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

I would like to see more (if they would wish to put heads above the parapet) female detransitioners included in the debate. Their reasons for transition and detransition and wider perspectives are needed and I wonder how much speaking for them we all do here. Also, I follow one or two gender critical females who are transitioning now as a last resort attempt to address chronic body dysmorphia rather than from a belief that they are men or wish to become men. This is a challenging perspective but we probably need to hear it.

I honestly think that this is such a crisis that we need all voices.

I appreciate that feminist organising spaces should and must prioritise women's voices - often even exclude male voices.

Perhaps the problem is that this hasn't reached wider society enough yet that there are any non-feminist spaces to even have a discussion that includes males and trans-identified males?

But a man who dies what he does to his body and then says 'I am a man' is fucking weird.

As weird as my TRIC who dons blackface, including by making use of surgery and medicine, wears 'Black clothes' and adopts a 'Black name'. Anyone who did that, even if they still said they were White would be seen as weird. IN FACT - they would be seen as MORE WEIRD for doing that, whilst still asserting that they were White.

A man who does all of that, wears 'women's clothes', and adopts a 'woman's name', and still says he is a man, is weird. I think we should question whether this is more or less weird than a man who does all that and says he is a woman. Is it less weird? I don't think it is.

There are several knocking around on FB and YouTube of his ilk. Jenn Smith, Hope Lye, Aoife Assumpta Hart (before he went bonkers, but has now wiped his internet history and is insinuating his way in feminist circles again - with a few changes to what it is that he is identifying as - pre-bonkers = Irish Catholic schoolgirl; post-bonkers = Welsh schoolgirl. Who the fuck knows....). There is another one who is friends with Miranda (American - can't remember the name Rhea? Raya? Can't remember.). There was another Jen (English) who has since disappeared. There was Helen (less said the better). There was Jacqueline Andrews who was prominent in Gender Apostates, died very suddenly, and was then eviscerated by Aiofe Assumpta Hart.

So there are quite a few knocking around who are plus or minus the same as Miranda.

And they all get idolised and fawned over.

Yeah - fight dirty. But I am concerned that the need to 'find the good ones' makes fighting dirty very risky.

I also see him as unique Datun. I'm hoping others follow his path.

The Uterati, I think we are conceptualising the problem differently.

I see transgenderism (and transsexualism) as a manifestation of harmful cultural beliefs about sex and gender. I don't see trans-identified people as standing apart from the rest of the culture. I'm therefore not averse to their having a part in the conversation that feminists are trying to open up. The fact that they might have undergone extreme bodily modifications isn't a reason for me to automatically reject them. I think it is extreme that people do this to their bodies, but a lot of human behaviour when in psychic distress is extreme.

I agree that feminists should always prioritise women's voices, though.

Cross post!

I see Miranda as more or less a detransitioner. I don't know how he would feel about me saying that. I wonder if the only reason he doesn't say that is because he might do more good as a 'gender critical transwoman' than as a detransitioned man who has had surgery. It's not my place to say where he's at, but that's my observation anyway.

I've already said I agree with your position Uterati. I do.
No such thing as trans
No man ever a woman
Want sex distinction categorically preserved
No pretending or lying

We are simply of a different opinion on what tactics and strategy will be successful in getting us there.

For what it's worth, I don't just think that Miranda is unusual, I think he's unique. I don't know of any other TIM who holds his exact views.

I agree that he is probably having his own personal journey on this. It wouldn't surprise me if he detransitioned at some point. Precisely because he has listened to the feminist discourse on the issue of gender.

I also agree that sometimes the automatic, over enthusiastic appreciation of TIMs speaking out is galling, to say the least.

I had a little chat with Miranda when we were watching the protesters.

I can't recall, verbatim, the conversation, but I do know that I expressed my opinion that his inclusion was strategic and political.

And he agreed.

I think the expression is if you can't box hard, box clever.

Similarly, I am sick of these 'I am a nice transwoman, come and ask me anything' threads that pop up.

It's all fucking gaslighting.

No. It IS odd having 'trans identified' males arguing for women's spaces. It is just as odd as it would be having the hypothetical TRIC given a voice in ANYTHING to do with BAME rights. There is a crashing disconnect with a 'trans identified' male having the grasp on reality which allows him to state that he is a man. What the fuck is he doing then? Why the fuck is he having surgery? Why the fuck is he calling himself by a woman's name? Why the fuck is he saying he is trans-anything. There is no trans, there is only delusion.

Barrack - no I don't believe that Black men would be having any of it. They would claim and assert their own voices. And we need to do the same.

