Miranda Yardley's contribution to the Woman's Place meeting on Tuesday

Or, what SecretTerf said above. That's what we need to watch out for. For a lot of women they don't even realize that they're doing it because it's so deeply socialized.

I've never got a splainy vibe from you, TruScum. I think the issue that people are worried in terms of meetings etc is women being socialized to give men more space to speak and that potentially meaning that say Miranda gets time to speak and a woman who wanted to doesn't. That's definitely something to be conscious of all around, but doesn't mean that transsexuals shouldn't be able to speak at all.

There are some spaces that should be female only but given that the meeting concerned was focused on building coalitions and educating the public I think letting Miranda speak was entirely appropriate.

Datun

You said to Truscum:

I'm sorry, I missed your answer to me. I wasn't ignoring you!

This looks to me like an example of what we're talking about. It's apologising to a man for not immediately picking up on his post, complete with little self-deprecating exclamation mark at the end.

These threads often move fast. Do you always apologise to women if you temporarily miss their posts? Do you feel obliged to answer them? Do you put in little exclamation marks to take the heat out?

I'm not attacking you and I hope you don't read this post that way. Our female conditioning is so ingrained and for good safety and other reasons we defer to men in ways that we don't to women. But I think this is a good example of how having a man, of any sort, in the discussion automatically changes the nature of that discussion.

We're all trying to navigate, TruScum, so thanks for the apology but don't worry about it from me, at least. You remind me of a friend of mine, so I smile when I see your posts!

There will always be a range of feminist thought on this - from passionate female-only types right the way through to anyone who agrees is welcome types. And lots of people will be unsure and ambivalent.

We're all right and we're all wrong too, I suppose!

I am sorry, and I do completely understand all of the points of this thread.

I was wary of appearing to come on here and ‘mansplaining’ transsexuals to anyone. I know it can be difficult to read intentions over the internet but I’m here purely as a supporter of this movement.

Actually, if I’m being brutally honest with myself, when I got outraged over this I thought if more transsexuals openly supported what is currently mainly feminists trying to drive out this dangerous dogma then it would help stop all the ‘it’s transphobic to even question this’ shutting down of women.

So basically if we were involved it would help the campaign more, but now I can totally see why this is felt as another attempted encroachment. I’m truly sorry if I’ve come across like that.

I really like Miranda. I am very interested in the journey Miranda is on and the honesty Miranda brings about it.

This. I think Miranda is a really interesting role model - not for women, but for men. I think a lot of men could learn a lot from Miranda's journey so far, which would in the end make life a lot better for all of us.

I take Langcleg's point though that the meeting was about building a wide coalition

There were a lot of women who didn't get to speak at the Woman's Place meeting. I think that's something that should be kept in mind. At feminist meetings women should come first as a rule. I remember attending a Feminism in London conference. Women were told a session on activism was full but there were men in the audience for that session ....left a bad taste

I don't think the blackface analogy altogether holds.

With respect to gender presentation: it's impossible to ever imagine a situation in which someone 'expressing' a different skin colour would be a reasonable thing to do, but surely no one here has problem with men wearing skirts and lippy

With respect to body modifications and surgery: if someone has taken these steps in response to trauma or mh issues and is making no claims to have changed their actual sex, I really don't feel that is any of my business and certainly not a choice I have any grounds to judge them on.

Consciously excluding these men from OUR campaign will not silence them.

But this refers to the WPUK campaign, which is not an exclusively feminist campaign and explicitly states debate inclusive of all parties as one of its aims. It's not our campaign and it's not your campaign.

And Miranda was not an invited speaker at this event but spoke from the floor as did many others.

I really like Miranda. I am very interested in the journey Miranda is on and the honesty Miranda brings about it.

I entirely take the point that Miranda was cheered for saying the same thing that Julia was tutted at for saying and that this is not good. I entirely take the point that women's spaces must at the very least prioritise female voices and often exclude male voices.

But WPUK is explicitly setting out to build a wide coalition.

I don't think anyone is trolling and I understand the point, but Miranda/Debbie/Kristina were not invited speakers, they were attendees and put their hands up like anyone else. What are we saying? Only put your hand up if you have a vagina?
I don't think anyone reified them. I can admire them as I admired anyone willing to take a stand on this issue and put up with shit loads of criticism. I'm not a labour supporter, but I still donated to the crowdfunding. I'm not a lesbian, but I still care deeply about their experiences on this issue.
If this is a war on women, then the battle has to be in the centre ground; getting men/women/ everyone on board not dissolving into infighting and ideological battle.

1. Yes, this is exclusionary and it is entirely appropriate that it is. Go back to the Black/White analogy. If you believe that these men should be invited to have a place in this fight, do you also believe that a White person who dons Blackface, but says I know I am White, should have a place in BAME campaigns and antiracism? If you do, I simply don't believe you. If you do not, there is no good reason to make the distinction here.

1. That there are some men who have gained benefit and relief in ways I cannot imagine from surgically and medically altering their bodies to create a facsimile of a woman's body is irrelevant. Substitute a different descriptor for delusional if you will, but they are still men and reifying 'trans' is harmful.

1. Consciously excluding these men from OUR campaign will not silence them. They will write whatever it is that they will write and do whatever it is that they will do with or without our invitation. They are men - of course they will and of course they will not need our invitation and permission to do so.

1. This is not 'ideological purity'. It matters. The fact that this thread has now ended up with accusations of transphobia, attempting to understand the 'nice transwoman' here on this thread, exhorting us to be understanding of these poor tortured men in general, and hints that I may be a troll shows that we, including here, need more peak trans not less, and more consciousness raising, not less.

