Artistic Director of Queer Up North speaks out on trans activism, Stonewall and women's rights

Gender identity is already written into the law. Gender identity is an inherent part of the medical condition gender dysphoria see www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria. And today the only way you can legally change your gender is with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

If self-id goes ahead, then the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria goes away. In fact gender identity is removed from the law. All that is needed is the intention to live in your acquired gender for the rest of your life.

Sadly Jonny is another in a long series of progressive non-trans men who have been called out on their transphobia (here's looking at you Graham Linehan). Rather than self-reflect, he has been drawn to a gender critical view point presumably because this validates his transphobia and saves his ego from harm.

I guess many would argue there have always been trans people in societies. [I don't mean butch lesbians or feminine gay men who have been transed beyond the grave. ] But that is an interesting point - not sure if it has been discussed - re potential homophobia in very conservative/patriarchal societies, and the way trans people are accommodated in those cultures [to an extent, trans sex workers are of course very vulnerable] when gay people absolutely would not be.

For the women in Albania who swore to live as men and take a vow of life-long chastity - the decision has been a pragmatic one - to avoid arranged marriage and to be able to inherit the family home.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/women-celibacy-oath-men-rights-albania

It is a tradition dying out obviously, but interesting as part of the history of trans people [and of course a practical decision in a patriarchal society] Then there are the transwomen in the Iranian women's football team and the transwomen in the Phillipines and Thailand etc.

This guy [a professor of Gender Studies in Calfornia no less] seems to conflate several ideas in his piece for The Guardian, re Native American practices. It may just be bad editing of course, but he seems to start out by saying Native American culture accepted feminine men and masculine women with their 'two spirit tradition' and emphasises the acceptance of a tradition of homosexuality with these people, but then goes on to prove this is evidence of transgender people in those communities [um a very contemporary and western lens through which to view it]
www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america

I think gender studies seems so often academically flaccid [hence my admiration of Dr Jane Clare Jones] It would be really good to know more about transgender traditions in earlier societies, and the difference between that, and just accepting feminine men and masculine women in less patriarchal societies.

Thanks Jonny for this brilliant piece.

Bit late to the thread, but also wanted to add thanks for a fantastic article.

Like many others here, I would, until recently, have broadly considered myself supportive the trans community. I think it was the shock of realising that what I felt was an uncontroversial opinion that the experience of women and trans women must, of necessity, be different was apparently 'transphobic' because TWAW. I've since been horrified that harmful gender stereotypes are now being pushed at children as the one true signifier of their true identity. It's all so depressingly regressive and reductive especially from supposedly progressive organisations.

Saulgoodwoman
I am so grateful for your link (reposted below) thanks for posting that. Jane Clare Jones’ writing is fab. I know fuck all about philosophy so i’m re-reading bits as I go along and looking stuff up but I love how she explains it.

Sorry if someone has linked to it before, but have just managed to start reading Dr Jane Clare Jone's piece of post structural feminism and a material analysis of patriarchy, and it is bloody brilliant.

janeclarejones.com/2018/07/18/post-structuralism-butler-and-bodies/

I didn't read the full thread yet but Datun's comment did stick out at me.

My belief is that the specialists who first deemed that a reasonable relief for a male's dysphoria is to pretend to be the opposite sex, to deceive everyone as convincingly as they can and to access women's hard won spaces and facilities (to escape male domination) in order to validate this new fake persona, were a bunch of raving misogynist bastards who didn't give a shit about women's boundaries, consent or permission to have these males among us, claiming to be us.

It is not just these specialists who are misogynist bastards. Any male who thinks it is their entitlement to violate women's boundaries to relieve their dysphoria is also a misogynist bastard. Any other people who think violating women's boundaries is an appropriate relief for a male's problem in any case whatsoever, are also misogynists.

I am losing patience with all this sugar-coated misogyny from 'nice', 'diplomatic' arseholes.

Just reading back over Datun and nauti's comments about being reasonable and the stance having to harden. I agree that it really has got to the stage where we must just hold the line. People have forgotten that our boundaries are in no one else's gift.

Ereshkigal and SaulGoodwoman
Yes, I am a huge fan of Jane Clare Jones. She is a wonderful writer and manages to be super-clear with really complex material and then she's funny at the same time. I am a bit in awe of her, tbh.

That's a great analogy.

This is a really good article, thank you Jonny

A few people said that they liked this
analogy I put on the GetTheLOut Pride protest thread, so I thought I might repeat it here:

You know how some people say they are vegetarian but it turns out that while they don't eat meat they do eat seafood. And actual vegetarians have a problem with this as some people then think that vegetarians eat seafood and it all gets confusing for people trying to understand what a vegetarian actually is.

