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

(On a bit of a break at the moment but just wanted to say what a great and productive thread this is.)

Knicknack I know Sarahar is a regular on here but I had never seen her make that particular point before - i.e. implying that she considered self ID to be radical and that there might be better solutions. Of course it could just be me not always reading their posts properly. I picked up on it as I would have thought that, if you were going to make a claim like that, you would stick around to discuss it, especially when you had just called for a respectful and honest debate.

SaulGoodwoman

I'm not really disagreeing with you. My stance has probably hardened somewhat. Partly because I see gender dysphoria itself as having a basis in sexism, however subconscious.

The reason why I might agree, in theory, to longstanding transwomen being granted access is more to do with the fact that there are so few, rather than an acceptance that a medical condition should be treated thus.

My sympathy for the sufferer is genuine and therefore the low number makes compromise possible.

But again, it's only in theory because none of it can be verified.

Just to add datum from my point of view I have no problem with transwomen who have lived as women for many years and have had (or waiting for) surgery and hormone treatment sharing female spaces. I recognise not everyone feels the same and that is part of the problem. I do feel uncomfortable with the idea of vulnerable women having to share spaces with male bodied transwomen. But that is a distinction right there. And these distinctions are the reason so many are concerned about self ID, no? Sorry if that seems like I am conflating matters. Also peak pants articulated some late transitioning men (who used to be called cross dressers etc) are now a v vocal part of the movement and can be (not all) v misogynist. Another distinction and especially important when it comes to male socialisation and privilege. But agree misogyny is the common denominator for risk largely.

Just dropping in to hand out and to everyone.

This is a GREAT THREAD.

Really in depth, nuanced, respectful discussion.

I was saying it is useful to differentiate between all sorts of different types of trans women, as I have outlined in previous posts. You are welcome of course to disagree.

Actually no datun I wasn't talking about two different things. I was talking very specifically about the issue of transwomen in women's spaces.

saul. I'm not exactly sure what your stance is. So forgive me if I get the wrong end of the stick.

Are you saying that androphilic transwomen are less of a threat, because they're not attracted to women?

Because there is no evidence to suggest that. In fact, the only study of its kind explicitly used men who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which indicates a 'genuine transsexual', rather than your AGP individual, and found they exhibited male pattern criminality, the same as regular men.

Many, if not most, of the most vocal transactivists are also attracted to men, not women.

To me, there seems to be several strands of possibilities to subject women to abuse. And the common denominator appears, again to me, to be misogyny, not sexual orientation.

Just want to add my thanks Jonny for writing this very fine article.

I find it both shocking but entirely predictable that you have received so little abuse, and so much attention for your writing on this issue. I am grateful and yet a little resentful that your article has received such feedback, when many women have been writing on this issue for years, where the responses have been of vitriol, abuse, or simply treated with distain or irrelevance.

I am grateful to you for taking the time to write about this Jonny and also want to thank you for highlighting the abuse that women receive for simply daring to discuss it.

Much [beer] for you, fine man that you are

-----P.S. @MNHQ - what happened to the actual beer icon?

@ is best reserved for cases where there's an expert on the topic who someone wants to alert to a thread they're not participating in.

There is no 'edit post' - if you do something like accidentally posting identifying information about yourself or someone else you can report your post and ask it to be withdrawn.

Yes. I get a bit cross if people @ me

JonnyBest
I think you've actually done the right thing. On this board I believe the convention is usually to bold the names rather than @ ing people, in order to reduce email notifications.

Thank you for taking the time to read our thoughts and respond to them. I greatly appreciate it. Personally, I am very very happy you haven't gotten too much of a backlash, and I will keep my fingers crossed for this trend continuing. Hopefully your actions will encourage more people to speak their minds on this topic.

Jonny

I am so struck by what you say about the lack of criticism/abuse you've had on Twitter, compared to what women are experiencing. I am a late-comer to radical feminism but this debate has opened my eyes to the sad fact of how women's voices are silenced, and how scared men want to make us.

Ah ok heresy no worries! Just got a bit paranoid!

I've just realised I can @ usernames to reach you all directly. I just bolded you in my message. Sorry...I'm new to MN and a bit slow ;-)

Now, where's that 'edit post' button!!

Thanks @Nauticant - I will read the thread!

(SaulGoodwoman That's weird. I did write a message earlier just to say that your name made me laugh as I loved Breaking Bad. Didn't think it was really a thread-thing though.)

There is one thread on here I would positively urge you to read @JonnyBest. It is this one:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3101834-trans-widows-escape-committee

It's a jigsaw piece that is ignored by just about everyone.

Believe me, read that, about people's real world experiences, and it'll be like seeing this issue in 3D technicolor rather than 2D black and white.

Thanks Johnny and also for pursuing the extraordinary imbalance of response towards men and women who talk about this. To us it seems really clear. But to many it seems to be invisible. Are people wilfully blind? Who knows. The more exposure, the better, that's for sure.

And I am actually fucking angry about the imperialising, arrogant attitude of transactivists - who were formerly MEN - who are telling me that my identity through my body, and the history within which my body & identity were formed - are not for me to determine

Amen to that. No thanks, I don't want the opinion of someone who lived as a man until the age of 50 that perhaps I should stop focusing on unimportant shit like my female body and the way this has ensured oppression through the centuries, and instead embrace the real problem which is that someone said his penis might not be welcome in the ladies changing rooms and how hateful this is.

I can't remember where I read it but some trans woman was like 'trans women and cis women have the same goals. We both want above all to be recognised as women'. No, you chump. That is not my overarching aim. 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.

