says something and everything kicks off 10x. Fuck me.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

Thanks @Edie. Not aimed at you at all, just my utter despair at the lack of sense in all this stuff, like the rest of politics, etc. now.


----------



## chilango (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> ...just use a bit of everyday humanity, experience, and logic in all this. Not because some unhinged lookatmememe cunt on the internet says something and everything kicks off 10x. Fuck me.



You see what I mean about having something useful to say!


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x



That would be a great loss to this place. You're one of a small number of posters who know their onions. Please reconsider.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> I mean, Christ, I'm not even a huge fan of the self-ID changes for the GRA personally, but I granted people on here a bit more than to just regurgitate shit from social media whatever the positioning as some sort of argument line. Its full of nutcases and trolls and I don't think I ever meet anyone who believes half the shit that gets said on there. We've had ten years of radfem vs transactivist blog wars which doesn't offer anything except just making wild claims, harassment (and radfems were the ones to ramp this shit up first), and they still quoted openly as sensible sources. I utterly despair sitting in the middle, just looking at this all and thinking, just use a bit of everyday humanity, experience, and logic in all this. Not because some unhinged lookatmememe cunt on the internet says something and everything kicks off 10x. Fuck me.


Yes yes yes a hundred times.

This debate needs to be taken back from the absolute dickheads on there tweets and blogs saying bonkers extreme shit that just has no bearing on reality. Who wouldn’t even say or think that given half an hour round an actual table with real people with their struggles and fears.

Fuck the stupid people and the ideological rants. They are the real enemy here.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x



I'm so sorry you feel like this.  It's only a handful of people here who would say you're not a woman, surely?


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

iona said:


> (fully automated luxury gay space communism would be nice though)


This made me laugh btw


----------



## weepiper (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope please don't go. I sincerely hope I'm not one of the people you feel are driving you away. I absolutely consider you to be a woman.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 11, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Clearly, despite having posted many many times over the years on this stuff, and relating my own complex situation pretty openly, and people here even having met me, I'm not a woman in their eyes. Oh well, I think its best just to cut ties with urban now. I've had a good time mostly, cheers to all I've met and had good times with. I can't be done with this 'debate', especially how social media seems to have turned it into an utter fucking mess of dishonesty. Nice to see you again @Edie x



Don’t leave. I’ve been trying to get drawn into this less (sometimes failing  ); I’m interested in the philosophical question but at the same time don’t have a dog in the race and it isn’t going to affect me either way. 
And as Chilango says, you know you’re stuff and that’s a dying breed on here of late.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 11, 2018)

Edie said:


> This made me laugh btw



That's the next band name sorted. 

Also, stethoscope: what they said.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

Fucking hell thats really made me think.

If some how the debate we’re having is somehow driving away the very bloody people for who this is about trying to help make the world less shit for, then we’re having this debate wrong.

Because no matter how bloody trying and scary it can be being a woman (and a man no doubt too at times), that pales in the face of how fucking intimidating and hard and exclusionary it must be to be trans.

There has gotta be a better way to talk about the changes that trans and intersex people need and deserve from society, whilst also recognising the fears from non trans folk, especially women’s fears around men.

I dunno how. But somehow it shouldn’t be tolerated to hold up this shit on twitter and say ‘trans women want to force you to suck dick or punch you’ or ‘terfs think this that or the other violent bullshit’. Like that somehow is the case when it just blatantly isn’t.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 11, 2018)

Can I just say Edie - how refreshing your contributions here have been.  So glad to see you back.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

Thing is, life is bloody trying and scary for many of us - whether we be average 2.4 families, single mothers, working class men long-term unemployed, LGBT, black, have disabilities or care for those that do, whatever. At this time more than any, I get most fucked off by the fact that working class and 'left' people particularly, are battling away at each other more than ever whilst we're in a fucking horrendous state of affairs of austerity - the erosion of the welfare state, kids killing each other around my old ends for fun, privatisation of every little bit of last social provision we have around us, etc. So much time spent now othering and attacking for difference. We need to get back to celebrating real life community and what unites us more than ever. We definitely need to stop hopeless politics based on 'identity'.

I'm not going to dismiss any woman's concerns about the potential misuse of self-id, and I've called out pricks who also consider themselves trans for some pretty dubious comments before on this stuff (although unsurprisingly, on occasion its turned out to be not someone trans at all, but a loudmouth lad who thinks he's doing trans people some sort of favour). I think what frustrates me so much is how any way of trying to properly discuss this has already become so ingrained in toxic, hateful ways, magnified by social media because its not a 'tool' for this. In some ways, it would have been better for womens and trans support/healthcare/political groups, government, etc observing that clearly what mostly originated through a social media/internet war of words, and then occasionally spilling out into the offline world, to have got together themselves a bit more organised early on and they could have set the tone for any discussion, ensuring better that it was held in meetings, surveys in a respectful and honest way, using facts and figures that sets out to find compromise and not smear and create fear either way. For that reason, I get a little frustrated that comrades I admire like Serwotka have become so easily aligned with this stuff - I'd expect people like her to sit back a bit and not get pulled into especially social media 'upping the ante', doesn't mean she can't still take an ideological line on some of it, but realising that so much of this is social media generated bullshit and that ultimately, the real world turns. But then, that seems to be how all political discourse happens now. Like Bellos after years and years of knowing Kaveney and seemingly respecting her transition, then suddenly and deliberately starts to misgender. I mean, it's just pathetic and posturing as this politics has become.

I get frustrated because when I was involved in a lot of trans/feminism stuff some years ago, we really started to build up proper alliances of sometimes quite opposing thought all realising that they are united by more things than split.

The GRA stuff baffles me a bit. If anything, the GRA needed the spousal veto resolving, not really this. Besides, the GRA is a piece of paper that is taken up by very few trans people usually after they've done all their psychiatry assessments, their hormones, their 2 years 'in real life experience', and often surgery too. I'm not a big fan of the State particularly having the say on who's now a 'reassigned female/male' and charging people for the benefit, but the GRA is what it is. Ironically, the GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) isn't even supposed to be something that is readily talked about or 'showed'. It's supposed to be something that gets locked away in a box with a new birth certificate for the benefit of legal reasons, pensions, originally so trans people could marry opposite sex in the pre-same sex marriage days, and in case they get discriminated against.

In everyday life, most trans people just get on with their transition, tend to use the toilets of their acquired gender (sex), and are usually very reluctant to even using changing rooms, etc. until they have some level of comfortability in themselves in doing so but also that they're not going to get abuse/have found some level of 'passing' (horrible term, but yes, it exists in terms of self-protection in a gendered society). That's always happened, and always will. Most trans people I know, always felt some sort of, well 'privilege' isn't quite the right word, but appreciation and sensitivity of the space (especially women's) they are in - whether that be toilet, etc. because they've never been 'explicitly invited' (nor have trans men). But on the whole they are accepted. And for the overwhelming majority, they just want to go to toilet, etc. without any hassle.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

Yes and that’s the reality isn’t it


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2018)

.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

...


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 11, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Obviously I'm not woman enough for urban 75.
> 
> Bye.



Eh?

You keep doing this Sea Star , and while I understand that you feel upset and ill used on here, I’d say that it’s just not true that you’re “not woman enough” for this place. I think of you as a woman, it’s only when you do this that I stop and remember that there are issues around it for you. Please consider that the people who are posting strongly or wrongly or both are those who are trying to work things out in their own heads, and so they might get things muddled or need clarification or schooling. There are loads of us who don’t say much but who don’t feel any umbrage or weirdness about your womanhood. In fact, I’d say that my own schooling is about how tough this all is for folks like you and stethoscope , because in my world it really isn’t very much of an issue at all. I’ve really learned a lot about now different it is outside my bubble.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 11, 2018)

And stethoscope : I really hope you do stick around. Not only do I find your postings on these matters really insightful and interesting, I also really enjoy your music stuff too.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2018)

I was doing fine on here - mending bridges from the last shit show - my mental health had improved - and I was starting to enjoy being on urban 75 again.

Then this shit show started and I tried to keep it together, but on Sunday night my mood plummeted and I felt suicidal. Since then I've been anxious and not able to deal with anything.

So I have to go. If this place had been even vaguely supportive I might not be going, but I can't take the damage this is doing to my mental health.


----------



## nogojones (Apr 11, 2018)

shygirl said:


> There seem to be a lot of male-bodied TW accusing lesbians of transphobia cos they don't want to suck cock.



Do you have some links for this? I'd be interested in reading how this plays out


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

...


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2018)

I'm going. Nobody wants me here. Bye.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'm going. Nobody wants me here. Bye.


Hey look if you do have to go for a bit then good luck to you. God knows I’ve had to take extended breaks from here when it’s all doing my head in and/or (mostly and) I’ve acted like a twat.

But as and when you can, pop back and say hullo.

These things can get heated, and this is personal for you, I get it. But take care of yourself x


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 11, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'm going. Nobody wants me here. Bye.



Stella, you know that's not true. Maybe it is best if you take a break for a bit and come back when you are feeling a bit better. FWIW I'm really sorry to hear things have gone down hill for you again, it was really nice reading your three positives recently. Try and take care of you ❤


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 11, 2018)

Edie said:


> Thanks for this Vintage Paw. I think a lot of what you say is true.
> 
> 
> Yep, important to remember that the vast majority of people no matter what orientation are just good decent folk going about there lives with absolutely no interest in you.
> ...



As well as stethoscope's excellent contributions, you might find this post useful to answer some of your questions.

In particular, when you ask "Do you think it will lead to more men just ‘trying it out’ for a short amount of time without any real intention or feeling that they’re a woman (is that a stupid question? It sounds daft). Or that some men may use it as a defence for being in woman’s spaces?" the answer is absolutely and categorically no. 

