Gender again. Sorry!

[mudsticks]

Thanks. I'm very pleased we've sorted that out.

OK. I'm going to mention some personal stuff that I don't usually explain. My niece came out as trans to her parents when she was 10. Her father beat her badly, and the pair of them threw her out of the house. She came straight from there to me, and then by mutual agreement with her parents, she stayed with me and never went home again. My sister used to come to visit her at my place on her daughter's terms.

She stayed with me until she went off to uni but her home was here. After uni she lived with me until she was 28, and then went to work in London. She was back here for a year a couple of years or so ago. My house was always full of her friends, some trans, some not through childhood and adulthood. Some of her friends had similar coming out experiences though usually, well in fact always, at an older age, and they've lived here too. I've lived with them, laughed with them, cried with them. I've helped as best I can through their struggles. Any of them know that if they turn up and walk through my door they have a home in event of emergency and they'll be safe again.

Poor child .
At ten - beaten and chucked out - some people really don't deserve to get to be parents.
And there we have male violence being at the forefront of the issue. The needing to control - and fear of loss of control being so paramount.
Good they had you to fall back on, and have gone on to thrive as a result.
One of my sons friend is a transman, his father just won't acknowledge it, won't use his new name.
But dad is a proper 'blokes bloke' type - I guess it just doesn't sit well down the pub, or in his framework of 'how things definitely should definitely be'..I don't really know his problem, we weren't exactly on chatty terms beforehand, so I'm not going to start 'investigating' now.

But most people in 'S's' life (including his mother) accept it.

I think things are getting a bit easier, all round but progress is patchy.
I've got trans friends in the agroecology movement who have experienced hostility towards them from time to time, but also I've met older peasant farmers from across Europe and beyond who are very accepting of the whole transrights issue, are across the language and for whom this is just another new idea or even skill to take on board.

But despite all that (mostly) liberal loveliness, and a lot of acceptance in areas where in truth gender isn't really that relevant I still think it's important to acknowledge that there are issues.

Issues that won't go away by shouting transphobe or terf at people when they raise concerns.

People don't learn tolerance or acceptance of ideas that are challenging, or even fear inducing to them by being told they are 'wrong' or by being talked down to.
But ofc populist, prurient reporting (thanks tabloids and their ilk) make thing worse.


But like I've said before women don't need or demand 'women only' spaces for no reason. The reason they're required is mainly centred around the aggressive / unpleasant behaviour of (some) men.

Imo men who are very onboard with the transrights issue (good for you) could acknowledge that, and do a whole lot more to improve the whole 'toxic manosphere' and it's effect on the rest of us as a whole .

Those 'macho type' guys don't listen to or have empathy with women - particularly not 'non conforming women - and that's a major part of the problem.

 

[multitool]

Imo men who are very onboard with the transrights issue (good for you) could acknowledge that, and do a whole lot more to improve the whole 'toxic manosphere' and it's effect on the rest of us as a whole .

What makes you think they dont?

Men are no more a hivemind than women. Upthread, you criticise women for their behaviour towards other women, but you also imply that you choose not to associate with these women. Men are much the same. It's really hard to influence people you never meet, would never spend time with, and therefore are in no position to influence.

I think we all have a utilitarian role to play in an imperfect world, in part by not accepting bigotry and prejudice, and it is arguable that my gender confers a special responsibility with regards to the patriarchal values that are struck through every society on the planet, but none of us are in possession of a magic wand.

 

[mudsticks]

What makes you think they dont?

Men are no more a hivemind than women. Upthread, you criticise women for their behaviour towards other women, but you also imply that you choose not to associate with these women. Men are much the same. It's really hard to influence people you never meet, would never spend time with, and therefore are in no position to influence.

I think we all have a utilitarian role to play in an imperfect world, in part by not accepting bigotry and prejudice, and it is arguable that my gender confers a special responsibility with regards to the patriarchal values that are struck through every society on the planet, but none of us are in possession of a magic wand.

