What really matters

OP I hear you. But trans ideology (i.e. the idea that 'woman' is a social category you can opt into or out of, rather than a material reality) represents a serious, in fact existential threat to all forms of feminism and activism that centres women and their interests. That is why fighting this ideology is the priority for many at the moment. I don't believe that the focus on this is in any way disproportionate - if anything there is not enough awareness of the consequences of adopting this ideology in law.

If you don't have a name for the class of people who are of the sex who can produce eggs and give birth, you lose the ability to generalise about them as a class and to analyse and name how they are globally disadvantaged/oppressed/exploited. You lose the ability to fight the sex-based oppression of that group, because you lose a whole raft of policy tools that previously helped you to do that. You can't define women in law any more, so you can't write legislation that adequately protects women from a wide range of sex discrimination. You can't channel public resource towards specific women's health/safety/education/justice/economic issues any more, because you can no longer a) define the problems that you are trying to solve and b) target resource appropriately. Of course this suits misogynists right down to the ground which is partly why this ideology has gained so much traction.

Here's an example from international development. Female genital mutilation, or FGM, is a form of violence which is both extreme and is only ever practiced against girls, mainly in low and middle-income countries. There is no analogous form of violence against boys which is anywhere near equivalent to FGM in terms of the severity of the resulting life-long health impact. FGM survivors, feminists and international development people fought a long cultural battle to get the term 'FGM' into general use, rather than the previous 'female circumcision', because it highlights both the severity of the violence and the fact that it is a women's issue. Naming the problem in a way which is specific and which communicates the impact has really helped this issue shoot up the policy agenda. It allows funders and policymakers to create initatives and legislation which target this form of violence effectively. And yet I have seen commentary from supporters of trans ideology saying that using the term FGM is cissexist because it promotes a definition of womanhood that excludes transwomen. They would like us to stop making reference to the sexed bodies of women - and yet that is what enables us to tackle problems like this effectively. If the idea that FGM is a 'bad' word ever gained serious traction in the policy world, and we couldn't name this form of violence any more as a women's issue, or even identify it as a policy priority any more, that would be an enormous setback.

On a tangent, my sad prediction for 2018 is that this will be the year in which we will see serious efforts from trans rights activists to obstruct international development and global health funders from funding women's health and women's rights initiatives.

To go back to the original point, if women's condition under patriarchy is normally like a building in disrepair, then the current situation is that the building is on fire. Radical feminists and others are trying to put the fire out so that we can then get back on with the task of fixing the building.

Worries about trans ideology and activism has rather taken over feminism (at least what I would recognise at feminism). On the one hand it IS at the expense of other issues but on the other hand we have needed to fight this. It’s not through choice. I’d rather never hear anything about trans ideology or the GRA ever again but it can’t be ignored and it’s not unrelated to male violence anyway. The main reason I object to trans ideology is because I can see that from TRA perspective male violence is invisible. The proposals for the GRA have been made by people who have no understanding of how violent and predatory men operate in the world. Or if they do have understanding they are willfully ignoring reality in order to push their agenda.

The only feminist ideas that are meaningful to me are those based in practical reality, daily existence, fighting for improved lived experience and quality of life for women and girls all over the world. Male violence contributes to so many problems for women and I think people get tired of hearing about it, and maybe they think there’s nothing can be done, that it’s a fight we can’t win, that’s why it’s not a popular subject. I refuse to believe that the state of things is the way it’s got to be. It’s not a natural state of affairs and it can change. We mustn’t give up, though it really feels today like it’s not worth going on after the news about Worboys and Theodore Johnson.

this isn’t a helpful response. Rather than just tell me that I’m like a toddler with a 2 piece jigsaw, maybe try and explain why to me?

Every day people on here are pointing it out.

Here's mine:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3123667-to-think-that-Ian-Huntley-is-most-definitely-not-a-woman

Try reading some of the threads that are expressing the concern that women are being put at risk by men (not genuine trans people), using the potential new law to get access to women. You can't help but trip up over the threads in here that point it out in great detail.

Be very careful what you are ignoring, it WILL be affecting every woman in the very near future.