I think the term 'self-id' is confusing. A lot of the current meetings and campaigns and so on are regarding extending self-id to cover applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate. As stethoscope explained, and as the post I just linked to explains, it's not something that all trans people apply for anyway, and is mostly only required to change the sex entry on your birth certificate and a couple of other random legal things. It's not in any way required to live as or identify as your preferred gender. 

Self-id already exists, just not for the purposes of obtaining that GRC. So a person can already self-id and change their passport, their banking details, their name, and almost everything else. They can enter any space they want. It's already easy to 'try it out' if someone wanted to (easy being a relative term, considering the discrimination and bigotry that comes with being visibly trans in public). Extending self-id to obtaining a GRC will not have any impact on that. It is, as you suggested, about reducing medicalisation and bureaucracy, both of which can be very stressful.

Unfortunately, some of the anti-trans people aren't arguing in good faith, and often confuse the issue so as to make people believe this current GRC consultation will mean 'men' suddenly turning up in women's toilets and changing rooms and prisons and shelters*. It's a dangerous argument, because the end result is a push to roll back protections trans people already have for accessing spaces that align with their gender, and increases their visibility and puts them at even more risk of being targeted while being visibly trans in public. Some trans people who transitioned early in their lives are able to 'pass' far more easily, and they're not as visible (raising the point that how on earth would you know if there was a trans woman or trans man sharing a space with you?), but many trans people transition later in life, and can often encounter more obstacles and be more visible. Public life is dangerous for them, and conflating the consultation on self-id for a GRC with scares around trans women existing in gendered spaces just puts them in even more danger.

*It's worth pointing out there are already laws in place to allow for individual decisions to be made in terms of whether trans people will be housed in the prison estate matching their gender or not, and in terms of safety re shelters etc. And as regards prisons, prison is an incredibly violent place, and we would do better to focus on prison safety more broadly rather than targeting potential violence from trans women prisoners, otherwise it just seems like a bad faith excuse to further marginalise them.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

I see. Thanks for that Vintage Paw 

I’m not sure what I thought it was, but from what you’ve put (and the thread you linked to by JD Sargan) that it won’t in effect make any difference as anybody is already at liberty to self identity as the opposite gender and use toilets/changing rooms as appropriate.

Which of course I kind of knew anyway, as you don’t tend to get IDd on the way to the loo.

It sounds like that much at least is a storm in a teacup.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

From the link in the OP, it seems that this issue, rather than the practical reality of extending self ID, is the problem:


> Altering the definition of the word ‘female’ so that it now means ‘any person who believes themselves to be female’ is not only conceptually incoherent (more on this later); it also removes the possibility of analysing the structural oppression of female persons as a class, by eradicating the terminology we use to describe the material conditions of their existence.



What are yours (or anyone’s) thoughts on that?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 11, 2018)

I think the law change is providing a moment of heightened attention, which has then drawn out a lot of peoples' genuine concerns as well as provided a lot of prejudiced people the opportunity to hide their more simplistic bigotry behind those with more genuine issues.  Just as there is a small misogynistic faction in trans activism, there clearly are transphobes in society - people who think being trans is a phase or a choice or a curable mental or psychosexual disorder or worse (I'm reminded of hardcore homophobes)... and of course those people are masking themselves in the legitimacy of those with genuine concerns for women's safety.   

I don't know what I think about every issue.  I don't give a single hoot about sport, but clearly there's no easy solution there.  The issue of women-only shorlists I suspect should include transwomen, but I do understand the issue...

There are important conversations to be had, but there's very little chance of that when extremists on either side are marshalling debate.  We have a issue with literally millions of valid perspectives in the uk alone and currently the only ones being heard are those shouting the loudest. The use of intersex men and women as some kind of argument-winning unicorn means those voices are in danger of being entirely hijacked. 

I dunno the answer.  I don't know how urgent it is to solve the problem RIGHT NOW, when all the problems for everyone involved have been going on for ages.  I wonder if the manufactured sense of urgency is causing problems (the heightened perception of fear, the concern that being trans is "trendy", trans people feeling under more overt attack...)

My own understanding of trans arose out of knowing trans people.  With each new trans friend or relation I developed an insight.  I can't help feeling like, when not trans people actually know more trans people, it'll become less of an issue.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 11, 2018)

Edie said:


> From the link in the OP, it seems that this issue, rather than the practical reality of extending self ID, is the problem:
> 
> 
> What are yours (or anyone’s) thoughts on that?


I'm not sure who is altering the meaning of "female".


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

Wow, that blog that’s linked to is quite full on 

I really do not think that trans gender women are on some mission to eradicate the very existence of women. I can’t in my wildest dreams imagine that’s anybodies agenda.

On the other hand, there’s something there that’s uncomfortable. A feeling that if you take away the meaning of being a woman you take away some of our power, our shared identity. I’ll stop now as I don’t know what I’m talking about.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

That paragraph seems to appear in a number of known anti-trans blogs but originates in a single document about Delaware, so extrapolating that to some wording that's actually being used in a proposed consultation document in the UK relating to the GRA is again, something I find just unhelpful and dishonest (not you Edie, obviously). What is actually being proposed specifically here, and by whom, with what agenda.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 11, 2018)

I mean, an urbanite actually retweeted this amongst other slightly concerning stuff recently...







I mean its just utter bullshittery (dangerous bullshittery) and dishonest, and its about as far away from any useful discussion that we should have over any self-id stuff and how that affects women. It was also a fucking reply to a radfem celebrating a piece by Brendan fucking o'Neill. About as anti-left/woman a cunt I've had the misfortune once to meet.

I know enough trans men who have had abuse in the men's, let alone trans women being in them. And I know that barely any trans people ever report this stuff out of fear too. I've had a man being sexually violent towards me having just walked to the door in the ladies too. Christ, am I really expected, as a woman with a fucking woman's bits (ok, not reproductive ones), to go to the men's? Shall I keep my GRC in my pocket just in case?

And where do trans men stand in all this? Is it like the US where dykes start to get pulled up by conservative women for 'looking a bit like a bloke', where trans men end up forced to enter the ladies too despite having beards and been at the gym pumped up because someone overly adopts a bad law? A minority of people who are trans, going to the toilet they 'present as'. I mean, really? 'Validation'? Fucks sake.

To said urbanite, I'm disappointed btw. You can have your opinions on stuff, but, this is so very disappointing.


----------



## Edie (Apr 11, 2018)

Coming through loud and clear and I’m listening.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

Change of venue then! the Hollan House hotel have cancelled the event being there.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

Mercure Cardiff HH (@MercureCardifHH) on Twitter


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

I've just caught up with the last couple of pages, I'm really sorry that Stethoscope and Sea Star feel hurt, let down and unwanted on Urban.   It was never my intention, in posting about the event, for people to end up feeling that way.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

lots of terfs kicking off about it! oh dear


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I've just caught up with the last couple of pages, I'm really sorry that Stethoscope and Sea Star feel hurt, let down and unwanted on Urban.   It was never my intention, in posting about the event, for people to end up feeling that way.


there are real life consequences to these meetings and how they're framed


----------



## Edie (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I've just caught up with the last couple of pages, I'm really sorry that Stethoscope and Sea Star feel hurt, let down and unwanted on Urban.   It was never my intention, in posting about the event, for people to end up feeling that way.


shygirl I think it’s perfectly fine to have posted it, and that a discussion needs to be had x


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

As above, the venue for the 'Woman's Place UK' meeting has had to be changed due to trans activists contacting the Mercure to say WPUK is a hate group.

Does anyone here honestly believe that WPUK is a hate group?
Does it deserve to be no-platformed in this way?

I'm so upset about it.  I have fought fucking fascists and hate groups in the flesh, I know what they look like.   WPUK is not a hate group, it's a growing group of women who want to be able to debate some, imo, well-founded concerns about self-id and what that might mean for girls and women.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> there are real life consequences to these meetings and how they're framed



There is nothing offensive in the literature relating to the event I posted on here.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

Edie said:


> shygirl I think it’s perfectly fine to have posted it, and that a discussion needs to be had x



Thanks Edie, I'm not apologising for posting it, I'm sorry that Stethoscope and Sea Star have been hurt by that and the subsequent conversation on here.  It's terribly messy and upsetting for a lot of us.  As a woman who has experienced sexual abuse as a child, and other traumatic incidents at the hands of men, I am distressed at the thought of male-bodied people in female-only spaces.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> lots of terfs kicking off about it! oh dear




You're getting your rocks off on this aren't you Ddraig?   Show me the hatred in the flier I posted.   Acknowledge the blatant lies that have been told to Mercure in order to get the venue cancelled.   

WPUK is not a hate group.  As usual, the hate is coming from trans activists.  yet again attempting to close down any discussion about these matters.  Shame on you.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 12, 2018)

I'm more distressed at the thought of trans women being excluded from women-only spaces.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> You're getting your rocks off on this aren't you Ddraig?   Show me the hatred in the flier I posted.   Acknowledge the blatant lies that have been told to Mercure in order to get the venue cancelled.
> 
> WPUK is not a hate group.  As usual, the hate is coming from trans activists.  yet again attempting to close down any discussion about these matters.  Shame on you.


no i'm not, i'm providing a link to the discussion on twitter, why assume that?

you said you were just posting an event which is/was disingenuous 

obviously the group is intelligent enough not to put hatred in the flyer
what blatant lies have been used to shut the event down?
and as discussed there is no discussion, it's a closed shop event preaching to the converted

shame on me?? really? why now?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 12, 2018)

If discussing something is by its very nature going to be painful and difficult for some people, does that mean we just shouldn't ever discuss it?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

no, but including those people might be a start
and an extension of that logic, for some, would be allowing racists to hold meetings as long as they were just to "discuss" issues and potential issues


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> As above, the venue for the 'Woman's Place UK' meeting has had to be changed due to trans activists contacting the Mercure to say WPUK is a hate group.
> 
> Does anyone here honestly believe that WPUK is a hate group?
> Does it deserve to be no-platformed in this way?
> ...