Sorry, I thought I was too dull to deal with.
But seeing as you've seen fit to tag me..

How do I know This ?

I repeatedly see misogyny and sexist speech overlooked, both online and in real life.
And yes by guys who claim to be 'good men'.
It's so ubiquitous it goes unremarked.

I would say that your born into gender from which you've benefitted from in this patriachal world, does actually confer a special responsibility and even ability to tackle toxic male behaviour.


If you really want to things to be more equitable and less prejudiced all round for everyone then that's something you can do.

Just shrugging and saying 'nothing to do with me' - 'I don't like those blokes much either' doesn't address the issue.

Nothing changes.

 

[multitool]

How do I know This ?
I repeatedly see misogyny and sexist speech overlooked, both online and in real life.
And yes by guys who claim to be 'good men'.
It's so ubiquitous it goes unremarked.

This is going to send us off on a tangent and deserves its own thread because there is a lot to say about this, but, in essence, yes. You are right.

I'd say that one of the issues is that in order to tackle sexism, the first step is to actually see it. As you might expect, men are less sensitive to it for exactly the same reasons as upper-class white privileged pr1cks like Laurence Fox will tell you that there is no racism in this country.

But by the same token, there are women who don't see it too because we are all socialised into patriarchal values. If you take Jeremy Clarkson's recent outburst of premeditated racism and sexism for money (the Meghan shoot throwing naked thing) there were women who sympathised with Clarkson.

I would say that your born into gender from which you've benefitted from in this patriachal world, does actually confer a special responsibility and even ability to tackle toxic male behaviour.

I should have been clearer. By saying "it is arguable", I was arguing for.

Just shrugging and saying 'nothing to do with me' - 'I don't like those blokes much either' doesn't address the issue.

Nothing changes.

I'm not. I'm saying it is hard to influence people with whom you have no contact or...influence.

 

[mudsticks]

This is going to send us off on a tangent and deserves its own thread because there is a lot to say about this, but, in essence, yes. You are right.

I'd say that one of the issues is that in order to tackle sexism, the first step is to actually see it. As you might expect, men are less sensitive to it for exactly the same reasons as upper-class white privileged pr1cks like Laurence Fox will tell you that there is no racism in this country.

But by the same token, there are women who don't see it too because we are all socialised into patriarchal values. If you take Jeremy Clarkson's recent outburst of premeditated racism and sexism for money (the Meghan shoot throwing naked thing) there were women who sympathised with Clarkson.



I should have been clearer. By saying "it is arguable", I was arguing for.


I'm not. I'm saying it is hard to influence people with whom you have no contact or...influence.

Don't I know it it's very depressing , but as you say we are steeped in patriachy.
And going along with the status quo has been a (fairly understandable) protective device for many women with less individual agency or autonomy .

It's mainly emancipated and or priveleged women (like me) who get to stand up to it.
And often get shot down even by supposedly 'good' men for 'going on' about it.

We see it -we point it out - but we're still ignored and told that were exaggerating, or even making shoot up.

Ofc it's hard to influence people with whom you have 'no contact' ..
Although we nearly all do have contact with these people, online and off, even if we wouldn't actively choose them as friends.

But it seems to me that there is a bit of a fudge.going on here.

You seem quite relaxed around peoples 'imperfections' in general terms of tackling misogyny, and want to be let off having to tackle too much, the toxic male behaviour, which impacts so many of us.

Apparently It's OK to be fairly tolerant of the myriad multiple 'imperfections' that are to encountered around challenging all that

But at the same time you're quite happy to go in pretty hard, and rather aggressively call 'transphobe' on people such as @AuroraSaab (and me to an extent) when 'imperfect' concerns are raised over untramelled access to the safe spaces of women.

