Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Is it really all that bad?

158 replies

Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 18:14

I was having a conversation today with a friend who works in HR and is very clued up on the law and equality issues and he was saying that most of the scare stories about transgender stuff are a storm in a teacup. Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights. All the updated GRA will do will allow people who need it a slightly less hassle way to change their gender officially and as it affects such a small number of people (supposedly 1% of the population) it’s really not going to have a massive impact on the vast majority of people. There are no plans to change the Equality Act of 2010, so sex will still be a protected category.
I’ve been trying to read up on lots of stuff over the last month or so and, I have to be honest, really scared myself - particularly reading all the BS spouted by Mermaids. The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst as they just want clicks on their pages and I shouldn’t get myself wound up.
I’m actually going to give myself a break from all this over the next few weeks as it’s really getting to me but I was wondering if anyone else thought maybe things won’t be as bad as all the worst case scenarios that are discussed on these boards?
I’m still very much of the belief that gender identity and biological sex are separate things and I think if something could be put in law that makes that distinction clear, surely everything would be fine. Stupid ideology like the crap pushed by Mermaids and the like will be found out eventually and it’s just because they’re riding the wave with the GRA consultation having happened so recently. Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).
Please reassure me that these worst case scenarios are unlikely to happen, or is my friend actually oblivious to very real dangers if these changes go through?

OP posts:
MagicMix · 20/12/2018 21:39

For starters, men have a strong tendency to think that things that are a real problem for women are no big deal because a lot of them apparently are unable to empathise with the female perspective.

I am sure you have heard a man before saying that catcalling is not an issue at all because if a woman shouted something similar at him, he (thinks he) would be flattered. I've heard so many men take this position and try to explain to women that they should just take a compliment, completely failing to comprehend the issue because they are seeing everything from the male P.O.V. and haven't considered the context of male violence and the objectification of women at all.

It's not unlikely that your male friend suffers from this blind spot - I think all people in a position of privilege actually have these kinds of blind spots, and I include myself in that. So a lot of things that will happen are things that many women would consider a real problem but your friend just wouldn't even see the issue. I've even heard some particularly dim men say that it would be no big deal if intimate areas like communal showers were mixed sex because naked women would present no threat to them and they would like to see some boobs, taking the line that anyone who has an issue with it is just some kind of repressed prude.

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 21:34

Lots more resources on this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 21:33

OP There are some comprehensive articles you might give your friend (who is wrong)
Comprehensive article by Helen Joyce (Economist's Finance Editor) 'The New Patriarchy: How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves
concludes:
“I can’t think of any genuine human-rights activism that demands attacks on the rights and protections of other civil-society groups, or advocates hateful language against them,” says Professor Bhatt. Trans activism is also unusual in that it gives men a chance to claim they are oppressed compared with women, and plenty of opportunity to tell women to shut up, says Ms. Gerlich. “It’s a postmodern patriarchal backlash.”

The code of omertà extends to academia. After lobbying by trans activists, Brown University in Rhode Island withdrew a press release about Prof. Littman’s paper on ROGD, citing concerns that it might be used to “discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.” Last year, Bath Spa University, in southwest England, rejected a proposal by James Caspian, a psychotherapist who specializes in transgender clients, to write a thesis on de-transitioning, explaining that the research might be criticised on social media and it would be “better not to offend people.” Kathleen Stock, a philosopher at Sussex University, wrote a Medium post in May about the lack of discussion of gender self-ID within academic philosophy. Trans-activists called for her to be sacked—and she received dozens of supportive emails from other academics, most saying they dared not speak out publicly.

The aim of all this, says Jane Clare Jones, a British freelance writer and philosopher, is not only to silence dissent, but to make it impossible to state any distinction between trans women and cis ones. Since women are oppressed because they are female, not because of feminine feelings or presentation, this linguistic erasure is “profoundly anti-feminist.” Statements such as “trans women are women” and labels such as TERF are what Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote about indoctrination and mind control in Maoist China, dubbed thought-terminating clichés: “brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases…that become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”

