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

I don't view all people with fetishes as dodgy, but given that this one is specifically focused on acting out misogynistic ideas about women and getting a thrill out of violating our boundaries then yes, a person with it is going to be dodgy.

Miranda seems to be on quite a journey. I hope that (s)he (you) has support along the way.

I completely agree with LangCleg.

The fetish is progressive, in that it can evolve and deepen.

Men with AGP can fetishise women's actual biology, menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc.

And there is a horrible dual aspect to it. Lust and envy. And when you read about it, the envy can provoke quite violent internal feelings.

And, apart from anything else, it's a highly misogynistic fetish. It's not harmless as a concept.

It involves seeing women as weak, subordinate victims. See forced feminisation.

Forcing women to use preferred pronouns etc is arousing. There is a damaging dominant quality to it.

I don't think we need to view people with a fetish as dodgy bastards, just as people with a fetish the rest of us have a right not to take part in, the same as any other fetish.

NO.

You're missing the entire point of AGP. AGP, as a fetish, is directed at forcing and coercing others to take part in the fetish in order to gain validation.

AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them invade women's spaces for validation. AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them demand sexual inclusion by lesbians. AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them ignore consent. AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them ignore boundaries.

The fetish is the danger to women here. If AGP men were being AGP in their bedrooms and not women's toilets, changing rooms, prisons, shelters, shortlists, and everywhere else women and only women are, then yes, fine, who's to judge. But that's not what it is.

Miranda Yardley is definitely an ally. He's been around radical feminists for quite a while now, and may well have got to the point where he is hardening his stance.

Despite being trans, and all that entails, he totally gets it. And, precisely because he is trans himself, I imagine that's not easy.

He comes in for relentless abuse from TRAs, because of his opinions.

I don't disagree with what he's saying. The problem is it breaches equality law.

Insisting on using not personal pronouns is considered discriminatory. And would be very problematic on a practical, day-to-day level.

But I certainly think, at least in the abstract and talking about the concept, it's a step in the right direction.

Which is why TIM is becoming more popular. It stops the gaslighting. There is no way, however, you will ever get a TRA/AGP on side with it.

Their whole being is tied up in being addressed as female.

The inexorable acceptance of the word cis is, in my opinion, far more of an urgent problem. Because it is being accepted. In guidelines, newspapers, etc. Without a single bloody thought as to why women may not like it. And what it actually means.

I may be forced, by equality law, to use preferred pronouns. But the word cis has no legal backing.

I wonder what would happen if all these men who blithely use it, without understanding the reasons, were consistently referred to as 'not a woman who identifies as a man'.

It's not really happening.

How would Piers Morgan, for instance, feel if everyone told him that the definition of himself was 'not a woman who...'.

I don't think we need to view people with a fetish as dodgy bastards, just as people with a fetish the rest of us have a right not to take part in, the same as any other fetish. But otherwise, yes, we need to go back to the distinction between them and transsexuals. The two groups are not the same, they do not have the same issues, and the old school honour system does not work with fetishists.

I think it's great Miranda has said this, but I'm aware that other transsexuals would not agree, and I'm willing to consider their feelings.

So how do we know who is a fetishist and who is not?

Well, under self-ID we don't - not just legally but also because cultural mores and norms get broken down.

Back in the day, with a few thousand transsexuals (and that's all it is) scattered around the entire country, the old school honour system combined with individual friendship circles pretty much took care of it.

And perhaps we could get back to seeing fetishists as dodgy bastards best avoided and transsexuals as vulnerable people whose rights need protecting.

So how do we know who is a fetishist and who is not? If transsexuals are vulnerable people whose rights need protecting (which I agree with), then surely those rights include using preferred pronouns? Is Miranda now happy to be called 'he'? Is Miranda now going to revert back to being called a masculine name?

