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

TheUterati

I agree in principle with everything you say.
But.
And it's a huge but.
I believe your approach will have us lose everything.
It has intellectual purity and honesty.
And we'll lose.
It's like walking onto a vicious battlefield, unarmed, and expecting the power of your argument to make everyone ceasefire. You'll be shot instantly, and the purity of the argument will go down with you.

Of course it's wrong that men are speaking up for us in this debate. Of course it's wrong that we sometimes say 'transwomen' instead of man. I agree, completely, that trans isn't actually a real thing. It's a misnomer. I just know that this is a process of convincing people, and that getting people from the position of 'transwomen are women no debate' to 'transwomen are men' usually happens in stages. People become more entrenched if you try to take them too fast.

Even on this board, the newly peaktransed are only happy to go as far as 'truetrans/bad agp" for now.

When the pragmatic approach needs compromise, it isn't because compromise is nice or right or fair or reasonable.
It's because it might be the only way to win. My ethical line is that I won't lie. But I will, tactically, adopt language on occasion that fits the audience if it benefits the situation. And I will accept the voices of men saying what I am saying if it means people hear the message. I will hate it, because it should just be womens voices, but I'll suck it up. And I see those men as allies, and I acknowledge that they put themselves at personal risk to do it. And I'm prepared to stick my neck out for them if they help advance our position.

In your example of the transblack woman above, you need to extend it properly. There would be thousands of transblacks. They would be easily distinguishable as white regardless. Laws would already exist protecting them. They would dominate news stories and public discussions. Public opinion would already have shifted to how they were the most vulnerable group, dying in droves because bigots won't accept them. Pseudoscience would pop up everywhere supporting blackbrain theory. Actual black people would already be no platformed across all political parties and the MAJORITY of black, white and all ethnic groups would have announced their full support for trans black people.
Only a tiny minority are prepared to speak out and they face a huge backlash, even prosecution for their views. The voices of trans black people are heard above all others.

NOW, do you imagine the resistance would utilise the voices of certain 'transblack' people who were now critical of the ideology that they once believed?

I think desperate times call for desperate measures.

It's quite an interesting thing for me to think about, actually.

My primary interest in structural inequality is social class so I've always seen myself as kind of radfem-adjacent rather than radfem.

Inclusion of any kind of male voice in feminist space activism (if that activism is seeking a wider audience than feminists) is something I probably need to think on further.

Men aren't women, men's voices aren't more important than women's voices, and feminism is about women's voices, not men's voices: I agree with all that.

But I don't agree that trans identified males being involved in women's defence of their spaces is odd. This whole problem is a men's problem which most of them are (in time-honoured fashion) making our problem. We and our spaces are getting dragged in by men's failure to take responsibility for the cracks in their own ideology of masculinity. Men should be sorting this out, not us. It's kind of weird that we're having to be involved.

You are right, you are so right. And women like Julia Long and Sheila Jeffreys are vilified by other feminists for saying that transwomen are not any kind of woman.
This is our female socialisation surely, taking care of feelings. Men just don't have that and it's what has allowed this movement, this delusion to gain such traction.

Secret - I agree. And the fact that these men are there, in these meetings, speaking up and stating 'I am a man!' (to rapturous applause) is FUCKING WEIRD. All of it. That he comes to the meeting. That he stands up and states that. That he gets cheered for doing so.

Consider my BAME example. It would be fucking weird......

As far as I am concerned, getting to this realisation is an important part of truly reaching Peak Trans, and an important part of good old fashioned Consciousness Raising.

To be honest, I don't see any huge difference between delusional TIMs who want to force their way into women's bathrooms and rape crisis centres, and delusional TIMs who come into women's meetings and take up valuable speaking time that could have gone to women. Isn't it just another level of validation? I'm so womanlike that even radfems welcome me...

The Woman's Place meeting had to go to great lengths to ensure that women could speak up publicly about the trans debate. And then some of that time was taken up by men speaking.

I'm glad some trans people are starting to speak up about the insanity that is self-id. But why do they need to invade our spaces in order to do it?

And consider what happens when the 'good ones' go back to the dark side....

Aiofe Assumpta Hart anyone??
Helen Heaton???

Any one of these 'good ones' could go the same way. The delusion is already there.

If Mr Yardley wants to have a blog, write for the Morning Star, whatever it is, that is fine. Obviously. And if that awakens people 'out there' to the idiocy of trans, that is great.

But, my point was that for feminists to include men like him in the debate and to give him a voice is ridiculous. Women are so eager to find the 'good ones' and once they do, often as not, the fawning starts. These men are praised for stating biological reality, yet the fact of their delusion is ignored, in a way that a woman who states biological reality is not. These men are often centred in debate and given a voice, where it is absolutely inappropriate to do so.