In the United States, criticism of gender self-ID is complicated by partisan politics. Women who elsewhere might sound the alarm do not want to be seen as in alliance with right-wing FOX News hosts and conservative Christians who are also against gay rights and abortion rights. The most organized opposition is in Britain, where government-mandated legislative consultations provided a focal point for campaigning groups such as WPUK. Mumsnet, a parenting website founded in 2000, is less hostile to women’s discussions of trans issues (though it now removes posts that “misgender” people). And the feisty British tabloid press has not shied away from covering rapists self-identifying themselves into women’s jails, boys allowed into Girlguiding and the like. The Daily Mail fought an injunction to be able to report on Jess Bradley, a trans woman suspended in July from the post of trans-rights officer at the National Union of Students because of allegations that she ran a blog named Exhibitionizm, where she posted pictures of her exposed penis, taken in public places and in her office.

The singular focus on gender self-ID, along with the shutting down of academic work on trans issues, harms not only women, but trans people. Although trans activists’ ire is focused on women who object to self-ID, it is overwhelmingly men who commit violence against trans people, a problem that by comparison is ignored. And other causes that are important to trans people, such as more research on the causes and treatment of gender dysphoria and its links with other mental-health issues, not to mention the long-term effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, have become taboo.

Overall, the push for gender self-ID does more harm than good to the interests of gender-dysphoric people whose main concern is to be accepted by members of the sex they wish they had been born into. And as we see more cases of people claiming transgender status in bad faith, we may see a backlash. “We were living quite happily in women’s spaces getting on with our lives before this stuff blew up,” says Melissa, the trans person I quoted at the beginning of this essay. Which is one reason why, far from supporting self-ID, she wants to see the rules for changing legal sex made tougher: “If you want access to women’s spaces, you should have to show you’re no more risk to women than other women are.”

Needless to say, she has been called “transphobic, a cis quisling, and a sell-out.” But women’s worries about their privacy and safety should not be brushed off or shouted down, she says. That is something women had to endure for millennia, under the old-fashioned patriarchal societies of yore. And they shouldn’t have to stand for it now that it has been rekindled under a new progressive guise."
quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/

James Kirkup's articles also excellent in The Spectator.
THey had an excllent lead article a month or so ago,

'Trans rights have gone wrong
[[The new gender orthodoxy allows no room for dissent'
www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/]]

Doobigetta · 20/12/2018 21:20

*IT

Doobigetta · 20/12/2018 21:20

Has he got a beard?

Dammit, LoveCompost beat me to ot.

lassupthebrew · 20/12/2018 20:41

Zutt, The 5000 estimate was from doctors based on the number of transsexual patients that existed at any one time in the UK. The number had been reasonably consistent for decades by 2004.

The majority of people who got GRCs in the first few years had been medically diagnosed up to 40 years earlier but until then had no such legal rights. So were accessing the law that just came in. After that the numbers settled to a relatively stable 300 or so new additions a year. About a quarter are trans men, the rest trans women.

Transsexual people die every year, of course, as there are some with GRCs now in their 90s who transitioned long ago so there is not a + 300 net addition every year. If numbers remain steady as they have up to now then it would not increase dramatically.

It will increase dramatically if the government change the rules so that a GRC is no longer accessible only to medically diagnosed transsexuals but to anyone who self IDs without any medical condition or dysphoria and for multiple reasons and without need for medical assessment or treatment of any kind.

They are turning a very specific law for a small group of people into one with an entirely different meaning covering hundreds of thousands of others who were not previously included.

They are not presenting it to the country that way (and you might well ask why not) but that is the basis of what they are doing on advice from bodies with vested interests like Stonewall.

Bubonicpanic · 20/12/2018 20:40

Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).

He is wrong there. The secrecy extends to the fact that schools are being told by genderology trainers to withhold the fact from the parents that their child is being treated as the opposite sex if the child wants them to.

ProfessoressWoland · 20/12/2018 20:40

Realisticallynobodyis going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights.

What does this mean in practice?
Women's rights are being eroded every time a female athlete loses to a TW, a woman is forced to refer to a rapist as she, or watch crossdressing men being celebrated as brave and stunning businesswomen, or share changing rooms with male-bodied people, etc. These things are already happening, and self-id will normalise these incidents further to the point where it won't be possible to challenge anything. Your friend sounds ignorant and patronising.

