“Transwomen are women”

MW and the panel were referring to IW as a woman and to "women" in general as "natal women"

I'm surprised that was permitted, since in that sense 'natal' quite obviously means 'actual'. I agree its ridiculous and infuriating to have some silly precursor but all this cis and natal rubbish just reinforces all of what they are arguing with - there IS a difference and it's impossible to deny it, it's just quibbling over how you express that difference in an attempt to be inoffensive.

A bigot is those who are intolerant to others who hold differing opinions. We are all bigots.

Atheists/Christians/Muslims/Jews

For starters.

I am not suggesting bias if I declare that men born male are male. I can support that those men born male who wish to present as female get all the help they need. However, it is preposterous and untrue to suggest they are indeed female.

Because you are eradicating trans people. Denying their right to exist. Apparantly.

But that doesn't make sense, with all due respect, regarding my question about bigotry.

Bigotry means bias, partisan, discrimination, injustice.

If I wish that all transwomen are free from inequality, then surely I am not a bigot.

If I state a biological fact that all transwomen are male then I am not a bigot.

Are biological facts now open to cries of bigotry?

The Peter Tatchell link reminds me of this article by Ruth Hunt the CEO of Stonewall from a few months back (which was discussed on this board at the time):
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/24/trans-people-scapegoats-male-violence

My DP was flicking through channels a few mornings back and alighted on the Matthew Wright show - it had India Willoughby on and in the little bit I saw MW and the panel were referring to IW as a woman and to "women" in general as "natal women" - why should we have to have a qualifier put before our sex?

Only a man could ever imagine a woman would feel zero discomfort from a non-predatory male.

Exactly. My DH is the loveliest man you could wish to meet. Would never harm any one or anything.
However I wouldn’t expect any woman to be expected to get changed etc in front of him.

Thanks for the link ChattyLion - just read it and I think I have discovered a new phenomenon - strawmansplaining.

I'll come back on the law bits after DD is fed, washed and hopefully asleep...

Denying their right to exist

So sick of seeing this. Had anyone ever denied that trans people exist? I have never seen it. Noone wants to take away anyones right to exist, thats ridiculous. What people are saying, is that male people are not female people, thats literally it.

Only a man could ever imagine a woman would feel zero discomfort from a non-predatory male.

Indeed. We do not know who are predators and who are not. Would be nice if they came with a big red arrow and loud beeping, but unfortunately they don't

Reminds me a bit of when that James Obrien dude was arguing with the lady who said she doesn't want to share changing rooms with men..and he was all like 'but I am not a danger to you, whats the problem' and such. So unaware of how so many womens lives actually are.

Which is why I went "the full Germaine" several years ago.

This is literally the only way to go. She is always right. End of.

And if transwomen are women then why the need for the word transwomen at all and why the need for cis?

Can someone please explain to me why it's bigotry to not accept that a man is a woman? Especially when you are accepting of transwomen and understand their rights.

Which is why I went "the full Germaine" several years ago. You stop the chain yanking at the very first link in the chain by saying "You are a man. Worthy of full human rights. You can wear whatever you like. You can call yourself whatever you want. I fully support your right to live free from the threat of harrassment or violence. I fully support your right to employment in any job that is not sex segregated as allowed in the Equalities Act. I fully support your right not to be discriminated against in housing. But you are still a man."

So what's happening? TRA bloggers and tweeters claiming they too are cis.

And will never stop. Because it's not the language they are after, it's the concept.

You can erase every single linguistic distinction, and it still won't stop.

They will end up purposely making a distinction in order to appropriate it.

A nightmarish, never ending chain yanking.

Barracker - "Imagine if an entire population of women self identified as 'people with medically verifiable XX chromosomes, who deny gender identity exists' and demanded recognition as a category distinct from 'people who call themselves women'?

"In fact, that is what we are currently doing, no? How well are our efforts to self- identity being received so far?"

This, 100%. In fact, you can already see this in action. The trans-ally end of liberal feminism is happy to accept the qualifier "cis". So what's happening? TRA bloggers and tweeters claiming they too are cis.

ChattyLion

I couldn't get through that Peter Tatchell link because it's so male, male, MALE.

Maintaining the only reason women don't want men in their spaces is in case they are attacked. And they're going to be attacked anyway, so what's the difference, buster?

Only a man could ever imagine a woman would feel zero discomfort from a non-predatory male.

It's infuriating that his absence of experience informs his opinion. Despite being told, numerous times, by women, that their experience of life is completely different to his.