I know fuck all about it, however i did see a video of that Ruth woman taking the piss out of people dressed as dogs.... for whatever reason.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> no, but including those people might be a start
> and an extension of that logic, for some, would be allowing racists to hold meetings as long as they were just to "discuss" issues and potential issues



You're saying racists shouldn't be "allowed" to associate with each other, as opposed to saying people should be able to refuse to host their meetings or disseminate their propaganda (ie. the "no platform" position)?


----------



## Edie (Apr 12, 2018)

I think that’s regrettable. And will only make the situation worse.

How do you think women will respond to effectively being told to stfu?


----------



## Edie (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> no, but including those people might be a start
> and an extension of that logic, for some, would be allowing racists to hold meetings as long as they were just to "discuss" issues and potential issues


Tbf that’s exactly what I _do_ think.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> If discussing something is by its very nature going to be painful and difficult for some people, does that mean we just shouldn't ever discuss it?



I think being careful where and how we discuss it, and trying to keep it all in good faith, is a good place to start from.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> You're saying racists shouldn't be "allowed" to associate with each other, as opposed to saying people should be able to refuse to host their meetings or disseminate their propaganda (ie. the "no platform" position)?


no, i said for some
what do you think happens next when racists are "allowed" to have meetings and organise freely?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

I shared the flier BECAUSE I support the event.  Not at all disingenous.

How about you answer my question, where's the hate in the flier?[/QUOTE]


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> no, but including those people might be a start
> and an extension of that logic, for some, would be allowing racists to hold meetings as long as they were just to "discuss" issues and potential issues





ddraig said:


> no, but including those people might be a start
> and an extension of that logic, for some, would be allowing racists to hold meetings as long as they were just to "discuss" issues and potential issues



But racists, by their very definition, are a hate group.   Where's the hate in A Woman's Place, you haven't given me an answer to that question.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

sort out your post 571 please shygirl 
and i already answered that one, of course there wouldn't be hate in the flyer


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

Attempts have been made to discuss this openly, back last September, but women got their venues closed down, as has happened today.  It's as if actual facts about things that have happened, such as Helen Steel and the other woman at the Anarchist Book-fair, and the woman being punched in Hyde Park, when women have tried to debate or inform about our concerns, are not being heard.  These thinks have happened. It's why women are keeping venues secret, we're fucking scared of being punched or screamed at.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> no, i said for some
> what do you think happens next when racists are "allowed" to have meetings and organise freely?



Does that "some" include you?
What do you think happens next when free association between individuals is controlled by a central authority based on whether they are considered desirable?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Does that "some" include you?
> What do you think happens next when free association between individuals is controlled by a central authority based on whether they are considered desirable?


central authority?? wtf?

shygirl please sort out the mess of post 571, you're misquoting me


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> ...of course there wouldn't be hate in the flyer



Tbf, I'm a little suspicious about the reference to 'male supporters of transactivism'.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> central authority?? wtf?
> 
> shygirl please sort out the mess of post 571, you're misquoting me



It looks like I quoted you but didn't say anything, from what i can see.  What is it you want me to do, I'm confused.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

Do you mean post 572?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> It looks like I quoted you but didn't say anything, from what i can see.  What is it you want me to do, I'm confused.


you need to remove your 2 lines from before the [/QUOTE] and paste them below
thanks


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

I think I cut some of your quote.  Anyway, I've taken the offending piece out for the sake of peace.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

thank you


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> central authority?? wtf?



You have a point; I was making an assumption there.  I suppose we could police meetings of individuals with a loose network of vigilante groups.
Send the inquisitor round first to assess their arguments, if approved then fine.  If not, then a mild punishment beating as a warning with more serious action to be taken if further association is confirmed.  Could use a blockchain network to keep track of suspects without any need to centralise the organisation.


----------



## Edie (Apr 12, 2018)

Don’t worry about the quoting business shygirl , just do your best.

More importantly I think, the question she asked you ddraig is where is the hate in the adverts for the event?

Because if there’s no hate, then what’s just happened is that trans activists have closed down this meeting using a tactic of accusing a group of hate for _disagreeing_ with them.

And that’s very thin ice indeed.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

Edie said:


> Don’t worry about the quoting business shygirl , just do your best.
> 
> More importantly I think, the question she asked you ddraig is where is the hate in the adverts for the event?
> 
> ...


and i said of course there wouldn't be hate in the flyer
doesn't mean that there's not hate or bigotry in the meeting
people i know are distressed at this meeting and people involved, it clearly very much upsets the trans community who are not included, it's not public and it's not a debate
as far as i understand it's not just about disagreeing it's about the non inclusion and presumption of why some would transition to get access to women and girls etc etc etc
I don't claim to fully understand it and won't be going tonight


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

I'm looking forward to hearing the speakers tonight, but am dreading any pre-meeting confrontations with protesters.  Feeling anxious and a little bit sick, tbh , but can't back out at this late stage.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> You have a point; I was making an assumption there.  I suppose we could police meetings of individuals with a loose network of vigilante groups.
> Send the inquisitor round first to assess their arguments, if approved then fine.  If not, then a mild punishment beating as a warning with more serious action to be taken if further association is confirmed.  Could use a blockchain network to keep track of suspects without any need to centralise the organisation.


don't be a dick, or try maybe


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

right, going outside, offline


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> right, going outside, offline



I would guess the ironing is calling.  There does seem to be a lot of it.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> I'm looking forward to hearing the speakers tonight, but am dreading any pre-meeting confrontations with protesters.  Feeling anxious and a little bit sick, tbh , but can't back out at this late stage.


Is there someone else going that you can meet up with round the corner and walk in together?


----------



## Edie (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> and i said of course there wouldn't be hate in the flyer
> doesn't mean that there's not hate or bigotry in the meeting
> people i know are distressed at this meeting and people involved, it clearly very much upsets the trans community who are not included, it's not public and it's not a debate
> as far as i understand it's not just about disagreeing it's about the non inclusion and presumption of why some would transition to get access to women and girls etc etc etc
> I don't claim to fully understand it and won't be going tonight


So they’ve been closed down because _some_ people think there _might_ be hate speech, and find that thought distressing.

That’s not good enough for that level of censorship. Why can’t these women’s views be heard?

Trans people were invited to attend, but not to speak (a mistake imo).


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

I'm meeting a bunch of people before-hand, thanks weepiper, so there's some safety in numbers, but the very idea of us being confronted is itself upsetting me.   This from someone who fought the NF on Waterloo Bridge and helped 'steward' some Irish marches with Red Action...dew, dew, don't know what's happened to me!


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

it's duw duw fwiw


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

It was okay when you knew you were fighting fash, but this is so different, this is people who, for the best part, are on the left and pretty sound on other issues.  You just don't expect to be shouted down by your own side, if that makes sense.  That's what is so distressing, that and being called a bigot or nazi when you've spent most of your life fighting injustice and bigotry.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 12, 2018)

ddraig said:


> it's duw duw fwiw



Shame


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Shame



geiriadur kift

(possibly)


----------



## Ralph Llama (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Acknowledge the blatant lies that have been told to Mercure in order to get the venue cancelled.



They WHAT ?!


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

I'm not aloud to know the new location in case I'm the mole... apparently


----------



## Old Gergl (Apr 12, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> ...


Catching up, I see you've deleted some posts. I hope you haven't gone, because I wanted to say this:

I don't post much, but I do read. There's a handful of posters here who keep me coming back. People with opinions I've come to really respect, with insightful observations and incisive political comments. Yourself, butchers, danny. I could count a few more off on my fingers but not many.

This place would be much the worse without your contributions.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

Ranbay said:


> I'm not aloud to know the new location in case I'm the mole... apparently


That was because of this:

But if you went to the original venue you will have been redirected to the new location






Feminists hit back after Cardiff hotel cancels Women's Place UK event following online pressure


----------



## Ralph Llama (Apr 12, 2018)

When people exclude me from political activity due to me being `too radical`, I say... fuck them, they are not worth bothering with/contributing to. I do not try to sab their movement. But that`s just me.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That was because of this:
> Snip
> Feminists hit back after Cardiff hotel cancels Women's Place UK event following online pressure




the point is i wasn't the mole... or am i the mole... but i was accused of being the mole.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> When people exclude me from political activity due to me being `too radical`, I say... fuck them, they are not worth bothering with/contributing to. I do not try to sab their movement. But that`s just me.



No woman, no man, no trans has ever been excluded from a WPUK meeting.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

I just want to know what the Ruth Women had against people dressing up as dogs


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 12, 2018)

Old Gergl said:


> Catching up, I see you've deleted some posts. I hope you haven't gone, because I wanted to say this:
> 
> I don't post much, but I do read. There's a handful of posters here who keep me coming back. People with opinions I've come to really respect, with insightful observations and incisive political comments. Yourself, butchers, danny. I could count a few more off on my fingers but not many.
> 
> This place would be much the worse without your contributions.



Same for me.

I hope you're still here stethoscope.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

Well there was no trouble at all at the new venue.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

Ranbay said:


> I just want to know what the Ruth Women had against people dressing up as dogs



You dressed up as a dog for the meeting?


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

Ranbay said:


> Well there was no trouble at all at the new venue.


Nope.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Nope.




Yeah that's literally what i said.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> You dressed up as a dog for the meeting?



I'm not there.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I think the law change is providing a moment of heightened attention, which has then drawn out a lot of peoples' genuine concerns as well as provided a lot of prejudiced people the opportunity to hide their more simplistic bigotry behind those with more genuine issues.  Just as there is a small misogynistic faction in trans activism, there clearly are transphobes in society - people who think being trans is a phase or a choice or a curable mental or psychosexual disorder or worse (I'm reminded of hardcore homophobes)... and of course those people are masking themselves in the legitimacy of those with genuine concerns for women's safety.
> 
> I don't know what I think about every issue.  I don't give a single hoot about sport, but clearly there's no easy solution there.  The issue of women-only shorlists I suspect should include transwomen, but I do understand the issue...
> 
> ...




this. 

