This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Hypothetical question - Trans activists and the culture of abuse towards women.(154 Posts)
After the horrorshow that was the multiple hijacked Lesbian Visibility threads, my mind keeps going back to something @Helleofabore asked. Essentially a simple question - "What are trans activists doing to change the abusive culture towards women?" Sadly, in a nutshell, my answer was "nothing".
Hypothetically, if there was an organisation of trans people who wanted to stand with women against the current ideology - perhaps a campaign group based in biological reality who fought for third spaces, trans dv services, the cessation of misogyny and the co-ercive and bullying nature towards lesbians etc etc (we all know the issues) - what would you like to see as immediate priorities?
Essentially what would you, as women, like to see tackled head on BY such an organisation as part of its core aims or framework?
Apologies for this being potentially seen as a "women doing men's work task" - but I've had something scratching at the back of my brain since "those threads". Call it hypothetical fact-finding..
In light of recent threads of late where TRAs/allies have been deliberately goady, I've attached my response to Helleofabore during one of those threads so you can see my original viewpoint.
Tbh I'm actually quite scared of the potential replies because I know how bad things are, but I would quite like to get a good-faith discussion going on this.
I wonder if transmen and transwomen should follow LGB Alliance’s example and distance themselves from Stonewall et al by setting up their own advocacy group.
I can’t imagine Stonewall etc are serving their interests.
Sorry, keep replying before I’ve finished typing.
Perhaps some research exploring models to support GNC children and adults, that don’t solely focus on affirmation-only?
Unfortunately abuse directed towards women (by TRAs/allies) is encouraged by Californian companies such as Twitter and Facebook. For clickbait. They allow multiple profiles of one user so long as the user targets women only.
They'll ban users for saying TWAM but not users threatening women with rape / violence / death and sending erection pictures to them. There's something wrong at the heart of these American corporations they're corrupt, morally bankrupt and toxic. (Hello UK Stonewall Champions).
In addition we have porn culture that gleefully portrays women as objects to be abused, so women therefore in real life should be abused and just put up with it like those porn actresses do and who act like they love it. Pornhub.cum etc do nothing about the sexual abuse of women in PHYSICAL REAL LIFE.
We really are living in a shocking state of affairs so it's no wonder so many girls are trying to opt out of womanhood.
Thanks for being on our side and trying to work through this madness.
Perhaps some research exploring models to support GNC children and adults, that don’t solely focus on affirmation-only?
I believe that's being undertaken by the likes of Stella O'Malley, James Esses and James Caspian, as well as groups like Transgender Trend and Bayswater Support.
A good idea, Hamster.
I'd like to see more challenging of gender stereotypes. Fionne Orlander and Miranda Yardley have a campaign for third spaces that I thought was great.
What about services for gnc children, young people? Services for trans survivors of dv, rape, etc - I believe, having read something by Karen Ingala Smith, that the needs of trans people are likely to be different than those of women in need of refuges, etc.
And probably mental health support, yes, that isn't just 'affirmation', but also offers support to detransitioners, post-transition, etc.
Check out MichFest and Lisa Vogel- she is a lesbian who ran a woman-centered music festival from 1976-2015. It pulled lesbians from around the world, plus many hetero and bi women too. It was shut down by TRAs in 2015, (one who murdered 2 lesbians and their son https://www.karadansky.com/state-v-dana-rivers-updates).
The irony is that women loved this annual event because it was a rare place to be left alone and feel safe. Vogel did acknowledge that trans women were sisters, MichFest never banned them and she knew several who came and respectfully allowed the event to be focused on biological aspects of being female - so the myth that trans women were banned is just that - a myth. However, some nefarious TW weren't happy with the vagina focus and created a media storm of intimidation.
I think allowing lesbians to have natal women only spaces should be a focus. (Interestingly, MichFest included a Black women's tent, and white women respected their desire for a place of their own).
Festivals and events centering natal women and girls are a tangible need.
To quote my teen DD, "I want one night a year where all the men have to stay inside so I can walk through the parks and the city at night, alone."
I like your idea Hamster I believe such an organisation is sorely needed to genuinely try to work for what trans people actually need whilst also being based in biological reality, having high safeguarding standards for women and children rather than expecting those to be sacrificed as existing groups supposedly representing trans interests do and crucially dropping the authoritarian demands for linguistic changes, compelled speech, overt displays of allyship etc.
