to think Julie Burchill went too far in this article?

(1000 Posts)
kim147 Sun 13-Jan-13 16:42:26

It all started with an article by Suzanne Moore in which she mentioned Brazillian transsexuals - as a throwaway comment.This got picked on by some vocal memebers of the trans community and led to a Twitter storm. Suzanne Moore then left Twitter.

So Julie Burchill then waded in to defend her friend and launch the kind of attack on transsexuals that you wouldn't even find in the Daily Mail.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/julie-burchill-suzanne-moore-transsexuals

There's no way the paper would publish such an attack on other minority groups but transsexuals are ok?

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 10:09:34

Indeed

One would hope any human would care enough to do so

KhallDrogo Wed 16-Jan-13 10:07:32

Woman have very profound and valid reasons for wanting to see famale only doctors. They should not be made to feel that they have to explain or justify themselves to anyone

Can you imagine the impact it would have in a vulnerable girl

In fact I don't even know if this could ever be a scenario. I can't imagine that a transgender (mtf) would be so insensitive as to not understand the issues...they would surely never see a patient who requested a female only doctor?

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 10:06:09

I asked a male gynae once why men want to apend all day looking at women's bits, and he said gynae is the soft option for those that can't hack the other stuff and relatively easy to succeed in...

Jins Wed 16-Jan-13 10:03:58

The trouble I've found locally that to get a female gynaecologist is virtually impossible. Female GP no problem at all but if you need a referral you're immediately off to Mr X, Y or Z's clinic and chances are there'll be a male student in there as well. I'm honestly not bothered how they define themselves as long as they look after me.

KhallDrogo Wed 16-Jan-13 10:00:19

jins me too, though I am long past struggling with it. My anatomy and physiology and my life experiences are what make me a woman. Not my hair, clothes, shoes and an inner belief

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 09:59:28

Well you can't have everything, Khall. No one can. I am limited by my womanhood, my age etc etc as others have limitations. I don't want anyone with a penis sticking a speculum up me no matter what gender label they apply to themselves.

Actually I don't know. So I retract that, I'd have to meet and judge them.

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 09:57:37

loq - eh? The reverse, we'd need more female docs surely? Oh, do you mean if men refuse? They won't tho, will they? And if they did, all humans should have the right to have their bits examined by their own gender if they prefer, why not?

Are we having Burchill2, btw?

KhallDrogo Wed 16-Jan-13 09:56:51

There will never be 3 choices hully...transgender people don't want to be a 3rd sex. That is their point

KhallDrogo Wed 16-Jan-13 09:54:52

Probs just go home and avoid it all

Bingo! that is why it is a problem

Loquace Wed 16-Jan-13 09:54:12

After all, we have the choice b/n male and female docs, why not male/female/MtF?

But it is that choice a good thing ? DH's cousin is a urologist, prostates are her bag. Should man be given a legal option to refuse to see her within the NHS based on her gender ? Can we confer a right on women and not expect men to demand wuid pro wuo ?

I think we have to be careful about unintended consequences. If we legally enshrine the concept of "you are allowed pick a specific gender on a spectrum" for intimate exams, given how small the number of transgendered people who legally change gender are, one possible outcome that is more likely than women avoiding a trandgendered female gyn, is that female docs find themselves being squeezed out of their speciality, in a field where they are already the minority. Ie medecine.

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 09:40:42

Or again, people should have the choice until it does become widely accepted. After all, we have the choice b/n male and female docs, why not male/female/MtF?

Loquace Wed 16-Jan-13 09:40:15

The whole sex as acceptance cotton knicker thing is a straw woman, an excuse for a fight.

Without the original peice it is really hard to pin it down, cos it's all second hand, but I don't think it is what you say it is. I got more a sense of genuine hurt at lipservice "of course you are a woman" when it came to allience and supoort at the coal face, and then being demoted back to "not really a woman enough" on a personal level.

And then some people took the worst possible interpretation of what some other people were saying and it snowballed down a moutain with extra added "in 1978 you lot said.." and everybody outraged that "they" tried to get their conference cancelled ...style recriminations.

So it became an excuse for a fight but then it would appear little does not become an excuse for a fight in some quarters. Cos You can bet your life that the same happens in reverse. some feminsits will put forward a "thing" NOT with the intent to fight some more, but to illustrate a sticking point, and <boom> insult snowball 12484.0

It's like there is a set dynamic and it will just keep rolling on like that...forever. <doom, gloom>

Also, I'm still not clear even after this great long thread, can a man, without changing physically anything at all, say "I am a woman" and legally have to be regarded as one?