I can kind of see the point, but I do fear that it will just add fuel to the flames and make feminists look like bigots. Especially as actual bigots also refuse to call trans people by their preferred pronouns. It would be unworkable in workplaces and in educational settings, because you would be in contravention of the Equality Act for a start.

I don't know what I think about Miranda Yardley. I don't understand why he's held up as some sort of messiah on feminism. He's been happy to be called she, her, and has called himself a transwoman.

I think this is overly suspicious. If you read Miranda's blog, you can see how thinking has evolved over time and gradually become more and more militant on the side of women.

Not to say that Miranda doesn't enjoy a bit of controversy.

I do understand your point. I am just concerned about taking as many others along with us.

I think the way to take people on with us is to find a way to get it into the public consciousness that 80% of TIMs keep their dicks.

And not only that, 80% are very, very, very keen on their ladydicks and very, very, very keen that everybody else is required to be equally keen about their ladydicks. And not only that, the longer this goes on, the bigger the proportion of TIMs with ladydicks and smaller the proportion of transsexuals.

Once people understand this, they won't be panicking about rudeness and pronouns. And perhaps we could get back to seeing fetishists as dodgy bastards best avoided and transsexuals as vulnerable people whose rights need protecting.

I don't know what I think about Miranda Yardley. I don't understand why he's held up as some sort of messiah on feminism. He's been happy to be called she, her, and has called himself a transwoman.

I agree. I suspect Miranda has her own agenda. She refers to herself as 'she' and uses a feminine first name, so is this not 'living a lie'? I am also suspicious of the fact that people swallow whatever she says simply because she says she is on our side. How do we really know that?

I think that refusing to use preferred pronouns is likely to increase the sentiment that feminists are bigots. In everyday life where we have to work with and teach trans people, it will cause us problems. It will seem as if we don't respect trans people. My opinion is that we need to focus on the important issue- that is that there must be remaining protections for women based on biological sex, including same-sex spaces, prohibition of sex discrimination, and initiatives to help biologically born women to achieve equality. There must also be the right to discuss biology and the issues it throws up, without being accused of transphobia.

By telling us to refuse to call trans people by their preferred pronouns, I feel Miranda is trying to shit-stir and this will ultimately weaken the cause. She has her own reasons for disliking trans people which I am unclear about.

I don't know what I think about Miranda Yardley. I don't understand why he's held up as some sort of messiah on feminism. He's been happy to be called she, her, and has called himself a transwoman.

Is his sudden change about this for our benefit? Why wasn't he saying this year's ago?

I will not lie to appease men.
We are taught all our lives to lie to appease men because they are a threat to us but naming the problem is not polite.
I will not lie to appease these abusive men.

Gah I do think that the younger generation will expect us to demonstrate a level of tolerance

BigDeskBob
I do understand your point. I am just concerned about taking as many others along with us. This isn't a battle we can win without a majority 'on our side'.
Strategically, we need to peak trans as many people as we can. Our arguments are bullet proof - but I just don't think that the younger generation - who we need onside if this isn't to be another Brexit debacle - will expect us to demonstrate a level of tolerance. Safeguarding, children being groomed and medically experimented on, right to privacy and dignity, sport - these are all huge issues that people understand and generally agree with. Refusing to call their Dad, (now called Mary) or their friend Rose (now called Stephen) by their preferred pronoun will seem petty and give credence to those who say that TERFs are just hateful bigots.

I think we need to stand back and be a bit strategic and political about this - but maybe I've been watching too much West Wing recently

"This is where I think we are in danger of losing respect and losing the battle"

Using sex pronouns hasn't earnt us a lot of respect so far, Germaine Greer uses them and look how she is treated.

I think we are losing, in part, by being inconsistent - we say that it is impossible to change sex, yet will happily call a man she and a (trans) woman. We also allow certain men to become women - the HSTS when they look and behave exactly like the ones we aren't happy about.

We don't have to be mean, but we don't have to use 'she' either.

Someone posted. I'm referring to the conversation between Miranda, Debbie and Kristina!

