How the erosion of LGBT rights effects female sex based rights.

I think the left are also too caught in their inclusiveness loop. Inclusiveness s a very fine concept. However, when you end up losing boundaries because of the constant push to normalise boundary erosion ( ie. Queer theory and destabilising established science and societal boundaries), how do you re- establish boundaries without countering your new now expanded acceptable behaviour.

For instance, look at the Green Party and its candidates such as Poulton (now ex-candidate) and now Sparkles / Molly. In the Green Party’s determination to be the most inclusive Party, they keep encouraging candidates with sexual fetishes that they self publish to social media. Having candidates who lack these boundaries and who lack the ability to put aside their own intolerances of other opinion is never going to be the key to building a report with the community who wants a candidate to reliably represent the needs of all the electorate.

Considering the way the Green Party has become so authoritarian and totalitarian while now actively encouraging the rejection of even listening to constituents who don’t hold the same philosophical belief based on theory and pseudo science, it is clear that some components of the left really have issues to address.

That through this totalitarianist and authoritarianist dimension that has become so strong, they really have lost understanding of who is oppressed and who are the oppressors.

And because they've never been able to place 'women' in all their complexity into the oppression hierarchy, it's often resulted in total disregard of women's rights and needs.

Agreed.

It's bizarrely black and white in its thinking. I'd love to know more about how this rigidity came about

I think the left struggle with the concept that supposedly oppressed people can be oppressors. That's why they won't say a peep about the misogyny in some non western cultures.

Lots of people think gender ideology is dangerous nonsense, because it is.
When an idea is bad enough, its detractors will include people all across the political spectrum.

Exactly. The strange thing is not that the right wing are against this. The strange thing is that the left wing are not.

I think there are a lot of instances in politics throughout history where two otherwise mutually opposed groups may find themselves in agreement on a specific issue

Examples include:

• conservative American religious groups and GC women happen to agree that children should not be subject to 'transition'
• Queer groups protesting against the Israel-Hamas war despite homosexuality being haram for Hamas
• NHS founder Aneurin Bevan's support for Hitler's socialist policies in the 1930s

It happens. It doesn't mean the two groups should be elided. Nuance is a thing.

Exactly.

Feminists defend women’s single-sex rights because these are basic human rights and because humans can’t change sex.

Many people with religious beliefs defend the same rights for the same reasons. So do lots of other people across the whole political spectrum. It’s just obvious.

Yes, and telling a female rape survivor requesting confirmation that her counsellor is female, that she is not welcome.

I find this whole story deeply shocking. Imagine a rape crisis centre prioritising anything other than the needs of women who've been raped? Imagine telling such vulnerable women they need to 'reframe their trauma' and accept a man like Mridhul as a counsellor even if they are uncomfortable with that?

It's just disgusting.

If anyone is under the misapprehension the those pushing for LBGTQ+ rights are interested in women’s rights, I recommend reading the judgement in Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and the harm done to women by a centre set up to support them when this ideology took control.

Judgement here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4R1DAgf3JlR_Ao7ASS18GGE98t6vB-8/view

I think this may illustrate your point. Conservatives (small c conservatives) and gender ideologies both support gender stereotypes. Conservatives and gender critical feminists both believe sex is immutable.

GC feminism crosses over with social/ religious conservatism exactly the same amount as gender ideology crosses over with it, but strangely it's only ever GC feminists who are accused of being in bed with the right.

I hope it's obvious, but just in case as I know some monitors can get triggered very easily and miss the point, in my post above I am describing the regressive perspective on LGB people not agreeing with it.

I agree with you, but I'm taking here about the motivations of other groups.

The regressive groups I'm thinking of see gender (ie socalised differences between men and women) as a natural expression of sex so from their perspective T is transgressive and unnatural.

T ideology meanwhile sees gender as separate from sex and possible for either sex. They genuinely believe that having men claim to be women is breaking gender roles by freeing people from the constraints of their sex, or something.

I agree the T ideologists haven't thought it through to realise, or realise but are choosing not to admit, that the only basis anyone came up with the idea of gender-separate-to-sex in the first place is gender stereotypes, and that a trans woman doing "woman stuff" and thereby being "a woman" is not in fact changing the expectation that female people do "woman stuff" one jot.

But they don't see it that way. It's only from the gender critical perspective you see that both groups are enforcing gender.

That's my perspective so I do agree with you, but it's also true to say that the reason the first group hates/rejects the second is because the first group perceives them as transgressing gender roles, which is what is relevant in the context of my post.

I was also, incidentally, including LGB in transgressing gender roles from the regressive perspective, because from that mindset heterosexual atttraction is part of being "right" for your sex, and those who are not heterosexual are not quite as manly or womanly as they should be. (Which incidentally is also why there is a historic link between LGB and T that made the later force teaming possible and still genuinely supported by many LGB people , but that's way off topic for this post)

T is about enforcing gender roles, not breaking them down.

I think OP was trying to say that regressive groups who oppose LGBT-all-in-the-same-breath because they don't like people breaking gender roles are also anti feminist (true), so feminists recognising that sex impacts women's experiences, risks and needs are the same as sexists reducing women to their sex (not true).

Her fear is that feminists saying one of the reasons women need different rights and supports to men is because child bearing and rearing takes more from women biologically and socially might lead to regressive groups restricting what women can do in case it impacts their reproductive role.

To be fair, I am not sure that the OP quite articulated what they meant. I refer to the ‘supposed feminists’ advocating for women not to do certain roles? Sounds like a misunderstanding of either who is and isn’t a feminist or a misunderstanding of what those women are saying. I could be wrong. Which feminists would be preventing OP’s daughter from becoming an astronaut? Or was that a comment about the erosion of support and opportunities given to female students if that category now includes some male people too?