Maybe it's just me, but it comes across as a bit of a double standard, in terms of what or indeed 'who' can, or cannot be 'tackled' 🤔

Fwiw we have had multiple (well two) threads about tackling misogyny, and VAWAG .
Curiously, despite those things causing much more general mayhem and suffering in our world than the transrights issue, they don't seem to attract nearly so much interest , or traffic, as this one
I wonder why that is ??

 

[multitool]

You seem quite relaxed around peoples 'imperfections' in general terms of tackling misogyny, and want to be let off having to tackle too much, the toxic male behaviour, which impacts so many of us.

Apparently It's OK to be fairly tolerant of the myriad multiple 'imperfections' that are to encountered around challenging all that

But at the same time you're quite happy to go in pretty hard, and rather aggressively call 'transphobe' on people such as @AuroraSaab (and me to an extent) when 'imperfect' concerns are raised over untramelled access to the safe spaces of women.

Maybe it's just me, but it comes across as a bit of a double standard, in terms of what or indeed 'who' can, or cannot be 'tackled' 🤔

I've not been present for any discussions of misogyny per se, here. But now that I am, you can see what my stance is. No denial, and no denial that I can and should do more.

But, I view this as seperate to this discussion of transphobia. Yes I have come down hard on AS, but not, as you suggest, because I am at heart a mulisogynist. It's because I view her as an employer of dishonest debating tactics. I'm not alone in this, theclaud has pointed out that four people have said the same.

Fwiw we have had multiple (well two) threads about tackling misogyny, and VAWAG .
Curiously, despite those things causing much more general mayhem and suffering in our world than the transrights issue, they don't seem to attract nearly so much interest , or traffic, as this one
I wonder why that is ??

Yes, but the other side of that coin is for you to address that to AS and her phobe friends and ask them why they are ignoring the issues that really matter.

My opening stance in this thread was to ask whether Self ID was really creating the problems. I too see "the trans debate" as both a massive distraction but also entryism for regression on social freedom. Its the T first, but the L and the G will follow.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, but the other side of that coin is for you to address that to AS and her phobe friends and ask them why they are ignoring the issues that really matter.

This is just the whataboutery of which you keep accusing me. Women have been fighting for years to end male violence and there have been several discussions on this forum about it. To say that campaigning women in real life (or my transpbobic friends as you call them) or myself on here (and in real life) are ignoring these issues is either showing ignorance or simply trying to distract from the current topic.

'Men are very violent, aren't they? Why aren't women doing anything about it?'

Aside from this, it's not either/or. You can think about two things at once. You can address both male violence in the wider sphere and be concerned about placing males in women's prisons. The two issues are not unrelated.

My opening stance in this thread was to ask whether Self ID was really creating the problems. I too see "the trans debate" as both a massive distraction but also entryism for regression on social freedom. Its the T first, but the L and the G will follow.

If that's the case you have to ask why so many gay men and women in the UK are concerned about transactivism and see its demands as very different from the demands of gay people to have equality in law.

The demands of gay campaigners for equality took nothing away from any other group. They didn't demand access to single sex spaces or seek to reduce the rights of others. There was no clash of rights. Gay activists asked for equal rights, transactivism asks for privileges.

 

[mudsticks]

I've not been present for any discussions of misogyny per se, here. But now that I am, you can see what my stance is. No denial, and no denial that I can and should do more.

But, I view this as seperate to this discussion of transphobia. Yes I have come down hard on AS, but not, as you suggest, because I am at heart a mulisogynist. It's because I view her as an employer of dishonest debating tactics. I'm not alone in this, theclaud has pointed out that four people have said the same.

Well you rather were present in the 'Can the Met change?' thread, and informed me that we had to accept that there was going to be a degree of misogyny within their ranks.
It's just 'how things are'

Thing is misogyny is very much not separate to the trans issue.
All these things are intersectional.

Women wouldn't be so vociferously defending their right to 'safe spaces' if they didn't have such need for them
Why do they need them in the first place?

Yup, you guessed it, misogyny, and the abuse and discomfort that arises from it.

