Labour against transphobia group - thread 2

Good comment on the Times article.

The various quotes by trans activists about how terrible they supposedly felt as a result of what Wilkes said amount to no more than the usual victim-speak which they are now accustomed to using to shut down and win any argument. Just saying ‘I’m upset’ or ‘I felt hurt’ is not an argument, and shouldn’t be treated as one.

One critic accused Wilkes of “transplaining and quite possibly mansplaining”. The person said it was “disgraceful” to suggest that they were “stifling debate” by refusing to “engage or ‘debate’ my identity and very core of who I am with those who actively refuse to accept that”.

Another wrote that “transphobic posts on the union’s Facebook page have been really impacting my levels of dysphoria”. They said that when Wilkes wrote that he did not agree that trans women were women “that comment made me feel physically sick and the palpitations that I’ve been suffering from started again”.

Me me me me. So you can legitimately hold everyone in the world to ransom with your hypersensitivity and emotional blackmail? No. Don't think so.

I really think we should support anyone who's speaking up about this. I've emailed him.

www.david-davies.org.uk

another essential article.

fairplayforwomen.com/5102-2/

"Young lesbians these days are more likely to be identifying as transmen rather than as lesbians." Makes me cry.

Yes that struck me as well. Either you allow self-id on AWS or you don't.

Consensus?

The differing groups are almost completely opposed to one another.....

Good luck with that.....

I had a reply to my email from Ann Black:

Hi XXXX, thanks for mailing, and I understand your arguments.
You may know that discussion on this was deferred to the NEC meetings in March, to give time for further discussion with all interested parties. I hope that some consensus can be found on the way forward.

With best wishes

Ann

I feel blessed my school let us watch the life of Brian in year 8.

They were telling us things on so many levels...

Thank you pamish for making it accessible!
Will remember to do it in the future.

Oh man, Kudos to andy55 in the comments of that Independent article for remembering this little gem:

Stan; "It's every mans right to have babies if he wants them".
Reg; "But you can't have babies".
Stan; "Don't you oppress me".
Reg; "Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?".

Has anyone seen the article about David Davies in the Independent yet? It is here www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-david-davies-transphobe-transgender-abhorrent-lgbt-rights-labour-a8181881.html

Maybe worth a separate discussion? More comments underneath it suggesting people have little idea what self-ID actually IS....

Yes there is a potential tiny ray of light in;
"Do you think xyz"
"The party believes xyz"

I've just watched the clip of Corbyn on the Andrew Marr show. I thought he seemed to keep emphasising the position of the party, rather than allude at all to his own personal views. When Marr asked him if he thought self id transwomen were women, his reply was along the lines of yes the party 'treats' them as women. I actually thought it was a bit lukewarm, with no declaration that he himself thinks transwomen are literally women.

Or maybe I'm just wishful thinking..

I don't know who it is but I saw a letter that had been sent to someone refusing then membership of the party (Labour)

Seen this? Don't know who this is.

I noticed that too - I'm assuming Wilkes isn't trans (?) but the use of transplaining suggests he is

One critic accused Wilkes of “transplaining and quite possibly mansplaining”.

Surely, to "transplain" implies transpeople behaving in a way similar to mansplaining to women?

It affects all women and girls, because Women will no longer be a protected characteristic. Can nobody get that into JC's very unthick head?

And the vulnerable will be the ones most at risk, same as fucking always.

I have a pre-verbal autistic 7 year old daughter. Maybe in five ten fifteen years time she might have been able to go to the loos on her own (assuming she ever gets over her fear of hand driers). Fat fucking chance of that ever happening if self-ID goes through. If anything happened, would she be able to communicate it?

And all those children being pushed towards trans therapy, mostly girls, mostly on the spectrum or survivors of abuse and vulnerable and 80% of them 80 fucking percent -- would most likely grow out of any feelings of dysmorphia. They're the ones who are being sold down the river, while all the time everyone is bleating on about the rights of the TIMs.