Yes, this is a fight. And yes the blogs, the Morning Star articles, the YouTube films etc can all be useful. But we, as women, as those who are impacted by this, as those whose womanhood is compromised by 'trans-anything' need to THINK. It's the prioritising of these men by feminists, the fawning, the praise for stating simply biological truth, the looking for the 'good ones', ignoring the delusion in the 'good ones', accepting that 'trans' is a thing, putting efforts into supporting these 'good ones' in their delusion. THAT it what I am most concerned about.

Why is 'transsexual' unproblematic? What is that supposed to be? There is no 'transsexual'. There is only a man who has mutilated his body with surgery and drugs. In any other context we would say this is extreme self harm. Why are these 'transsexuals' OK and the 'transgender' not? Linguistically, transgender is less problematic: you wish to inhabit the gendered roles that society deems appropriate for the opposite sex (of course this is what it literally means, not how it is used in TRA discourse). Transsexual means you inhabit the opposite sex. Well you can't. Sex is fixed. Tough shit.

Barrack - yes just under a year ago Helen did go 'transwomen are women'.

gender identity ideology is a collective madness, so all critical voices, including those of trans-identified men, apply in this landscape. But women's activism on this issue needs to be clear about centring women and promoting their voices

That, I can very much get behind.

I agree Barracker.

I'd also add that I see gender identity ideology as a collective madness that has gripped the psyche of the Western world - it isn't confined to people who identify as trans. Trans-identified people make visible a lot of the illogical, contradictory and sexist beliefs that most people hold about 'gender', and these beliefs are held at the deepest (unconscious) level.

Trans ideology clearly has a mystical appeal to whole swathes of society. It's no accident that so many people - from doctors to politicians to teachers to parents - have embraced it with a religious fervour. The psychologist Lisa Marchiano used Jung's concept of psychic epidemics to explain the current mania for trans, and you don't have to be a Jungian to find it very apt:

Having lived through both World Wars, Jung was aware of the dangers of what he termed “psychic epidemics.” He discussed the spontaneous manifestation of an archetype within collective life as indicative of a critical time during which there is a serious risk of a destructive psychic epidemic.

That is one of the non-trivial ways that transgenderism differs from transracialism - we aren't seeing huge numbers of people, especially young people, declaring themselves transracial. Clearly 'gender' manifests in psychic disruptions in a way that race doesn't, and archetypes around masculinity and femininity are probably the oldest ones in existence.

The concept (delusion) of having the freedom to 'choose' one's sex appeals to so many people on so many levels - feminists especially. Many women seem to find irresistible the idea that we could transcend our female biology by uncoupling it from the definition of 'woman' (and in fact denial of the importance of the sexed body underlay much of second-wave 'equality' feminism, and the notion that men and women are basically interchangeable is part of the reason feminists are now having such trouble getting women to grasp the dangers of doing away with sex-based protections).

Men who identify as women obviously see a freedom in what they fantasise their feminine ideal to be. Trans-identified women and girls are not wrong for imagining that identifying out of their sex (or attempting to) will offer them greater freedom and respect. And to everyone, gender identity ideology promises the ultimate freedom of the individual: the ability for the mind to triumph over the body and thus subordinate one of the immutable facts of our mammalian existence to the power of modern technology and the will. What I am saying that it isn't only trans-identified people who hold delusional beliefs about sex and gender. If it were, gender identity ideology could not have gotten the grip that it has on society.

Therefore I welcome trans-identified men who have come to a more grounded perspective speaking out and exposing the falsities of gender identity ideology. (However, I will not use female pronouns for them, and I won't refer to them by the Orwellian neologism 'transwoman'). I also don't see trans-identified people as fundamentally different from the rest of us. That is one of the big myths of trans doctrine - that some people are born 'cis' and some are born 'trans'. No. There are no trans and cis people, just women and men. This is why I always use 'trans-identified', instead of 'trans' - to counter the notion that 'trans' is an inborn characteristic. AGP men creep me the fuck out, but again, I see them as sexually obsessive, narcissistic men - they aren't that different from other men of that ilk, they are just much more successful at hoodwinking people into indulging their behaviour (which is why I think a lot of non-AGP, garden variety predators are now claiming 'transwoman' identity too, but that's another issue).

That said, I am uncomfortable with the way women police themselves and other women in the presence of trans-identified men. It prevents us from speaking as freely and honestly as we might because we are scared of hurting feelings. It does worry me that WPUK is centring the voices of TIMs to the extent that they are. As if they just automatically assume the organisation will lack authority and credence without male voices. I was dismayed to hear Julia Long was booed (or maybe tut-tutted?) for stating very basic facts at the last WPUK meeting.

Sorry, that was a bit rambling. TL; DR: gender identity ideology is a collective madness, so all critical voices, including those of trans-identified men, apply in this landscape. But women's activism on this issue needs to be clear about centring women and promoting their voices.