I've been doing a lot of rethinking of my own politics recently and I think this is true. People do have concerns but I really do not think this is the most important issue in feminism, trans people are not going to 'erase' women or female biology or anything like that. I also think that some of the legitimate concerns around eg medicalisation or what have you (which is frankly more of an issue in the US, rather than the UK where people have to wait years for anything like that) are being used and taken advantage of to legitimise bigotry against some of the most vulnerable people in society.

I admit I have fallen for this stuff in the past and I am sorry for anyone I upset or hurt because of that. 

Trans people are not the enemy and some of the things said by people such as 'the women's place' etc are extreme and sound like a conspiracy theory. I also think that people need to be careful assuming that just because someone has a good record of activism in other areas it automatically means that their views are going to be sound on this.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> But racists, by their very definition, are a hate group.   Where's the hate in A Woman's Place, you haven't given me an answer to that question.



I can't comment on that particular event but I do know that whenever this topic comes up there are people who come out of the woodwork to post extreme, discriminatory stuff. You can't tell me that it is all about concerns about women's privacy, maybe that's how it started out but I don't think it is now. The recent stuff with the youtube shooter for instance, when people were posting a conspiracy theory that she was 'really' trans and evidence of this was being deleted from the internet. Disgusting shit.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> I can't comment on that particular event but I do know that whenever this topic comes up there are people who come out of the woodwork to post extreme, discriminatory stuff. You can't tell me that it is all about concerns about women's privacy, maybe that's how it started out but I don't think it is now. The recent stuff with the youtube shooter for instance, when people were posting a conspiracy theory that she was 'really' trans and evidence of this was being deleted from the internet. Disgusting shit.





> After all, if we could trust media, and people in general, not to lie about biological sex, there would be no need for such speculation.



Speculation about mass shooter’s sex isn’t sexism, it’s a result of systematic gaslighting about biological sex of trans-identified perpetrators


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2018)

Might jump in the Albany for a pint, it’s taking ages to finish


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> WordPress.com



Do you really think that if she was trans that someone would not have reported it?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

and yeah there are predatory men, and people do lie about things. That doesn't mean that there is any basis to make up a conspiracy theory which just seems to be aimed at stirring up hate and fear. If there is any evidence that she was actually trans I would like to see it, but I don't think there is.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> and yeah there are predatory men, and people do lie about things. That doesn't mean that there is any basis to make up a conspiracy theory which just seems to be aimed at stirring up hate and fear. If there is any evidence that she was actually trans I would like to see it, but I don't think there is.



Not the point of the article. When people are wholesale marked as bigots as soon as they enter the debate, when they read article after article dismissing their concerns as anti-trans and when they see women being attacked for describing raped baby girls as "female" while political party wings advertise lying on medical forms it's only natural they'll see conspiracy. It's up to others to stand up against it but they don't. It's not politically expedient to stop it. Choices have been made and not by women. When they speculate they are guilty again but by then they've ceased to care (I, for example, don't even though different reasons prevented me from speculating about the shooter's sex).


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

from that link: 



> Hi [redacted]! In my experience, “transphobia” is an accusation thrown almost exclusivelly at women who challenge trans narrative, even if unintentionally, and it is more indicative of gaslighting than women’s “biases”. The only “transphobes” are men who commit violence against trans people, and especially transwomen, and they are almost never discussed in that context.



if you can't challenge the 'trans narrative' without being accused of transphobia, maybe you should ask yourself why.


----------



## Edie (Apr 12, 2018)

frogwoman it’s not the most important issue in feminism, it’s really frustrating the way it’s become that.

But you mention crime, and the article posted above raises a point. Men have undisputedly higher levels of violent crime than women. If trans women have a similar level of violence as men, but their crimes are logged and counted as women’s crime, what does that mean? What might be the effects of that?

One effect might be a seeming decrease in the statistics of male violence, and an increase of ‘female’ violence. Might that muddy understanding of sex biased crime?
Might it lead to a reduction in schemes and policies that protect women?

I don’t know! I don’t. Maybe the numbers would be too small to be of any influence. Maybe taking female hormones would make trans men more likely to act and behave like women when it comes to violent crime. 

But the fact is that no one yet knows. So I think the concern is, if you jump straight to the demand that says ‘trans women are women’ and there must be no discrimination between trans women and women (in policy, in public spaces, in statistics, in language) then that feels like it might be, that it COULD be, bad news for women.

Maybe not. But enough surely that we must be able to talk about this, without being accused of bigotry and hatred.

God damn, we have put up with fucking centuries of male violence, we are allowed to bloody discuss this!


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> from that link:
> 
> 
> 
> if you can't challenge the 'trans narrative' without being accused of transphobia, maybe you should ask yourself why.



Oh but we do. It's just that our answers only get "You're a bigot!" retorts (unless we're trans, in which case we're "useful idiots")


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

I think relatively speaking the number of trans women is so low that if it really makes a dent in the figures it will only serve to show the disparity due to being born male, or just not make a dent, in which case it will point towards the toxic effects of being socialised as male.  Whichever way it pans out, I hope it could lead to some progress.

Edit: sorry, that was in response to Edie


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

MochaSoul Edie what do you think about this? 

Facts Matter; Challenging the myths about self identification

I think a bigger problem for women is the wholesale assault on public services during the last 30 years and especially since 2008, rather than a small number of trans people.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 12, 2018)

shygirl said:


> But racists, by their very definition, are a hate group.   Where's the hate in A Woman's Place, you haven't given me an answer to that question.



What utter bollocks. racism isn't about a few bad eggs. it isn't about some random bloke off the street calling you a turkish cunt.

Racism and anti-blackness infects every facet of reality we engage with. Racism is downplaying peoples personal and political agency. racism is depriving people of community resources. racism is making it much, much harder in a legal and professional context for the people being marginalised. Racism is about the education system telling you you are second class and must prostrate beneath whities feet from day fucking one. Racism is about using people as token bait (romas, irish, greek etc) about accentuating capitalist divisions within the working class. racism is about centuries of whitewashing of history. Racism is gendered, racism is patriarchal. Racism is about domestic abuse, about rape, about drugs, cops getting off scott free. racism is about war crimes and the way we respond to them. And I could go on and on.

Frankly I'm appalled that in 2018 we can still discuss racism as if its just hate crime. On an anarchist forum no less.

Go back to your treacherous imperialists in the lp, then.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

This article seems to be challenging some of the radical feminist claims about trans people in quite a detailed debunking.



> We at Be also recognise that there may be a need for single sex spaces. however, binary trans people are not a third gender, or their assigned at birth gender. Trans women are women, trans men are men, we will be repeating that a lot in this article. So, the only reason to be concerned about single sex spaces is because you do not believe that fact. This is often phrased along the lines of -“_If you allow trans people in single sex spaces Jimmy the Rapist will put on a dress to attack women_“. This is called a dog whistle. The person is actually saying that they believe that trans women are men who put on dresses to falsely access women only spaces. Whilst there is no law stopping men using women’s toilets (or vice versa, as any visit to a busy nightclub will  show you) there are laws against rape, assault and violence. Preventing trans people accessing single sex spaces does not change these laws.





> We work with organisations to improve their data collection methods, knowing how many trans service users a hospital trust has (for example) means they can provide better services. Knowing how many people on file do not need to be called in for a cervical smear test (because they do not have a cervix) saves money. Knowing how many people whose medical records say “male” who might need breast cancer screening because they are trans men saves lives. Having accurate data on all sections of the population helps everyone. There is no push to stop collecting data on cis women, and the addition of accurate data on trans people does not harm cis women. It is reminiscent of those who said same sex marriage would harm their marriages, simply by existing. Indeed making research more inclusive has many benefits. Not assuming, for example, that every woman is married, has children, changes their name upon marriage, has led to more accurate research and data collection methods.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> MochaSoul Edie what do you think about this?
> 
> Facts Matter; Challenging the myths about self identification
> 
> I think a bigger problem for women is the wholesale assault on public services during the last 30 years and especially since 2008, rather than a small number of trans people.



I stopped reading here:





> This is often phrased along the lines of -“_If you allow trans people in single sex spaces Jimmy the Rapist will put on a dress to attack women_“. This is called a dog whistle. The person is actually saying that they believe that trans women are men who put on dresses to falsely access women only spaces. Whilst there is no law stopping men using women’s toilets (or vice versa, as any visit to a busy nightclub will  show you) there are laws against rape, assault and violence. Preventing trans people accessing single sex spaces does not change these laws.



The trans umbrella has widened to include all manner of people from the weekend crossdresser to intersex people who don't even want to be included in that so that piece misrepresents me when they say that I think all trans are criminals when what I say is that it the law needs to be careful about how it goes about making it easier for trans people (which I agree) without putting women in danger and am I simply dogwhistling?

There you have it.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I stopped reading here:
> 
> The trans umbrella has widened to include all manner of people from the weekend crossdresser to intersex people who don't even want to be included in that so that piece misrepresents me when they say that I think all trans are criminals when what I say is that it the law needs to be careful about how it goes about making it easier for trans people (which I agree) without putting women in danger and am simply dogwhistling.
> 
> There you have it.



But that is not all that is being said is it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

dialectician said:


> What utter bollocks. racism isn't about a few bad eggs. it isn't about some random bloke off the street calling you a turkish cunt.
> 
> Racism and anti-blackness infects every facet of reality we engage with. Racism is downplaying peoples personal and political agency. racism is depriving people of community resources. racism is making it much, much harder in a legal and professional context for the people being marginalised. Racism is about the education system telling you you are second class and must prostrate beneath whities feet from day fucking one. Racism is about using people as token bait (romas, irish, greek etc) about accentuating capitalist divisions within the working class. racism is about centuries of whitewashing of history. Racism is gendered, racism is patriarchal. Racism is about domestic abuse, about rape, about drugs, cops getting off scott free. racism is about war crimes and the way we respond to them. And I could go on and on.
> 
> ...



