Gender again. Sorry!

[newfhouse]

Nope I think it's a very poor parallel to draw.

I still hear faint echoes. Sorry.

And I notice how you've hinted that it was only women who were racist about the doctor they saw, it was hardly that - and it's still not now .

Quite the opposite and I didn’t hint that at all. My observation from real life is that more often it was an overbearing man saying “I’m not going to let a black man touch my woman.”

The old "I have sympathy but"

subtext
"but - you might also be making a bit too much unjustified silly fuss about all this."

You are seeing a subtext that I didn’t write and that I don’t believe reflects my actual thoughts. Sometimes it’s the lines that count, not what the reader imagines is between them.

 

[theclaud]

Saying 'i can't help hearing echoes'
Implies that you think there is an equivalence, even if only a faint one, between women being extra cautious around men, and racism.

When there is no equivalence whatsoever.

If that's not what you meant, then why bring it up. ??

I don't think this is fair. No, it's not the same, but I know exactly what @newfhouse means. Kellie-Jay Keen, who famously suggested that men with guns might protect women from the Trans Toilet Menace, is obviously an operator in the tradition of Carolyn Bryant, or that woman who called the cops on a black birdwatcher in Central Park. Producing feminine fear and fuelling social anxieties around routine interaction with 'the other' is not a feminist project. A rational assessment of risk would make women more wary of their husbands than of largely notional transgender medical staff (or of black men and boys existing in public).

 

[mudsticks]

I still hear faint echoes. Sorry.


Quite the opposite and I didn’t hint that at all. My observation from real life is that more often it was an overbearing man saying “I’m not going to let a black man touch my woman.”


You are seeing a subtext that I didn’t write and that I don’t believe reflects my actual thoughts. Sometimes it’s the lines that count, not what the reader imagines is between them.

You're correct you didn't hint it at all.

You wrote it

"I remember a time - and in truth it hasn’t gone completely - when some women would fear consulting a black male doctor more than a white one"

Like you say sometimes it's the lines that count . 🙄

Imo your 'faint echoes' is still unjust

There are sound reasons why many women feel more uncomfortable around men particularly in vulnerable situations.

That is nothing to do with prejudice arising from skin colour.

 

[mudsticks]

I don't think this is fair. No, it's not the same, but I know exactly what @newfhouse means. Kellie-Jay Keen, who famously suggested that men with guns might protect women from the Trans Toilet Menace, is obviously an operator in the tradition of Carolyn Bryant, or that woman who called the cops on a black birdwatcher in Central Park. Producing feminine fear and fuelling social anxieties around routine interaction with 'the other' is not a feminist project. A rational assessment of risk would make women more wary of their husbands than of largely notional transgender medical staff.

My point wasn't around transgender medical staff, it makes no difference if they're biologically male or transwomen.

It's around the idea that women feeling uncomfortable around any male bodied people in vulnerable situations, is in any way shape or form analogous to racism.

I'm not trying to make feminine fear into a feminist project, a large chunk of my life is spent helping women to overcome various fears they have, and to have a go at things they've previously thought were 'off limits' for them.

But doing that isn't actually helped by diminishing, or rubbishing those fears, or by suggesting that they come from a place of irrationality.

Ps and yes I know all too well that the real and greatest danger to women (statistically) comes from their intimate partners.

I often remind them of that that when they suggest they're 'too scared' to go camping in the wilds by themselves because of 'stranger danger'

 

[multitool]

. A rational assessment of risk would make women more wary of their husbands than of largely notional transgender medical staff (or of black men and boys existing in public).

Have you not listened to a word Aurora has said???

We aren't doing 'rational' in this thread.

 

[newfhouse]

I remember a time - and in truth it hasn’t gone completely - when some women would fear consulting a black male doctor more than a white one

I also went on to suggest who may have encouraged those fears in many but not all cases.

There are sound reasons why many women feel more uncomfortable around men particularly in vulnerable situations.

Yes, I agree.

That is nothing to do with prejudice arising from skin colour.

I give up.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Blimey! A lot of words have been written since I partially switched off from this thread in order to concentrate better on other things for a bit. I'm not saying that there's been nothing illuminating in the mix, but as someone who considered herself quite well up on the issues involved, I feel further away than ever from where I attempted to start.

