Letter in The Guardian from Transexuals saying self ID not the answer

One extra thing - where a person is requesting access to single sex provision, it should be legal to ask to see a GRC. Otherwise how do you know someone's got one

This will probably depends on the situation and the women and girls involved. I don't want any human male giving me a cervical screening test, for example. A GRC will not give me any reassurance in that situation.

Flowers yes I am pleased they have done it. I also understand the reasoning behind some of the stronger opinions here and I have sympathy with that too. I’d be aware that religious people doing similarbwouldnt be doing it forbthe rights of atheists but I’d be pleased to see it nonetheless- because it creates another opinion on the same side

I also think there is room for both the more radical stance of some posters on here and the less radical. Feminism is not one monolithic block, and despite this place being accused of being an echo chamber I think this shows that.

When an argument /request is made and you have only one point/stance to refute I actually think that can be easier to dismiss than having a range of opinions all broadly similar but varying in how strong they are - more opinions on the same side

To me the difference of opinion here is not a weakness but a strength.

Yes, PTSS - to clarify, the women who should decide on access or otherwise to women's spaces are those women who would be affected by it.

at flowers

'Chick' even

PermissionToSpeakSir

If you are referring to me I am not cool chicken. I am a very fat middle aged woman currently wearing crocs and a 20 year old dressing gown-. I never presume to speak for anyone else.

I am one of those people who doesn't like the 'honour system' I don't feel comfortable and I don't want other more cool, groovy and right-on women to speak on my behalf in saying that males can be accepted in women's facilities.

I am not cool and groovy with it. I feel really uncomfortable. A particular memory that stands out was in the toilets of a theatre, the TIM knew (although definitely post op - I knew that for a fact) they didn't belong. The excess muttering, flamboyant body language. I felt a bit of adrenalin pumping. In retrospect I realise I felt threatened having them in a space I only feel safe knowing it is for females.

People with dysphoria need their own unisex facilities (not taking disabled peoples) and it is no cool-chick's business to say I am groovy with it. I am not.

Agree with everything Errol said

good list ErrolTheDragon. I think I'd be happy with that.

right, let's do that!

One extra thing - where a person is requesting access to single sex provision, it should be legal to ask to see a GRC. Otherwise how do you know someone's got one

What’s happening now with TRAs is he equivalent of my Christian friend going from politely not really discussing religion when we meet up to her campaigning for blasphemy to be a crime, and theocratic laws to be brought in, legislating belief.

Agreed. But the people who signed the letter this thread is about are equivalent to those among the Christians in your analogy who are standing up and saying that making blasphemy a crime is wrong and potentially harmful to them, when society is about to strengthen them. I am pleased they are doing it.

But I honestly don't see how we stop the gender zealots while continuing to accommodate transsexuals

Keep the GRC -maybe it needs updating, maybe it doesn't but a process which is not open to abuse must be retained. Push for evidenced based research and an end to the bigotry of #nodebate. Insist that 'sex' and 'gender' must stop being conflated. Ending any discrimination based on 'gender' is right and proper; it has nothing to do with retaining the right to retaining distinct spaces and services and statistics for biological women and biological men. It has to be up to women to decide who (if anyone) should be exceptions.

I see the points but respect the letter writers for sticking to their own agenda and not claiming to speak for women.

flowers I too have/had a great deal of sympathy for transsexuals. They should be able to access treatment and it must be a hard condition to live with.

The thing about rights though is that they end where they hurt others. The religion analogy is a good one. I’m an atheist, I have Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish friends. None of us push our beliefs on each other and I would fight for their rights to believe and worship as they wish.

But... i also opposed Blair’s blasphemy laws because at that point, we would have lost a significant secular protection.
I will fight any attempt to make me believe any of the tenets of any of those religions
And I reserve the right to disbelieve and criticise the ideologies behind those religions. Not criticise my friends, not discriminate against them, but to have the right to say ‘actually this specific bit of doctrine I have an issue with.’

What’s happening now with TRAs is he equivalent of my Christian friend going from politely not really discussing religion when we meet up to her campaigning for blasphemy to be a crime, and theocratic laws to be brought in, legislating belief.

Our niceness is being exploited here. This is a basic human rights issue.

