The Deptford People Project and the impact of self-ID and transactivism on working class women

I read it yesterday for the first time. Some great points in this thread

Here is the text of Deptford People's Project's original powerful statement (no longer available on Twitter):

Statement from Working class community workers from Deptford. We are attending the women’s meeting at the House of Commons today. We would like to offer an explanation as to why this is necessary. See below

After many years of working at grass roots within our community we have recently been made aware of an issue that directly effects the working class and women in our area.

You must understand we are not graduate activists or or women’s rights campaigners. We are community workers and our concerns regarding changes to the GRA come from a lifetime of personal experience and having worked with some of the most marginalise people in our area.

The majority of our recent projects have been working with rough sleepers, the homeless and those that have been excluded from society. The issues they face include: unsupported/ mental health illness, sexual violence and prostitution, childhood trauma and abuse...

domestic violence, poverty, ex care system issues, addiction, prison,rehab,homelessness and austerity.

The people in our community that we represent are the most likely to access/ be placed in sex segregated services.Some have and will access all of these services.

Our local political and community organisations have been infiltrated by a group of well meaning white middle class goldsmith (uni) students. These people although well intentioned have rail roaded many vital projects by introducing identity policies and intersectional thinking. They do this without truly understanding or experiencing working class issues.

Meetings we have attended for the purpose of discussing community housing projects and women’s wellness etc have been used as a platform to re educate working class people on the new academic language expected within our organisations.

As anyone from a working class back ground will tell you, these theories and ideologies rarely translate into working class communities.

The extremely small number of transsexual (I use the old term as this has a very different meaning to the university umbrella term currently thrown about) members of the community are and have always been excepted and protected by community organisations.

We are now informed that transgender people are being routinely abused (mis gendered) and should be protected above all other marginalised groups. All that has changed is privileged students have adopted a set of gender identities that allow them to be considered marginalised.

The people we encountered were far from marginalised. In fact they were highly educated, openly classist and aggressive.

This new politics doesn’t equate in our community or for the people we support. We are dealing with working class issues with severely marginalised people and the trans lobby is a gentrification of working class social and political movements. Note the difference between trans lobby and trans people who we support.

No one will discuss our concerns regarding self id. Our local Labour Party has refused to comment or debate with the working class people.

We are attending the meeting this evening as this is only place that is willing to discuss theses issues.

When we are being verbally abused and called fascists because we are concerned about the effects of policy change on marginalised people it is a direct attack on working class women and grass roots organisations.

when sharing information about this event and attempt to shut it down be aware that you are complicit in the silencing of not only women but working class people who have not afforded the privileged of a safe space or university education. Thank you x

I was looking for this the other day - it's very useful against the "trans people are the most oppressed" trope.

Always worth bumping this one!

It was a good thread to revive Roses. I missed it first time round. Plenty of interesting questions.

Sorry posting error!

Following

Great quote

Asdoctorcuntybollocks says earlier in this thread, "Men who identify as women aren't treated as women - they're treated as very special men."

Also "failed men"- fits so well with the sporting issue!

Following

Great quote

Asdoctorcuntybollocks says earlier in this thread, "Men who identify as women aren't treated as women - they're treated as very special men."

Also "failed men"- fits so well with the sporting issue!

Exactly unlimited so well put.

Agree IdaBWells. This passage in particular is one of the clearest things I've seen written on the issue:

"This is when, she says, it all fell into place. “That’s what ‘self-identify’ means: anyone can say they are anyone… So, rich, privileged people can claim to be marginalized.”

The Feminist Current article at the top of this thread is excellent. This is exactly word for word the kind of article that needs to be run in the Guardian. However as we know the Guardian and Labour Party have moved far away from the grassroots and their organizations which are almost always majority female and who do all the unglamorous behind the scenes graft.

ploy, not ply

It's a common ply:

they say; I don't believe you; give me evidence. You give evidence - they ignore it

Still giving evidence helps the lurkers out there, IMO. As long as we can keep our tempers and not give them anything intemperate to screenshot

At some point it's not worth carrying on engaging though (if you do decide to engage) - for the sake of your blood pressure, if nothing else.

Well it’s not even ignorance is it, when they know exactly what they’re doing.

Yes, I was talking about custardo.
It’s honestly exhausting reading such wilful ignorance, I don’t blame you for ignoring.