I doubt it is all that easy to actually legally become a woman. Probably lots of hoop jumpig at the shrink's office involved. And I haven't found anything to suggest that some FFJ git called Kevin, still in his superman getup, reregisted as Kevina with the express purpose of invading womens' spaces so "she" (that is a comment on his hypothetical deliberate expoiltation of the law, not a refusal to accept decalred gender) could go shout at femisnists for opressing fathers' rights.

Over all, given that the actual number of transwomen is tiny (not even in three figures per year for the UK from what I saw), I can't see a huge risk for malicious legal gender changes negatively impacting the feminist space. Theortically, yes maybe, but really ? Not so much.

So for myself, it's not something I'd choose as a hill I want to die on.

Jins Wed 16-Jan-13 09:39:39

I wouldn't be bothered about seeing a transgender doctor to be honest. I don't have an issue with somebody calling themselves a woman if that's how they identify.

That is however completely in conflict with something deep down inside me that doesn't think that having surgery or taking hormones and living as a woman actually makes you a woman and I'm really struggling with this

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 09:39:12

Oh it's all such a nightmare.

I flatly refuse to see male doctors (for female matters), and certainly will not have a smear or intimate examination by one.

I have no idea what I would feel/do in the above scenario. Both sides have "right" on their side.

Probs just go home to avoid it all...

KhallDrogo Wed 16-Jan-13 09:28:43

So, you might request to see a female doctor for whatever reason. You could then be seen by a MTF transgender doctor, who has spent all their life as a man except the last 2 years and they have a penis. But the law declares they are female and you would be transphobic to have any objection to this.

There is the arguement of course that you wouldn't know what is in your doctors pants. But it is a violation of trust IMO

hackmum Wed 16-Jan-13 09:23:11

I was slightly surprised at this, but KhallDrogo is right, at least according to Wikipedia, which says:

"In response to its obligation, Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which effectively granted full legal recognition for transgender people.
In contrast to systems elsewhere in the world, the Gender Recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only demonstrate that they have suffered gender dysphoria, and have lived in the 'acquired gender' for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death."

KhallDrogo Wed 16-Jan-13 09:19:36

Legally yes hully, if you mean without having surgery

KhallDrogo Wed 16-Jan-13 09:18:13

It's not even that the law says Y must be allowed in X's space. The law declares that Y is X.

Y doesn't want to be Y, Y wants to be X

Jins Wed 16-Jan-13 09:16:06

I would have thought that they could Hully as long as it's not for the purposes of deception. We can all legally change our names to whatever we like and I suppose it's similar

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 08:51:17

Also, I'm still not clear even after this great long thread, can a man, without changing physically anything at all, say "I am a woman" and legally have to be regarded as one?

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 08:47:31

Absolutely don't agree with that law (what happened in the end, I know it got cancelled, but not the details). Every teeny tiny sub onion layer should meet up alone if they want.

I think too that what would happen is that the born-women -only group (for eg) would meet up, but plenty of others would shrug and meet in the overlapping onion layer and gradually that layer would expand and the isolationsit would shrink, because generally, over time, people get more accepting as they get used to things and new ideas. And frankly stop caring.

Did you see the recent survey on immigration which threw up two completely differing and apparently contradictory findings?

1. There is too much immigration boo hiss

2 Britain is a nice multi-racial happy place and we like it that way.

Come back Orwell all is forgiven

HotheadPaisan Wed 16-Jan-13 08:46:09

And the law is deciding in favour of letting one oppressed group into the space of another oppressed group which isn't how it usually goes.

HotheadPaisan Wed 16-Jan-13 08:40:03

Yes, except the law intervenes and says you must accept x into y space or y space can't exist (although I think the recent debacle was a stretch, it was the org's prerogative to refuse the women born as women's meeting place but it only takes one legal precedent).

Like I said, very similar to the religion/gay issue, sort of, but not quite. We are going to need thread two, needs framing in a positive and constructive way.

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 08:34:29

What comes through is that most of the nonsense could be eliminated it people just said "I am X" and you can be "Y" I don't need you to be "X" too. We can tolerate eachother and have our own spaces and then an overlapping one where we can meet should we wish.

The whole sex as acceptance cotton knicker thing is a straw woman, an excuse for a fight. No one has to sleep with anyone they don't want to, but neither do they have to shout insulting reasons for it. And anyone can want to have sex with anyone else, but they must accept it politely if declined.

isn't it all about kindness and manners at bottom?

Hullygully Wed 16-Jan-13 08:29:24

I've seen Farewell My Concubine - can't remember it!

I must just point out that The Cement Garden (by Ian McEwan) is REMARKABLY, and I expect coincidentally, extremely similar to Julian Gloag's Our Mother's House and therefore makes me cross. Completely irrelevant but a big bugbear.

This thread is not accepting new messages.