'This rigid, unyielding hierarchy of natural over unnatural, of biology over feeling, should terrify anyone progressive'

Re the section 28 thing, a MN user called mummybear701 literally did call for a s28 but for trans. In those exact words. I think that’s what they’re taking it from and they have a screenshot of it which they are retweeting.

So no coincidence that in the last two days the LibDem LGBT twitter feed are calling for Mumsnet to be shut down alleging that GC women are calling for a new section 28?

Wow, this line:
"Transphobia, too, emanates from a prejudice that a person’s stated identity is more trustworthy if it reflects their “natural” role in human reproduction."

Someone''s stated "identity" doesn't trump reality. If I identify as a five year old, you have every right to question it if I appear to be 80 years old. If I identify as black, it is not 'prejudiced' to question this if I'm white. If I identify as paraplegic, how can my identity be trusted if I then get up and walk? Why do we now have to accept that people are what they say they are, even if all evidence points to the contrary? And why does this only work with regards to sex and gender, and no other social category?

I'm not reading anything written by SF but I did read some of the comments. How unusual for the Guardian to allow comments. And refreshing to see that even with heavy moderation most people are questioning the ideology.

I think I have woken up in an alternate universe....the BTL comments are almost all gender critical! Am I dreaming? This was the Guardian wasn’t it?

I think SF has a point in as much as gay people's interests can conflict with a religious person's interests; just as trans people's interests can conflict with female's interests.

However, he doesn't communicate that feminists concerns are not about the letters used on a birth certificate but rather the entitlements that come with it.

Despite all the posturing that 'transwomen are women', according to the Equalities Act, if they have a GRC, whilst they are 'legally women', are should benefit from the related sex based protections that come with this, they also have the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' afforded to them by being male. This in itself proves that they are not the same as natal women.

He also fails to point out that same sex provision affords privacy, dignity and safety. When same-sex provision becomes same-gender provision, it fails to afford the dignity and privacy that comes from women resting assured that a male-bodied person will not be able to enter the provision at any given moment. Where the rationale for the provision is based upon our sexed bodies, it is non sensical to suggest that the sexed body of a natal male is inconsequential.

It's not nice reading just to add an extra warning.

So many parts of that article are bollocks, but this one deserves special attention.

Transphobia, too, emanates from a prejudice that a person’s stated identity is more trustworthy if it reflects their “natural” role in human reproduction.

No. ‘Transphobia’, as defined by you SF, emanates from the justifiable, legitimate, evidence-based concerns of women who are vulnerable to people of the opposite sex. The sex that remains part of you, regardless of your gender identity.

Fuck it.

This is a very difficult and loooong read. I hope Shon has a wee perusal.

It's not about feelz and heelz.

reneejg.net/2017/02/07/a-call-to-feminists-to-remember-the-history-and-sex-based-nature-of-womens-oppression/

It's the same old same old. Nothing new to see, and I find it tedious that Faye thinks people need a history lesson.