As you mentioned in another post I think, this new campaign group might also seek to portray trans people as normally resilient members of society rather than fragile victims who must be treated with kid gloves. I imagine that this would be a major step in improving the wellbeing and mental health of trans people.
Your organisation might also acknowledge the existence of detransistioners and the importance as put so well by Stella O Malley of exploring trans identity thoroughly prior to transition in order to protect mental health going forward so that individuals are more likely to feel confident in their trans identity and that their pathway is the best one they could have taken.
Your proposed group also might be explicitly targeted at adults while promoting watchful waiting for children.
Thanks for this thread, it is a really interesting and I think important idea to explore.
Previous attempts to set up groups in recent years seem to have kept imploding for various reasons. "Transrational" springs to mind.
It would be good to have a "T Alliance" (if that name makes sense...) alongside the "LGB Alliance". And, indeed a "Women's Alliance".
As we were discussing on the Fawcett thread, at the minute we have this "NGO CEO carousel" problem where this big clique work for every charity, and they all dissolve into a mush so every single organisation just does Woke. Their public lobbying is indistinguishable. Would you even know the ACLU were supposed to be about civil liberties without being told?
Every single org seems to just internally rank "T > LGB > women" and ends up just going on and on about T. Even the "women's" ones.
You get the impression every single charity/NGO boss goes off to "charity Davos" every year and decide what all the charities are lobbying for in the next 12 months.
That doesn't work. Just like parliament needs distinct parties, lobby groups need to be distinct. The debates and rights balancing needs to happen in public, not behind closed doors.
I'd want to see the LGBs and the Ts and the women's orgs each presenting their case, all lobbying, all debating, and each centring their own needs, and not calling the other groups bigots for representing theirs.
Another part of the problem is a lot of this has ended up quite childish - the Woke seem to want to pretend they're fighting the 1950s again on every single subject. But we're not. We need some more middle-aged organisations, conscious of the gains we've made, and not giving them up too easily.
So, anyway, I'd say the main thing for your org is - represent T and only T. Respect other orgs representing non-T. You shouldn't really be asking women what you should be campaigning for - you should just respect what they're campaigning for, and that they have needs just like you.
I think a lot here aren't actually sure what trans people need at this point. The main concern is about how long it takes to get gender dysphoria treatment - NHS waiting lists. This paradox of long waiting and short consultation, so we talk about "fast tracking" and the trans activists go "it takes years!"
There are notable, high-profile TW who do just that - Fionne Orlander, SophieXY, the indomitably fabulous Miranda Yardley, Dr Debbie Hayton. Plus a whole host of lower-profile TW on Twitter, plus the very many TW out there who just want to live anonymous lives and utterly deplore the way some TRAs have trampled on women.
In the same way, most men aren't rapists or abusers - but enough are that we segregate facilities. Plenty of men call out shitty behaviour in other men too, and I thank them as I thank those mentioned above.
So, anyway, I'd say the main thing for your org is - represent T and only T.
I'm not saying it's "my org". Just hypothetical fact finding at moment. The problem is that the T organisations are so utterly lost to gender ideology, affirmation therapy and playing "Minority Victimhood Top Trumps" that there IS no organisation supporting the causes of women in conjunction with the needs of trans people.
You shouldn't really be asking women what you should be campaigning for - you should just respect what they're campaigning for, and that they have needs just like you.
I do, and I'm not asking what should be campaigned for, but moreso what women see as a priority. There are SO many things that need campaigning for that this is more an exercise in positioning and overlap.
I agree with NecessaryScene1.
An explicitly trans group, by trans for trans focused on trans needs but as you say respecting other groups in society and biological reality, keen to maintain the highest safeguarding standards. Even more explicitly let it be about UK trans experience and not dictated to from abroad or from companies or other interests.
Not by woke allies who have their own agenda, queer theory or critical theory or postmodernism or whatever.
Your thoughts are giving me hope of resolution actually being possible. I do hope that such a group emerges soon!
Sorry that was confusing I was addressing OP in that last post after stating my agreement with NecessaryScene1
I'm not saying it's "my org"
Don't panic! Wasn't expecting any sort of commitment. There was an implied "hypothetical" in there.