For practical purposes there may be times when a pescatarian finds it easier to say they are vegetarian presentationally because they strongly feel they align to the not eating meat bit.

But saying you are something does not mean you are.

And vegetarians should not be expected to eat seafood because some pescatarian say or think they are vegetarian.

Sorry if someone has linked to it before, but have just managed to start reading Dr Jane Clare Jone's piece of post structural feminism and a material analysis of patriarchy, and it is bloody brilliant. https://janeclarejones.com/2018/07/18/post-structuralism-butler-and-bodiess^<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=janeclarejones.com/2018/07/18/post-structuralism-butler-and-bodies/" target="_blank">//^

I don't think anyone has. I was going to link to her Twitter feed! I know Jonny is a fan from the comments on his timeline. She's amazing.

Jonnybest
Thank you for your excellent article. If you could Co author something with a woman by way of comparison it would be really valuable. It would be even better if you could get it commissioned by a proper media outlet and then you could find out if stonewall would reply to your question!? I would hope an editor somewhere would be interested.

No worries at all ChattyLion. In my day job I've done a week of biting my tongue in the face of heavily spun "evidence" so complying with arbitrary rules is just helping me to up my game.

Gah.. sorry Nauticant

Totally agree that the TRAs push and push because the boundaries transgression is their thing.

I would so like to comment on this but I've had two of my posts deleted in the past month, one possibly deserved, one not, and if I were to make a perfectly fair fact-based comment I could see myself being banned and my mumsnet account going "poof"*.

• For the avoidance of doubt "poof" means "disappear in a puff of smoke". It is not a homophobic or transphobic comment.

Totally agree that the TRAs push and push because the boundaries transgression is their thing. Doesn’t actually seem to matter what the ground gained is really. Take the boundaries of acceptable language. It used to be

Barbara, who is a transwoman
Then
Barbara, who is a trans woman
Now it’s
Barbara, a woman (somewhere later in the text).. ‘who has a trans history’.

(Ie Completely denying any trans aspect of the present..)

The endless push to encroach as an end in itself is reminiscent of narcissistic behaviour that I recognise and it scares the crap out of me.

It is so, so hard to engage with this debate and not have it harden, isn't it?

For one simple reason. Trans activists have made clear that there is no limit to how far they'll push their demands. If you read stuff coming out of Action for Trans Health, for example fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-organisation-demands/, or to see how easily the more extreme trans activists will threaten extreme violence, rape, or murder, and then see how those who might respond robustly to this turn a blind eye, then it's clear that being indulgent is going to end badly for women.

There are so many Trojan Horses about and so many human shields, that allowing in one particular vulnerable group of trans people carries a high risk of allowing women's spaces to be colonised by some very bad people.

It's tough. It means transsexuals will lose out. But the rules of the game have changed completely and women need to put themselves and their own safety first for once.

It's pretty fucking obvious that I am a woman and as a result, I get paid less, less adequate medical care, sexual abuse, misogyny etc.

Yup.

And you know - I"m one of those weirdo women on MN who have failed in the life purpose of women to get married and have children. But I am still socialised as female/feminine, paid less, subject to the threat of sexual assault, treated as lesser in every way.

Really good article! I hope it gets a wide audience

I agree Saul. And I was perhaps a bit harsh upthread with my comments. It's just becoming so hard to remain welcoming and inclusive in the face of such bullying.
We are not helped by our politicians of all sides either being too scared to comment while others just parrot the 'transparty' line without acknowledging any legitimacy of women's concerns.
I don't know how to resolve this - acquiescing is unacceptable and in the absence of any attempts to talk, discuss and listen, (#nodebate and all that) it feels that becoming militant is the only option that women have.

Sorry if someone has linked to it before, but have just managed to start reading Dr Jane Clare Jone's piece of post structural feminism and a material analysis of patriarchy, and it is bloody brilliant. janeclarejones.com/2018/07/18/post-structuralism-butler-and-bodies/

Every debate at the moment seems more polarised than ever:

Remain vs Leave, Corbyn vs Anti-Corbyn, Rad Fems vs TRA - god Twitter feels like I am eating my own sick over and over really there.

Not a dig at anyone here - and agree this thread is excellent and all points v salient!

Thank you Jonny - brilliant work.

Excellent thread, mumsnet feminists (as always).

Nice one Jonny.

My stance has probably hardened somewhat

It is so, so hard to engage with this debate and not have it harden, isn't it?