Oh sorry, I see you are specifically referring to custard. Well I just read this whole thread (and read/watched many of the linked articles/videos) as I had not seen the thread before, and I was kind of ignoring El Custardo by the end, as I was learning much more from the numerous other posters. I think I'm saying I agree with you!

Kreigsrs what you on about?Great thread

This thread is a couple of months old now, but just seems like someone saying give me examples, being given examples, and then saying ‘I don’t care about those other women because it doesn’t affect me’ over and over again.

@custardo What do you mean by "the odd pervert in the hospital Ward"? You don't really think that is is a rare occurrence that men in co-ed wards abuse women, do you? Talk to someone who works in NHS, please.

Custardo you said that you have a grown up daughter. Do you have any granddaughters?

I've seen a couple of threads where posters have teenage daughters who know male to female trans at school. These girls are very welcoming and all is great. The problem is that the trans person is then given the chance to change with the girls, in an open changing room. Nothing to suggest that there is anything predatory but these are teenage girls, uncomfortable with their bodies. And the trans person is teenage boy (at least physically). The girls are being told this is happening. And if they have any objections, or request somewhere to change privately, they are considered bigots. It doesn't mean anyone is saying they are but it is a very easy way to get ostracized from your peers. They aren't comfortable changing with them (even changing with other girls is hard) but they aren't comfortable objecting.

Once again women come last. And this isn't a shop changing room so the "just opt out" answer really won't work.

Teens should not have to make this decision. But the answer made by adults shouldn't be sacrificing the majority.

This is just one example and a minor one at that. There are plenty of others but I think it's a good demonstration of how women are taught that feeling uncomfortable and having boundaries should come after men's comfort.

I enjoy that post (or its variants) every time, thebewilderness

This is my question, and has been right along. I ask because we have codified belief into law before and it has never ended well for the society that did so.
Can you mandate belief?
Can you codify into law the idea that some people can mind over matter themselves out of material reality and into the opposite sex, and must be treated accordingly?
It is like transubstantiation. A belief that no one actually believes.
Will you allow people to drug and mutilate children based on this belief that no one believes?

Also, I saw this video and then I despaired for the future of the world. @DrRadFem does this look familiar? Victim culture in full effect in Canada where GRA style changes to self identification has been in place for a couple of years. You must accept all their beliefs or you're hurting them. It's beyond parody.

Safe spaces for entitled white rich kids over actual oppressed people. Poor people don't have any safe spaces why should entitled college kids crash into their services and demand they reinforce their identity?

@custardo

This is an interesting video to watch. Again, it is from America but I think that it gives a good overview of a few issues and how changes to GRA could impact women in U.K See 38 minutes in, I hope this is useful.

Basically, if gender identity trumps sex then you can't say that you sacked a woman for sex discrimination - because men breastfeed as well. Or as men can now get pregnant if you're sacked for getting pregnant it nothing to do with your gender - so your employer could not be sued.

Custardo, my attempt to answer your question on the impact on women.

Firstly, it's that women are being asked to budge up and make space for men who believe they are women, when it should be men who are budging up. The needs of men (who identify as women) are being prioritised over the needs of women. OK so maybe you're not a muslim swimmer etc so aren't directly affected, but all the individual examples do add up to quite a widespread impact on groups of women. In cases such as these, the argument 'oh it's just a tiny minority of situations where this has an impact' can work both ways - its insignificance could be used as an argument for doing nothing as much as for allowing change to override women's concerns.

Second, and for me the larger issue, is the silencing effect. Our country's parliament will support something that most people don't believe is true - namely that, say, a man is a woman because he says he's a woman. Unfortunately, no amount of wishing that to be true can make it so. But give that the force of law, and people won't feel comfortable recognising the plain truth of what their eyes tell them.

This silencing effect stifles debate so who knows what might happen when activist groups start exploiting its strange implications? Slowly we start to become untethered from reality. This year it's 'I'm a woman', in ten years it's 'I'm actually black', then our grand-children will be asking 'why can't I be a cat? I say I'm a cat.' I hope that doesn't sound too apocalyptic, but self-ID is a step - perhaps a baby step, if you don't see it as an important issue - away from good law based on science, evidence, need, consultation etc, and a step towards a world of magical thinking where we're asked to believe that 2+2=5.