Reframing the discussion

support your allies

I think I agree with this actually. It's not just women who are unhappy or affected. Gay men, transexuals and hetero men are critical too. I don't think the discussion is mainstream enough yet, although I do think it's getting there.

www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/28/14088992/brain-study-change-minds
A new brain study sheds light on why it can be so hard to change someone's political beliefs
Why we react to inconvenient truths as if they were personal insults.

This is ultimately why TRAs always wanted no debate...

Support your allies.

No offence, because you seem like a decent person, but avoid using the imperative on a feminist forum. It doesn't say good things about you.

allana001 no I don't think focussing on women's rights is wrong, it's much easier to defend than being seen to be anti anyone else. I have no issue with transsexuals and am happy to support them but my focus remains on my own rights while they are under threat.

Turph
Unfortunately whilst the debate is tending to circle around women, the implications of the proposed changes affects a much smaller community, i.e. transsexuals, and the GRA is to protect them.
Don't alienate TS's by insisting the issue is purely women's rights, because, even if the proposals are stopped, transsexuals still have to fight for their rights.
Support your allies.

I just think we all need to stop centring (to use a favourite wokeword) trans-anything in these discussions, because it positions us as people outside of a group debating the rights of that group. We need to present our own views in way that makes it clear that we're women discussing womanhood, this is our issue, and we are the protected group in question. And it needs to be challenged every time it's framed otherwise.
Agreed agreed agreed

Another area for tackling discrimination would be looking at implementation of law. Women have known for decades that policing has a big impact on how seriously law is implemented, with sexual violence being a significant area where laws have existed but perps have got away with crimes due to police apathy and/or lack of resources and funding. So I would also be entirely open to arguments about how anti-trans discrimination is policed, just as I am open to arguments about the police clamping down on street harassment.

This.

What is striking about the current law is how poor it is in how it was originally written - and how untested it is.

The conflict between the EA and the GRA has never been tested in a way that perhaps it needs to be which illustrates the point of balancing needs. Its a massive contributor to why guidance being all over the place. There are multiple interpretations from various different legal sources and non legal sources.

Now what we are seeing is moves to remove the EA and/or to make it completely irrelevant in practice in a way which was never intended when you look back at Hansard.

It isn't uncommon for law to end up being used in ways it was never intended. The law on terrorism is a particular area where its well known.

That precisely why its fundamental that there should be as much debate as possible when law is initially created to try and minimise any future unintented consequences.

You simply CAN NOT make good law in silence without a debate. It is impossible. It is authoritarian nonsense which has no place in a democracy. It does not matter what the subject is or how sensitive it is.

Rights in particular require broad public consensus when they are initally formed because the process of removing them retrospectively, endangers the existence of all rights. Forcing through something which goes against this, is always going to lead to problems.

allana I know that you know (biologywise...) my point was rather that you and transsexuals generally could use that (or any other arguments fit for the purpose) to make the explicit point to TRAs, that whatever their issues, they have nothing to do with you, transsexual is sth entirely different to their thing... what Muggeridge calls ‚not mirroring them‘, as she suggests women should act, too.
Now, some TS already do that, but I think the broader it gets, the sooner the lunacy will be over. Obviously making the point to government as you say is important, too, no doubt.

Deepwatersolo
I have already stated about my biology and my legal status. I am more than aware that I cannot menstruate, or bear children etc. If I could do that, I would have been female, and would not have had the issues and problems I faced in life. The issues and problems would have been those that women have. I guess I would have gladly swapped one set of issues for another. However, life isn't fair, and I live my life as female to the best of my ability. It isn't perfect, but it is better than contemplating if suicide is the better option than living as male. Btw, I didn't hate or detest my male genitals, which is now being put forward by haters against transsexuals as a cause or reason for gender dysphoria.
Gulagsmy*rse
I would like to clarify some of your helpful comments. Gender reassignment is part of the GRA and the Equality Act, however, the term transsexual, therefore the term gender reassignment, has been under erosion for a number of years by the trans/transgender cabal. I have numerous complaints to Westminster, the Scottish Government, the police and many other public organisations, being ignored because they have been convinced that trans / transgender is the more encompassing term. These organisations totally ignore my, and other TS's concerns, even when we submit proof that transsexuals are being eliminated.
What is being proposed now with the GRA is a culmination of years of work by these trans activists and their cult, and I have watched this emerging for quite some time. In many ways I am glad that the trans brigade have now shown their hand, and now women, and men, can see the damage that is being caused.
I know some people who are posting, do not like trans people, and perhaps they don't like transsexuals. I am ok with that as I don't need to engage with them after this consultation is finished. However, at this point in time, we have to concentrate our efforts on stopping the GRA proposals, and TS's have possibly got a stronger case than many as it is our legal rights which are being directly attacked, and this then reflects onto women's rights. With very rare exceptions, the current legal rights afforded under the GRA on TS's have had a detrimental effect on a woman's rights. It is imperative we maintain that balance.

