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

I understand someone not wanting Helen to be criticised, after she stuck her neck out. Of course.

And it was a good, positive article.

But the sticking point which keeps cropping up, is whether a man can be woman enough, and how that happens or why it happens.

Debbie has self identified and uses women's toilets, but disagrees with self ID. Right there is a complete conflict.

If you think that Debbie is an exception, it means you agree with transgenderism. What you disagree with is it being leveraged by predators and piss takers.

And whilst that's a view that some people obviously hold, I would never have called them feminists.

If transgenderism is acceptable, depending upon the motivation of the person transitioning, you're dealing with a personality issue, not a rights issue.

I am fighting for legal recognition of my sex class, and the most fundamental part of that is the right to fairly and factually differentiate myself from the opposite sex class. No matter how much they object. No matter how much women tell me that's too much to ask.

Me too, Barracker. I love what you said. All of it.

And Sarah, turning up to tone police us "anonymous feminists"? Should I curtsey?

Not a good look. If feminism isn't for women then what's the point?

threads discussing Helen Lewis' work:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3227129-Helen-Lewis-New-Statesman-The-madness-of-our-gender-debate

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3410299-Jordan-Peterson-Interview-with-Helen-Lewis

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3470475-Maria-Miller-called-me-a-fake-feminist-over-gender-self-ID-Now-she-says-I-was-right-all-along

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3428918-Womans-Hour-Tues-20-11-18-Why-is-the-current-debate-about-sex-and-gender-so-often-called-toxic-we-hear-from-Bex-Stinson-and-helenlewis

It's unethical (and therefore unenforceable), it reinforces sex stereotypes and it does nothing to solve the issues in practice - how do you know who meets the criteria? How much surgery/hormones are we talking about? Who decides?
The fact is that you can get a gender recognition certificate without undergoing any treatment.

Debbie Hayton was open in discussions on FWR last year that she does not have a GRC & that 'although could get one' did not think it neccessary.
Isn't this then self-id?

... or exile them in this case!

I wonder at the absolute naiveté of thinking that the solution to this is to reset the clock back to 2004.
Not pre 2004, when woman and female were synonymous in law, and we had the right to distinguish ourselves from men and invoke protections as females. Back when the law recognised the existence of the class of people born female on accurate terms.
No, post 2004.

There is an important thread here which should be of interest to journalists & commentators. Lots of research about the history of transactivism & very important context:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

I'm going to say it again, because I said it before Sarah visited us

women consolidate their status under patriarchy by policing other women to act in accordance with men's wishes. We all do it a bit I think-it's inescapable

I didn't used to believe it or understand it until a very smart woman I met here explained it to me. And seeing two good examples today on this thread made me think of it.

The line should be drawn at hate speech. People who urge violence on trans people, mock them in a disgusting way, seek to deny them rights to medical aid etc. The line is NOT “I never believe it’s possible to change sex.” That’s part of the tenet not of “extreme radical feminism”, that’s just your basic radical feminism. I’m not even a radfem - but we should never ask women to compromise on this belief or fail to understand why they hold it.

I love Sarah’s work and deeply admire Helen but as Lang says, we don’t throw GC women under a bus.

I don't think the issue is whether any one of us agrees with Helen's position on trans matters, Sarah's position, or Barracker's position - or anyone's position.

FWIW - I agree with OP that the monstering of Helen for this article is evidence that extremist genderism is a totalitarian movement that will not brook the slightest whiff of non compliance in any woman, no matter how high her usual level of virtue signalling and compliance.

But the issue here is Sarah - who saw fit to plop into MN and berate the women here for being insufficiently deferential to her posh mate.

Dick move, Sarah, dick move. I thought better of you.

Who? How does "hostility" to trans people manifest itself?
Like Germain Greer referring to a tranwoman as "it" for example?

absolutely not something I would say or defend, but are you seriously suggesting we 'exile' Germaine Greer?

what form would this 'exile' take?

or maybe we could all stop trying to police each other's speech? just an idea

Whoops, cross-posted with Sarah.

Sarah, I hugely respoect both you and Helen and all the work and bravery you have both shown. I think it's fine for you/Helen others to say that you accept some transwomen as women.

I think we are all on a spectrum (arf) of where our acceptance of TWAW is. Some women are allowed to be more accomodating in their own lives and spaces of that. But what you can't do is make that decision for other women. Not least because it's impossible to enforce, but also because it's not objective.

