Writing an account of a WPUK meeting now makes you a hateful T**F

Sarah Ditum has got a post on her twitter about defending Helen Lewis, but that could of course be unconnected.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mischief maker.

Still, gave us a great opportunity to explain YET AGAIN why it doesn't work to make an exception for the 'nice trans'. Which is basically arguing that as NAMALT we should just not have any sex-based boundaries at all as it's mean, mean, so mean. Despite the fact that across the world it is recognised and evidenced that single -sex spaces enable women and girls to be safer and have greater privacy and dignity, greater access to public spaces and greater ability to engage with society and education.

Still catching up, but are we sure it was Sarah Ditum posting on this thread? Or was it someone making mischief?

I did wonder. Shockingly out of character.

Yes, that comment re the whole point of single sex space, why is this being ignored ? We haven’t historically separated people by how much they like femininity , e.g. personality.
It isn’t your personality that gets you raped.
I can see why men might want to take away single sex space for women, but in the process they will also have to lose their male single sex spaces. I cannot for the life of me understand why there are any women behind this.

Why are some public spaces sex-segregated in the first place? Because of male violence against women. As we can't tell the difference between the nice guys and those who would do us grievous bodily harm, we excude all males from our toilets, changing rooms, refuges etc. Most men respect that - in public, even our loved and trusted males will separate out of that same respect.

Of course, not all men are sexual predators on women and girls, but enough of them are, to make sex segregation a valuable risk-reduction measure.

Males who transition dont suddenly become less risky, and those that self-ID possibly more so.

It was nodding along to the idea that a tiny number of post-ops were harmless and could be treated as "exceptions", and had been doing it for years anyway- that got us into this mess.

That is a good point boatyardblues

Still catching up, but are we sure it was Sarah Ditum posting on this thread? Or was it someone making mischief?

Did many women know what was happening in 2004 with the GRA? I didn't have a clue, i had no idea that a man - any man that changes id for two years can get a new birth certificate with 'female' on it.

Only for the purpose of same-sex marriage and for claiming benefits and state pension though.

Now that we have same-sex marriage as law [2013] and equalised benefits and state pension age the original purpose of GRA 2004 is defunct.

Genuine, I suppose, in the sense that he genuinely believes himself to be a woman.

What does that mean? How does one “believe” themselves to be a woman? How do you measure for their “genuine belief”? How do you account for when it is a mixed with other things that you appear to not see as “genuine” - what wins out?

he's not doing it just to gain access to women's spaces and predate on them, or get a sexual kick out of being in a women's space, or take a job or scholarship that is designed for women.

Again how do you measure and test for that, when facing a man who knows how to say all the right things to be “genuine” because they have learned exactly what to say? Or account for the fact that it really doesn’t matter how they get there, they would still actually gain access to women’s spaces and take jobs and scholarships from women? Does the means to you justify the end?

Helen Lewis might be getting abuse on this subject but radical feminists who made the original arguments on trans, of which Helen Lewis's et al's are but a weak version, have been getting the abuse far longer and much more seriously. Yet it's radical feminists she wants to cast out of feminism. She even has the cheek to say that this is a rebirth of feminism based in female physicality as if the material existence of women hasn't been at the heart of radical feminism since it began.

Christ yes.

It is possible to know that Debbie H is obviously getting a platform because DH is male and to be bloody angry about that and also believe it is a good thing that at least someone is being allowed to state some things. In the same way that it's possible to feel very supportive and grateful to Helen Lewis for sticking her neck out, while also knowing that some of what she says is crap and self-defeating.

History has shown us time and again, that assuring men that you're not like those awful feminists over there, your feminism is much more man-friendly, will not protect you when men decide to fuck you over. The belief that it will, ensures that men continue to rule the world.

And then there is a smaller number - the ones who have surgery - who have gender dysphoria. I think if you go to the extent of having your genitals removed you are really serious. You are not doing it just because you want the opportunity to be on an all-women's shortlist or you get a sexual kick out of being in women's changing rooms.

While I appreciate your optimism, I don’t think that surgery is any guarantee they aren’t doing it for a sexual kick. If you lurk on the transgender threads on reddit, you will find many who start the surgical process out of a sexual kick, like a desire to be “vaginally penetrated”. The surgeries are ~affirming~ for many of those with AGP.

We also are seeing supposed trans women prisoners - half of who have histories of sexual violence against others - push for surgery to affirm their rights to have access to women.

A castrated man who identifies as a woman is a castrated man who identifies as a woman. They still aren’t a woman.

Debbie has done some great work, but I don't understand why some people think that Debbie is a women's rights campaigner. Debbie campaigns for trans rights - which is fine, obviously, but a lot of what Debbie says and does in practice actually promotes self-id, including at union level. Why should Debbie be held above criticism?

I am another who was oblivious in 2003.

This is what happened with the GRA in parliament in 2003. One of the reasons it was passed was because it was only ever going to affect about 5000 people (the number who currently hold GRCs, so their estimate was correct).

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

Like many other women, back in 2004, I didnt care so much. It was only a small minority of post-ops

Surgery has never been a requirement for a GRC. All the information we were given was carefully filtered by groups like Press for Change (Stephen Whittle, Christine Burns) so that the story that was told was one that most people wouldn't object to.