It's the same misogyny that ends up affecting transwomen too.

Yes, but the other side of that coin is for you to address that to AS and her phobe friends and ask them why they are ignoring the issues that really matter.

My opening stance in this thread was to ask whether Self ID was really creating the problems. I too see "the trans debate" as both a massive distraction but also entryism for regression on social freedom. Its the T first, but the L and the G will follow.

I think self ID is causing problems in a number of cases.

It's not wrong or transphobic to discuss those issues openly and respectfully.
It is true that there is a vociferous and quite scarey cohort of 'no debaters' among the trans lobby.
Ofc not everyone who is trans, or who is advocating for LGBTQ+ rights is resistant to discussing issues where the rights of certain groups conflict or intersect.

@AuroraSaab is correct in saying that the majority of transwomen want to be called and identified and treated as women.
The majority of the time that's not an issue, but sometimes it very definitely is.

It's not up to AS to tackle misogyny, although as a feminist I'm sure she has pointed it out and tried to tackle it on numerous occasions.

That's up to those who practice it, and those who have a slightly better chance of being listened to - IE 'good' men


I can guarantee that misogynists don't listen to women, such as myself or AS, our thoughts or opinions are of very little interest or value to them - it's the nature of the 'beast'.
Feel free to ask Shep and his mates for further details🙄

 

[AuroraSaab]

Perhaps men could be more accommodating to their non conforming brethren and welcome them in the spaces, prisons, and sports that are already provided for them.

Instead, it's only women who are being told to budge up, move over, make accommodations, share nicely.

I read a thing by an Irish feminist who summed it up very well when she said, 'Why are women expected to mammy the whole world?'.

 

[multitool]

Well you rather were present in the 'Can the Met change?' thread, and informed me that we had to accept that there was going to be a degree of misogyny within their ranks.
It's just 'how things are'

No I didn't say you had to accept it. That is a mischaracterisation. I think there is an inevitability about it, as things are because of the nature of many people who join the police.

For comparison, I would say the same thing is not inevitable in every profession. This is not the same as saying it is right, desirable or tolerable.

 

[monkers]

The demands of gay campaigners for equality took nothing away from any other group. They didn't demand access to single sex spaces or seek to reduce the rights of others. There was no clash of rights. Gay activists asked for equal rights, transactivism asks for privileges.

I see an astonishing lack of awareness here. I'm not going to debate with you as it can never end well and lead to tedium. However I'm going to set you straight on this.

The sexual offences act released gay men from the offence of being 'sodomites' but the stick is alive and well, and 'queer-bashing' has again become a thing, and the toxic stigma is alive and well.

To look at more recent events. Gay people became 'allowed' by the heteronormative society to form civil partnerships, but not marriage.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couple) Act was a bitter period where the lurking structural but sometimes subtle sometimes not underbelly of structural homophobia was unleashed. It was a deeply divisive issue for the UK. It can not simply be brushed away, with your mantra that there was no clash of rights. People with singularly entrenched religious views argued that their right to define the word 'marriage' was so special to them that they could not share it with queer folk. Gay people were again accused of being all paedophiles. Speeches were made in parliament, to paraphrase 'they are paedophiles, they have unnatural relationships with animals; next they will demand that they be allow to marry their dogs'. This all happened, just a single decade ago, and this latent homophobia is alive and well today ... 'just don't bend over to pick up the soap' hahaha. Yes you are very funny and refreshingly original. The truth though is that gay men get raped in prison by 'heterosexual' men. Go figure.

The word 'marriage' was too special, and yet the word is in everyday use everywhere. Engineers use the words 'marry up' every day when fitting components together. Nobody has ever objected to that - but queer folk, nope can't use it. The argument was specifically about reaching an accommodation of rights. Gay people still today can not be married in a C of E church. For many gay folk with Christian belief that is devastating.