Here is a long Twitter thread from one of the letter's signatories. Two things: a) I agree with everything the thread says; b) it's perfectly clear that this is advocating for transsexuals not for women.

There is nothing at all wrong with that - every group should be able to advocate for itself and be heard. But it's not the same fight in all respects. As women, we should be aware of that, applaud the intervention, and be ready to work together on areas of agreement but still with our own boundaries and aims in place.

twitter.com/RadFemAngryBird/status/992889534089256965

There is a big difference for me between choosing to respect someone's views/preferences and being forced to act as though I believe in them

this is a very fundamental point.

TRAs are seeking to extract with threats what was previously freely given.

I also have a lot of sympathy with transsexuals, who have a condition they don’t choose and were not causing problems before these gender zealots turned up

Me three. But I honestly don't see how we stop the gender zealots while continuing to accommodate transsexuals. I think it has to be all or nothing.

So to whoever it was yesterday on one of the threads said that there is a 'radical separatist group' here, these last few posts (from Bowl at 9.04) illustrate perfectly how those women arrived at their position. The women who had been being nice, when faced with the proposed changes said hang on a minute, this might be bad for women, and a whole shitstorm of abuse rained down. So they drew firm boundaries.

Although also understand where Reluctant and Lang are coming from. The Danegeld problem.

There is a big difference for me between choosing to respect someone's views/preferences and being forced to act as though I believe in them.

I also have a lot of sympathy with transsexuals, who have a condition they don’t choose and were not causing problems before these gender zealots turned up.

Me too.

Yes, let's not forget that trying to 'pass' as the opposite sex is deception.

It isn't 'polite' or 'kind' or 'nice' to knowingly deceive people. It is the opposite.

Most people would feel wretched attempting to deceive every person they meet - they would be desperate to come clean.

BowlofBabelFish
I know exactly where you’re coming from, and I agree in many respects. I had a phase of repeatedly asking the gender non-critical posters ‘Do you believe humans are sexually dimorphic’, which is similar but different to your question ‘Can people change sex’. I agree, women are under threat. I agree, we need to defend our spaces. However, I also have a lot of sympathy with transsexuals, who have a condition they don’t choose and were not causing problems before these gender zealots turned up. I understand it is the place of feminists to defend the rights of women and girls. But I have a (possibly female socialization driven) urge to also defend those transsexuals who don’t demand that they are the opposite sex, just ask to be treated as though they are.

Now: now we have men wanting to self ID. And that does affect us. It affects same sex space provision. It affects safeguarding. It has the potential to blow every bit of legislation that protects women and girls (and children generally) out of the water. That’s a whole different kettle of fish

Exactly. And when the self-ID demand comes complete - as we see very often on social media - with text book male pattern abusive behaviour, straight from the Freedom Programme or the Duluth Wheel, it's a QED.

yes Bowlofbabelfish, I said on a previous thread that got deleted (seems to happen a lot round here these days), that being nice is easier in the short term, but in the long run you just end up with someone's tanks on your front lawn.

So, no more being nice. Now I'm being honest.

Transwomen shouldn't tick the F box at parkrun because they're men and it's dishonest.

Transwomen shouldn't use the ladies toilets because they are single sex facilities and transwomen are men

Transwomen shouldn't be patients in women's hospital wards because they are single sex facilities and transwomen are men

When providing intimate care or medical procedures to women, a transwoman should be considered to be the same as a man, because they are. So if the woman requested a female, a female does the job

Bowl I completely agree with you.

So this is my point. People squirm an wriggle and when you push them it’s actually apparent that no one believes that humans can actually change sex. So the people in question remain Male

Then there’s the ‘but.’

But for all intents and purposes...
But to be kind...
But if it doesn’t affect you...

And that’s the crux. Because then we ask well does it affect us? What if we pretend, for purposes of niceness?

And it’s been like that, in the past. The niceness and a sort of gentlewomans agreement that ok we know you’re not female but we are going to be decent, in you come, sit down.

Now: now we have men wanting to self ID. And that does affect us. It affects same sex space provision. It affects safeguarding. It has the potential to blow every bit of legislation that protects women and girls (and children generally) out of the water. That’s a whole different kettle of fish, because that is an active threat.,

Now, tell me why I should be nice? Because nice now doesn’t mean that gentleman’s agreement - it means shutting up and bending over.