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

Hi JB! Do hope SarahAr comes back to clarify her challenge to your piece - perhaps they are busy right now.

Morning everyone. I am going to sit down with a coffee and try and respond to as many of the main points and questions that have arisen in this thread. I'm not sure how long it will take. Give me an hour or two to get it sorted. See you later. Jx

And I think this debate of 'well none of them are real women' is derailing the debate too, and just justifies the TRA argument that debate equals trans erasure.

Sorry that was for SilverBuckles and her policy document writing!

PeakPants - I think my argument is that the current and v misogynist TRA movement is threatening 'genuine' transpeople and their way they wish to lead their lives, as well as natal women's sex-based rights. I mean so many organisations are now only protecting 'gender' not 'sex' [including Twitter]. I don't know if third spaces is the right way, and I want to protect the rights of trans people as well as natal women. However it is the TRA activism that is derailing any proper debate - and the [not so] closet misogyny of mainstream politics that is going along with it all. That is the main problem that I can see.

But I would like to be able to distinguish between and respect the lives & needs of men who transition from a deeply felt need to deal with a bodily dysphoria (I've read Debbie Hayton, and transwomen on MN about this, and work with a couple of TW). We need to respect these transwomen.

Yes, you are right. I have immense sympathy for sufferers of gender dysphoria and I do respect them. However, on a logical and philosophical basis, I still cannot see them as female. I don't think that Ibi-Pppi is necessarily 'taking the piss' and nor do I think Alex Drummond is. I do think the latter two genuinely believe in their identity rather than that they are playing a huge joke on everyone. It becomes dangerous if we say that you are a woman if you have GD but not if you don't have surgery, because what about those who can't have surgery or don't have the money? Then we come back to the same old argument that being a woman is looking like a woman or having a deep feeling that you are female. I am happy for old-school transsexuals who have had surgery to use some facilities for women if they do not retain male features such as a penis. But I don't think it is possible to actually police that. It's a shame, because in the past, this did work and it was a minute number. It's only the post-Jenner explosion in activism and the fact that nearly 2% of the population now claims to be trans that means that this is no longer workable. The only way forward I can see is third spaces.

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 do however want to challenge impositions on natal women who are oppressed in so many ways in work/health/life by their actual sex, not how they identify

Yes, yes yes!

Now I must get back to writing a very boring response to a policy document which is nothing to do with feminism sadly

The genius of Ibi-Pippi is that they push things as far as they can to make people to say "but you are not a woman". Once this is said then a sensible conversation can take place in which it can be agreed that self-ID cannot be an absolute and people are allowed, in some circumstances, to say "this person is not a woman". It gives agency back to people.

This would all be very straightforward except there are so many progressive people out there who just cannot bring themselves to say to anyone, however ridiculous, "you are not a woman". Which means that Ibi-Pippi can push this to such extremes that it looks like performance art more than anything.

And if Ibi-Pippi walks in, how do we know that she is "real trans" but someone who looks equally male in every single respect that walks in to the changing room just to look at naked women is "fake trans?"

This is why the whole thing does my head in.

Me too, @heresyandwitchcraft me too.

And I"m reasonably au fait with queer theory - I've taught it for heaven's sake - from a gender-critical feminist point of view - and I can attest to the fact that it is possible to teach gender-critical queer theory. It's the very gap between sex and gender, and the feminist rejection of gender which is so interesting in terms of "queer" - which is what @jonnybest also seems to be saying.

But I've been publicly accused of transphobia, for being a feminist.

Heresy perfectly put. Magdalen Berns called out Theryn Meyer's derision of Danielle Muscato. It smacks of hypocrisy. The more Ibi-Pippis we see, the more the TRAs will need to admit that they in fact see being a woman as nothing more than makeup, heels and long hair. If Theryn wants to be accepted, then Ibi-Pippi must be too. And Ian Huntley- because being a woman is not about being a virtuous person, so a rapist and murderer can surely have a female identity too. I mean, I have never questioned Myra Hindley's or Rose West's womanhood. I am certain they are/were biological females with female reproductive systems. That's as far as it goes. Being female says nothing about a person's personality.

what is the justification for saying that Jane Fae is genuine and Ibi-Pippi is not?