OP I tend to post about violence against women on other boards because so many posters say they don't read the Feminist board and think we're all mad. (this dates back to way before the trans issues).

so alleged professional cricketers attempting to kill their wife and getting nothing, Ched Evans - all those things that concern me, I post in Chat mostly as it's probably more used than Feminist Chat.

Both these cases are horrendous - and I believe both topics in Chat yesterday and today? Better to give them more exposure rather than less.

There's a very strong incentive for male criminals to identify as female - access to women and easier living conditions - so every bullshitter will be at it. Think what that will do to the crime stats.

To use your example, and back of the napkin estimates, if 98% violence is committed by men, and 2% by women, then out of 100 convicted people, if one man says he's a woman, that's put the women's violent crime rate up by 50%

Tackling male violence seems impossible given how little men care about it. There's no political will to make any radical changes. I had hopes for the Womens Equality Party but they seem to be a total dud.

couple being classified as female violence is (relatively) unimportant in the face of existing statistics.

Except it really isn't - the rates of violent crime committed by women significantly lower - talking a magnitude lower - so it doesn't take many men being reported as women to significantly change the statistics - that's how stars work.

If the law changes then the sex that causes the harm will receive greater rights, they will find it easier to access women and girls. Women will lose their voice as public roles go to men, they will lose representation and so issues like male violence are no longer discussed.

How does a reduction in women's rights and granting greater rights to men help us fight male violence?

He just has to self ID and then he can access women's spaces anyway - and no one could stop him! He's a predator and they use anything they can to access women and children (as we have to keep saying again and again)....

What would happen if Worboys committed some more rapes and sexual assaults and when caught declared himself a woman?

I’m with you OP. The trans issue is not as important to me as violence against women. I agree that aspects of trans are problematic but prior to trans there were shocking levels of violence against women.
The issue of statistics is not as important as some think. The statistics are already absolutely unacceptable and a couple being classified as female violence is (relatively) unimportant in the face of existing statistics.
I think many women seize on this issue because it is something concrete and relatively straightforward. Tackling general male violence against women is a much bigger and more complex issue.

To be fair the trans threads were hurtling towards critical mass because the changes to the law were imminent.

The only reason this has been postponed is because of places like mumsnet where discussion has been allowed to flourish.

Male violence is intricately intertwined with the trans-ideology. Partly because if you can't name it you can't address it. But also because it is allowing rank misogyny in through the back door. And then legitimising it.

My outrage over Worboys and Johnson is indescribable.

But it's the bloody impotency which is almost worse.

The sure fire knowledge that society does not give a single flying fuck about women. It's so obvious.

OP, I'm all over the trans threads, but I can promise you, the only reason, is precisely because of men, their violence and their agenda.

Kimono, I totally get why it sometimes feels like trans issues are taking over to the exclusion of all else, I have sometimes felt this myself. But here's one very concrete example. One women's group (other posters who're on top of the relevant campaigning groups can probably supply links) went through official prison reports and used FOI requests to gain a picture of the current state in prisons. Approx. 100 prisoners in the male estate have currently expressed interest in transitioning. Of those over 40 are sex offenders. Under the current rules, they will not be transfered without a GRC, which includes psychologists checking that their claim is genuine. Under the proposed new rules, they will be able to self-identify.

This will (1) place 40 be-penised sex offenders into the female estate, with vulnerable women who are mostly there for non-violent crimes (receiving stolen goods, drugs offences, non-payment of fines) and who have a much higher likelihood of being victims of past sexual abuse than the population at large - i.e they're a very vulnerable population; and (2) artificially inflate the number of "female" sex offenders by approximately 50% (because only 2% of sex offenders are female - they're a tiny proportion of the total incarcerated).

The official body for psychologists working in prisons put in an official submission to Maria Miller's enquiry pointing out that in with the genuinely trans prisoners, there were lots of predatory men (not trans people) who would take advantage of self ID either to get a softer prison environment, or to gain access to women. This was their professional opinion as experts working in the field. They were ignored.

Bethany Hill was murdered by 2 men, one a transwoman. The crime was reported as male and female crime, this happens quite a lot so it's hard to say how often women are hurt by men who identify as women.

Women can worry about more than one thing at once y'know. I remember back in the good old days when MRA's would constantly berate feminists for not worrying about the right issues.

