Let's go back to 2007

I see sentiment discussed that suggests the "old school" transsexuals meant no harm to women, and were quietly just trying to go about their lives under the radar. Along comes the new generation of trans-people under a wide umbrella, and these individuals are felt to be more militant, aggressive, and seeking to erode women's rights.

Something doesn't sit well with me as I consider that narrative. If the early transsexuals meant no harm, how did we get here? The above information suggests a very broad and clear agenda, not so innocent in its goals.

See second half of recent thread which highlighted the difficulties in claiming clear delinations between transsexuals/transgender/trans rights' activists etc

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3445694-Letter-in-the-Times-Plea-To-The-Trans-Lobby-from-group-of-transsexuals?pg=16

Guardian 2013 article about formation of Press For Change includes interviews with Stephen Whittle, Christine Burns, Paris Lees, Sarah Brown, James Barrett

(extract
"Whittle, who "transitioned" nearly 40 years ago, was one of three trans men and three trans women who did an unusual thing in 1992: they went to meet Liberal Democrat MP Alex Carlile in Westminster. The unusual element was not the meeting but the fact that they travelled together – at the time, trans people never dared to because it increased the likelihood that they would be spotted and abused. These six wanted to start a campaign group; Carlile advised them to avoid the word "transsexual". So, in Grandma Lee's teashop opposite Big Ben, an anodyne name, Press for Change, was chosen."

The 80s, remembers Whittle, had been "dreadful years". As soon as his trans status was discovered he would be sacked; it was the same for every trans person. At the job centre, the adviser would call out, "Miss Stephen Whittle". At his teacher-training medical, the doctor told him they couldn't have "his sort" in teaching. "It was very, very hard, not just on us but on the people we fell in love with and lived with. We felt like we could never, ever win this battle. All these years on, we have sort of won the battle."

For decades, Ashley's life itself was a source of some of these battles, as one of the few widely known transsexuals in Britain alongside Jan Morris, who completed her transition in 1974. The annulment of Ashley's marriage to the Hon Arthur Corbett (in court he was judged "deviant"; she "a man") in 1970 was a humiliation for Ashley and a great setback for trans people because it was established that a person must remain their birth gender in law. Before that, trans people were furtively altering their birth certificates, or passports, and accessing medical treatment.

Christine Burns is one of a generation who vividly remembers reading about Ashley in the papers when she was a young child. (Ashley appeared in a six-week special in the News of the World: "They were one of the very few who paid me and they behaved impeccably. I was very sad when the News of the World closed," says Ashley.) The existence of someone like her in the public eye was a great comfort for Burns. In the 90s, when she was chair of the Women's Supper Club of the local Conservative party association in Cheshire, she quietly joined Press for Change. Even then, the new activists dared not be openly trans. "The thing that held us back in the 1990s campaigning was that fear of being out," admits Burns. Eventually, she came out in 1995; she jokes that she realised she was more embarrassed to be a member of the Conservative party than openly transsexual.

Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Anlaf this is a great thread.

GeorgeFayne - I see it fairly simply. We have sex segregation to protect women against red flag males. We know that not all males wave those red flags but enough of them do to render women-only spaces and services necessary. Once you start digging into the history of transactivism, you can see that it doesn't really make any difference whether the subset of males is your standard bloke, your cross dresser, or your transsexual. Some of them mean ill to women in all groups. And that's why sex segregation is necessary.

I know some lovely men and I'd not mind sharing spaces with them, likewise some lovely cross dressers and some lovely transsexuals. I'd not mind sharing spaces with them either. None of them cancel out the ones waving the red flags and, since those cannot be recognised until it is too late, women's spaces should remain women only. Men will just have to learn to become welcoming and accepting of their non-conforming brethren.

Excellent thread and all comments so insightful (and damn right frightening!).

LangCleg You've touched on something that has been troubling me for awhile, and I'm not sure where to go with it. I see sentiment discussed that suggests the "old school" transsexuals meant no harm to women, and were quietly just trying to go about their lives under the radar. Along comes the new generation of trans-people under a wide umbrella, and these individuals are felt to be more militant, aggressive, and seeking to erode women's rights.