kesstrell well, my post has been deleted. Which says it all, as far as I'm concerned. The truth cannot be spoken on MN on this issue (and this issue alone, as far as I can see). So that's probably it for me as I now have no idea what I can and can't post. Because individual's feelings are more important that looking at things more broadly, from s societal point of view.

But just think how we have got to this point. It's because of what we have allowed to be accepted as truth.

Feel free ohello

A deeply confusing factor of this whole debate is the way desires, facts, formation of laws, implementation of laws, and interpretation of facts have been conflated. People are now taking strong stands without a particularly clear view on where things are now, how they are changing with the GRA and what problems the GRA is meant to solve, let alone what the unlooked-for consequences of GRA reform could be. It's like Universal Credit (and dare I say, Brexit) all fucking over again.

When I talk to my fellow lefty types, I tend to start off trying to understand what they think the GRA is going to do. So for people who think it's about equal rights for trans, we get into the current state of "rights" and what we mean by "equal". (This is where we can quickly separate the informed from the hopelessly clueless - I have had a very young student-y type try arguing for the rights of trans & "non-binary" folks to marry, which is easily shot down with a quick good of current UK marriage and civil partnership laws.)

As far as I can work out, in terms of law trans people are not currently unduly oppressed. For example, there aren't glaring unjustices possible such as being legal to rape trans people, stop them from marrying, bar them from gainful employment, throw them out of restaurants, etc.

Now, just because the current laws don't specifically allow discrimination doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (Many woman in the UK can personally attest to that!)

And it may also be that, although the law is generally protective against discrimination, it may be that gender non-conformity needs a particular shout-out in in some areas - maybe, say, employment law. (I'm not saying it does as I haven't looked into it, but I would be open to hearing cases for that, just as I am for making upskirting a specific criminal offense.)

Another area for tackling discrimination would be looking at implementation of law. Women have known for decades that policing has a big impact on how seriously law is implemented, with sexual violence being a significant area where laws have existed but perps have got away with crimes due to police apathy and/or lack of resources and funding. So I would also be entirely open to arguments about how anti-trans discrimination is policed, just as I am open to arguments about the police clamping down on street harassment.

What I DON'T understand is why it's necessary in law to make transwomen women. As so many people on this thread have already said, if you take away the bio-markers (XX, womb, ovaries, biomechanics of having a broader pelvis, etc) defining "woman" to please trans people, then take away the stereotypes (make up, skirts, passive, bitchy) to please women, what exactly do you have left?

Everything trans is about lying and deceit I've read enough intelligent, nuanced posts from transsexuals to believe this is an unhelpful generalisation. A number of transsexual transwomen have posted on here to say they are aware they are biologically male, and that their trans presentation is about helping them cope with gender dysphoria.

If we aspire to be rational, in contrast to TRA irrationality, then we need to acknowledge nuance, not succumb to black-and-white thinking, IMO. I also don't think such generalisations are helpful to our cause.

deepwatersolo yes exactly, there are so many lies, it makes it confusing.

When I first heard about it as an “ admin” change I thought what’s the big deal. I supported it.
After a couple of google searches i did a complete 180. I came across Danielle Moscato ( a one .... peaking machine) peak !

We can't have safeguarding if we can't define the people involved. We all know Lisa is right. This blurring of boundaries around what is a woman etc will blur the boundaries of safeguarding too. Discussions around individual risk ie when told by TRAs we are bigots for assuming all trans people are abusers is a distraction. Noone is talking about individual risks. The stats we have are at population level. Thats where our argument is.

We need clear definitions of woman, man, child, transwoman and transmen to allow safeguarding.

I include child following the recent post about the mtg where CB argued that in our culture, we baby children. Unequivocally, we do not!!!!!!!!! CB should be referred to the UN convention on the rights of the child.