Allowing the class that harms. murders and rapes greater access to the class that doesn't is a huge problem, ya get that right?

All I see, again and again, is this obsession with trans issues.

Yes, well, if you are worried about MVAWG, then the trans issues should be at the top of your agenda because if you think the current situation is bad, wait until all safe, single sex spaces have been eliminated. It's a free pass for all rapists, voyeurs and abusers.

That said, I am also late to the show. I've spent the years since 2010 concentrating on the gendered impact of austerity and trying to fight against that. Got so busy with it that the trans stuff pretty much passed me by.

Want to guess who woke me up, OP? A transsexual friend. Not "obsessed" or "fixated" Mumsnetters. A transsexual friend. Who understands perfectly well that this is a fundamental fight for women's rights and, if it isn't won, all the other feminist concerns - representation, influence, MVAWG, gendered austerity, etc etc, will be unfightable because women, as a definable category, will have ceased to exist.

It is all part of the same issue. The fact that people can see this is very depressing. It is like watching toddlers with a 2 piece jigsaw, and they can't see how it fits together when it is obvious how they fit together. Very frustrating.

Kimonolady I'm with you.

The trans thing has taken over feminist conversation all over the place.

In radfem circles it's discussion of changes to laws and no platforming and organising somehow to push back

In libfem circles it's how to centre trans people (trans women let's be clear) in everything and stop talking about anything related to female biology ie no more feminism full stop as it's all related to biology

And further afield in LGBT circles it's all about the T as well. Things at work, frequented by earnest gay and lesbian people, sitting around pushing all their own issues to one side again to discuss trans and nothing but trans

Whole thing is a nightmare.

Meanwhile women continue being raped assaulted murdered mistreated discriminated against denied healthcare vilifed by the media denied basic rights etc and so on so many issues all over the world

It is true to to remove any words or category for female humans that is just for them removes our ability to discuss anything to do with that group. This is intentional and this is why people talk about it - the consequences of having no word do describe cunty people, surely the most basic and first categorisation in all human societies over all time, is bizarre and worrying.

I also wonder if as the world regresses so quickly in so many places with the rise of different flavours of religious fundamentalism that it's so hard to know what if anything to do, it's so depressing, that railing against TAs is an outlet for lots of general anger.

It's not trivial though.

If they succeed then the MRAs have won - male violence is obscured, "people" do everything, and it's impossible to flag anything that disproportionately affects one sex.

The reason we're so concerned about trans issues is because

(a) If we can't say who is a woman and who isn't we can't defend women's rights and safety

(b) Predatory males are seeking, and being granted, access to women's spaces including women's prisons

(c) Violent and sexual crimes committed by men are being reported as having been carried out by women

If we can't define what a woman is how can we defend women from male violence?

the issue of violence against women is barely discussed. All I see, again and again, is this obsession with trans issues.

Male violence against women will be more difficult to identify, report or otherwise fight because of the trans cult agenda. It creates a loop hole through which male violence can be legitimised or disguised.

The threads are about this. Not because women are against transwomen but because of the way the agenda erases women's ability to fight male violence. It is concerned with men who use trans as a smoke screen for their violence, which also harms and threatens the interests of law abiding transwomen who are sensitive to the concerns of women which are related to their biological sex.

Lily Madigan is supposed to be representing these issues, yet virtually all LM talks about is trans issues. This is an erasure of these issues and a loss of representation about issues such as male violence. This is why the appointment of LM is important. It shows up that transwomen and women do have different priorities and concerns, which makes them fundamentally different. Its important that both have voices that are reflective of those communities.

There is no 'fixation with trans issues'. Trans cult can not be separated from male violence. Trans cult acts as a Trojan horse for male violence.

It's not a fascination, it's a response to a direct issue that will potentially affect women and girls.

You're wrong to think that violence against women and girls is not discussed here. It is frequently.

The 'fascination' with trans issues is because of violence against women and girls - because the erosion of female only spaces makes us more vulnerable to predatory males.....

But I'm very angry about the two cases you mentioned -- how many women do you have to kill before they take women's safety seriously, and how many do you need to rape? Warboys should never be released only opinion, then he could never do it again.Who does it profit?