But the current politics of what people are are exactly that: reframing axis of oppression to mere insulting/discriminating/yada. It applies as much to sexism as to racism.

No real analysis, for example, of why it was not acceptable for me to bleach my skin to fit in socially crafted structures that put me in the equivalent of the special needs group in my class but it's seemingly acceptable to unquestioningly affirm children's claim to be the wrong sex because they don't like pink and love trucks knowing that being a child is the time in human development to explore and discover.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

Ranbay said:


> Might jump in the Albany for a pint, it’s taking ages to finish


I was in there!! Then got surrounded by them!! And ousted from table!!!


----------



## ddraig (Apr 12, 2018)

It was held in a school


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> If discussing something is by its very nature going to be painful and difficult for some people, does that mean we just shouldn't ever discuss it?



I think that's great question. And the answer is obviously no. 

But I think it means people have a duty to be kind and compassionate.

Which is a big ask. 

And not turn it into a shouty abstract parlour game. And not leap into mad stereotyped examples of the other side as the default option.

Which seems very hard for a lot of people online.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 12, 2018)

i knew Rachel Dolezal would be brought up as if gender transitions haven't existed for centuries, historically.

As if it's a trend. yeh. everything on this fucking forum is a fucking trend these days.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 12, 2018)

dialectician said:


> ...Frankly I'm appalled that in 2018 we can still discuss racism as if its just hate crime. On an anarchist forum no less.
> 
> Go back to your treacherous imperialists in the lp, then.



I agree with almost everything you say in this post, but I think it could be framed in a way that builds bridges rather than burns them.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2018)

look I know there are lot of guys who will do literally anything to hurt women.

however, they can do that anyway ffs. do you think that there is anything stopping a guy from entering a women's toilet now that the law has not been changed yet. Much of the time public toilets in the UK are left unattended anyway with nothing to stop a guy entering them if they want to. It is true that men have assaulted people in women's toilets. Surely the answer to that is to actually have staff in the toilet monitoring whether anything dodgy is going on.

I agree there's issues around medicalisation (although again the UK is not the US and it is incredibly lengthy and difficult to get a referral on the NHS for any sort of procedure related to being trans). But some of the rhetoric around this reminds of a far right conspiracy theory. It is being pushed by far right conservatives, many of whom support trump and have an agenda against abortion and sex education.

If you look on twitter and search 'trans lobby' there is page after page of such rhetoric for example:



> Cause there is a literal invasion of womens spaces and because there are events being cancelled under pressure by the trans lobby, events created by women who just want to discuss what the fuck is going on with a movement that is not taking their opinions and reality in account.





> Planned Parenthood, heavily funded by & shills for the *trans lobby* r moving extreme sex ed into children's schools.  A global movement of parents are rising on 4/23 & have organized a Sit Out. Lend them your support by R/T & signing petition. #*SexEdSitOut* #*MamaBearsUnite*


 



> #*sexedsitout* Follow these moms who have started a global grass roots movement to get HRC/*trans* *lobby* money out of schools, along w/extreme sex ed & gender ideology. They're doing a school sit out 4/23!! So impressive, so strong & courageous.  https://sexedsitout.com


 



> Milwall stadium pulled out of hosting a meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the GRA, because the
> *trans* *lobby* bombarded them with complaints. Davies stepped in to offer space in the HoC. So the complaints turned on him.





> Pressure from the homosexual/*trans* agenda *lobby* and political correctness caused that change.
> Same with homosexuality itself
> pressuring the APA to conform to PC and political pressure doesn't change you DNA
> You are the sex you were born with no matte what changes you make





> You didn't, but in some places you can be fined for "misgendering" someone. In other places the trans lobby is pushing for the legal substitution of sex for "gender identity". Are you ok with this?





> That really is sinister, it just proves how powerful this trans lobby are so any question that they're victims goes out the window.





> The *trans* *lobby* is embarrassing itself. The lower they stoop, the more people they #*peaktrans*. @*DavidTCDavies* (tory) is the only MP bravely standing up for women and children.





> Why is #*TransDayOfVisibility2018* on the last day of #*WomensHistoryMonth2018*? A clever marketing scheme to make liberal feminists feel like a bible clinging trump supporter if they disagree with the *trans* *lobby*. #*realwomen* #*womenrights* #*womenshistory*


 



> Gender transition is the ruse. The *trans* *lobby* are assaulting bio sex at every front. If they are successful, we can all go home becauae humanity as we know it is now being redesigned & socially reconstructed by the state. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVAvmZS0Dj8&sns=tw … via @*youtube*


 

I think that it is important to remember that even though *you* might personally be a socially progressive person, that does not apply to everyone who is involved in this movement, and therefore people need to be careful about how their arguments can be used even if they do not intend it to be used this way. I don't think such conspiracy theories can be put down to the idea of 'gaslighting women', there are people who are using this issue to push extremely dodgy ideas and stir up hatred and fear, and trying to recruit people to more and more extreme positions.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> I agree with almost everything you say in this post, but I think it could be framed in a way that builds bridges rather than burns them.



Nah mate. this and the middle eastern revs and crude criticisms of identity politics and i feel like i have little agency and political comrades left.

i am friends with a couple of trans people. apologies to white radfems if i am bogged down with taking care of myself to have a ph.d in gender studies to terf/not terf arguments. i am not going to let some liberal whippersnapper impose their exclusionary conceptions of western feminism on those i know. tough luck if they are too conservative for you. deal with where they are at instead.


----------



## MochaSoul (Apr 12, 2018)

dialectician said:


> i knew Rachel Dolezal would be brought up as if gender transitions haven't existed for centuries, historically.
> 
> As if it's a trend. yeh. everything on this fucking forum is a fucking trend these days.



The idea that it's not a trend has to be questioned when there is a spike in numbers and especially as those numbers include young girls living in a world chockablock full of gender stereotypes. No one is getting into this lightly or for debate kicks. Women are only too aware of how much that costs them.

And yes, Rachel Dolezal is brought back when schools in the US are being urged to affirm race as if it was a question of "identity". Look up Regulation 225 in Delaware and what the NAACP has to say about it.


----------



## iona (Apr 12, 2018)

Edie said:


> <snip>
> But you mention crime, and the article posted above raises a point. Men have undisputedly higher levels of violent crime than women. *If trans women have a similar level of violence as men*, but their crimes are logged and counted as women’s crime, what does that mean? What might be the effects of that?
> <snip>



Iirc the study usually quoted on this (my bold) only actually showed it to be the case up until the late 80s. I believe the author—who has said people are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the study's findings—linked this to trans people later on getting more/better mental health care and other support (this is off the top of my head so not verbatim).


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The idea that it's not a trend has to be questioned when there is a spike in numbers and especially as those numbers include young girls living in a world chockablock full of gender stereotypes. No one is getting into this lightly or for debate kicks. Women are only too aware of how much that costs them.
> 
> And yes, Rachel Dolezal is brought back when schools in the US are being urged to affirm race as if it was a question of "identity". Look up Regulation 225 in Delaware and what the NAACP has to say about it.



will have a look now.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 12, 2018)

iona said:


> Iirc the study usually quoted on this (my bold) only actually showed it to be the case up until the late 80s. I believe the author—who has said people are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the study's findings—linked this to trans people later on getting more/better mental health care and other support (this is off the top of my head so not verbatim).



That's my memory of that study too.


----------



## Edie (Apr 12, 2018)

iona said:


> Iirc the study usually quoted on this (my bold) only actually showed it to be the case up until the late 80s. I believe the author—who has said people are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the study's findings—linked this to trans people later on getting more/better mental health care and other support (this is off the top of my head so not verbatim).


I think the simple answer is, we don’t know yet.

That’s okay. But it means caution needs to be taken when collecting data, to differentiate between women and trans women, and men and trans men etc

Which, to me anyway, raises concerns about the ‘trans women are women’ statement.

Maybe an answer to concerns about this is just to agree to collect data for political, crime, health etc with that in mind. And maybe that always would have been the case anyhow, and so women’s concerns in this area can be laid to rest?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 12, 2018)




----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

sure. I don't deny that young gay and lesbian people may face social pressure to transition etc. that is one of the reasons why I was convinced by some, or a lot of this in the past. because its hard to be a gender non conforming woman in this world and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some people may be doing this for as an escape, pressured by parents to fit gender roles etc etc.

but this is not all that's being said, people are coming out with the idea that there is some sort of trans conspiracy aimed at silencing them, that they have bought out the media to silelnce people and calling them transphobic if they object, and I have come to the conclusion that such a view is really objectionable, because it is not the only example of people turning on a vulnerable group and claiming they are involved in some sort of conspiracy to do something evil or 'hide the truth' about how they are secretly controlling everything. Given the amount of negative publicity over the last two years in mainstream media and in leftist media like the Morning Star towards trans issues, and the difficulty that trans people face in accessing services, this is definitely untrue.

so the government may use this to attack women's rights. yes, that is a possibility, there are examples from the US of a few cases like that happening, such as the women who lost a case against her boss because 'men can also lactate'. so yes, I have no doubt that this will be used by unscrupulous people in a courtroom to try and argue that women's rights are not valid.

but if women's rights are actually what you are concerned about, you should know that a lot of people who are pushing for this stuff the hardest are hard-right conservatives who actually do want to push women out of the workplace, who do want to stop women having abortions and reduce civil rights for gay people, they regard gay people having 'opened the door' for all of this. there are people like focus on the family in America who are trying to stir up the dislike of trans people in order to push a wider agenda of limiting sex education in schools. and if you look on radical feminist websites there are often such people in the comments agreeing with it. A lot of these conspiracy theories on twitter are coming from people with #MAGA and Trump support in their profiles, and these people are being backed up and supported by radical feminists and people on the left, not necessarily deliberately as a lot of them don't necessarily realise where this stuff is even coming from in the first place. And so if you find yourself on the same side as people like this, and pushing scaremongering propaganda without any evidence to it you should try and ask yourself why.

and im sorry but on the women's place website it gives the example of how the people who took an anti-trans stance were distinguished activists on picket lines etc in the past. but a lot of shit can hide behind the whole idea that someone was a distinguished activist, it can be used to bolster a person's claim to credibility and stop people critiquing their actions. it can be used to hide some genuinely awful shit.

and yeah until very recently I had fallen for a lot of this but I have been doing a lot of rethinking of my stance and asking myself whether what I have said or thought over the years has hurt people and it probably has.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> but it's seemingly acceptable to unquestioningly affirm children's claim to be the wrong sex because they don't like pink and love trucks knowing that being a child is the time in human development to explore and discover.



