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

SaulGoodwoman
Until very recently I would have agreed with you.
Sadly the complete silence of that community and their failure (with a few notable exceptions) to call out threats, violence and intimidation is rapidly leading me to see the whole trans movement as untrustworthy. This is an exceptionally wealthy and influential movement.
Imagine how easy it would have been for the "leading" lobby groups to say that threats and intimidation are unacceptable. What if they said that the safety and welfare of women and children must be prioritised over the demands of rapists and sex offenders to access sex segregated spaces. Instead, they actively foster and promote the unacceptable.
Unless there is a swift turn around from their systematic and public intimidation of women defending sex segregation etc, then I am starting to see anyone involved in this movement who doesn't openly condemn the intimidation as complicit in it. I know that's unfair on lots of levels but it's how I am starting to feel.

As I said, transwomen have been using women's spaces for years and their rights, and their their unspoken agreement with women, is now being threatened by others on the TRA bandwagon, and I think it is useful to be able to differentiate.

You're talking about two different things saul.

In terms of physical safety, yes I'm sure you can make a distinction, based on intent or motivation. Unfortunately, you can't identify intent or motivation. But I understand that there is a distinction there, as a concept.

Then there is the threat to the definition of the word woman, as a political concept.

PL is a direct threat to that, claiming that female objectification is hot and being treated like a piece of meat is sexy. And saying that as a woman. As far as I know Paris Lees falls in to the attracted to men category.

There is certainly a debate to be had about the concept of what constitutes a transwoman. But it's fairly pointless, in terms of access, as none of it is verifiable.

It's also as far as I'm concerned, entirely separate as to what constitutes a woman. Nothing constitutes a woman, other than being an adult human female.

But, if you have transwomen friends, for example, who fall into the transsexual bracket, then I completely understand the desire to make a distinction.

Saul you don’t know that. There are no statistics saying there is in your words, zero risk. There are statistics suggesting that transition has little impact on offending patterns.
Gay men might not try to sexually assault women at the same rate but nobody has said that gay men and women should share spaces. The point is that women should have the right to separate spaces with no male bodies, regardless of how risky those males are.
As for Ian Huntley, you have no idea whether or not he has gender dysphoria. That’s the whole point of this debate. You cannot say ‘well, X is totally safe because they look pretty and are young but Y is not because they transitioned later in life and look manly’. Paris Lees has been in prison whereas Jane Fae has not for instance. Why is Paris the one who is zero risk in this?

“ so courage age does call out to courage “ that will stick with me - lovely expression.
Thankyou for sharing this wonderful article.

I think het men are significantly more of a threat to women than gay men, and I'd say that is reflected statistically. There are differences, and there is a gradient, between different groups of transwomen, and it is useful to be able to articulate them. Late transitioners, AGP, transwomen attracted to men, transwomen who ID as lesbians, tranwomen who have had surgery and hormones, those who haven't, transwomen who used to be cross dressers [ie Eddie Izzard] and those who felt 'female' from a very early age, whatever you think of that.

In broad brush strokes, transwomen like Paris Lees do not represent the same threat to women as 'trans women' like Ian Huntley. Feel awful just putting those two in the same sentence - but trying to illustrate a point, apologies to PL.

As I said, transwomen have been using women's spaces for years and their rights, and their their unspoken agreement with women, is now being threatened by others on the TRA bandwagon, and I think it is useful to be able to differentiate.

Most women don't want to get changed with even men who are not a risk if they don't know them.

I've probably said this a hundred times - I don't want to get changed in front of my benign father in law, or share a loo with my son's delightful friends.

And even if I did, there's no way I'd expect other women to. Likewise they can't persuade me their DH/FiL/DS is no problem.

That doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for men with gender dysphoria.

I do. They're not women though. It's a medical condition. Not a social movement.

Charlie yes, you are right. It annoys me when people say things like 'oh, Ian Huntley can't be real trans'. Of course he can- anyone could have gender dysphoria. It's not an affliction that only affects nice people. That's why it's so dangerous to buy in wholesale to the concept that all trans women are oppressed victims who pose no risk whatsoever. All we can reliably say about them is that they are a class of people born biologically male. Some will be a risk, others will not. Most women don't want to get changed with even men who are not a risk if they don't know them.

