Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

Sue0001
The only way to protect the rights of both trans people and women is to support the third spaces and service option.

Please do that. Lets see how it works out for women in the third gender neutral space. Over time its possible that gender neutral will become the norm in most situations, if it proves safe for women.

Sue, you are clearly not listening to people's views and concerns. They are not just about safety. Why do you think it's reasonable to deny women the right to consent to males being in female spaces? Why do you prioritise male feelings in this issue?

Despite lots of words and paragraphs, I still do not see any rationale at all for accepting or believing the nonsense that men can be women.

Women are women due to female biology. Men are men due to male biology. And then comes female and male upbringing and socialisation.

A person's feelings, however strong, cannot be codified in law and given priority over basic physical reality.

This is that inflammatory sea lion thing that we were warned against isn't it?
TGLWGH

Also

I believe if the real facts and issues could get respectfully debated women’s and trans people’s rights could be protected and any conflict between them resolved.

What the bollocks do you think a majority of people on here would like? This is exactly what most want.

You've just talked over a bunch of them suggesting they haven't been trying hard enough to do this.

You seen to know better than anyone else. That's not listening. You need to listen.

Loads of women here have tried to engage, time after time after time after time after time. And have just been stonewalled as bigots for not doing it 'right'.

Sue0001:Changes in society are hard for many people but it is not hard to treat all people with respect and dignity.
It is the submit, or die, part that I am having trouble with.

The violent acts of transgender identified males upon women's and girl's persons has repeatedly been dismissed as a price that transgender advocates think women should be willing to pay.

Sue0001, these matters are all discussed at length on various threads where you are welcome to add your inflammatory voice.
This is a thread discussing how we can deal with inflammatory posts like yours.

Sue - I don't think people will argue with your last statement as a matter of principle.

However, respect has to be reciprocal.

I do see respect in abundance from some members of the trans community, generally those who now identify as transsexual to establish their own "foothold" in this mess of gender politics.

I don't see that as a general "position" wrt the trans lobby and that makes discussion and debate very difficult when nuanced discussion is invariably cut off at the start by the determination to hijack/mutate the key definitions of the subject at hand.

Its not a level playing field when the language is being obfuscated deliberately to deny any counterpoint :-(

I believe if the real facts and issues could get respectfully debated women’s and trans people’s rights could be protected and any conflict between them resolved.
You are a TERF then.

Btw, its not just the letter of the law that matters. Its also its practical effect. If you refine sex and replace it with gender it renders the effectiveness of other existing laws considerably different in practical terms. Understanding that as well as what the GRA reform intends to do, is the crux of it.

Not politicians want to go there. Easier to dismiss as problem free.

I believe if the real facts and issues could get respectfully debated women’s and trans people’s rights could be protected and any conflict between them resolved.

This is the best analysis of the legal position I have seen.

Peter Dunne is a lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol, and Co-Convener for Health with the Trans Legal Equality

Tara Hewitt is an NHS Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Lead, Diversity Consultant and Co-Convener for Health with the Trans Equality Legal Initiative.

In July 2017, the Government announced a public consultation on legal gender recognition in the United Kingdom. In particular, it will invite opinion and advice on plans to adopt a model of self-determination (similar to that currently applied in other European jurisdictions, such as Ireland). Self-determination would allow trans persons to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate on the basis of a statutory declaration, without oversight by a Gender Recognition Panel (s. 1 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004)), a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or having to prove real life experience (GRA 2004, s. 2).

The plans to reform the GRA 2004 have met with opposition among some politicians and trans-sceptical advocates (e.g. see here, here, and here).The primary objection is a belief that, if there is no procedure to verify that individuals genuinely self-identify with their asserted gender, dishonest men will improperly claim a female identity in order to access women-only spaces (increasing the risks of assault). In addition, opponents object that self-determination would create a right for trans women, who have no intention to medically transition, to enter locker rooms and public restrooms.

There are, however, important difficulties with abuse-focused objections to self-determination.

Such arguments are a solution to a problem that does not appear to exist. Despite the persistent invocation of assault-focused opposition to trans rights, there is little (if any) evidence that cisgender men use those rights to commit crime. Although, in the UK and around the world, many men do perpetrate assaults against women (often in women-only spaces), they are not dishonestly using trans legal protections to facilitate their crimes. Rather, these men enter segregated facilities in open violation of the law. While reforming the 2004 Act may not reduce the instance of male-pattern violence, neither would it assist nor encourage the commission of such violence.

Claims of potential abuse deny trans populations beneficial legal reforms on the basis that (cisgender) persons – over whom trans communities have no control – might subsequently misuse the law. They are not objective evidence against either the desirability or utility of self-declared gender. If there is a risk of cisgender abuse, rather than punishing trans communities, the Government should address that risk through appropriate channels, such as existing criminal laws.

Abuse-focused opposition to self-determination typically misrepresents existing UK laws. To the extent that one suggests that self-determination would create a new right for trans women, who reject medical transitions, to enter women-only spaces, this ignores current protections set out in the Equality Act 2010 (2010 Act).