That you would come out with this guff hopefully affirms for some newcomers to the thread just what your views are and how you don't argue in good faith and are at the extreme end of the anti-trans arguments. I just hope posters like Edie, who seem genuinely interested to discuss and learn, have read enough of your posts on this long thread to see you for what you are.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2018)

Thanks for the interesting posts, frogwoman — lots to think about there.

There are some issues I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on, regardless of how rational arguments may or may not sound.  But the one issue that currently brings me up short is how gender rights legislation and non-legislative policy and procedure butts up against that of sex equality legislation, policies and practices.  The question of whether trans women should be eligible for protections aimed at establishing equality between men and women, basically.  Things like women-only shortlists (if you believe in such things) and how you deal with things to do with income differentials.

This is a thorny problem, because the anti-discrimination policies and practices are needed because of socialisation and social roles, not personal identity.  It’s not clear to what extent such things apply for trans women.  If it’s just a matter if granting extra protection then why not?  But if it causes loss of opportunity for cis women (for example by opening up the role of women’s officers in the Labour Party), there is a potential contradiction of needs.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Thanks for the interesting posts, frogwoman — lots to think about there.
> 
> There are some issues I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on, regardless of how rational arguments may or may not sound.  But the one issue that currently brings me up short is how gender rights legislation and non-legislative policy and procedure butts up against that of sex equality legislation.  The question of whether trans women should be eligible for protections aimed at establishing equality between men and women, basically.  Things like women-only shortlists (if you believe in such things) and how you deal with things to do with income differentials.
> 
> This is a thorny problem, because the anti-discrimination policies and practices are needed because of socialisation and social roles, not personal identity.  It’s not clear to what extent such things apply for trans women.  If it’s just a matter if granting extra protection then why not?  But if it causes loss of opportunity for cis women (for example by opening up the role of women’s officers in the Labour Party), there is a potential contradiction of needs.



I know others won't agree but imo fuck the LP. Seriously. I don't see that as a body that favours my rights.

But I do know what you mean, about women only shortlists etc. I think these are issues that can be worked out by such bodies, what I don't think is helpful is an organisation going around on speaking tours fear mongering about the 'trans lobby' when the people who would actually try and take these protections away from women actually have nothing to do with trans people at all.  

I think some of the views that 'a man is stealing my place' or whatever, I understand why people would think that, but I think it is more a product of people being made to compete for resources, like a race to the bottom, rather than the fact trans people are taking those positions. Let's look at facts, outside of a few high profile incidents of people taking the piss it is going to be vanishingly rare that being trans is going to be any advantage in applying for a job in the workplace, many people are unlikely to disclose it at all. 

It is like complaining that 'an immigrant is taking my job'. So yeah I can see a problem might arise but I don't think it is helpful to blame trans people for this fact or start a race to the bottom type argument of 'they are taking my job' or whatever.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 13, 2018)

Ultimately, the shortlist issue isn't neat and tidy, but I'm left with this: it's just a shortlist.   There will still be natal women on that list, almost certainly in greater number than trans women.  The chances are that a natal woman will get the job most times.   

The idea that a man will somehow become trans to exploit this, would be laughable if it wasn't such naked scaremongering.  That a man would choose to give up his gender and all the patriarchal adavtages within that, just for a shot at being selected for a job...   it's inconceivable. And yet in the wake of Lily Madigan's selection, that was what some were suggesting.  

Madigan, by the way, is a bit of a twattock.  But she was elected by the members of her local branch.   She didn't just turn up and say "I'm a trans woman so you have to give me your job, natal woman" - but people seem to be arguing exactly that.


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Thanks for the interesting posts, frogwoman — lots to think about there.
> 
> There are some issues I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on, regardless of how rational arguments may or may not sound.  But the one issue that currently brings me up short is how gender rights legislation and non-legislative policy and procedure butts up against that of sex equality legislation, policies and practices.  The question of whether trans women should be eligible for protections aimed at establishing equality between men and women, basically.  Things like women-only shortlists (if you believe in such things) and how you deal with things to do with income differentials.
> 
> This is a thorny problem, because the anti-discrimination policies and practices are needed because of socialisation and social roles, not personal identity.  It’s not clear to what extent such things apply for trans women.  If it’s just a matter if granting extra protection then why not?  But if it causes loss of opportunity for cis women (for example by opening up the role of women’s officers in the Labour Party), there is a potential contradiction of needs.


Thanks. Said that better than what I could.

See, I get the emotive bit frogwoman And I read and listen to a lot of the vile shit written against trans and a lot of it is hysterical scapegoating, I agree. Needs to be guarded against.  (Tbh it’s like the worst of the far right and the worst of the far left have crawled out from under rocks to fight- it’s proper vile).

But all that bollocks aside, what I find is there are no answers given to women’s questions and concerns. So if we say: but what about the issue of statistics? Or what about what political roles created to help redress the gender imbalance in parliament?

And there’s no answers? That doesn’t reassure me.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2018)

frogwoman and spanglechick -- you have both responded to my post by personalising the problem, i.e. focusing on questions of blame (i.e. people thinking "a trans woman is taking my job") or intent (i.e. nobody is going to become trans to exploit the system).  But I did not intend to raise the issue as one of personal responsibility.  It's not about what individuals choose to do or think within the system, it's about the system itself.  The reasons women have a hard time in society are generally _structural_, not about whether individuals are 'good people' or not.  Structural problems need structural solutions and various such structural solutions have been tried, and these solutions need good quality data to ascertain their success.

There comes a point where it is hard to talk in abstract terms and concrete examples are needed but the problem with this is that the discussion becomes about that specific concrete example rather than about the issues it raises as a case study.  Nevertheless, I'm going to try.

One reason that there is such a division in pay is that as women reach the point they have children, they run up against the various structural walls that exist which stop their career advancement.  Society is focused on women being the primary caregiver and is not prepared to give primary caregivers the breaks needed to allow them to maintain the same career trajectory they had before.  The problem is exacerbated because girls are generally socialised to put others first and to not push themselves forward unless they are sure of success (men will apply for a job if they meet 50% of the criteria; women won't unless they meet 80%).  These various problems then bleed through to create other problems, such as a lack of female role models ("we can't be what we can't see") and assumptions regarding what success looks like ("we want someone just like Jim").

So we need to address these structural issues, and various approaches are taken to this.  Now, it is not clear that trans women have these same underlying structural difficulties in obtaining representation at higher levels.  Some differences are due to a difference in socialisation during upbringing (the CV issue, for example) and some are due to not facing the same material disadvantages (e.g. bearing children).  As such, to allow trans women to take advantage of the solutions focussed on addressing discrimination against women generally is potentially to undermine those solutions.

This is not an easy problem.  Right now, there is a certain element of "who cares?" to it, because trans women are such a small minority.  But if we are fighting for the right to be who we are, we are surely fighting for a future in which more people feel comfortable declaring themselves to be transgendered?  In which case, this may become more of an issue.  Furthermore, if we are also fighting for acceptance for trans women who remain quite male in appearance (and "attitude"?), there is an even stronger reason to simultaneously worry about the impact of this on the attempt to compensate for the structural reasons for antipathy towards women.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> frogwoman and spanglechick -- you have both responded to my post by personalising the problem, i.e. focusing on questions of blame (i.e. people thinking "a trans woman is taking my job") or intent (i.e. nobody is going to become trans to exploit the system).  But I did not intend to raise the issue as one of personal responsibility.  It's not about what individuals choose to do or think within the system, it's about the system itself.  The reasons women have a hard time in society are generally _structural_, not about whether individuals are 'good people' or not.  Structural problems need structural solutions and various such structural solutions have been tried, and these solutions need good quality data to ascertain their success.
> 
> There comes a point where it is hard to talk in abstract terms and concrete examples are needed but the problem with this is that the discussion becomes about that specific concrete example rather than about the issues it raises as a case study.  Nevertheless, I'm going to try.
> 
> ...


I think the desire to personalise the discussion isn't especially problematic, especially when all participants are aware of the basic issues behind all-women shortlists and gender pay gaps etc.	

And "how will that work in practice?" Is critical to persuasive writing.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I think the desire to personalise the discussion isn't especially problematic, especially when all participants are aware of the basic issues behind all-women shortlists and gender pay gaps etc.
> 
> And "how will that work in practice?" Is critical to persuasive writing.


I’m sorry, but that response just shows you haven’t understood what the problem is.  My fault, no doubt.

It’s not about individual decisions.  It’s about what group you’re trying to compensate for against discrimination, what that specific discrimination is and why you are choosing that solution to compensate for it.  Then it’s about whether this solution also makes sense for application to a different group.  The question is not “why shouldn’t trans women benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices?”, it’s “why should they?”  Structurally, do those solutions apply in the same way?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I’m sorry, but that response just shows you haven’t understood what the problem is.  My fault, no doubt.
> 
> It’s not about individual decisions.  It’s about what group you’re trying to compensate for against discrimination, what that specific discrimination is and why you are choosing that solution to compensate for it.  Then it’s about whether this solution also makes sense for application to a different group.  The question is not “why shouldn’t trans women benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices?”, it’s “why should they?”  Structurally, do those solutions apply in the same way?