Every time I see this title in my watched threads it strikes me as so ironic that the OP's typo makes their headline the opposite of what they intended, and changes it from goady into sort-of(1) true 😂

(1) sort-of true because of couse it's not really LGBT rights she's talking about here, it's T-rights. LGB rights have no impact on women's rights. Eroding LGB rights is a bad thng we should all resist, and yes, I agree with the OP that the same groups that attack LGB rights also attack feminism and women's rights.

But eroding trans-specific rights, the rights that only trans people have to redefine and appropriate others' identity, history, political voice, legal rights and protections and social spaces and opportunities does indeed effect, as in (re) establish, women's rights and is therefore something we as a civilised society aiming to undo the effects millenia of disempowerment and marginalisation has had on women's place in our culture should be all in favour of.

It is so so important that we separate these two sets of rights, the LGB and the T. Otherwise we risk sleepwalking (to be generous, or being deliberating manipulated to be cyncial) into believing that women have to choose between standing up for women and LGB rights but accepting the appropriation of female-specific language, spaces, rights and opportunities by men who believe the way they think, the clothes they want to wear or the sexual acts they enjoy makes them women, or standing up for the existence of women as a separate physical, legal, social and political group to men but also endorsing people who wish to roll back feminist and LGB gains.

It's a false dichotomy. Women can and do reject male appropriation of womanhood without signing up for sexism and homophobia. Indeed it's generally the exact opposite - they reject male appropriation of womanhood because it is sexist and homophobic. Anyone who claims not to see this is either not thinking very deeply or deliberately spreading falsehoods.

Yep.

JK Rowling and Kellie-Jay Keen are responsible for anyone who attends one of their events or retweets them, but trans activists are not responsible for Karen White or Katie Dolatowski.

Make it make sense.

Also, for those reading along who want to know more about the history of the feminists who have been those who have raising the alarm about the conflicts between the extreme demands from some groups and needs of female people, this documentary might be helpful.

This documentary has captured many of those early voices. Many of them are lesbian voices as posters have stated on this thread.

Early feminist voices also include people such as Julie Bindel, Linda Belios, Bev Jackson and Kate Harris.

This youtube link could also be useful from Holly Lawford Smith in Australia.

However, I have also read reports detailing Lesbian feminist groups in the 1970s that refused to agree that male people were women in the USA.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

I wonder how many lesbian feminists we need to mention and how far back their participation needs to be evidenced for the claim that there are many left leaning lesbians in the movement and it can be said that they were among the first, if not the first, people to be raising the alarm that this is an issue. The hand waving dismissal of these women has been astonishing to see on this thread.

Edited to add: The documentary is the one that extreme transgender rights activists blocked being shown in Edinburgh University multiple times. I think on the fourth attempt, it was shown. I believe the first blockage attempt also included male people who declared they were women spitting and intimidating the mainly female audience. I even think a physical assault occurred. Other blockage attempts included forcing female people to walk accross male protestors who also grabbed those female people's legs as they walked past. All because they disgreed with the documentary and declared that screening it made people unsafe.

Good posts, Helleofabore especially about ridiculous assertions of being associated with Nazis.

It makes as much sense as saying that Rosie Duffield is a Tory, because she attends Parliament.

Anti-trans = Anti-woman

Because the reality is, those who refer to feminists as 'anti-trans' when feminists are campaigning to protect female people seek to remove those protections for female people. Hence if they want to use the hyperbolic and overly emotional and false term 'anti-trans' then they must except the logical opposite label.

Because every time someone posts using that ludicrous term for women who believe in the prioritisation of sex over gender when sex matters, they simply show they have no argument and all they have is emotional manipulation.

And it is emotional manipulation to position women's discussion and points about the issues that concern them as 'anti-trans'. The term centres people who have transgender identities and removes the focus away from female people who feminists are centring. Most clearly though, the term inherently demonises and vilifies the people being labelled as 'anti-trans' by trying to position them as hateful and bigoted.

However, there is one thing that using that term does do.

It highlights that there are conflicts in outcomes when considering the demands of those extreme transgender rights activists.

Because reasonable transgender rights activists are those who recognise the rights that another group needs and seeks to find equitable solutions. Solutions that maintain the protection of female people and children while providing for the needs of people with transgender identities. Those transgender rights activists do not position feminists and women's rights campaigners as 'anti-trans'.

Not all trans people campaigning rightfully for their protections to be strengthened are making extreme demands nor are vilifying and demonising feminists and women's rights campaigners. But that doesn't stop some people dishonestly applying the label 'anti-trans' to people they disagree with.

Yebbut transwomen are the most important kind of women because they are men.

yep.

And I mean, we can produce endless examples of the views and actions that are harmful to female people and to children of some of the very prominent spokespeople who seek to prioritise gender over sex where sex is considered very important to protect or to provide opportunities specifically for all people who are female.

We could start listing them but the thing is that it tends to kill a thread because there is a lot of evidence and it is not based on 'this person is friends with x' or 'this person has not spoken out about y therefore must be vilified'.

I have attempted to read this thread but my brain has melted slightly.

I think our resident PSGL’s stance is (some) GC women have publicly agreed with some right wing people on a single topic i.e. sex is immutable; people with penises should not be sharing single sex accommodation with women (female women, for absolute clarity). Therefore GC women are right wing and evil, or something.

Do I have that right?

At the same time, PSGL is entirely unworried that the people PSGL supports include rapists and paedophiles?

If the poster is referring to the Melbourne rally, I am very happy to giving the timings of the neo-nazis movements in the event area that shows that those men were there only to antagonise those protesting women speaking.

If it is not the Melbourne rally, then I think that it is time for the poster to be absolutely clear just what it is that they are referring to. Because this 'nazi' accusation has been repeated numerous times now with no substantiation.