Something doesn't sit well with me as I consider that narrative. If the early transsexuals meant no harm, how did we get here? The above information suggests a very broad and clear agenda, not so innocent in its goals.

Further, this seems to underpin the idea of "true trans," which I don't support. (I do, however, believe in the unpopular subtypes, including AGP.)

I don't want to acknowledge ANY male as woman, kind and unassuming as he might be. When we open the door to include any biologic male, we open the door to them all--predators, perverts, fetishists... The door must stay firmly shut. The definition of woman must only be adult females. Period.

And, yes, I do very much like Miranda Yardley, though I suspect MY would agree with much of what I've said here.

Ereshkigal

Very illuminating and yes the strategic deception and coercion is shocking

Souncloud interview - Christine Burns interviewing Alice Purnell, co-founder of the Beaumont Society. (I might transcribe this if people are interested - there's a lot of eyebrow raising stuff in there, beneath Alice's charming 'little old me' persona).

These two go way back. One of the earliest heartwarming anecdotes in CB's book is of these two crashing a lesbian group even though they knew tw were not welcome. They believe they weren't spotted because nobody said anything.

They don't come across as arseholes, just completely oblivious to women's interests. Throughout CB's book, there's a smattering of incidents where it's clear that feminists, and particularly lesbians, are objecting to tw's presence or agenda, and each time this is brushed off with a 'don't know what their problem is' type of attitude.

Fake it until you make it?

This was in 2007 and so pre-dates the EA. The relevant legislation would be the <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1102/regulation/4/made" target="_blank">Sex Discrimination Act (1999 amendments))^

Pencils, I assumed by the line "had been a female legally for more than a year." that "Sue" had a newly minted GRC.

It reminds me of Whittle thinking it was an appropriate time to start joyfully reminiscing about getting rogered at girl scouts on a thread full of concerned parents worried about teenage boys sharing their daughters tents at Girl Guides.
Zero empathy.

It’s quite devastating reading that account of the elderly woman being presented with a male carer, the way it’s framed. It’s chillingly clear that it’s transactivists like this who don’t regard women/girls as human, not the other way round.

It really is.

Yes talking you are right. When I think of all the razzmatazz of New Labour it was a perfect cover for all this stuff.

I concur that pencils you are amazing.

Why didnt women get consulted about the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act? Women fought for that fucking Act. Maybe Whittle and Burns were able to head fuck polititicans into thinking that they both represented women's interests or something because with all of those women in Parliament you would have thought it would occur to them.

The 88 year old woman needing a female carer was given as an example of the press 'fanning the flames' of transphobia by the way they reported the incident.

However the following two paragraphs don't focus on the press reporting at all, but rather on the daughter's 'transphobia' and 'irrational hatred and intolerance'.

Throughout all this cosy consultation period (Chritine says they knew they were getting somewhere when the best biscuits came out at a private chat at the Home Office hmmbiscuit) PFC simply failed to mention that when they said 'trans' this included every cross-dresser and knicker fetishist in the country.

The phrase “lying by omission” springs to mind, doesn’t it.

I’m still gobsmacked that trans rights activism in the UK actually started with TVs. Pips Bunce is just the logical conclusion of that, I guess.

Pencils you are phenomenal on all this. Amazing work.

WeRiseUp I don’t see how we could have been more aware when all this was going on so far under the radar. And quite deliberately so, I’m sure.

I also find it interesting that Whittle - FtM transsexual a) joined a society for transvestites which seems an odd fit (what on Earth does a FtM transsexual have in common with men who get turned on by wearing women's clothes? - also Whittle is same sex attracted - if they didn't accept drag queens, why was a FtM homosexual welcome?) and b) how did it happen that Whittle ended up running it?

Is this where Whittle made some early important connections? Transvestism is enjoyed by people of all social categories.

Whittle also has an annoying fake persona of an old duffer of a gentleman. Was Whittle copying and trying to become like the posh old dudes at the Beaumont?

The whole thing is really odd.

And note how the council said it would be 'illegal' not to treat Sue as a woman, despite the fact that the Equality Act makes very clear exemptions on the grounds of sex.