Nail.
It's also a question of 'if they benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices, does that reduce or dissipate the effect of those practices on the group they were designed to help'.


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I’m sorry, but that response just shows you haven’t understood what the problem is.  My fault, no doubt.
> 
> It’s not about individual decisions.  It’s about what group you’re trying to compensate for against discrimination, what that specific discrimination is and why you are choosing that solution to compensate for it.  Then it’s about whether this solution also makes sense for application to a different group.  The question is not “why shouldn’t trans women benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices?”, it’s “why should they?”  Structurally, do those solutions apply in the same way?


Bang on


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

It doesn't have to be an either or thing though? I agree with a lot of this but I don't necessarily see it as trans women 'taking advantage of the system' ? Women are systematically discriminated against, that is not going to change regardless of these laws.  I don't see that these changes will have much effect. Patriarchy is really far reaching so the idea that a small number of trans women might benefit from a change in the law at 'the expense' of women is kind of irrelevant, because it is not just about jobs or shortlists or whatever, it's about a whole system. Men have been benefiting at the expense of women for thousands of years. It's like saying that you are worried that trying to address discrimination against gay people will take attention away from discrimination against another group such as idk disabled people. I don't see why these issues can't be worked out on a case by case basis and I don't see why this is an either or thing. The chance that trans women might benefit from changes that are 'meant' to benefit women is kinda neither here or there when it doesn't challenge the whole system regardless . 

but my point in bringing up the far right isn't to call people transphobic, it is to point out that the people who are actually involved in producing this narrative are the people who actually do want to take rights away from women. Shit like abortion rights and  is far more dangerous in terms of the effects of confining women to the home, but I have actually seen people say that views on abortion are just 'an opinion' and the more important issue is trans people. I think this attitude is really dangerous because the people who are involved in voting in so called 'bathroom bills' and so are on are the same people who are restricting access to things like birth control and abortion in the usa, there is a very real possibility that things like roe vs wade will be overturned, and I see this as vastly worse for women than the concept that a trans woman might take advantage of some scheme intended to help cis women. Some of the people saying this stuff are saying that some of the PC language used should be a reason to cut funding to things like charities that help women. I see that as vastly more of a problem.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

And re the whole debate about whether trans women are actually women, the thing is not whether they are women or not, but the fact that some people don't even seem to see them as people at all and seem to completely dehumanise them. For example in this video



This is just humiliation of people based on their looks, I don't see this as adding to a debate at all. I'm sure some of the people in the audience really are concerned with privacy and what have you but can you really watch this and not see the transphobia in her statements? And well meaning people that actually are not naturally transphobic are being manipulated to agree with this and accept it as normal.


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

It is transphobic. It doesn’t add anything to the debate.

What’s your point? That women shouldn’t raise concerns then?


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

Personally, I’m waiting for shygirl to come back and let us know what she thought of the event.

Did she feel it was transphobic?
What issues were discussed?
Were any solutions discussed?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 13, 2018)

They won't say it's transphobic as they were supporting and promoting it
it didn't kick off

I literally got moved out of my seat after offering some of them seats in the pub afterwards, was teetering half on the edge then got surrounded by more getting way too close so I had to leave


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> And re the whole debate about whether trans women are actually women, the thing is not whether they are women or not, but the fact that some people don't even seem to see them as people at all and seem to completely dehumanise them. For example in this video
> 
> 
> 
> This is just humiliation of people based on their looks, I don't see this as adding to a debate at all. I'm sure some of the people in the audience really are concerned with privacy and what have you but can you really watch this and not see the transphobia in her statements? And well meaning people that actually are not naturally transphobic are being manipulated to agree with this and accept it as normal.




Quite apart from being deliberately and gratuitously unkind, to criticise anyone for a perceived failure to meet stereotypical beauty standards seems an odd thing for a feminist to do.


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> ... but my point in bringing up the far right isn't to call people transphobic, it is to point out that the people who are actually involved in producing this narrative are the people who actually do want to take rights away from women. Shit like abortion rights and  is far more dangerous in terms of the effects of confining women to the home, but I have actually seen people say that views on abortion are just 'an opinion' and the more important issue is trans people. I think this attitude is really dangerous because the people who are involved in voting in so called 'bathroom bills' and so are on are the same people who are restricting access to things like birth control and abortion in the usa, there is a very real possibility that things like roe vs wade will be overturned, and I see this as vastly worse for women than the concept that a trans woman might take advantage of some scheme intended to help cis women. Some of the people saying this stuff are saying that some of the PC language used should be a reason to cut funding to things like charities that help women. I see that as vastly more of a problem.



I'm not sure I buy that; it's like saying all Brexit voters share UKIP's aims.  It's possible for political enemies to be aligned on some issues without implying anything more. Although I do wince at the decision to actually work together.  I think it shows some have lost a sense of perspective over this issue.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 13, 2018)

ddraig said:


> They won't say it's transphobic as they were supporting and promoting it
> it didn't kick off
> 
> I literally got moved out of my seat after offering some of them seats in the pub afterwards, was teetering half on the edge then got surrounded by more getting way too close so I had to leave


RADFEMS EXCLUDED ME FROM MY SEAT


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2018)

Edie said:


> Personally, I’m waiting for shygirl to come back and let us know what she thought of the event.
> 
> Did she feel it was transphobic?
> What issues were discussed?
> Were any solutions discussed?


The first rule of the club is...


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2018)

ddraig said:


> They won't say it's transphobic as they were supporting and promoting it
> it didn't kick off
> 
> I literally got moved out of my seat after offering some of them seats in the pub afterwards, was teetering half on the edge then got surrounded by more getting way too close so I had to leave



Literally TERFed out of your seat!


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> Literally TERFed or of your seat!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> stethoscope please don't go. I sincerely hope I'm not one of the people you feel are driving you away. I absolutely consider you to be a woman.


What about me. I've asked you repeatedly and you can't answer can you?


----------



## shygirl (Apr 13, 2018)

This is a transcript of the talk given by Jeni Harvey last night.

A Woman’s Place Is Speaking Out – Harvey Jeni – Medium


----------



## ddraig (Apr 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> RADFEMS EXCLUDED ME FROM MY SEAT


they did!! a minor inconvenience indeed
was quite rude tho


----------



## weepiper (Apr 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> What about me. I've asked you repeatedly and you can't answer can you?


No, I don't consider you to be a woman. I'm genuinely sorry if that is upsetting to you but I'm not going to lie about it and as you say you've asked repeatedly so there we are.
Edit, I don't think you should leave here though, unless it's for your own mental health (this place has done my head in sometimes and I've had to have a break from arguing).


----------



## shygirl (Apr 13, 2018)

Sorry that happened ddraig.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> No, I don't consider you to be a woman. I'm genuinely sorry if that is upsetting to you but I'm not going to lie about it and as you say you've asked repeatedly so there we are.
> Edit, I don't think you should leave here though, unless it's for your own mental health (this place has done my head in sometimes and I've had to have a break from arguing).


Thanks for the honesty.

It doesn't work like that though.

I'm just upset that steth doesn't call your obvious transphobia out. 

In all honesty I can't stay on these boards


----------



## shygirl (Apr 13, 2018)

Edie said:


> Personally, I’m waiting for shygirl to come back and let us know what she thought of the event.
> 
> Did she feel it was transphobic?
> What issues were discussed?
> Were any solutions discussed?



Do you mind if I leave until tomorrow to post my thoughts on the meeting?  I'm travelling up to Sheffield, so will have a few hours on the train. I'm kinda burned out, and don't have the energy to do it at mo.


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

shygirl said:


> Do you mind if I leave until tomorrow to post my thoughts on the meeting?  I'm travelling up to Sheffield, so will have a few hours on the train. I'm kinda burned out, and don't have the energy to do it at mo.


Course not, and no obligation anyway.

Thanks for posting that speech, there’s much I agree with there.


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Thanks for the honesty.
> 
> It doesn't work like that though.
> 
> ...


Not agreeing that a person is a woman, rather than, say, a trans woman, is not transphobia.


----------



## Voley (Apr 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> In all honesty I can't stay on these boards


As this is the third or fourth time you've said you're leaving, I really think it'd be best if you did now. This place obviously isn't doing you any good and if, as your latest tagline says, you 'no longer care if you live or die' then you really should get some professional help. Urban 75 is a full-on place if you get involved in the weighty issues and if you're not resilient enough for the flak, not being here really is the best option.

You do have friends here and if you ever feel up to it I'm sure you'll be welcomed back, but right now it's painful to see what this place is doing to you. 

I really think you should take a break from here and discuss your self-destructive thoughts with someone qualified to help. 

You're probably going to be angry with me for saying this but I say it out of genuine concern. I hope things improve for you soon, Sea Star, I really do.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Thanks for the honesty.
> 
> It doesn't work like that though.
> 
> ...



Sea Star who gives a fuck. No one on urban is the gatekeeper of womanhood. You know who and what you are ❤ Take a break and get well x


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

[





Edie said:


> It is transphobic. It doesn’t add anything to the debate.
> 
> What’s your point? That women shouldn’t raise concerns then?



My point is that these groups are not only about raising concerns and that whatever legitimate arguments they may have had are being used to give left cover and legitimacy to bigotry, they are being used to persuade  people to support these arguments that would not normally. 

The fact that this sort of thing is allowed to be said in this fair play for women group without comment, the fact that she is allowed to stand there giving a presentation based on humiliating trans women's looks for several minutes without anyone challenging her on it and to the entire audience laughing should tell you something.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Apr 13, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> My point is that these groups are not only about raising concerns and that whatever legitimate arguments they may have had are being used to give left cover and legitimacy to bigotry, they are being used to persuade  people to support these arguments that would not normally.