Gulags that is my impression, too. The demand that the GRA is now to be easily accessible to anyone who feels like it (including demands to be able to change multiple times as far as I understand) seems to actually undermine TS protections.
That is also Lisa Muggeridge‘s point that TRAs have set back TS protections and make the GRC meaningless with their agenda and antics.

allana001 I meant to tag you in my post above. What do you think?

I wonder if the rights thing is a red herring?
TS have the protected characteristic in the EA and good protections I think.? I’m not transsexual so clearly I have no idea how this plays out day to day.
The argument of piting one groups rights against another I think is toxic.
Ive been thinking about this because of a conversation I had yesterday where some said TS needed rights.
Probably most people don’t know GR is protected in the EA.

It’s interesting to see it as a cult mentality, I remember Heaven’s Gate and Waco and I can see why you’re not wishing to elaborate. (Apologise if I’ve referred to more than you are comfortable with. )

The difference I think is cults like that were isolated and easily controlled by the leaders. These are linked via the internet rather than physically. I would be worried if there were actual compounds or communes encouraging vulnerable people to get together.

Clearly the cut off ties from family and friends is being promoted, but hopefully the physical distance between people will prevent anything too bad.

Sorry for rambles my daughter is making me watch funny dog videos as I type.

What worries me with what Lisa says is the ommision of how cult like its all become.

The worry lies in how the next part of this unfolds for that reason. You have a group of very vulnerable individuals who are surrounded by a bunch of people who are increasingly getting more and more wound up, with a siege mentality that the whole world is against them. Its important to define it almost as leaders and followers in this context too. They will behave slightly differently.

There is plenty of historical precedent on this too, which isn't pretty. I'm not going to elaborate further but the dynamics are extremely toxic and I'm very, very concerned. I do not think the toxicity of the dynamics is a reason to stop talking though, because a failure to confront problems isn't going to stop things unravelling anyway. It has to at some point. If it comes to a head suddenly it could be very serious.

Janice's piece the other day was very good and important. I'm worry it might not be strong enough though there's risks with it anyway you cut it. The bubble that's been created from reality will run out of oxygen eventually, if it doesn't burst. If it does burst, will it be set up to poison the well with fallout.

Political parties need to start being aware in the background that 'being nice' may have been very counter productive in allowing the development of this bubble and perhaps some sensitive, proper expert outside advice might be advisable to help manage a potential crisis is a wise move.

I don't know. I'm worried.

I do know how crackers online war gaming can send people. Addiction and a disconnect from reality are terrifying forces to witness.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from this issue, it’s that there are people out there who do not give a shit about women and girls and genuinely don’t believe anyone else does either.

So with that logic, why would you ever question the demands of activists? If you can’t believe women and children matter to anyone you’ll never understand why feminists are fighting back.

It’s misrepresenting from the off.

Red Lisa Muggeridge is spot on that the TRA agenda is the expression of narcissism and it is pointless to engage and what is needed is a clear no and a refusal to mirror them (‚your identity has nothing to do with me/women‘). That will induce their narcissistic ic rage, which demonstrates, why the ,no‘ was necessary. Of course, it means things will go crazier for a while. Might have been the same with online gaming. Yeah, Lisa thinks it is all done and dusted, judging from her videos.

allana if you are still reading, this might be a good strategy for transsexuals, too. Saying ‚ you guys with your delusions that biology isn‘t a thing and you menstruate, not sure what your issues are but your condition has nothing to do with me. That you appropriated ‚trans‘ doesn‘t change that.‘
I believe transsexual Miranda Yardley‘s evolution on the issue (which other transsexuals may find extreme) also reflects a radical refusal to serve TRAs as a mirror. There may not be agreement on all aspects among transsexuals, but a concerted effort to just say ,no, you have nothing to do with me/my identity‘ to the TRAs (in analogy to women saying no to them) might be helpful.

it's to force them to notice their implicit bias. most people wind up being embarrassed by two such oppositional choices. But maybe it's because I'm usually standing there glaring at them?

If the state can declare that a man is a woman, without any scientific evidence that a woman can have a penis, then it can say anything. It can say that the Earth is flat, or that it's 6,000 years old, or that there is a god and we all have to worship him. It is actually dangerous to give the state the power to redefine reality.

hmmm, I'm just gonna plaster that everywhere if you don't mind Justice? with attribution obv. Excellent!

My theory is that it forces "woke" liberals to notice they are prioritizing one competing interest group over another.
Your theory fails to account for interest group Top Trumps. Women are old hat. We are commonplace.