Gentlygently · 20/12/2018 20:20

Reminder to sign the petition re women’s prisons. Link is on the ‘talk to your family about this at Christmas’ thread.

enough1 · 20/12/2018 20:02

It's already happening. You and your "friend" are choosing not to see it.

Datun · 20/12/2018 19:54

Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights

a) it's not a small group of militants. It's every predator in the country, every sexist man, every misogynist.

b) how does he think we can stop it?

LoveCompost · 20/12/2018 19:52

Has he got a beard?

starcrossedseahorse · 20/12/2018 19:34

Sorry OP. I agree with everyone else here and think that your male friend is way wide of the mark. This is already having a dreadful impact on vulnerable women in prison and women's sport as well as making language (what does woman mean?) and official statistics (crime for example) meaningless.

feministfairy · 20/12/2018 19:34

Agree with everyone on here. Your friend is not affected as the fetishists are not targeting him. But they are targeting children in schools and removing safeguarding from the vulnerable, they are targeting adolescents online (ROGD), women in prisons are already having to shower naked in front of convicted male sex offenders and women are already being replaced by born men in women's sport.
Your friend will simply be part of the woke army that enables this shit and when everyone has been legally silenced by the weaponised police force (woman as adult human female = transphobia) then the most vulnerable will be picked off by the predators sheltering under that umbrella just waiting to be enabled.

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 20/12/2018 19:33

Key facts provided by the Government alongside the GRA consultation suggested they had estimated the number seeking certificates pretty accurately at slightly less than 5,000.

Was that 5,000 estimated for 15years or in total, ever. Because, even if the rate of take up doesn't increase, it will be 10,000 in 30 years, double the original estimated number.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 20/12/2018 19:22

Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights

As has been pointed out, it's happening.

TwistedStitch · 20/12/2018 19:18

Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights

It's ALREADY happening. Male rapists are locked up with women based on a feeling they claim to have. Men are winning women's sporting events and edging women out of business awards based on a feeling they claim to have. But if a man says it's not an issue then I guess that's the end of it, I'm sure Karen White's victims will be very relieved Hmm

TheCrowFromBelow · 20/12/2018 19:16

I am really concerned about the future of women’s sports, including sports scholarships in the US.
I am mystified as to why men who cross dress are being lauded as “women in business”.
I’m annoyed that trans women are taking “women’s officer” posts that they are unqualified for because it is trendy and right on.
I do not understand how someone can change gender and it can becomes illegal to refer to or enquire about their past in anyway. No other sector of society is given that level of privilege, to be able to eradicate their past to that level.

I’m surprised that as an HR employee he hasn’t given this aspect more thought to be honest.

Bowlofbabelfish · 20/12/2018 19:09

Does he have children?

Needmoresleep · 20/12/2018 19:06

Key facts provided by the Government alongside the GRA consultation suggested they had estimated the number seeking certificates pretty accurately at slightly less than 5,000. Their estimates of how many would take advantage of any new act were up to 500,000.

That is a huge difference. And Stonewalls umbrella is pretty wide and includes people like fetishists.

It may not affect HR that much, in that the mad/bad element sheltering under the umbrella may have pretty low employment rates. However they will be a danger in prisons, in refuges and in wider society.

Self-ID, espcially when coupled with dead-naming means a dismantling of safeguard protecting the most vulnerable.

Yeahnahyeah · 20/12/2018 19:05

To take just one area of the issues - girls and young women presenting with gender dysphoria have had a 4000% increase in the last 10 years. If they become trans men they are vilified by trans women with penises who identify as lesbian for not wanting to sleep with them.

I never in my wildest dreams thought I would ever write a sentence like that.

Our kids, especially our girls, need this nonsense to be challenged and stopped.

Thank gawd there is a govt enquiry about this.

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 20/12/2018 19:02

Many of the arguements around the removal of women's rights seem to be based on 'how much damage can 1% of the population do?'

Everything is peachy if you know you're not going to be part of the group impacted by the 1%.

Materialist · 20/12/2018 18:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 20/12/2018 18:57

He's talking as if he's completely a full risk assessment of the situation, when he has, in fact, just said what he thinks based on his knowledge and imagination.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 20/12/2018 18:55

my friend actually oblivious to very real dangers if these changes go through?

Your friend is oblivious.

Swipe left for the next trending thread