This is just patronising bullshit and your second (unquoted) point doesn't diminish the one you were responding to, either.

Why is this conversation just not _allowed_ to take place?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> This is just patronising bullshit and your second (unquoted) point doesn't diminish the one you were responding to, either.
> 
> Why is this conversation just not _allowed_ to take place?



why is it bullshit? I believed a lot of this stuff for ages, and I have posted on the thread about why I believed it. there is nothing patronising about pointing out that points that people have raised about sport etc are being used to fit a far-right narrative in which trans people are seen as evil. and for what it is worth I agree that there are certain cases which require further consideration like for example the case of trans women prisoners who have assaulted other female inmates.

there is nothing wrong with having the conversation, but my point is that someone standing giving a presentation mocking people's appearance, etc, for several minutes unchallenged should at least give you the clue that it is not a neutral venue, it is not a place where someone who is trans is likely to feel comfortable to respond with their point of view being heard properly, and that their interest isn't only in 'having a conversation'.

(edited - never mind)


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> why is it bullshit? I believed a lot of this stuff for ages, and I have posted on the thread about why I believed it. there is nothing patronising about pointing out that points that people have raised about sport etc are being used to fit a far-right narrative in which trans people are seen as evil. and for what it is worth I agree that there are certain cases which require further consideration like for example the case of trans women prisoners who have assaulted other female inmates.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with having the conversation, but my point is that someone standing giving a presentation mocking people's appearance, etc, for several minutes unchallenged should at least give you the clue that it is not a neutral venue, it is not a place where someone who is trans is likely to feel comfortable to respond with their point of view being heard properly, and that their interest isn't only in 'having a conversation'.
> 
> (edited - never mind)


Mate, you’ve given a horrid and extreme example of a woman humiliating transgender women. You’ve then used that as a reason why other women should not be discussing the impact of self-id on sexism.

That isn’t proportionate or fair. It’s actually part of the problem, that sort of behaviour. Please stop it.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Apr 13, 2018)

If that's relevant then it's also relevant that women have been _physically attacked_ (which is what drew me in first, fwiw) for trying to have the same conversation and that there are equal examples of poor behaviour re that _if you look for it_ - but that still shuts down the conversation.
The suggestion that the women who want to speak about it are being _manipulated_ for wanting to have the conversation, that they are aligned to the right, that they just _don't get it_, that it's fucking _personal_ - and where those opportunities are constantly being closed, is just offensive.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

Edie said:


> Mate, you’ve given a horrid and extreme example of a woman humiliating transgender women. You’ve then used that as a reason why other women should not be discussing the impact of self-id on sexism.
> 
> That isn’t proportionate or fair. It’s actually part of the problem, that sort of behaviour. Please stop it.



im sorry if it seemed like i said otherwise, but i don't think people shouldn't be having the conversation at all, in fact I think its actually important to discuss this properly?

its just these groups and organisations such as 'a woman's place' and 'fair play for women' are not neutral to say the least, they are clearly ideologically biased, some of the people speaking have an agenda other than just discussing concerns as they say, and they are not helping matters to say the least. I can completely understand why trans people would not want to take part in a debate in such a hostile environment. not that people shouldn't discuss it at all but I seriously do not think what they are doing is the best way to go about it.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Apr 13, 2018)

I think there are _a lot_ of women finding it a hostile environment. So, HOW do we discuss it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 13, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> I think there are _a lot_ of women finding it a hostile environment. So, HOW do we discuss it?



Could we start by reigning the likes of Venus fucking Allen in, for example?  I am aware, open and willing to engage but ... I can't abide panic-drama-look at me- merchants...and they are the ones ramping things up on both sides.

In all seriousness, I want to get involved, I want to have a view...the extremes on both sides make me want plant daisies as an equally childish and inadequate response.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Apr 13, 2018)

shygirl said:


> This is a transcript of the talk given by Jeni Harvey last night.
> 
> A Woman’s Place Is Speaking Out – Harvey Jeni – Medium



Thank you for Posting this


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 13, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Could we start by reigning the likes of Venus fucking Allen in, for example?  I am aware, open and willing to engage but ... I can't abide panic-drama-look at me- merchants...and they are the ones ramping things up on both sides.
> 
> In all seriousness, I want to get involved, I want to have a view...the extremes on both sides make me want plant daisies as an equally childish and inadequate response.



And this is why we can't have nice things 

I've calmed down a bit. I'm feeling a bit low and lost at the moment with a few things political and personal, so gonna have a break from here for a while x


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 13, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> And this is why we can't have nice things
> 
> I've calmed down a bit. I'm down and feeling lost at the moment with a few things political and personal, so gonna have a break from here for a while x



stethoscope Has my post upset you or do you agree? It matters to me, straight up.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 13, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> stethoscope Has my post upset you or do you agree? It matters to me, straight up.



I entirely agree with it fwiw, its totally my frustrations with the whole sorry situation.


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> And this is why we can't have nice things
> 
> I've calmed down a bit. I'm feeling a bit low and lost at the moment with a few things political and personal, so gonna have a break from here for a while x



Of course, you must do what's best for you.

But it'd be a shame for this place, generally, if you were to go. And, specifically, for the anyone with hopes of a sensible, solidarity-building discussion of this topic. If there's any one person on these boards who is sufficiently well liked and respected by people across the spectrum of views, it's you. I think you could offer a valuable insight from the perspective of a woman with your history, and someone who is politically sound.

I did hesitate to say this, as I wasn't sure it's fair to lumber you with the emotional burden that engagement would entail.  But decided to, in the end.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> I think there are _a lot_ of women finding it a hostile environment. So, HOW do we discuss it?



yes i know, and im sorry if my post came across as patronising.

honestly I don't know answers to it all. but I don't think that groups such as WPUK or fair play for women are remotely helpful or the way to go about it, the rhetoric around the topic is way too extreme and things are being blown out of proportion (and I totally agree that the same is true of some of the extreme trans activists). I don't know what the answer is. I don't see why these things can't be worked out on a case by case basis, clearly there does need to be a conversation but I think these groups are making it worse rather than helping the situation if you see what I mean.


----------



## elbows (Apr 13, 2018)

shygirl said:


> This is a transcript of the talk given by Jeni Harvey last night.
> 
> A Woman’s Place Is Speaking Out – Harvey Jeni – Medium



I dont want to participate in this thread very often or repeat the various arguments I had in that other thread that got locked, so please forgive me for focusing very narrowly on just one small part of that speech.



> What is happening is an attempt to force, not only a change in the law, but a shift in our social norms to suit what is in fact a very small minority of people. This is being achieved — can only be achieved — via the aggressive shut down of any dialogue, disquiet, or dissent from the majority: specifically in this case, women.



I am desperately hoping that people I know that are opposed to my own stance on all manner of other aspects, will still see the horror in this paragraph, ie even if you agree with some of where they are coming from and what they might be trying to articulate, can you really ignore the broader implications stemming from the way they've tried to define this struggle with those words? The attempts to further marginalise and make insignificant the minority group, the conflation of one sort of majority with supposed majority opinion, the assumption that such agendas can only be achieved by silencing this supposed majority entirely. That sort of thing.

Honestly, just imagine all the other situations that people could apply the arguments and framing from that paragraph to historically, its not a good place to be at all. If you have a strong case then there should be no need to resort to this kind of stuff.


----------



## Edie (Apr 13, 2018)

Yes, that bit did not sit comfortably with me.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Apr 13, 2018)

elbows said:


> I dont want to participate in this thread very often or repeat the various arguments I had in that other thread that got locked, so please forgive me for focusing very narrowly on just one small part of that speech.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've quoted it with no reference to where it came from.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 13, 2018)




----------



## elbows (Apr 13, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> You've quoted it with no reference to where it came from.



Thanks, I have edited my post to include it because I had misjudged how recently it was mentioned in the conversation prior to my post.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 15, 2018)

Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts: Transgender activists try to curb free speech on site


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 21, 2018)

I know Owen Jones is a bit of a dick and I have my disagreements with Stonewall but this interview is worth the watch. 

Stonewall's Ruth Hunt tells Owen Jones: 'My heart breaks for trans communities' – video interview


----------



## Sunset Tree (Apr 22, 2018)

Just saw this event to discuss the gender recognition act was no platformed by some masked protesters.  Pretty shit behaviour and as an aside of course they all sound really posh.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Apr 22, 2018)

Some more footage


----------



## Edie (Apr 29, 2018)

I’ve no idea what’s going on there, or who is who. But I’ve taken a look at “Posie Parker’s” tweeting and decided that she seems like an unpleasant bitch


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 29, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Just saw this event to discuss the gender recognition act was no platformed by some masked protesters.  Pretty shit behaviour and as an aside of course they all sound really posh.




Entitled little brats


----------



## Edie (Apr 29, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Just saw this event to discuss the gender recognition act was no platformed by some masked protesters.  Pretty shit behaviour and as an aside of course they all sound really posh.



What the actual fuck is going on here? I just cannot work it out.


----------



## Thora (Apr 29, 2018)

Edie said:


> What the actual fuck is going on here? I just cannot work it out.


I think Julie is trying to get up the stairs into the feminist meeting, and the masked students are blocking her.


----------



## Edie (Apr 29, 2018)

I’ve googled Julie Bindel. Guardian journalist and women’s campaigner for women who kill their violent partners.

So she was trying to go to a woman’s meeting, and was blocked by what look like a group of predominantly young men trans activists covering their faces.

Was the meeting to discuss transgender issues?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 29, 2018)

The meeting was to discuss the effect of self identification on women and transsexuals. So transgender issues, but also the wider effect on females and GRC holders. 

The recording of the meeting is available here:



First speaker was rather academic, and shaken from the kurfuffle I reckon. Third speaker rings true to me. Make yer own minds up. It's about 3 hours. Talk starts 20 minutes in.


----------