Consider my BAME example. This is the same. To say that the hypothetical TRIC who is self aware enough to understand that she is White has an important voice in the fight for BAME rights is a nonsense. This is the same.

Using voices like Mr Yardley, 'Jenn' Smith , et al as weapons in this battle is a dangerous game.

And I firmly do not believe that the fight against TRA, the fight against Self ID, and feminism in general should focus, even in small part, on offering support to those 'genuine and nice' trans. There is no such thing as trans. There are only deluded people. The support, where it goes, should be directed at those women who for a variety of reasons have succumbed to the delusion that they are men.

TheUterati while I entirely sympathise, I think that the conversation outside feminist circles needs to highlight that some trans-identifying people are also cognisant of material reality. That's important for a campaign directed at the general public.

And I also think, now that Miranda is really going there and conceptualising his life as a man's journey, it's a good voice to include. So much of this is about masculinity and the entitlement of the (lady) penis.

I quite look forward to seeing where Miranda goes next to be honest.

I mean, on this board we can all see the entitled penis announcing itself via transactivism. There might be dresses and lipsticks and pouts and jelly tits but we all see the entitled penis underneath. We all know this is masculine behaviour. The accoutrements don't disguise it.

This is an aspect of the debate that needs airing, I think. It's not about clothes or cosmetic surgery or hormones - it's about socialised behaviour.

I think MY's voice is invaluable because (s)he can 'speak from the other side' about what being trans means and does not mean. I'm rather hoping that (s)he can be a role model with a rather different view from the TRAs re what transitioning means, especially for younger people considering it. I'm not touching the 'is she a woman' question, but she does not have to be a woman to be an important ally. I rather hope too that in this struggle we can offer trans allies real support in return for their support.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree.

However, I think we are within a hair's breadth in this country of allowing any man to self-ID as a woman. I really believe that if most people understood the implications of it, they would be against it and in my limited conversations about it with people, they are.

If, I start talking about "the oppressor class" and saying someone's son who is suffering horribly and hating their own body and wants to be a woman is just deluded, I don't think it will get anywhere. People will view it as some feminist cat-fight or heartless dogma.

I don't want to end up like Meghan Murphy and other gender-critical people in Canada fighting a battle that has already been lost.

We need to stop this.

We need to stop centering men like Miranda Yardley in this debate. We need to stop listening to their opinions on this subject.

We need to stop looking for the 'good ones'.

There is no such thing as trans. We need to stop differentiating between the 'bad' AGPs and the 'good' ones who are not AGP. There are ALL men and they are ALL delusional.

Consider this person I have (hopefully managed to) post a picture of:

Suppose that, despite what she has done to her body, she said:
Yes, I know I am not really Black. I know I can never be Black. I know I will always be White.

What would you all say? Would you differentiate between her and the other 'bad' ones who claimed to be Black? And/or who had a fetish about it? Or would you say: THIS IS STILL FUCKING INSANE SHIT.

Would you try to find different ways of referring to this person and people like her? Would you call her a TRIC (Trans-racially-identified-Causcasian)? Or would you just call her a deluded White woman?

Trying to find ANY terminology to refer to these people that departs from naming them as men is reifying delusion and buying into the lie.

Let's suppose that Black people centred this woman, this TRIC, in their antiracism campaigns, gave her a voice, listened to her over and above ACTUAL BLACK PEOPLE who were saying the same thing. let's suppose that Black people centred this woman in their discussions around Black and Ethnic Minority rights.

What would you all say? Would you say, yup that seems like a fair thing, cos after all she's a TRIC, but is aware that she is White, and she is an ally.

Or, would you say: get a fucking grip! This is insanity! Why are you giving this person a voice!

If you were Radical in your leanings, you would also say: why are you giving a voice to a member of the oppressor class? The very fact that you are prioritising a White person above Black people, is an example of racism.

So why not here?

This needs to stop. Just as this TRIC is not an ally to Black people, and is not an ally in the fight against racism, so Miranda and all like him are not allies to feminism and are not allies in this battle. Stop praising men like Miranda for being only partially delusional.

What I mean is, without explaining and acknowledging the drive behind this, self ID doesn't look as harmful as it really is.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed

I don't think you're massively out of step.

And I have no chance of policing anyone's thoughts.

It's not possible.

The problem I have with AGP is that it can be hidden, whilst being practised, forcing women (and men and children) to be unwitting participants.

The transwomen ARE women is a direct result of the fetish, not gender dysphoria.

Obviously people have fetishes, and I don't give a toss. I can't care about everything at once. Sometimes you just have to leave an issue up to people who have a greater understanding of it and who it impacts the most (if it does at all).

This one, though, relies on seeing women as victims. Which again, if it didn't impact on me, I wouldn't have to think about it.

But it does, so I do.

