Another Labour misogynist.....

I think AGP is at the heart of why it's such a misogynist movement. But I don't refer to it much in my discussion about it (slowly converting my neighbourhood ). It's too weird and makes one sound slightly deranged, even though I think it's true.

I focus on science - these people are not women. They cannot become women on their say-so. Women's biology is relevant and it's not for men to tell us that it isn't.

Historically, marginalised men have always been been treated better in the UK than any women. Why is anyone even surprised?

Perhaps this is what the push is for? To get the AGPs a free pass, and quickly too.

I think this is an objective. The wider trans community knows any scrutiny or gatekeeping of AGP will damage the whole movement.

I dont see how we can NOT mention AGP

as others have said, its the elephant in the room.

I believe that a certain number of people who apply for GRCs at the moment are turned down - Ive seen some really creepy posts from someone who has been refused one and is def AGP. I would be really interested to know why people may be turned down - maybe because they are deemed not safe, perhaps. Maybe because they are fetishists and not gender dysphorics? I dont know. But at the moment we are safeguarded by the process.

Perhaps this is what the push is for? To get the AGPs a free pass, and quickly too.

In the buybull it says women should not have authority over men and women should stay silent when men are speaking.
Men like that enjoy the sound of their own voices and find women's voices a distraction to their own thoughts.

I'm inclined to think that's why it's better to leave AGP out, at least for now, and focus simply on the argument that men commit the vast majority of sexual and violent crime, that TIMs retain male patterns of criminal behaviour, and therefore that if women are entitled to safe spaces away from men, this needs to extend to TIMs too out.

I know what you're saying but many of the men you are describing are AGP. At some point you get asked why you won't accept these men in female spaces and that is a big reason why.

"The AGP stuff is really tricky. It's offputting to people when you mention it and in that sense I agree it's not helpful.

But it's the elephant in the room, isn't it?"

Yes, I think this is what I'm struggling with. I just think many people on the TRA side see AGP mentioned and read it as "she's saying all trans women are perverts!" At that point, they become very protective of this "oppressed minority" and start aligning them with gay people, black people etc. and not wanting to be on the wrong side of history.
I'm inclined to think that's why it's better to leave AGP out, at least for now, and focus simply on the argument that men commit the vast majority of sexual and violent crime, that TIMs retain male patterns of criminal behaviour, and therefore that if women are entitled to safe spaces away from men, this needs to extend to TIMs too out. This firmly links (or it should to anyone with any common sense...) TIMs to other men -the oppressive class rather than the oppressed.
I struggle to see how anyone who sees an argument for separate loos for men and women on the basis of (some) men's violence and women's vulnerability could object to that line of reasoning. But of course many seem to lose their ability to reason when they enter the trans arena

As removing AGP also means removing the calls to 'trans' children too. And the majority of 'transactivists' who are just angry young men with fetishes

No, they aren't and removing AGP will not cease calls to 'trans' young children. There are a range of other activists with other agendas, including simply finding ways to silence and oppress women.

I guess though, if you were left with just the 'homosexual transsexuals' then there would not be calls for legalizing males entering female spaces and such.

I reckon the entire 'transgender' label needs to go, and only 'transsexual' remain.

But I am not sure how it would be possible to remove that aspect, given its widely accepted that anyone who says they are trans IS trans.

If men with AGP were removed from the 'trans umbrella', I wonder how much of a problem we'd even be left with?

I don't think I would have so much of a problem with it actually. As removing AGP also means removing the calls to 'trans' children too. And the majority of 'transactivists' who are just angry young men with fetishes.

Those are my main issues with the whole thing. Fetish, the violence and silencing, and kids.

Also, as you mentioned, these men aren't allies of trans people, they loathe them as much as they loathe us.

Nope, me neither.

^ Yep. And I don't want those men in my spaces any more than I want AGPs.

violent little misogynistic shits who are using trans as an excuse to be abusive to women in politically correct (or at least sanctioned) ways.

That's it. It's socially unacceptable for men to be violent to women. However, if you are the kind of man who rather likes to beat women up, you can get around that by dehumanising (dewomanising?) women, giving them a new label - cis, terf, - while simultaneously positioning yourself as far more vulnerable and oppressed than any cis-terf has ever been.

There's a guy called Paul Elam who runs a site for MRAs, and who once wrote about how much he'd like to repeatedly punch women in the face, but he wasn't allowed to. He must look at these men and wonder why on earth he didn't think of this first.

If men with AGP were removed from the 'trans umbrella', I wonder how much of a problem we'd even be left with?

I first came across AGP here. I mean I'd read about it before, but hadn't really grasped it. My fear is about the largely younger crowd of TIMs who identify as 'trans', 'queer' or 'non-binary' (or similar) and who don't present as female (or who have tokenistic coloured hair and a set of protest badges,) but who claim to be women. These are thugs who call 'old-style' transwomen 'truscum' and who (IMHO) are frequently violent little misogynistic shits who are using trans as an excuse to be abusive to women in politically correct (or at least sanctioned) ways.

I'm not happy with a situation where we can't name the problem of AGP. If we pretend that it doesn't exist I think our argument looks weaker that way, and our fight to keep female spaces doesn't carry so much weight. Because if we pretend MTF trans are all delicate little flowers who just want to pee, people don't see a problem with them being in women's spaces. And they reject the "slippery slope" argument of other men taking advantage as "unlikely" and not a reason to deny trans women their rights". We do need to talk about AGP and raise awareness.

The AGP stuff is really tricky. It's offputting to people when you mention it and in that sense I agree it's not helpful.

But it's the elephant in the room, isn't it?

A lot of TIM DO have this fetish and it's a huge part of why many of us want women's spaces reserved for those of the female sex. It's why arguments such as 'there are already laws against sexual assault so you can just report anyone doing that in the ladies' so spectacularly miss the point.

When looking at the statistics that are coming out about trans prisoners, I don't see how we can talk about that without mentioning AGP.

If men with AGP were removed from the 'trans umbrella', I wonder how much of a problem we'd even be left with?

he's done the standard liberal male 'owen jonesy' thing of making a statement about intolerance and transphobia, but then refuses to reply and engage when women put forward clear, logical arguments

He's now also done the textbook "saddened" by the hate in the responses he's had to his tweet and he will stand firm

But has shared the Nick Cohen piece linked upthread(!). I'm assuming he has yet to think this through, and is responding to the imaginary debate with nasty haranguing feminists vs. kind brave shy trans people.

twitter.com/mcashmanCBE

I agree the fetish stuff isn't needed, Jane. I think what irritates me is he's done the standard liberal male 'owen jonesy' thing of making a statement about intolerance and transphobia, but then refuses to reply and engage when women put forward clear, logical arguments, as these women have.

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/09/what-would-it-take-for-labour-moderates-to-revolt?__twitter_impression=true

Nick Cohen piece on how the crazy part of the left are actively trying to silence its own.

I don’t know guys. The fetish point doesn’t help those making the argument for womens’ spaces. It doesn’t need to be said, doesn’t strengthen the argument and makes the person talking about fetishes look bigoted thus weakening the argument and strengthening the hand of those that oppose women only spaces.

"Are those women allowed to speak?"

I suspect women are allowed to speak as long as they believe what Michael Cashman CBE believes. The rest of them are bigots and should shut up.