There is evidence it doesn't

Of course transwomen who are attracted to men are of zero risk in women's spaces. And the huge majority of transwomen who are attracted to women are of no risk also.

I am not sure I totally understand your point, Saul. What do you mean zero risk? Of what? What does attraction have to do with it? The point is firstly that it's not just about safety, it's about women's right to privacy and dignity when getting changed or sleeping etc. Secondly, where is the evidence of 'zero risk' or 'no risk'? There is no evidence to suggest that trans women (whatever their orientation) are as a class any more or less likely to pose a risk than men as a class overall. The second point is that male violence against women is not based on attraction, but on power. You get 20 year old men raping women in their 80s. They wouldn't normally date or be attracted to them due to the age gap, but they assert their power over them nevertheless.
It's unhelpful to say 'well real trans is fine- fake trans are the problem'. There is no evidence that gender dysphoria magically makes you a zero risk to women.

Of course transwomen who are attracted to men are of zero risk in women's spaces. And the huge majority of transwomen who are attracted to women are of no risk also. The problem at the moment is that the trans movement has conflated so many different areas - not just that cross dressing men are now as trans as transwomen who have had surgery/hormones been living as women for decades but also men who 'feel like' women and do nothing else, are just as trans too. Why on earth can no one talk about these issues, and when people try to talk about it they are called bigots?

I completely agree, OhtheHillsareAlive

And regretfully I also have to concede Datun's as always excellent points. The ship has sailed on so much of this.

Additionally, I do believe that the unspoken truth here is as R0wan has pointed out, trans women are male per definition, and from a risk-assessment point of view this must to be kept in mind (as statistically males are sadly FAR more likely to be the perpetrators of violent and sexual crimes.... certainly not all men, definitely not all trans women, etc)

I don't really know what the solution should be. This is why I would like to be able to talk about these concerns like adults, instead of this really weird thing that's happening now where people are scared of posting thoughts on a parenting forum!
We have put people on the moon. I refuse to believe this is an impossible problem.

Thanks Rowantrees.

'Cases like Bradley’s are striking not because they represent transwomen, but because they show misconduct that is characteristically male, but not characteristic of females.'

The irony of an ideology that maintains gender stereotypes are indicative of if you are a man or a woman, but denies the 'characteristically male' elements of predatory behaviour.

Feminist Current article:

'Penises don’t kill people, people with penises do
Everyone — including trans activists and allies — should demonstrate zero tolerance for perpetrators of violence and sexual misconduct, regardless of how they identify.'
AUGUST 16, 2018 by HOLLY LAWFORD-SMITH & EMILY VICENDESE

Discusses the current allegations against Jess Bradley which are being investigated by NUS and a response by CursedE

concludes:
"We are interested in this information if it does indeed exist, but until we are presented with evidence, we think there is sufficient reason to keep certain spaces off limits to males. The burden of proof is on those who would like to make exceptions for some males, and not on us. Cases like Bradley’s are striking not because they represent transwomen, but because they show misconduct that is characteristically male, but not characteristic of females.

In the wake of #MeToo, writers like “Cursed E” should consider cases like Bradley’s as an opportunity to take a stand against male violence and sexual misconduct. Instead of going into damage control and using minimization tactics for political reasons, everyone — including trans activists and allies — should demonstrate zero tolerance for perpetrators of violence and sexual misconduct, regardless of how they identify or their political affiliation. The short term imperatives of securing the privacy, rights, and safety of those who identify as transgender — without jeopardizing the privacy, rights, and safety of females — should be something we can all agree on. And in the long run, males especially should work toward making male violence and sexual misconduct a thing of past, if they wish to obviate the need for sex-segregated spaces."

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/08/16/penises-dont-kill-people-people-penises/

For me what is absolutely fundamental is the definition of what it is to be female, and to be a woman. And it's not even the content of the definition of "What is a woman?", but about who has the right to make this determination

And biological men do not have that right.