I don't think it applies to 'old-school' transwomen who don't bang on about biology being bigotry. But although they might well be much more useful reps of women, they are much less likely to elbow their way into such positions. (Apols here to Pidge, Curry etc. for effectively discussing you in the third person.)

No problem, I agree There isn't a chance in hell I would ever start claiming I could speak for or represent women. Now a transsexual post, yes maybe.

@Drink, here's the text from behind the paywall
Teacher Roy Wilkes wins fight over ‘transphobic’ comments
Critic of giving teenagers puberty-blocking drugs hails ‘victory for freedom of speech’

Nicholas Hellen, Social Affairs Editor
January 28 2018, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times

Health
Wilkes: decision backs right to disagree with ‘prevailing narrative’ on gender

A maths teacher was referred to a disciplinary panel for professional misconduct because he said boys and girls should be able to wear whatever they want without anyone jumping to the conclusion that they are transgender.

He was accused of “transplaining” and subjected to a disciplinary hearing by his union, the National Union of Teachers (NUT). In a three-paragraph statement on a Facebook page used by 7,000 NUT members, Roy Wilkes, 59, also said prescribing puberty-blocking drugs to children was “a form of child abuse”.

Wilkes added it could lead to a lifetime dependence on hormonal drugs, and many children changed their minds after puberty about changing gender.

He was accused of making “grossly discriminatory (transphobic) statements . . . that were damaging to the mental health of members” and which brought the union into disrepute, of harassing transgender members and of harassing Annette Pryce, LGBT executive member of the NUT, who made the complaint.

This weekend, Wilkes spoke out after the national disciplinary committee of the National Education Union, of which the NUT is part, dismissed all three charges against him. Wilkes said: “It is an important blow for freedom of speech and for the right of people to question and disagree with the prevailing narrative on self-identification and gender.”

He said he was particularly shocked to be summoned to the hearing on January 13 because he was a longstanding member of the Labour party and of the union.

“I have fought all my life for equality and against discrimination,” said Wilkes, who teaches at a secondary school in northern Manchester. He got embroiled in the Facebook debate after defending Kiri Tunks, vice-president of the NUT, who wrote a newspaper article on transgender issues which warned that relaxing the legal definition of what it means to be a man or a woman could render sex discrimination law meaningless.

One critic accused Wilkes of “transplaining and quite possibly mansplaining”. The person said it was “disgraceful” to suggest that they were “stifling debate” by refusing to “engage or ‘debate’ my identity and very core of who I am with those who actively refuse to accept that”.

Another wrote that “transphobic posts on the union’s Facebook page have been really impacting my levels of dysphoria”. They said that when Wilkes wrote that he did not agree that trans women were women “that comment made me feel physically sick and the palpitations that I’ve been suffering from started again”.

Wilkes said that, if he had lost the case, he could have been expelled from the union, with implications for his job.

Labour has suspended Jennifer James, a party activist who is funding a legal challenge to the party’s decision to allow self-defining women on to all-women shortlists. She posted a Twitter message saying that she had been suspended “for saying women don’t have dicks”.

@nicholashellen

HAs this already been mentioned? Sorry, doing homework with DD, haven't read the recent posts.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teacher-roy-wilkes-wins-fight-over-transphobic-comments-5c0m0g2nd?CMP=Sprkr--Editorial--TheTimesandTheSundayTimes--Unspecified--FBPAGE

Trans activists aren't interesting in helping transmen get in to the Catholic priesthood either. What's all male stays all male.

@hackmum because it's about men losing power?

That Tatler article is fascinating. I would really like to see both political parties put their money where their mouth is: if they genuinely believe that transwomen are women, and transmen are men, then of course they should be treated as such in the laws of primogeniture. Funny how the political parties step back from that, though, isn't it? Funny, too, how it doesn't seem to be an issue that TRAs are interested in?

Why, it's almost as if they don't really believe it themselves.

It needs to be said nay shouted, often, that this is not about the small numbers of trans people, small even if we include all those under the very broad transgender umbrella like the genderqueer teenagers who reject sex roles, which should be everybody. It affects all women and girls, because Women will no longer be a protected characteristic. Can nobody get that into JC's very unthick head?