Some (but not all) people with religious belief say about gay and trans people that is all in their heads (conversion therapy still in the news in the UK - not illegal yet). Yet we are not allowed to ask where there religious belief comes from. Is this not in their heads. Religious belief good - self-knowledge bad.

Even since the Equality Act gay people have been denied services for dint of being gay. Some have raised issues by taking cases to the courts, and yes they win, but the ongoing stigmatisation of being gay or trans remains a traumatising experience.

So I feel the need to challenge this view, and I need to challenge the meaning of that word 'democracy' because this country has lost sight of it.

Democracy was never set about 50% plus one becoming instant 'winners' to the detriment of the 'losers'. A functioning democracy is something that the UK has lost sight of, we have become the 'we won suck up it buttercup' mentality instead. We have lost sight that under a functioning democracy, the 'losers' retain their human rights and must be accommodated, and this includes all members of the LGBTiQ community.

There is no place for the dogma of 'we don't need to be kind' because we have all the God-given rights, because that is not how functioning democracy works, and not what international law permits. International law was largely written by post war Britain; but since about 2010 or so you'd never think it so.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Gay people asked for nothing other than what everybody else already had - equality in law. Of course they still face prejudice and discrimination - just like people still face race discrimination despite equality in law.

They certainly didn't ask for access to other groups hard won rights nor ask that language be changed to accommodate them. Kindness is a two way street. It's not kind to demand these things of women and then call them unkind when they say No.

 

[monkers]

Gay people asked for nothing other than what everybody else already had.

Why then have we still not got it? Why are we still having to ask for it? Why does social inequality still exist? It's because there are some people demand that it continues, and they are the ones with influence and power, and of course the majority of those are heteronormative men.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Because social attitudes can't be changed by legislation, obviously. Gay people have equality in law. Giving them that equality took nothing away from any other group. This cannot be said of the demands of transactivism, which requires that women do the giving up of rights to accommodate a tiny minority.

 

[monkers]

Because social attitudes can't be changed by legislation, obviously. Gay people have equality in law. Giving them that equality took nothing away from any other group. This cannot be said of the demands of transactivism, which requires that women do the giving up of rights to accommodate a tiny minority.

'A tiny minority'. That's it! A tiny minority. You seldom see a trans woman in a women's loo. There are no cases of women being attacked in public toilets by trans women.

I am perceived as quite masculine looking, while my niece is perceived as feminine. It's me that doesn't 'pass' in this ultra-feministic idealism.

I've been in public spaces twice now with my niece and been confronted by an angry feminist telling me that 'I don't belong there and to get out'. Should I carry my birth certificate around with me? It's happened to my horrid sister once too who also has a masculine face; oh the delicious irony.

Feminists not prepared to accommodate a tiny minority of their sisters, while simultaneously telling men to move up along the bus to accommodate a majority. Oh the delicious irony.

Thank to feminism, I can't think of myself as a feminist anymore, even though I want men as a group to change some of their behaviours. And thanks to feminism, it's made difficult for me to call myself a lesbian anymore, because I won't exclude trans women as women.

Time for me to remind readers here. This battle is not trans people versus the rest. It's a battle between groups of women who are pro human rights for trans people versus women who are against human rights for trans people. Trans people are caught in the middle while certain women 'standing up for their rights' call for a 'final solution' and quote from Mein Kampf. I can understand some young trans activists responding to them with what is essentially 'kiss my ass' but in stronger terms.

Prisons by their very nature exist to deprive people of certain of their human rights but not all human rights, that's the social contract. The right to dignity and freedom for torture and degrading treatment remains. Women's prisons are terrible places with high levels of violence. This needs to change urgently, but it isn't changed by campaigning to keep trans prisoners who are correctly risk assessed as 'safe' out of them.

Women's prisons become safe when they are fully funded to become so. That's the real campaign that needs to be fought. Instead we have left wing feminists giving up on left wing politicians and voting for the likes of Raab and Braverman, both of whom are advocates for the abolition of the UK Human Rights Act and are working to do so.

Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for.