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".

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

I can not understand why Debbie gets knocked. That article was hugely important to this cause. If it's been in the TES it means its legitimate, that it's acceptable to discuss. That's such a step forward. Why would anyone knock it?

If you take two seconds to think about it, it's obvious. Anyway, equal opportunities answer coming in!

Feminists get annoyed because Debbie says exactly the same things they have been shouting into the void for years and years and gets a full page article into TES while they are ignored. This is not unreasonable: we have had dozens of threads even on here outlining exactly the same points Debbie made in that article. Nobody in the press - teaching professional press or otherwise - took it up while feminist women were saying it. Feminists feel that Debbie is given a platform as an appeal to authority because Debbie is male.

Other feminists (and, presumably, Debbie!) feel that someone needs to get it out there and if Debbie can get a platform, that's a good thing because a counterpoint to extremist lobby group guidance is out there in a respected publication. Also, that there is more to Debbie than being male: Debbie is also a teacher and a teacher's union rep. So the appeal to authority is a good one.

Either position is a reasonable one to take.

Like many other women, back in 2004, I didnt care so much. It was only a small minority of post-ops and I didnt feel it was such a big deal to have a "polite" courtesy legal fiction to change the sex on their drivers licences etc.

Did many women know what was happening in 2004 with the GRA? I didn't have a clue, i had no idea that a man - any man that changes id for two years can get a new birth certificate with 'female' on it.

I was there, I saw how Julia Long was hugely angry when Debbie Hayton was applauded for getting that article into the Times Educational Supplement.

I can not understand why Debbie gets knocked. That article was hugely important to this cause. If it's been in the TES it means its legitimate, that it's acceptable to discuss. That's such a step forward. Why would anyone knock it?

There is a thread discussing the article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3582158-debbie-hayton-in-the-tes

Hayton uses women's spaces. Either no people who were born men can use women's spaces or they all can.

I think the issue here is the hypocrisy and the agenda of blatant self-interest.

The kids Hayton teaches are gaslighted because they have to refer to Hayton as "Miss". So, while there is all this professing to care about kids there is no care about gaslighting them and the effect that has on them.

I was there, I saw how Julia Long was hugely angry when Debbie Hayton was applauded for getting that article into the Times Educational Supplement.

I can not understand why Debbie gets knocked. That article was hugely important to this cause. If it's been in the TES it means its legitimate, that it's acceptable to discuss. That's such a step forward. Why would anyone knock it?

Oh that's right, toilets. I don't think the public are with you on toilets actually. I think they are with you on almost all the other issues.

I'm not convinced some people aren't just transphobic actually. That word has been overused to become almost meaningless, yet I think there are occasions where it still applies.

As much as I liked seeing gender critical views in a major mainstream publication, I think the journalistic reference to exile or 'exclusion' of the so-called 'hostile' or transphobic 'minority', who think there are no exceptions, was just a totally unneccessary swipe.

Did it work? Not that I can see? If the hostility that Helen Lewis is getting is any indicator, the translobbyists dont see a difference, and are not going to be appeased or placated by such swipes.

Like many other women, back in 2004, I didnt care so much. It was only a small minority of post-ops and I didnt feel it was such a big deal to have a "polite" courtesy legal fiction to change the sex on their drivers licences etc.

In all those years they have proven they cannot be trusted. They say nobody would "abuse" the Self-ID legislation - Ha! How many have already done this, and even without it being "officially" legalised?

While I also appreciate the help and assistance of trans-sexuals like Debbie and Miranda, they are supportive "allies" - along with a number of other men. But allies are not "women", and like other men who do support women's rights, we need to take care that we dont promote them to "special" or "exception" status.

And- it may sound mean and nasty, but its much harder to trust such "allies" for the long haul now - when they may well have their own self-interested agenda.

She is leaving the New Statesman anyway, and has published several pieces on this issue, as have Sarah Ditum and Glosswitch.

She has been receiving abuse on this subject for years and long ago passed the point of acceptability for people who are offended by the concept of sex based rights.

Absolutely fine to disagree with her opinion, but I think it’s just wrong to assume that she is trying to create clickbait or isn’t expressing her real, considered thoughts.

Well it would be absolutely wrong if that's what I'd argued, but what I actually said was this was Helen Lewis going so far and no further in order to appeases her employer (current or future). It's her employers who make the decision about what to publish on trans and are obviously motivated by the controversial nature of the subject which brings in readers. Being paid for your feminism by a male led, male owned organisation almost invariably leads to timidity in women and a refusal to name the truth about men and what they do to women. In this case the fact that men can't become women, however "nice" we want to be to them. I'm sure she's quite sincere in her wishy washiness though.

Helen Lewis might be getting abuse on this subject but radical feminists who made the original arguments on trans, of which Helen Lewis's et al's are but a weak version, have been getting the abuse far longer and much more seriously. Yet it's radical feminists she wants to cast out of feminism. She even has the cheek to say that this is a rebirth of feminism based in female physicality as if the material existence of women hasn't been at the heart of radical feminism since it began. The radical feminism resurgence has been going on for years, we were here first and we're staying. Sorry Helen (well I'm not really).

I mean I agree with Barracker

I agree