He doesn't take into account men's sense of entitlement. They don't have to be predatory. They can be as benign as you like. They still take over. Manspreading and manplaining are universal experiences.

And it doesn't matter if the man in question is the most empathetic, sweetest person in the world. Women's attitudes to men do not rely on each, single experience as and when it happens ffs.

I don't want to get changed in the same room as my father-in-law. Who wouldn't hurt a fly. Or my son's best friend, whom I adore.

What really, really rams this all home is quite how many men are utterly oblivious to women's oppression.

The very fact that they argue against, firstly, so very many women all saying the same, and secondly over their bloody boundaries is enough for them to have creep stamped across their forehead before they even formulate the end of their sentence.

This linguistic masturbation over why women shouldn't have boundaries angers me almost more than anything else.

Ignorance, arrogance and a neon fucking light above their head blinking 'I'M CLUELESS'.

It seems that Tatchell didn't consider that his argument applies to TiMs too. Stay in the men's spaces until someone attacks you and then enjoy full recourse to the law as it already protects you.

With critical thinking and logic every argument they put forward reduces down to "the rules if you have a penis are different to the rules if you have a vagina."

If a principle can't be universally applied it isn't a principle, it's a tool of oppression.

It works with self-identity too - if women were allowed to 'self-identify', en masse, away from TiMs into a different category, then TiMs and men would block this attempt.

Self identity dismantles itself if everyone does it. It balances entirely upon the pressure of preventing the majority from doing it.

Imagine if an entire population of women self identified as 'people with medically verifiable XX chromosomes, who deny gender identity exists' and demanded recognition as a category distinct from 'people who call themselves women'?

In fact, that is what we are currently doing, no? How well are our efforts to self- identity being received so far?

Sorry Laura, I'm not accusing you of anything; quite the opposite.

I'm just completely baffled at why it's even considered ok (legally or otherwise) to use the wrong words for people.

It's not correct to tell anyone they can change their sex; it's impossible to change someone's DNA. If transwomen want to say they are "legal women" they can (once they have GRCs of course, or if self-ID comes in; currently they shouldn't be allowed to with no GRC). But it's never going to be scientifically correct to say that transwomen are women, or female or born women; they just aren't.

Thanks Laura (and for your shit day) it’s really interesting to get a legal perspective on this. I’m still struggling to get my head around it all.

I don’t feel as though the way forward is to attack legal fictions as there are a lot of them, but to seek the exemptions to women’s spaces to be well recognised and implemented. Feels like that’s not happening at the moment even before we maybe are going to revise the GRA.

So (talking of attacks on legal fictions being maybe not the best tactic.. the article I link to below quotes Melanie Philips making that criticism!)

I have a lot of time for Peter Tatchell, as a dedicated humanitarian who has spent his life working to better the lives for LGB people in the face of personal physical attack and opposition.

But this latest blog calling for revision to the GRA has really disappointed me. It’s written by GIRES. Peter’s intro says he thinks feminists and trans rights are reconcilable. But... look at what the offered solution actually is! Link here.

Apparently, it seems to be STFU feminists. You (women in general- not just feminists) already don’t have these rights to exclude men from women’s spaces. So you will have to wait until a crime has been committed in such a space to punish that one individual for their illegal behaviour. Because actually there are no women’s spaces or women’s roles left for natal women to defend.

So I feel like Equalities and Human Rights Commission (are they the right body to do this?) need to issue detailed clarification for venues and organisations etc for when it’s OK for women’s venues to exclude men. Before we get a GRA.

Or do we need a test case to clarify the current law? A women’s venue who refuses entry to transwomen and the complainant brings a case to establish precedent?

Or would it work as an equally applicable precedent to get a man’s venue to refuse self IDing transmen, and then for those women bring a legal case? I mean, would a case involving transmen work equally well to clarify about what female spaces transwomen should be able to enter?

Sorry for massive post!

I still don’t understand how such a small minority of people are able to wield such power. It just doesn’t make sense. As i’ve said before, it’s taken 40 years for Ms to become an acceptable alternative........

Because they are men!!
You look at all the times women have complained about being abused by men in the theatre and films. Everyone shrugs and the man keeps his job.
One man says he was abused and the actor is sacked and written out of history.

Women say that they would like to be safe from abusive people. Everyone shrugs their shoulders.
Men say they want to be safe from abusive people and everyone rushes to keep them safe.