It's not just about changing the law, it's about the cultural acceptance of a fetish, which has hijacked, and is now wearing the disguise of, a mental disorder.

Unlike the TRAs, we're not a hivemind, and we don't aspire to be

Actually, I am getting the strong impression that there are many who do want us to be a hivemind and who are frightened by questioning and debate, which they see as dissent. A few threads lately have reflected this, where there has been room for really interesting discussion and this has been shut down with the party line enforced.

There are so many different things going on with transgenderism

Agreed - and this complex situation is too often oversimplified here.

I'm not missing the point at all. (But way to go at being patronising) AGP is no different to lots of other fetishes. It's not a problem if the fetishist keeps it to themselves. If they expect other people to unwillingly take part, then it is a problem.

I'm afraid, I can't go along with LangCleg and Datun because they seem to be suggesting we should be, well I don't know, policing peoples' thoughts? People have thoughts, some of them are unpleasant, but unless they are acting on them there is nothing we can do. Yes, AGP is unpleasant and misogynistic, but that's not new, it's been a thing since forever. The same is true of many other fetishes, bigotries, and personality traits. We can't change those either. But we can work to keep those men out of our spaces and away from opportunities to change laws.

I have a feeling I'm massively out of step with the rest of this section, but meh. I prefer to fight the battles I have a chance of winning. I don't see any point in trying to police what people think or yelling at someone who is on the same side. So, as you were ...

There are so many different things going on with transgenderism: the Venn diagram of reasons for transition being just one of them. Not all males who transition have a sexual motive (HSTS wanting to sleep with straight men; AGP men attracted to themselves as women). And some AGPs are also dysphoric so it's a Venn diagram, not a binary. Female reasons for transition are different. Young people's reasons are different.

And then there is the affiliation with the authoritarian left.

And then there is the science denial.

And then there is the weird cult behaviour.

And then there is the attack on lesbians and activist feminists.

And then there is... so many other things.

I doubt any of us would agree on absolutely everything in this big old tangled web. And I doubt any of us would completely agree the priorities on a list of all them over which should take precedence.

But I think almost all of us can agree that self-ID shouldn't be written into law and that single sex exemptions in the EA should be retained and invoked more often. So that's where we should concentrate our efforts, regardless of personal point of view.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn. Not transsexuals vs AGP, for the reasons given above. But men who consciously reject masculinity while retaining their awareness that they are irrevocably male vs men who claim for any reason whatsoever to be women.

I am an ally to men who are trying to grapple with the crisis of masculinity rather than projecting it onto women, because I think this is a job that needs to be done and that men need to be the people doing it.

Agree or not, and I think I do, but if this is about preventing self-ID becoming the norm in this country as in Canada, Ireland, Malta etc then I don't think it will be achieved by being seen as a rejection of all transwomen.
The translobby and transideology has become so entrenched and powerful in such a short space of time and viewed as being on "the right side of history" (TM Owen Jones) by so many, the battle just to preserve sex-segregated spaces will be a tough enough sell, even more so having to constantly refute accusations of transphobia at every turn.

So do I

Baracker I agree with you. And Julia.

" But otherwise, yes, we need to go back to the distinction between them and transsexuals."

Where's the distinction? Isn't India w a transexual?

Exactly this.

I'm noticing a trend to create categories of 'good/real/true/nice transwomen' vs 'self id agps' , with honorary entry to womanhood granted to the former and denied to the latter.

There is no clear delineation, and transexuals can also be AGP, and can also be gay, and still get their misogynistic jollies from putting women in their place.

I think Miran's opinions are evolving. And I think he's getting to the place where he will have reached the logical conclusion. I'm hoping other TiMs get there too eventually.

I agree with Julia Long that really, there isn't such a thing as a transwoman.
Only a man who holds certain false beliefs about women and about himself.

How palatable that statement is, is another thing entirely. I will occasionally make certain linguistic compromises if the result is to build public opinion effectively. I won't lie. But I will tailor my language to my audience.

As did the trans lobby.
They didn't launch their lobbying with "transwomen are women, down with cis" did they? They slowly boiled us like frogs in a pot. One slight concession at a time, they pushed the Overton window.

We may have to do the same.

and both Debbie and Kristina don't seem to agree with Miranda on this

As I've said on other thread, I think it's not just OK, but even necessary that we all have different opinions on all sorts of things about this issue, and still be able to work together, and I don't expect Debbie, Kristina and Miranda to be any different on this.

Unlike the TRAs, we're not a hivemind, and we don't aspire to be, and we don't punish deviations from the accepted line, because there isn't one accepted line, and that's OK too.

I've changed my mind quite substantially along the way on a lot of points surrounding this issue, some big, some minor, and I expect others have done the same.

" But otherwise, yes, we need to go back to the distinction between them and transsexuals."

Where's the distinction? Isn't India w a transexual?