I agree that it's dodgy to set up a hierarchy of "genuine" transwomen - as women, we are subject to far too much of that sort of judgement ourselves, aren't we?

But I would like to be able to distinguish between and respect the lives & needs of men who transition from a deeply felt need to deal with a bodily dysphoria (I've read Debbie Hayton, and transwomen on MN about this, and work with a couple of TW). We need to respect these transwomen.

But I'm less certain of transwomen who don't make that commitment - to try to cast aside both maleness and masculinity in all its forms as much as they can. Who seem to want to take the privileges of femininity as well while retaining the mindset of masculine dominance - the "I must have what I want. The world must revolve around me."

As a friend of mine once said to me when we were gingerly sounding out each other's views "If they want to be women, they need to make a commitment to it. And that includes having their b cut off."

And notice my phrasing there? "gingerly sounding out each other's views" - we women are second guessing each other, trying to avoid giving offence, and scared of being labelled transphobic. Still.

But the problem then is that trans people are correct in feeling their identities are threatened with erasure. If you are saying 'oh well you can't say some transwomen [who incidentally have been using women's spaces and living as women for years and have had surgery and hormones] are women and then some like Danielle Muscato aren't - they are all men' then I have a problem with that. 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 do however want to challenge impositions on natal women who are oppressed in so many ways in work/health/life by their actual sex, not how they identify.

If SarahAr cannot reply right now does anyone else know any more about these other 'evidential requirements' that Sarah speaks of?
If there has been an acknowledgement that self ID is too radical and that some form of gatekeeping is still required then that might be a real breakthrough.

Is s/he for real???

The point of Ibi-Pippi is that we cannot tell. It may be to prove a point, but in the video she says that she really really feels like a woman and that this identity is important to her.

If you can explain why we can question her gender identity, but not Jess Bradley's, then be my guest. Or outline what the test is to check who is "real" and who is "fake" in their transness. The whole premise of trans ideology is that you just have to accept whatever the person says. It is a fundamentally unverifiable assertion. And if legally Ibi-Pippi is a woman, then should she not be allowed to use the female facilities? And if Ibi-Pippi walks in, how do we know that she is "real trans" but someone who looks equally male in every single respect that walks in to the changing room just to look at naked women is "fake trans?"

This is why the whole thing does my head in.

Heartfelt thanks for this piece, JB, and for making your way here to add your wise and articulate voice to the discussion.

My husband met up with an old (male) friend the other day and, in the course of the evening, this topic came up. The friend was entirely clueless about it (like much of the population beyond twitter) and my OH found himself struggling to articulate what's going on without a) taking up the whole night and b) sounding unhinged. Your article is the perfect overview and an invaluable resource. Thank you.

Is s/he for real???

I don't know what to think really. On one level, I think not, but on another, there are so many deluded men out there. I mean look at Danielle Muscato, Stefonknee and the rest. And realistically, what is the justification for saying that Jane Fae is genuine and Ibi-Pippi is not? If we say that, we have to say that being a woman requires wearing nail-varnish or something. There are plenty of women who, like Ibi-Pippi have short hair, no makeup and glasses. Ibi-Pippi could surely say he is emulating one of them and that they are just as female? It just exposes the entire thing for the idiocy it really is. Ibi-Pippi is as female as Shon Faye, as Jane Fae, as Munroe, as Lily.