And I am actually fucking angry about the imperialising, arrogant attitude of transactivists - who were formerly MEN - who are telling me that my identity through my body, and the history within which my body & identity were formed - are not for me to determine

That's it in a nutshell really isn't it. Women are whatever men tell them they are, and so it continues as it always has.

Just wanted to say thanks to Jonny for engaging with MN. It's an unusual feeling! I'm not a prolific poster as some of these women are so erudite, and say everything I want to say but better. But I'm so glad that you are here

Thanks Jonny for summing that up so well.

Heresyandwitchcraft, I just had a really odd PM from you - titled 'thanksforyourusername' and then the actual message deleted. Bit worried what that is all about?

Hi again. Here's a few responses and thoughts in response to ideas that have come up in this thread.

Firstly, it's now been 36 hours and the article has been read more than 7000 times. I've been called a terf twice, and that's the total abuse I have received. I'm hoping to collaborate with a female writer on a joint piece about this vast disparity btwn men/women r.e. receiving abuse and what we can conclude from it. (That won't be a pretty article...)

twofalls
Really hope the article helps with your friend - please let me know if you can.

Charliethefeminist
I totally agree r.e. Stonewall as a 'debate-terminating slam dunk'. We have to gradually chip away and get people questioning Stonewall. I will do my bit. The question of how Stonewall is undermining the concept of same-sex attraction is something new to me - it's only since the article as published that I've discovered this. I will engage with Dyketagnan on twitter again about it and keep thinking. Wow - it's unbelievable isn't it - Stonewall not being into same-sex attraction! We truly are down the rabbit hole...

R0wantrees
Thanks for the GayStar news info - I didn’t know any of that. Really useful.

SaulGoodwoman
Btw I am definitely of the view that transwomen have been using women's toilets, etc, for ever, with an unspoken consent and mutual respect. But this has changed due to the now very odd idea that anyone, even a bloke with a beard, can now 'identify' as a woman

I think this is a crucial point. It’s the extreme ‘gender identity’ concept which has undermined this ‘unspoken consent’. Imposing this concept has damaged relationships between women and trans women and undermined what trust may have been there. This is the point we have to find ways to communicate as widely as possible, in the most persuasive way we can. I hold to the belief that most people, if they really think about it, will see what a terrible idea ‘gender identity’ is. As I say in the article, those who feel they have a gender identity are welcome to it. But nothing has persuaded me that the concept should be acknowledged in public policy or treated as scientific in any way.

I also love this:
Yes I know that gender stereotypes mean men who wish to present in a very feminine way feel, in so many patriarchal societies, that this must mean they are women. But this is the society they have to live in . Attacking transwomen and transmen who have led lives under the radar and who feel that living as women/men is the most healing and positive way for them to live is not something I want to do.

I agree 100% and you explain it perfectly.

SarahAr
Thanks for your comment. Self-ID is, effectively, ‘gender identity’ written into law. Self-ID flows from the concept of gender identity - it is the conceptual underpinning of the proposal. I would argue that, without gender identity, there IS no Self-ID.

ChattyLion
Those links are great - thanks. I am grateful for all suggestions of research. The more the better!

SilverBuckles
I love your posts. Thank you.

AbsintheFriends
That what I wrote might be useful in the sort of circumstances you describe is just great. I had no idea whether anyone would care a bit about what I wrote - being useful as a writer is the best feeling. Thank you.

Heresyandwitchcraft
Silverbuckles
PeakPants
SaulGoodwoman
Heresy
Datun
I am with you 100% on this issue of how self-ID undermines our capacity for mutual trust. I hadn’t thought of it in terms of the trust that women are asked to demonstrate when trans women use their single-sex facilities, but I see now that this is a root issue and one reason why gender ID is such a corrosive idea.

Nauticant
one thing that is continually glossed over is that even when you put aside risk, the effects of self-ID are that women feel less comfortable enforcing their boundaries

I hadn’t considered this. It’s such an important point.

OhtheHillsareAlive
With you 100%. This is the bedrock of the argument. It’s for each woman to decide for herself and biological males just have to accept that. Some women are happy to be inclusive of trans women, some (in some or all circumstances) are not. This ain’t transphobia - it’s every woman’s right. It’s autonomy, for heaven’s sake. If there’s a hill I’m willing to die on, it’s this.

Thanks guys. You are really helping me to think about where to go next with writing. I appreciate it so much.

sorry typing hurriedly - they seem to wish to do away with sex based rights - ie - sex as a protected characteristic. Ok need to go now. Thankyou Jonny again.

Actually no datun I wasn't talking about two different things. I was talking very specifically about the issue of transwomen in women's spaces. I am well aware of the other issues that impact on women's sex based rights and characterisation as such, and well aware that transwomen such as PL undermine that as they seem to with to do away with sex based rights as a group.

If you want me to change 'zero' risk to 'minimal' risk then that's fine, I will do that because i can't statistically prove that transwomen who are attracted to men are not a risk to women. But I believe that to be the case. I do accept that male bodied transwomen make women uncomfortable in women's spaces, whatever their sexual orientation. I have already said I hate the gas-lighting that goes on when transwomen say that natal women are obsessed with their genitals [I know everyone skim reads these long threads but still]

If you don't feel that there is a use in articulating the differences between groups of transwomen then we will have to agree to disagree. I have lost a morning of work now so must get on with work - apols if I don't post back.

I also don't want to derail this very useful thread sparked by Jonny's article by an argument between gender crit fems.