For all that I agree that icowden's caricatures are reductive and insulting, I can't help but conclude that he has a point about discrimination claims in relation to prison accommodation requests. Discrimination claims require a comparator, and previous litigation in this area has involved (legally male) prisoners with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (but without a GRC) having their treatment assessed by comparison to that of a hypothetical male prisoner without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It seems merely a matter of time before a lawyer successfully argues that the possession of a GRC means that the appropriate comparator must be a female prisoner? Again I stress that I am not a legal expert, but I remember this point being made by Julian Norman (FOTP) in the context of an exchange with Stephanie Hayden, as it prompted me to reference it in a submission in the public consultation at the time, which was back when it seemed possible to have a constructive debate in public about these things.

I respect Monkers' intention to offer a counterweight to fear and panic, but if the law seems (to reasonably well informed people who might need to use it) to to be a contradictory mess riddled with circular definitions, conflated key terms, incompatible pieces of key legislation, and alarming unintended consequences, then we have a problem, especially in the context of proposed legal changes, public understanding thereof, and a cultural climate extremely conducive to right-wing populist wedge politics. I recognise that the GRA predates the EA, but let's also not forget that the legislation replaced by the EA included the Sex Discrimination Act, and that there might be losses as well as gains from rolling up all unequal social relations into a single framework.

Good points.

In the words (I think of Churchill) I am none the wiser, but better informed....

Within these walls we (mostly) have a group of open minded, educated and reasonably well informed people struggling to get their heads around something which is clearly very complex and highly emotive to those that it impacts. I am disappointed at the petty nastiness shown toward people trying to debate in good faith and challenging their own beliefs. It should come as no surprise that several have dropped-out of this thread and contemplating leaving NACA as a result of the tone exhibited here.
The reason I bother stick my head above the parapet on this is because if we here cannot debate this here with a generally liberal and reasonable positive and open-minded bunch of minds without resorting to nastiness, how the bloody hell are we to effect any change in mindset from debate within wider society at large?

Can we quit the bitchiness nastiness please?

Edited for unthinking faux-pas on my part....

 

[mudsticks]

Can we quit the bitchiness please?

Yup, these female dogs are just the wurst right..??

 

[theclaud]

Yup, these female dogs are just the wurst right..??

Sausage dogs are the wurst.

 

[mudsticks]

Sausage dogs are the wurst.

But wimmin sausage dogs are the wurstest by far 😶‍🌫️

 

[monkers]

It's not a human right for an adult male to be in the same changing room as women and girls.

Transgender people have the same rights as everyone else. What some transactivists seek are privileges that we don't extend to others.

Trans women have the exact same human right as you to be in the same loo or changing room as you - that is a matter of law. You say 'privileges you don't extend'. You are admitting being a member of a group that refuses to acknowledge the law. Legally, you are offenders.

You can not deny people their rights because you have an anxiety or a disagreement with the law.

Neck on the block time - I agree with the point made by @Newhouse and I think I understood his 'echoes' comment. He was not saying that that the one thing was exactly the same was the other. His observation is that there is a similarity in the anxiety. To me this appears quite in order. Of course opinions will vary, but I prefer to consider if a comment is made in good faith. In this case I believe it was.

 

[monkers]

Sausage dogs are the wurst.

Perhaps he should have said 'cattiness' to be more inclusive. Some people self ID as 'dog people' others as 'cat people'. True story I've heard them say it.

 

[Ian H]

Of CC, not of this ghetto specifically. Immigration specialist, AIUI, but was once a trustee of Filia and also ran a feminist law Twitter account which I found illuminating on this sort of stuff for a while - I think she subsequently handed it over to some less thoughtful sorts and it became a bit 'Aurora' - although I might be misremembering...

I remember that. I was chatting to C, her partner, last year. Impressive upward trajectory, careerwise. I did briefly wonder if she was the Secret Barrister (she isn't).

 

[Fab Foodie]

Yup, these female dogs are just the wurst right..??

Ha! Fair point - my bad.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Perhaps he should have said 'cattiness' to be more inclusive. Some people self ID as 'dog people' others as 'cat people'. True story I've heard them say it.

I've still got a fair way to go...but at least am listening....