James Kirkup wrote in the Economist, 'I am neither trans nor a woman. Can I write about the issues they face?
In a representative democracy, what I share with women and trans people is more important than our identities'
(extract)
"Many aspects of the debate about transgender rights, and how they interact with the rights of others, are troubling and even saddening. The anger and fear felt by so many of the participants. The lack of reliable statistics and evidence, and the hostility faced by those seeking to gather better evidence. The unwillingness of many politicians even to try to bring reason and civility to an unbalanced, vitriolic conversation. Personally, the thing I find saddest, and most telling, is that people aren’t particularly nasty to me.

This year I have written a dozen articles for British publications about the gender debate: around 15,000 words. The common theme has been that women who ask questions and express doubts about changes in law and custom on gender issues to favour transgender people, and the implications for those born female, are excluded from political and public debate, sometimes through violent means.

Those articles have been read and shared several hundred thousand times, and brought me more social-media reactions than I can count. Some were negative and a few were outright hostile. Yet none involved threats of violence and none expressed the hope that I die in a fire. There were no meditations on my being raped. No one called me a “transphobic c” or, indeed, any other sort of c.

Such abuse is routine for others who write and comment about transgender issues. And indeed, that was part of the reason I took an interest. The vitriol of the debate, especially on social media, has had a chilling effect that should not go unremarked or unchallenged.

Yet I have largely escaped that vitriol. Other journalists who have written about the topic and said similar things have experienced all of the aggression I describe above, and more. Several say they have sometimes feared physical attack by people unhappy at what they wrote. Those journalists are women.

The differing responses to articles making similar arguments are indicative of a misogynistic strand in this debate. In some cases, that strand is easy to identify and describe. It is visible in the words of male journalists and political activists who accuse feminists of bigotry and suggest that their voices should not be heard. Less polite but equally transparent are the threats and intimidation such feminists face when they hold public meetings." (continues)

www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/i-am-neither-trans-nor-a-woman-can-i-write-about-the-issues-they-face

God sorry I mean 'How Not to be a Boy' Have actually read it!

Robert Webb was one of those GreenGloves. When his brilliant book 'How to be a Man' challenges toxic masculinity and the oppressive nature of gender roles for men, it would be good if he could be brave enough.

James Kirkup hasn't had any abusive replies or threats to his employer either.

SarahAr do reply when you can - it is important that we understand this distinction from your perspective - the difference between removing medical evidence and evidence of living in a role, and the 'radical' idea of Self ID?

I scrolled through the replies to the piece and there was a few men going along the lines of "eek, am I brave enough to retweet this? Don't know yet". 🙄🙄🙄 bloody well grow a pair.

I saw the youtube clip of Ibi-Pippi Hedergaard on youtube. He is a Danish man who has got a GRC but has made zero modification to his body

I've seen that - he's interviewed at a swimming pool, I think?

I have always assumed it was a "joke" identification, rather like the Man Friday movement here in the UK, and designed to show up how ridiculous the extremes of trans activism (not individuals with gender dysphoria) can be.

Is s/he for real???

First of all, THANK YOU @JonnyBest Your article sets out the problem at the moment really thoughtfully & clearly.

In all this mess, I've been trying to think through a basic thing about fairness: I've always taken it as a given that we can assess the quality of our "progress" by the way we treat minorities. So this is important in terms of trans people - how do we accommodate them into "normal" life?

Your article thinks that through - I think because your own experience is one of a mix (aha! intersectionality! ) of masculine privilege, but also being gay - part of an oppressed minority (although I sometimes think one of the most significant but invisible nexus of power is the networks of gay men, but that's another thread).

Anyway, you offer cogent & reasonable arguments for resisting the knee jerk "transphobia" slurs (I've had them directed at me, & my employment threatened), and I'll be citing your article whenever I need to.

There's one depressing truth I want to acknowledge up front: it's 24 hours since the piece was published and I have had only two or three abusive tweets. I know only to well that a women writing the same words as me would have had the whole abusive Twitter pile-on by now and god knows what else

I actually asked you about this on Twitter as part of my "Thank you" tweet.