Glaringly clear and radical. Thank you.

Heresy great post.

But you know, for me, the bathroom/home analogy and so on isn't actually what's fundamentally at stake.

For me what is absolutely fundamental is the definition of what it is to be female, and to be a woman. And it's not even the content of the definition of "What is a woman?", but about who has the right to make this determination

And biological men do not have that right.

This is a political matter: it's of the same order as the right for women to choose what they do with their own bodies - our rights not to be raped, not to carry unwanted pregnancies, not to earn less through the work of our bodies and minds than men, and so on.

Absolutely political fundamental.

Although if we want a definition, then I think the citation of Kathleen Stock's two-part definition which @jonnyBest quotes in his article is one of the most succinct & comprehensive.

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.

Tom Turner, a transman on twitter who has since protected his tweets, called out Jess Bradley for her 'predatory behaviour' but insisted this did not mean there was an issue with transwomen and predatory behaviour in general [fair enough but this doesn't quell the actual worry women have about transwomen and the very small number of male-bodied transwomen who may be predatory towards women] he said that the reason there is no issue with transwomen in women's spaces is because he was subject to predatory behaviour from lesbians in female changing rooms etc when he was younger and still a natal woman. I don't want to say this sounds suspect at all because his experiences are his experiences. But I can't think of a single woman I know who has ever experienced predatory behaviour from a lesbian. Obviously another worry about the transwomen are women debate is the way rapes and sexual violence stats will now become skewed - male born offenders recorded as female will now skew the stats and rapes by women will now suddenly appear - which is 1984 double speak if ever there was one.

This article needs to go on the break it down for me thread.

The question of who is authentic and who isn't is becoming more prevalent.

The peaceful, honorary code of accepting transsexuals is a ship that has sailed.

Time can't go backwards. And there is now no way of making a distinction. Unless you increase the criteria for a GRC and make a GRC the benchmark. And then make it acceptable for people to ask to see it.

Which is never going to happen. It's outing for a start. And horribly exploitable.

The only solution that accommodates the greatest number of people is a third space.

The rarer, but more significant issues like prisons, sport, refuges, etc, should be segregated by sex.

JonnyBest

Thank you for writing this. I think it's the first piece that I feel explains the issues in a way that is sensitive and clear and I could potentially share via my fb page (effectively coming out as GC) safe in the knowledge that it is a very well reasoned piece, with the main point that any discussion around transgender cannot avoid oppressive gender / sex stereotypes. Which is the point of feminism.

Heresy

Exactly. That's it, exactly.

I decide who I invite into my home. I don't just sit there, with the door wide open, allowing all and sundry in. Why? Because to do so would be foolish. I've no idea who these people who have just walked in are. I've no idea if their intentions are good, bad or even just benign. I have no idea if they will harm me. I've no idea if they will leave if I ask them to. I've no idea if they'll leave if I tell them to. Why would they? Their interpretation of the open door is that they were invited in. Why would I leave it open if I didn't want them all in my home?

Boundaries are there so EVERYONE understands the rules. The burglar knows they're not invited in - they're forcing their way in, breaching the boundaries. The rapist KNOWS they're not invited in. They're forcing their way in. They know, they don't care, but the rest of the world also knows that they've ignored the boundaries set, and will therefore judge and punish accordingly.

They're telling us we HAVE to remove our boundaries. If we don't, we're "mean girls". We're being "violent" by not opening the door wide and letting all and sundry in. We're called names, we're assaulted, we're doxxed, we're abused verbally and physically and we're trodden on.

But it's okay. Calm down, dear. We can just phone the police after it's happened.

Flo do an advanced search for SarahAr. You'll find they put up the exact same post repeatedly. You'll also see they don't agree with self ID and really haven't got their heads around the implications, yet for some reason keep on sticking that same bit of info up no matter how many times its debunked.

Great post, Heresy. Analogies often don't stack up, I'm sure someone will pick holes in yours at 11.19 today but I think it works well. Even when I'm in my (literal) house, I often lock the bathroom door even though I know the other people in the house well. Why do I do that? Dignity & privacy. So if I require that in my own home, why would I expect less outside it?