I think it's good that that sort of conversation is happening. And it needs to happen amongst trans people themselves. Just as evolutions in feminist thought need to come from discussions among women, trans people need to be able to work out who they are and where they are going and self-critique their own movement with many voices; painful though it may be at times.

Under the current trans dogma, this is not happening and isn't even considered desirable

I will use pronouns to mis-sex people known to me personally if I like them and respect them. I will use pronouns to mis-sex people I know personally if I think they would suffer distress and are vulnerable enough to be at risk if I did not.

I will use neutral pronouns or avoid pronouns altogether to avoid causing pointless arguments online.

I will never be coerced into mis-sexing people if I don't want to or I see it as inappropriate and I will decide what is inappropriate as I see fit. I don't care what they think about that.

flamingowings
Funnily enough, Kristina, Debbie and Miranda are talking about gaslighting in this context now - on Kristina's Twitter account.

I think Miranda has taken her thinking to its logical conclusion. She has always said she is not a woman (and now that being a trans woman is a result of a crisis in masculinity and needs to regarded from that perspective) so it makes sense not to use female pronouns and drop the concept of 'trans woman'. Trans women are a male thing and should be owned by men (just as trans men are a female thing and many of us understand the pressures they are under).

However, I think Miranda is probably unusual in reaching that position. She recently tweeted a picture of herself as a man and said that, yes, that was her and that man was still her. I don't know Miranda, but did that show a final change in her thinking to where she is now?

Other trans women who think in a similar way will not be there yet and may find that last step difficult (if they can ever make it). If they are decent and sympathetic people, I am happy to afford them basic courtesies. I'll address them accordingly.

The goal is, of course, a society where the likes of Miranda (and Grayson Perry - a confident man in a dress) can present as they are and be happy and confident to be named men; and can enter male spaces accepted as men too. I think it was Kristina who said that one of the roots of [male] transgenderism is society's fear of feminine men. And I reckon we can add to that the general devaluing of what is perceived as female.

This is where I think we are in danger of losing respect and losing the battle - particularly from the younger generation. If it matters so deeply to someone and they are trying to live their lives as the opposite sex, then I would always use their choice of personal pronoun. It's polite and respectful. My children and their friends would be horrified if I argued I shouldn't - and I think they'd be right.

I understand how much it grates when I look at some of the vile misogynists currently berating women - but I have to say that if feminists are seen as being deliberately hostile to individuals, as opposed to passionately assertive about the rights of women, then it just feeds the hate narrative. And to date, I don't see that hate on our side. Fury, outrage, fear, exasperation and determination but not hate.

I am being truthful when I say that trans people should be able to live their lives in safety and free from discrimination and bullying. And therefore if someone wishes me to use a particular pronoun, then I will use it out of common courtesy.

This is a world wide phenomenon and we won't take the majority with us if we are seen to be bullies of individuals! That's how the other side operates and why they are in trouble at present. There are so many battles to fight and we MUST take people with us or this toxic movement will never be successfully challenged.

Thanks for starting this Lifelong.
I agree, it makes you think and I get what Julia Long/Miranda are saying. On a personal level, I think most of us would agree to use someone's chosen pronouns as a matter of courtesy and politeness, even if I don't agree that person is actually a man or woman. This is also what Peterson said in interviews - that if a student in his class asked him to use certain pronouns, he would do so, but would never accept pronoun use being mandated.
On a political level though, gender-critical voices are accused of transphobia automatically, so surely having as many transwomen as possible countering self-ID is really important?
Debbie Hayton said "we need to take women with us" and both Debbie and Kristina don't seem to agree with Miranda on this. I wouldn't want to alienate any trans-support.
Also, some posters pointed out how confident Debbie, Kristina and Miranda were at the WPUK meeting and maybe that was down to their male socialization. Having sat behind Kristina as she spoke, I can say her hands were shaking!

They door stepped someone over personal pronouns? Wtf?