It s depressing, that what I assumed would happen, has indeed happened - or rather nothing much has happened to you.

It's deeply deeply depressing. And even more so that it takes a man writing to shut people up - I don't mean that to sound grumpy or envious about your statement - just a depressing recognition & proof (if we needed any more) that we live in a misogynist patriarchy.

But once again THANK YOU. And I hope you don't get abuse - we don't want that for anyone.

if one removes medical evidence and evidence of 'living in a role', what is the difference between removing that and the 'radical' idea of Self ID?
I would like to know this too. I have not seen any suggestion that there might be other 'evidential requirements' and am very interested to hear more.

Welcome Jonny and thank you both for that article and for acknowledging that as a male, you're likely to get an easier time from the TRAs.

Oh and I should have added to the multiple areas this is happening at the same time:

the silencing and intimidating of women in academia, schools, the public sector and the NHS. In these spaces anything short of affirming that every trans person ever (remember the ‘trans’ umbrella now includes everyone though including straight fetishists and pervs) is totes brave and stunning, means you are transphobic. Which is a disciplinary/sackable.

Also means that kids and young people who are questioning things in a very standard way, risk being medicalised (non-reversibly) down a path to surgery because not affirming them would be ‘transphobic’ as a service provider.

All of which is obviously shit news for gay young people and all females. And the voices of detransitioned young people are ignored and reviled and academics who want to research their experiences are not given ethics approval.

By the way re the recent Get the L Out Pride action- you said rightly in your article, that denouncing the women as transphobes was unfair, but also it goes way further than that.

There were numerous calls for the women to be identified and outed on Twitter so they could be reported to their employers for transphobia.

That reporting would of course also ‘out them’ as lesbians to their employers incidentally - which is kind of ironic, given that some TRAs claim they fear ‘outing’ as a trans person to the extent it forces them to violence on people who have filmed them being violently intimidatory.. but let’s not digress too far.

Some threads on here On Get the L Out with screenshots and links etc:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301033-Get-the-L-Out-Statement-by-the-lesbian-protesters-at-Pride-London?pg=1&order=

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3299646-Lesbians-protest-at-London-Pride-getthelout?pg=1&order=

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3281465-Time-to-get-the-L-out

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3309768-Diva-editor-responds-to-lesbian-rights-alliance-article-in-the-times

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325772-Transphobic-protesters-at-Pride

Due to mass reporting of MN threads by TRAs you may find some of these threads are quite ‘holey’

Recent interview with the organisers
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3337090-Get-the-L-Out-Interviewed-by-Let-a-Woman-Speak

The resulting media was basically that these were ‘anti trans’ protesters (rather than saying they were lesbians concerned about the rights of lesbians which would have been true ... which Pride should have been the appropriate forum to bring that message to )

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-trans-protest-london-pride-parade-lgbt-gay-2018-march-lesbian-gay-rights-a8436506.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44757403

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/07/08/pride-in-london-condemns-anti-trans-protest-as-vile-says-we-are-sorry/

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/08/london-pride-organisers-say-sorry-after-anti-trans-group-leads-march

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/09/anti-trans-protesters-pride-banner-march-london

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300986-Stonewall-condemn-transphobia-at-London-Pride?pg=1&order=

prideinlondon.org/news/2018/7/8/statement-from-pride-in-london-regarding-the-2018-protest-group

(Note their Includes ‘sadly we could not forcibly remove them’ - why the ‘forcibly’?- Pride in London whips up the climate against these women)

Some people on here tried to misrepresent what they were doing
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300768-Lesbians-react-to-London-Pride?pg=20&order=

Other people were highly sanctimonious:
medium.com/@iambruceadams/pride-protest-and-holding-hatred-to-account-7e8e37d7153f

And others called for violence on the women and reports to their employers against them. Discussed on threads above but if you need further evidence please PM.

Sorry if you are already all over all of this. I just find it utterly shocking.