Good idea Hamster and all the good ideas mentioned above. I like particularly the stepping away from Stonewall and concentrating on the T, third spaces etc. Also support for detransitioners who seem to have their experience denied by the activist lot.
I am intrigued by the branding idea.
We've had the "Labour Women's Declaration", followed by "For Women Scotland" and parallel groups in every party come into being. That was quite powerful.
And we've got "LGB Alliance" springing up in every country. With similar branding.
It's a kind of intersectionality. Intersectionality can be good. We've got a party axis, and a nation axis.
So let's actually fire off the identity group axis.
Each group following the ethos of LGB Alliance, similar ethos. Representing their group, respecting the other groups, and being the grown-ups in the room. Never saying "no debate".
All of those groups have been failed by the current groups supposed to be representing them. And I'm sure there are potentially more.
And they could keep the same branding. I do like the LGB Alliance logo. It's smart, neutral, not LGB specific.
But that branding would just represent the ethos.
Each group must be fully independent, and make it part of their charter to not try to do the others' jobs.
Just work with them when appropriate.
And most importantly debate when appropriate.
Everything that's going wrong now is due to lack of debate. So no cloying consensus on policy, please. Just consensus on debate.
i would like to say it's good to focus on positives. So rather than setting up in opposition to anyone or to 'fight' anything, I think it's good to focus on the positive impact you hope to have.
I disagree with you there NecessaryScene1 I think that the hypothetical trans group would do better to be distinct and not follow an LGB alliance branding particularly as many trans people may mistakenly believe LGB Alliance to be a hate group currently. It is better not to appear linked or under the same “umbrella” in my opinion.
Similarly, I think what said earlier about avoiding the homogeneity that seems to be blighting charities at the moment is really important. Distinct charities focusing on distinct causes but in respectful dialogue when appropriate seems the most likely to meet the needs of their target group in my opinion.
What a great idea, Hamster.
I agree with the approach of treating trans people as "normally resilient" --basically a group run in a grown-up way. Though my personal biggest concern is how to best support children and young people who are questioning their gender identity in a way that is truly compassionate and broadminded. But that needs a grown-up approach.
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Ok I'll bite.
Are these the same supporters of women's rights who
* Attack women at peaceful demonstrations - eg Hyde Park
* Repeatedly try and silence women online
* Threaten women online with death threats
* Attempt to stop women meeting to discuss activism
* Threaten female academics
* Threaten female politicians
* Coerce and gaslight lesbians into trying to sleep with them
* Demand their inclusion into spaces where vulnerable women reside? i.e prisons and refuges
* Repeatedly try to bypass existing safeguarding legislation with regard to children
I can continue...
Is this trans feminism? Is this supporting women?
I don't know anyone, online or IRL, trans or otherwise, who fights for trans rights and who doesn't also support women and women's rights.
I guess it depends on your definition of women's rights, doesn't it?
I'm honestly not sure what someone who supported one and not the other would even look like. I am sure I wouldn't want anything to do with them.
Well.... I reckon understanding the need for language that describes females and their needs as women, as opposed to males who identify as women, and at the same time supporting single sex spaces for those females, is a really good place to start.
Dismiss us as "TRAs" if you want, but we are here, we continue to support feminism and women's rights, we just won't answer or bend our knees to a minority of close-minded extremists who conceal transphobia behind a fig leaf of "reasonable concerns"
As if we can dismiss "you". "You" have influence in all the powerful places.
I but I object, in the strongest possible terms, to having my concerns minimised and smeared as being a "figleaf" for transphobia. If "you" have decided that asking for same sex spaces in the relatively small, yet extremely important, number of settings that require them is transphobic, then to you I am transphobic. It is not my understanding of the word or does it resonate with the trans people I know and have known but I highly doubt I will change your mind.
Here's the point where I tell you all about one of my rapes and the sexual assault by a male doctor afterwards isn't it? Where I explain about crime stats and how ptsd works and why I desperately do actually need to request female HCPs. With my heart in my mouth as I put it out there for all to read - hear me - accept me - believe me etc. But you will either ignore or dismiss or slur or deny or shape shift your argument. My words will no doubt be considered a "transphobic dog whistle". So I can't be bothered. You're not here for discussion are you?
Obviously I'm not talking about transphobic quislings like Hayton, Yardley, Jenner, etc. who fight against trans equality for selfish reasons.
Nice way to denounce any transperson who does not agree with you, by the way.