House of Commons event - anyone else going?

Article on meeting from Left Foot Forward:
leftfootforward.org/2018/03/debate-on-gender-recognition-act-forced-to-be-held-in-parliament-after-millwall-fc-face-outcry/

(Got to go to work - will catch up on this one later!)

The thing about a word like "parasite" is that it doesn't matter how reasonable or appropriate it is as a word to use in these specific circumstances, because it comes with political and historical baggage that we just can't wish away. It is exactly a Katie Hopkins kind of word, deployed against refugees, etc, and it doesn't matter a jot that Sheila Jeffries used it in a completely different, justified context, about a completely different set of people (and ones with considerable privilege, unlike refugees, etc). It doesn't matter a jot if we use a dogwhistle word not knowing that it's a dogwhistle word, or not meaning it as a dogwhistle word, because it will be heard as a dogwhistle word, regardless.

For example, while there might be legitimate, non-controversial, totally appropriate uses of the phrases "rivers of blood" or "all lives matter" in some contexts, I would never ever use them in a political speech, even if the political speech was about actual blood-rivers or actual mattering-lives, and even though my intentions would be absolutely anti-racist, not pro-racist. I would avoid those phrases because those two phrases also have considerable political and historical baggage, and those dogwhistles would be heard, even if using them as dogwhistles was as far from my mind as it could possibly be.

Is this self-censoring? Possibly. But it's also sensible, if we want to be heard. It's also sensible to understand why there might be backlash if I did use those phrases, just as there's been backlash here.

"I agree with what some have said about some of the stuff being a bit radical."

If people had listened to the radicals from the get go then we wouldn't be in this mess. People need to be listening now to the women who know what they're talking about, instead of hand wringing about abusive men and their hurt feelings

“If I went around calling various minority groups ‘parasites’ at a meeting in Parliament, I’m pretty sure those comments would be condemned and I would be ostracized for being a hateful bigot. Why is it seen as socially acceptable to refer to trans women in this way?”

Name another minority group that leeches off women and is bent on destroying women's spaces, sports, refuges, lesbians, gay kids ... who sends rape and death threats, closes down meetings, bullies, tells lies, goes after women's jobs and families, says that being a woman is nothing to do with biology and everything to do with their fetishes ...

I'm happy to call them parastites too.

Just this week Jennifer James's complaints about the things men have called her were dismissed with a nothing to see here.

A member of the Labour Party can call a woman member a deplorable cunt and it's not a problem or of slightest concern.

A renowned feminist describes men who wear female skins as part of a sexual fetish parasitic and it's apparently the end of the world.

We are fighting these arguments on an uneven playing field which is kind of the whole point as to why fetishising our oppression is offensive.

Some people may have been offended but so what. We are perpetually offended by the idea that woman is a costume someone can take on and off.

I do broadly agree with the high road approach but as a pp said we are not a hive mind and people like Jeffries or Greer are never going to toe a prescribed line.

In the course of this battle we ARE going to offend people regardless of what we say. The very basis of our argument, that women are different to transwomen hugely offends them, our vaginas, our uteruses offend them.

We might as well get used to being offensive.

It seems to me that what we're fighting for as much as anything is a woman's right to have, and state, an opinion on male sexual behaviour. That is really important and important in its own right.

This. Exactly.

perhaps TRA also see this as a fight but have clear and sophisticated strategy?

For example: phone calls and threats against Millwall Football Club once they were known to be hosting a debate were so bad that it had to be cancelled. Tumbleweed. Yup, definitely funny.

So something 'off' said by a woman is picked up and publicised. Yet threats and abuse by trans people magically sail under the radar. Funny that.

It seems to me that what we're fighting for as much as anything is a woman's right to have, and state, an opinion on male sexual behaviour. That is really important and important in its own right.

Of course I'm not saying it shouldnt have 'been allowed' but it muddies the waters and was a deliberately inflammatory thing to say which quite rightly the press have picked up on.

I don't know anything about Paris Lees' past in prison, can anyone clarify?

It was a specific presentation about how male sexual fetishes are eroding women's rights. Are you saying that this shouldn't be allowed to be said? She didn't say it was people with gender dysphoria, she was referring to autogynephilia.

The reality here is that Sheila Jeffries won't give a damn what I think, which is how it should be! But I can still say I don't think it was a smart move, nonetheless.)

Yes, and as you quite rightly said, it's ok not to agree with stuff.

“If I went around calling various minority groups ‘parasites’ at a meeting in Parliament, I’m pretty sure those comments would be condemned and I would be ostracized for being a hateful bigot. Why is it seen as socially acceptable to refer to trans women in this way?”

And I'm inclined to agree with her.

Erishgal, I take your point, but we already know that's the case. I mean, being a self-confessed rapist and a murderer isn't enough to disqualify you from having a public platform if you are trans and male, and here we are arguing whether "parasite" is a bad word for one of us to say from a public platform. But that's the reality - and we can challenge it, and continue to challenge it, and try not to let it make us self-censor (and I know I self-censor all the time), but I think we should also be constantly aware of how we are getting our messages across, and try not to make really obvious own-goals. We want people to listen to us, and it takes very little for people to make a decision about who we are and what we want and stop listening to us ever again.

(The reality here is that Sheila Jeffries won't give a damn what I think, which is how it should be! But I can still say I don't think it was a smart move, nonetheless.)

www.newsweek.com/trans-women-are-parasites-occupying-bodies-oppressed-says-academic-846563

Thanks Eresh.

I get the distinction Annie, and I totally get your pragmatism as well - I want to win too.

Above reproach??? Jesus it doesn't take much tact and understanding of the media not to call trans people parasites!

That pink news reporter must have been rubbing her hands in glee.

Perhaps people should share the details of what Paris was in prison for. It's a little bit worse. Paris Lees is a violent male

They won't. Share these details in question time. Paris Lees will go on looking glamorous and talking about parasites and that will be that.

I'm so cross about all of this.

I know, but sometimes we are going to say something that we think is self evident or a useful metaphor that some people consider beyond the pale. I think we need to challenge why women are always held to a higher standard than the likes of Madigan, Lees, Maloney etc.

Anyone speaking up will be thoroughly investigated... www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/15/green-party-peer-jenny-jones-accidentally-retweeted-message-comparing-trans-reforms-to-child-rape/

And this isn't about women having to be above reproach before we can speak. It's about smart campaigning, and how we reach everybody that we want to reach. I want to win.

We're feminists - with a bit of luck, we'll all say exactly what we want, even if we disagree with each other on some of it. But it's also perfectly OK to have these conversations, to discuss amongst ourselves where our own lines are (and they will be different for all of us).

I know Grinch, I'm not exempt from these pressures and haven't always stood up to it myself. My frustration is partly at myself. None of us are unaffected by society and socialisation

I think that's one of the things which is really difficult to explain succinctly. I do judge people who have certain fetishes (even private ones, only involving consenting adults), but on the whole I think people should be allowed to be as weird as they like in private, as long as it's consensual and not bothering anyone else.

Where the camel-toe knickers and the rubber bodysuits do affect others (ie all women) is in establishing "woman" as nothing but a pornified skin, a porn image to be put on and then peeled off whenever you feel like. And involving everyone else in your fetish, without their consent, whenever you go out dressed like this.

I think it's perfectly valid to have an "eww, that's yuk" response to some fetishes, but my opposition to bodysuits and camel-toe knickers isn't based on my "eww, that's yuk" response (although I do have a "eeew, that's yuk" response regardless) but on what it means for how it transgresses women's boundaries. But that's quite difficult to get across.