Very good to see Jonny on here too and I look forward to reading your comments, Jonny.

To follow from heresyandwitchcraft's post, 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 and so will feel that in some senses women-only spaces are less safe. As a result women will either have to put up with feeling less safe and less able to assert themselves or will have to withdraw from those spaces.

No amount of being told that if there's an assault "the legal system will see you right" will help with this. It will be a profound cultural change.

I am going to repeat what I have posted elsewhere: it is far easier to have clear rules, and then add exceptions. If Blaire White walked in to my bathroom or changing room, I would not bat an eyelid. I would only know who she is because of YouTube. But I would have a problem with Ibi-Pippi...

In these discussions, and in policy, I think it is useful to maintain clear categories of trans/male/female. So I will always say that trans women are trans women. They are not the same as natal women, and that's okay! For me, the distinction needs to be there conceptually, but in usual speech and to be polite I will not always keep referring to the "trans" part at all times (in other words, it can be "silent," except when the differences are actually relevant).

This is my analogy for why I find self-identification especially troublesome:

A legal identity, and the single-sex facilities it entitles access to, is like a home. What we have now feels like the newcomers to these legal identities are asked to take some time, build up trust, and prove their sincerity before they’re given a key and allowed to move in permanently. Could the process be streamlined? Probably, but having a system means we can try to make sure the people in the home will treat it with respect and get along with each other. But with simple self-ID I feel like we are being asked to leave the doors permanently unlocked. That anyone who says they belong in that home automatically has every right afforded to a long-term resident. That earning the keys to the front door means nothing anymore because anyone can walk in. I feel like I am being told I must not worry about what sorts of strangers might decide to take advantage of the very public knowledge that the doors are unlocked. And I should say that every newcomer who walks over the threshold to my home has actually always lived with me.

I’ve heard the common counter arguments to such fears: "That's not what's going on. You already let some guests into your home. In any case, nobody would ever try to exploit an official no-lock policy, and besides we pretty much seem to be operating using an unofficial policy of sharing keys and sometimes keeping the door open for a while now. Nothing bad will happen. Those locks aren't that robust anyways. Why would you discriminate between those who have currently have the key, and those who don't but want to get in and stay in your home because it makes them more safe and comfortable? In fact, how do you even know whether someone belongs in your house? Criminals would find their way in anyway. Also, if any laws were broken they'd be punished. There's no reason to worry. Besides, why do you want to keep the locks on your front door anyway? Other people are fine with leaving the door unlocked. Are you saying all your neighbours could be criminals? Why are you demonising your fellow citizens like this? Isn’t it terribly unfair to keep out people who really want to live in your house?”

I am sorry. I’ve really thought about this and I’ve tried to reconsider my position. But I cannot. I think the lock was put there for a reason. I think we should keep a system that tries to determine who will be responsible with the key. I don’t want to leave my front door wide open to anyone. I think the gate-keeping of the Gender Recognition Act still serves a necessary function, both for members of each sex, and the transsexuals who take meaningful steps to transition on genuine medical grounds. I want a lock on the door.

“Because I say so” or “because I feel like it,” have never worked as arguments for me in this debate. You’re going to have to do better.

If trans activists insist on pushing ahead with legal self-identification, essentially allowing free access to female identities and spaces, then at the very least the current residents in the homes of particular identities should be consulted, before any actions are taken without their consent. I would suggest that transgender activists could attempt perhaps to show the constructive, practical ways in which they plan to make sure the people will keep their privacy, dignity and safety. How we will talk about biological sex. Or explain what we should do in the hardest cases of competing interests. I resent being told not to worry about it. It really feels just like when people kept saying Donald Trump would never get elected, or Brexit was impossible, or that no priest could ever be an abuser. We live in a world where male rapists are being transferred to women's prisons. Please can we at least talk about this?

SarahAr was simply trying to create an air of bad faith around the article by "calling out" an "error" and hoping to find that the article hadn't been changed as requested.