Muslim rights vs Transgender rights

I think that Ash Saker's views represent others who believe 'feminism is about solidarity/equality' as seen in Radio Times review of 'What Makes a Woman' but this is not representative of all feminists.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3251002-Munroe-Bergdorf-What-Makes-a-Woman-Channel-4-16-5

Similarly her views as a Muslim woman will of course not represent all Muslims.

cf Ruth Hunt's views (Stonewall) on lesbian representation as raised by James Kirkup's article:
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-silencing-of-the-lesbians/

My concern is that those who hold some positions have much more media presence and political power than others.

The novaro link doesn’t work for me, but I’m assuming you’re illustrating the point above about Sakar’s views. My point being that she supports transgender ideology, calls herself a cisgender feminist, and Muslim. Therefore (a) we can’t assume that all Muslim women would automatically be in the gender critical camp when it comes to protecting single sex spaces and (b) it would be really interesting to understand how she reconciles her views on the two, as to us gender critical feminists with varying levels of understanding/experience of Islamic culture/doctrine, the two don’t seem to intersect very comfortably.

Ash Sakar with Shon Faye
novaramedia.com/2018/05/14/the-ciscourse/
"about the clusterfuck that was Channel 4’s GenderQuake debate and the state of trans rights in Britain, everyone’s favourite salted meat and whether anyone actually cares what Germaine Greer has to say anymore."

Ash was briefed by Stephen Whittle: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3249035-Stephen-Whittle-s-blog-on-Genderquake-with-a-detailed-briefing-for-panelists

On the point of asking Muslim women about concerns re gender self identification, I was interested that Ash Sakar, who appeared on the C4 Genderquake debate describes herself as a ‘cisgender feminist’ (her understanding of the meaning of those words must be different to mine), shouting over women’s concerns and visibly simpering at Jenner/Burgdorf, on her Twitter bio also notes she is Muslim. Her views are the complete opposite of many of ‘us’ gender critical feminists, and personally I found her pretty objectionable on that program, very rude and disingenuous (either disingenous, or ignorant), however it would be very interesting to understand how she reconciles gender self-identification with Islamic doctrine/culture, even if for her personally it isn’t an issue, she must be able to see the concerns others have.

Perhaps a poor career choice more than anything methinks.

I just can't believe we're going to need some secret network to give trigger warnings to airports

Why is the rights of a man with a fetish more valid than the rights of an autistic woman with a history of sexual abuse?

I’ve underlined the key words there to help you.

Re airports...
If that happened to me I might have a meltdown and a common response that I can't control is to scream until the threat goes away.
I would probably be locked up.
Or tasered.

Why is the rights of a man with a fetish more valid than the rights of an autistic woman with a history of sexual abuse?
Can I just not fly anymore?
Will I be awarded pip on this basis so I can travel with a carer?

I sighed on the wrong thread there.
My point still stands though.

I'm aware and concerned. I've had a look into it and my understanding is that Islam would only consider the gender they were at birth. As there are a lot of gender segregated spaces in Islam there are obviously implications. I would also be concerned about asking for a female doctor for intimate treatment.

if a GRC means you are the opposite sex from the one you were born, then the GRC holder is technically correct in saying 'I am a woman', even when in possession of male genitalia..

No. Humans cannot change sex.

do you believe human beings can change sex?

The bakers were self righteous bigots, there is no comparison. They said they wouldn't bake the cake because they disapproved of the customers lifestyle.

I read an article earlier today with the salon owner saying the person wanted a Brazilian wax, not a leg wax. Salon owner was very clear on that. Said the person is now saying they requested a leg wax but that is not true. That the person is changing their story.

Person rang up, said they have a penis and would like a Brazilian wax. Salon owner said no that they wouldn’t be able to help. That their only male waxer was in long term sick.

Sigh.

Last week there was a very distressed woman on Twitter saying that she'd been bodily searched by a Transwoman at an American airport and there was nothing she could do about it, so it's already happening.