This was in 2007 and so pre-dates the EA. The relevant legislation would be the Sex Discrimination Act (1999 amendments) which does include some very specific 'genuine occupational qualifications'. They're a bit strange though because in some (but not all) of the exceptions, there is a presumption of a difference between someone in the process of undergoing gender reassignment and someone who has completed gender reassignment.

So there's a specific exception where -

(d)the holder of the job provides vulnerable individuals with personal services promoting their welfare, or similar personal services, and in the reasonable view of the employer those services cannot be effectively provided by a person whilst that person is undergoing gender reassignment.

... but this only applies to people who are intending to undergo, or are in the process of undergoing, gender ressignment. Once that process is complete this exception no longer applies.

However because Mrs Yates was receiving care in her own home, there was another exception that could be used which did not differentiate between those in the process of undergoing and those who had completed gender reassignment -

(b)the job is likely to involve the holder of the job doing his work, or living, in a private home and needs to be held otherwise than by a person who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment, because objection might reasonably be taken to allowing to such a person—

(i)the degree of physical or social contact with a person living in the home, or

(ii)the knowledge of intimate details of such a person’s life,

which is likely, because of the nature or circumstances of the job or of the home, to be allowed to, or available to, the holder of the job;

So Blackpool Council was chatting shit.

It makes me so cross I wasn't more aware. In the late 1990s it was all Spice Girls, 'Blair's Babes', Lad's Mags, burlesque, Spearmint Rhino, 'empowering' sexual explotation for women and girls. It was all about 'I'm alright Jack' individualism while sex inequality was becoming a sport, but this was not seen as important because of the all women shortlists and a greater presence of women in politics.

Meanwhile Whittle and Burns were cooking something up behind the scenes.

It is so annoying how much fire fighting feminists have to do all the bloody time.

Shocking isn't it when you dig up this stuff and discover this was the plan all along?

I did buy Christine 'buy my book' Burns' previous book (Pressing Matters) when it was given away free a couple of months ago. What I have learnt:

The trans rights movement started with the Beaumont Society - a club for heterosexual cross-dressing men and their wives. TS could join too but they said no to drag queens because homophobia. Stephen Whittle was the first FTM to join Beaumont and was very active in the organisation.

The various demographics have been inseparable throughout PFC history. They championed the use of the word trans as it did not discriminate between TS and TV.

So it was never a case of the trans (as in TS) umbrella widening to include TVs and cross-dressers, rather it was the TV and cross-dressers umbrella widening to include TS.

PFC were consulted on changes to the Sex Discrimination Act in 1999. Women were not. Let that sink in. Women were not consulted on changes to the Sex Discrimination Act

PFC were talking about self-ID in 2000
Also in 2000 PFC were talking about an ultimate goal of just not recording sex

PFC were actively consulted (as in, invited to meetings in government departments and sent confidential drafts of reports for feedback) from the earliest stages of the work that resulted in the GRA.

It was PFC themselves who first spotted the potential problem with inheritance and primogeniture and actively suggested an exception. As far as I can tell this is the only exception they thought reasonable - but I'd have to dig out the original archived correspondence to verify that. It's all carefully preserved apparently because they're very proud of what they've done.

Throughout all this cosy consultation period (Chritine says they knew they were getting somewhere when the best biscuits came out at a private chat at the Home Office ) PFC simply failed to mention that when they said 'trans' this included every cross-dresser and knicker fetishist in the country.

But the intention to completely erode all women’s boundaries were there from the get go.

Yep. Remember this when people come on here and tell you that our current problems are all the fault of johnny-come-latelies who have ruined it all for the "true trans". It's not true.

Press for Change at it since 19 fucking 96. Holy shit.

I guess that’s how we got to the GRA in 2004.

With the vast, vast majority of us completely and blissfully oblivious.

But the intention to completely erode all women’s boundaries were there from the get go. Women having boundaries is TRANSPHOBIA. Evil, power-crazed shitlords that we are.

And yes, shocking and interesting in equal measure to see how long this has been going on, and to what extent. Whittle, Burns et al certainly give the lie to the “true trans” narrative.