Section 7 of the 2010 Act establishes that persons who have a ‘gender reassignment’ characteristic enjoy broad non-discrimination protections. It defines gender reassignment to include a “person [who] is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex” [emphasis added] (i.e. the person need not be undertaking a medical transition). Therefore, according to s. 7, there already exists a general right for trans women – irrespective of their medical status or whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate – to access appropriate goods and services (such as single-gender hospital wards, etc.).
The 2010 Act does contain two high-profile exceptions which entitle persons providing single-gender services and communal accommodations to exclude trans persons as a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” (Schedule 3, Part 7(28); Schedule 23(3)). The prime example of such a scenario (referred to in the explanatory notes) is a counselling service for vulnerable women, where service users may refuse to attend sessions if trans women are permitted to attend.

In practice, however, Schedules 3 and 23 are (at least in certain public sectors) rarely applied. Showing a legitimate aim is a high threshold, and many service providers (and users) understand the importance of respecting trans identities (while also appreciating that trans women pose no threat in female-only spaces). Even if this was not the case (and the exceptions were more frequently relied upon), the Government’s proposals would have little impact. Schedules 3 and 23 can operate even where a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate. Thus, assuming that Parliament retains the relevant provisions of the 2010 Act (which currently appears to be the case), self-declaring one’s preferred legal gender would still (where the high bar of a “legitimate reason” is satisfied) allow exemptions for the right to access gender-specific spaces (guaranteed by the 2010 Act) to continue.

I wish you'd met my sibling's partner.

Respect is a two way thing. You earn it. You don't immediately metaphorically slap people in the face for bending over backwards to try and be respectful. When you've been treated in that way a few times, patience wears thing on the whole respect and dignity thing. Its meaningless if when you do, its thrown back in your face with aggression. The effort has to be appreciated, even if you don't quite say or do the right thing occasionally.

You make it sound as if no one here ever really tried. You know better and everyone else was just bigoted from the world go.

You really are naive to think that. And really rather patronising.

Sue0001, I believe in treating all people with respect and dignity, not just men.

It is Sue, as we've said. Some of these things cause a conflict. "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins" as the saying goes.

Changes in society are hard for many people but it is not hard to treat all people with respect and dignity.

Seconding the recommendation that women read Gift of Fear. In combination with the Shark Cage article someone posted a week or two ago it could be very useful for those whose sense of their right to maintain and assert their own boundaries has been eroded by socialization and/or abuse, or was just never built up much in the first place for the same reasons.

A person whose response to "no" is to push harder is telling you something about themselves. Please listen.

Why are some people so afraid of others being authentic to themselves and to the world in which they live?

Because its not about being authentic to themselves. If it was, they would understand the importance of it to all people, not just their own community.

You CAN NOT redefine what it is to be a woman without it affecting women's ability to define themselves.

You CAN NOT decide you are now someone's sister or daughter or mother when they have had many years of defining themselves as having a brother, son or father.

It is impossible. Unless you give up your own identity, past and self worth to it. You hide behind the lie and lose your own authentic self to be able to do that.

It is truly about power not identity or this nonsense of the authentic self. As soon as you say what it actually is, the mask slips.

People who have felt they have no power for whatever reason and see this as the way out. It doesn't matter the impact of that, because if they didn't do it, they'd kill themselves. Power, you see. Power.

People who refuse to take no for an answer are not safe to be around.

Agree. Boundary violation is a huge red flag. It's often used by predatory men to test what they can get away with so that they can keep pushing until they get their victim where they want them. People should read the "Gift of Fear" and not encourage women to ignore fears, red flags and their instincts.

The real issue is that 98% of sexual assault is committed by males. The majority of whom will indeed already be known to the victim. Being known to the victim doesn't erase their sex or mean that it's irrelevant.

Transgender advocates appropriating intersex terms and intersectional theory from Black Feminists is not viewed as appropriate by either of those groups who have requested repeatedly that they desist.
People who refuse to take no for an answer are not safe to be around.

This is where the DARVO alert flashes: Why are some people so afraid of others being authentic to themselves and to the world in which they live?

If claiming to be the opposite sex and demanding that others affirm that you are the opposite sex is your idea of authenticity I do not know what there is to say to you except to share this.
humpty.jpg

The real issue is more than 75% of sexual abuse is committed by someone known to the victim

I can name precicesly one thing all my sexual abusers all have in common (other than me).

With respect, I’m not playing a victim. I don’t talk about my abuse and assaults in real life. But I refuse to accept that we can blithely ignore the one thing that the vast majority of those who carry out sexual crime and violent crime have in common. I know women can be violent and abusers too, but they don’t carry it out nearly as much as the other half of the population do.

I take issue with anti-trans, personally. I think the majority of people here aren’t “anti-trans”, but “for” the protection of sex-separated spaces for reasons including dignity, privacy and safety.

I also question why intersectional feminism has to include male bodied people. Is it so hard to define the words woman and man?

As a woman who is also a survivor of multiple incidences of sexual violence and domestic violence I think my right to consent, my privacy, dignity and boundaries should be respected, as should any woman's.

Why are some people so afraid of others being authentic to themselves and to the world in which they live?

I would ask why some people are so afraid of allowing women to own their own identity?

discoversociety.org/2018/04/03/viewpoint-understanding-anti-transgender-feminism/

In what follows, I will attempt to help the majority – trans-positive feminists – to understand the seemingly opaque interior of anti-trans feminism.

She must be right, she's an expert.