1. I am not a bloody troll. FFS.

1. By using 'trans' anything you have adopted TRA chosen language. You have agreed to use that concept. You are reifying it. Even in your opposition you have given them a victory. Think about that. What it means for communication 'out there' and what it means for our own thought processes.

I am wary that online we can't really see who is who so there may be some well hidden stirring here from unfriendly forces. Transphobia as a word is being used by Labour and others to include silencing any reasonable concerns about anything someone who says they are trans does or says. Let's be very clear on what we mean if we use it.

I sent quite believe some of what I've read in this thread. Bordering on exclusionary and even transphobic.

As far as I know, Miranda, Kristina, Debbie and others were quietly living their lives as trans women. They didn't have to get involved. They didn't have to subject themselves to the abuse they are getting. But they agree with us, they are our allies and dogmatic trans activism is harmful to them too.

Sure I agree we shouldn't put anyone on a pedestal, but I'm not sure that's happening anyway.

What next, are we going to say the men who are waking up and speaking out can't get involved either?

The "feminists are angry man haters who complain about trivial things" trope is still very much alive. I'm not sure we can win this one alone.

I do think it was problematic having MY speak at the last meeting. Maybe during QA invite him to answer a question, but not a main speaker. Otherwise it man-centres again - despite everyone's best intentions.

Having women only speakers should not cause angst. Friendly men can be invited in during Q n A or can ask their own questions then. The whataboutery is very real - even with best friends.

Yes 'trans' people exist in that there exists a group of men who are deluded that they are women, and a group of women who are deluded that they are men.

There is also a group of men who have gone through some process that has brought relief to them in ways that most of us will never understand, but they in no way believe that they are actually women.

That’s alright I didn’t think you were

I’m unsure where it comes from exactly, but if I had to guess based on my support group and personal experiences, I believe it can be caused by going through some form of trauma during childhood. There seems to be a common theme of a variety of abuse suffered as young children perpetrated either by family members or close friends of the family. But that may just be my group.

I know that’s where my intense hatred for myself came from, at some point I concluded that my hatred for my father somehow transferred to my own body. It can’t be a hatred for male bodies generally as I love my husband,it’s definitely a very personal thing.

I am quite open about these things now but never spoke of them for a very long time.

It does upset me greatly when the ‘nu trans’ movement try to say gender dysmorphia isn’t really a mental illness. It absolutely is and I believe the only reason they don’t care that support will be withdrawn if it is no longer seen as such is that they are fully aware that they do not have it at all.

Truscum

Sorry, I missed your answer to me. I wasn't ignoring you!

Where do you think the gender dysphoria comes from?

Is there anything you can recall that might have triggered it?

wot Datun sed

However, when in a meeting to discuss these issues, when a man says: I am a transwoman and gets met with rapturous applause; but when a woman says: there is no such thing as a transwoman and any man claiming to be any sort of woman is acting out of male entitlement is met with negativity. When THAT happens, we have a problem.

I completely agree.

But from what I have seen happening on mumsnet there is an evolution to the thought processing.

It's goes in stages.

You're all bigots.

Okay, I get self ID will benefit predators.

Okay I understand AGP.

Well, ok, they're not really women then.

Yes, but what about my best friend who's trans?

Yes, I understand, but I don't want to be mean.

I realise that I'm not being mean I'm shooting myself in the foot. But there are some really nice ones.

Okay, it's not about being nice. I get it.

< uncomfortable shuffle >

Transwomen are men. Sorry if you don't like to hear it, I'm done being screwed over.

But that is after a lot of chat, exchange of views, evidence, links etc. If you go straight to the last bullet point, you lose people along the way.

But only because they stop listening.

That's all it takes. Ears.

In all honestly Datun I’m unsure if it would in my case.

I had/have an intense hatred of my body. It wasn’t so much a hatred of any stereotypes I wasn’t fulfilling, or that I wanted to fulfil, just my actual physical body.

However I’ve got say that I believe it would definitely 100% help those that are ‘transitioning’ now that don’t actually seem to hate their body, but just don’t feel they fit their own expected stereotypes.

I think gettinh message out there that ‘erm, you don’t have to be a boy to have short hair and like girls’ etc. is very important right now.

And I’m a bit baffled as to where that ‘message’ went as for a brief time (80’s/90’s) I thought that was the way things were happily heading.

Sophocles - nope Helen went 'transwomen are women'. Removed all RFs and Gender Critical Types from FB friends list.

No idea where he is now.

I was really pleased to see Michael Conroy announce the meetings for GC men LangCleg

Me too. I think DH is planning to go to the Birmingham one.

Datun - yeah I agree that we need to be circumspect in how we fight this. But some tactics come with a cost and we need to analyse that. Circumspection needs to apply to the bigger picture.

Yes 'trans' people exist in that there exists a group of men who are deluded that they are women, and a group of women who are deluded that they are men.

But how we refer to these people matters. It matters to the discourse 'out there' and it matters to how we react and how we see the issues.

I am not trying to police anybody, and it is a shame that Donkey feels she is just repeating the same things - I see as a discussion where we are unpacking the issues at stake.

However, when in a meeting to discuss these issues, when a man says: I am a transwoman and gets met with rapturous applause; but when a woman says: there is no such thing as a transwoman and any man claiming to be any sort of woman is acting out of male entitlement is met with negativity. When THAT happens, we have a problem.