I don't understand the practicalities of rejecting some MIT as women, yet embracing others

Agreed. But I don't think the women at WPUK are doing that.

How on earth can he be an ally to women when he has called himself a transwoman based on offensive stereotypes and a feeling in his head?

I don't think that is his position, at least not any more. He knows he's a man. He advocates this.

We are literally deprogramming people here like victims of a cult. It's a process.

I think people who are logical believe that logic is persuasive to all, and that is wrong.

Huge swathes of people are impervious to argument and logic, principles and fairness. They care only about their peer group and the rules they are supposed to adopt; the script they are supposed to learn.

If there is one thing I've learned it's that enormous numbers of people will believe black is white and up is down and 2+2 =5 if their peer group will punish them for saying otherwise. That people will ignore the truth if they've already made judgements about the person speaking it.

We have to reach more people, not just the ones who can speak feminist theory, or understand what a social construct is, or can say 'patriarchy' without feeling like a knob. We have to reach people who are led by emotions and not rationalism.

Boxes how would that happen?

I also think the debate should be reframed from us vs them. This should be about how ALL of us can find a way to live together in the world in a way that means we can be ourselves and everyone can be safe and protected.

Sorry should say and standing up for bio women's rights not and having them on our side.

I think Miranda is an ally who has spoken up for women at great personal cost. I think having voices of a trans person born male but identifying is female AND having biological women's rights on our side is essential for us at this point in time. It allows critique of the idea that a man can be a woman BY a man. It also allows an airing of some of the behaviour of people in the trans community from a neutral/informed perspective.

I don't understand the practicalities of rejecting some MIT as women, yet embracing others

Me neither. It can't and doesn't work. I used to call them Tim's but that gives weight to trans being real. I'm going to start calling them transvestites which is what they are.

Miranda Yardley can talk all day. I don't believe he's achieving anything except for encouraging the idea that there are good and bad Tim's and that the ones who say they are good should be accepted by women.

He has an audience of women who already agree with him. He's preaching to the converted. How on earth can he be an ally to women when he has called himself a transwoman based on offensive stereotypes and a feeling in his head?

As I see it, Miranda is almost at the conclusion of a journey that has come full circle.

Yes. And, while it's men who need to be hearing what Miranda is saying, it's something we feminists can usefully push in their direction. There is a small contingent of interested men attending WPUK meetings. This is something they can take and, hopefully, amplify.

I don't understand the practicalities of rejecting some MIT as women, yet embracing others. I get that some have an obvious sexual agenda to their 'transition', but it's not always easy to see. And, even if the reason for 'transition' is childhood trauma or to avoid harassment, that still does not make them women.

How do we allow the good ones in, but keep the bad ones out? Do we just assume the GRC tests for this and every MIT in our space has one? Do they get to be women in all regards - in hospital wards, prisons, sporting events and all women shortlists?

I think the fight would be easier if we just stated that a women is female, not a surgical or hormone altered male. A women is a human female not a social role. It would also be a clear reason why transit children and teenagers is wrong.

I don't have a problem with MIT speaking up, but I think it is inappropriate at a women's meeting. We need to be able to meet and express ourselves without a male presence.

As I see it, Miranda is almost at the conclusion of a journey that has come full circle. And the conclusion is one all 'trans' people need to get to, for their benefit and ours. I'm not going to offer Miranda as some sacrificial lamb. He's male, but he's put himself on the line for women at great personal cost and I'm not leaving him behind.

If a hundred women decide to listen to what we are saying because they noticed, thanks to Miranda's presence, that we DON'T hate 'transwomen' then we are that much closer to reaching critical mass.

it should just be womens voices

But why should it? Part of our female socialisation is the idea that we are responsible for sorting everything out, we are responsible for everyone's feelings. But we can't solve this problem because it isn't our problem.

Fine for us to say 'we don't recognise you as women so stay out of our spaces'. Fine for us to try to get to the bottom of what is causing young women to attempt to flee femaleness. But all the rest of it is a men's conversation that men need to be having.

GC TIMs need to be speaking out as well as GC men in general and ideally they'd be speaking to each other rather than to us. But I'm in favour of them speaking and communicating in all ways that are possible to get that conversation started.

I agree with TheUterati.

Miranda Yardley has a very privileged position,so much so he is applauded for saying exactly what women have been saying for ages. I agree there's no such thing as trans, I have no interest in listening to a delusional man who calls himself she and her.

What is he actually famous for, apart from being trans? Why is he speaking on behalf of women when he's been part of the problem?

As an aside, I haven't heard anything about Helen Heaton since he exited an online group I was in.

Did he actively go to the 'dark side'? Does anyone know?

That extended analogy is chilling, so completely recognisable.