And because men don't work in salons like that it will be women forced to do it and it's like a free jolly for the AGPs.

I think they go for these salons to get a law like the Seattle law where it's illegal to not cater for both sexes. So a salon can't say 'not trained' because it will be illegal to not train your staff to cover men and women. I think this manager being male is probably going to be an unpleasant surprise for his trans complainant.

if a GRC means you are the opposite sex from the one you were born, then the GRC holder is technically correct in saying 'I am a woman', even when in possession of male genitalia..

It doesn't, it mean you have the right under the law to be treated as the opposite sex except in where sex specific spaces and services are a legitimate and proportionate response to user needs.

The religion is a complete red herring. The whole cake baking debacle is nothing like this.

‘I refuse to do this this because what it signifies is against my religion’

Is very different to

‘I refuse to physically touch a penis, because of my religion.’

Whereas for me, and I expect many other women, it would be

‘I refuse to do this because I don’t want to be forced to touch male genitalia.

I expect a lot more women would feel uncomfortable about this and just the women who follow certain faiths.

Where will this lead us? Will female security guards and prison guards be expect to perform intimate searches on male bodied persons?

My thoughts entirely. Baking a cake is in no way comparable. While the cake is being baked there is no difference to he baked. Once the cake is baked and handed over it could be given to anyone. No ones physical personal boundaries are challenged.

Because it's important to be accurate, this isn't actually what happened. The bakery made custom cakes to order with bespoke decorating. The same-sex couple wanted something specific to them and the bakery said they couldn't do that because of their religion. They recommended another bakery that would. This mattered because it changed it legally from a case of refusing service to compelled speech (speech in the USA includes artistic expression).

No system is perfect. The fact of the matter is that there is a common principle at work here, even if one manifestation of that principle is dismal and the other we agree with. Compelled service is a two-edged sword.

But I'm with everyone else - the religious angle isn't necessary here. It's used because pitting a protected social group against someone buys "argument points". But it's a dangerous tactic. Soon you end up having to give justifications for not doing something, when you should never have moved from your choice being all that's needed in the first place.

*To have to touch someone’s genitalia is something one should ALWAYS be able to refuse. Indeed any physical contact Such as frisking at an airport for example. Women should always have the right to be searched by a woman and the person doing the searching should not be forced to search someone of the opposite sex.

So force someone to engage in physically touching you is behaviour which suggests paraphilia. Or seeking vexatious litigation.*

Earlier in the year Lily Madigan accused a nightclub of transphobia when searched by a male.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3195201-Madigan-wants-to-be-searched-by-a-woman

I have just been messaging an old school friend who runs a waxing salon that does 75% male customers. She said she refuses customers on the basis of simply not wanting to serve them fairly frequently. She has also asked people to leave mid treatment if they behave inappropriately. They always have 2 technicians in the room when waxing a male body and has the same rules for trans women.

Bowl, we're going to see a lot of vexatious litigation. But surely the words 'opposite sex' are where the problem lies. If a GRC means you are the opposite sex from the one you were born, then the GRC holder is technically correct in saying 'I am a woman', even when in possession of male genitalia. So the therapist is refusing to provide her service to a woman? .

I don’t want there to ever be a situation where someone can demand that a woman touch their cock and balls or they will sue them.
My thoughts entirely. Baking a cake is in no way comparable. While the cake is being baked there is no difference to he baked. Once the cake is baked and handed over it could be given to anyone. No ones physical personal boundaries are challenged.

To have to touch someone’s genitalia is something one should ALWAYS be able to refuse. Indeed any physical contact Such as frisking at an airport for example. Women should always have the right to be searched by a woman and the person doing the searching should not be forced to search someone of the opposite sex.

So force someone to engage in physically touching you is behaviour which suggests paraphilia. Or seeking vexatious litigation.

I do hope the waxer in question has good support through this.