Eg for me, while I don't beloeve that anyone can change sex, ever, I am happy to refer to TW who are (what I consider to be) respectful of women as "she". I would be relatively comfortable with a "fully-transitioned" TW sharing changing rooms/loos with me. But not sports. Or where a female has been requested for intimate medical care, for example. Those are my boundaries and I am free to have them. I can not decide those should be other women's boundaries too.

Round of applause for Barracker

ungracious my left foot

serious, serious misstep

Well said, darling.

I'm not asking for favours and I'm not trying to be popular.

And in stark contrast to those who apparently believe I should be exiled for knowing men are, well, men, I actually am capable of thinking that Sarah, and Helen and WPUK all do remarkable and brave work. I can admire and appreciate them AND disagree on some fundamental points.
I don't call them names, don't wish them to be censored, or cast out, or vilified because we disagree. I hope to persuade them through honesty, logic, compassion, integrity and reason.
They seem to think I'm the pits, and my resolute refusal to dismantle what female means to allow even the loveliest chap to claim I'm a common group with him is unacceptable to them.

I'm really quite a nice person, for a hostile exile.

Which is by the by.

I am fighting for legal recognition of my sex class, and the most fundamental part of that is the right to fairly and factually differentiate myself from the opposite sex class. No matter how much they object. No matter how much women tell me that's too much to ask.

I'm not sure my position really warrants "burn the witch", or look out for the anti-Semite, or mind the extreme radical, or exile the hostile uncompromising...I dunno, what should we call me?

Sarah, if you and Helen really feel that women who disagree with you should be cast out, exiled, marked as ungracious, unreasonable, unkind? You've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

I'm just a woman who believes my sex matters, and who won't lie about it.

That part of Helen's piece did bug me.

I wondered if it was meant to, or might, bring people on board? Most people, surely!, who are reading that we will think "well, humans can't change sex, that isn't an extreme position, those 'extreme radical feminists' sound very reasonable".

I am clearly an extremist akin to an anti-semite in Helen's view, because I don't think that any male, no matter how nice, or feminine, or surgically-altered, or supportive of women/feminism, ever changes from a male-sexed into a female-sexed human. And that is all the word "woman" means to me. I still think transwomen should be protected from discrimination and violence, and have all the human rights every other human should have, be safe from violence, necessary medical care, etc - but I don't think the way to do that is to pretend, and make everyone else pretend, they have changed sex.

I really love your work Sarah, and I think Helen's pretty awesome most of the time, but by god that was an ill thought out post.

Jordan Peterson's taken a lot of flak for standing up to trans nonsense. Do I have to unquestioningly accept every utterance he makes?

or is it just left wing women who get a free pass to take a logically indefensible position?

Because that's what Helen's position is

Either we have single sex spaces, or we have mixed sex spaces. they can't be a little bit mixed sex.

The cognitive dissonance must be agonising

I don't know what the hecklers were shouting, but it is not transphobic or 'hostile' to point out that asking school children to call a male teacher Miss is a safeguarding issue. It's not a judgment about the individual, it's about how the acceptance of this fiction can be exploited in and outside of school.

the intellectual incoherence of stating men can't become women but let's pretend for these ones and not for those
^This is the problem. It's basically saying that there should be an 'award' for men who are willing to go through xyz medical and hormonal interventions and/or behave and present in a certain manner.
It's unethical (and therefore unenforceable), it reinforces sex stereotypes and it does nothing to solve the issues in practice - how do you know who meets the criteria? How much surgery/hormones are we talking about? Who decides?
The fact is that you can get a gender recognition certificate without undergoing any treatment. What does Helen Lewis suggest women's refuges should do to work out which transsexuals are 'woman enough'?

Who? How does "hostility" to trans people manifest itself?
Like Germain Greer referring to a tranwoman as "it" for example?

And if you can't see the problems with this quote by Julie Bindel
“Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals,” she wrote. “It would look like the set of Grease.” you might need to have a think.

Unfortunately, truth is often interpreted as transphobic like "transwomen are male" which is just true. But some things said by GC women are just hyperbole or hostile and not true.

WTAF, Sarah?

Plopping on MN to tone police women and tell them to be kinder? I know Helen's your mate an' all, but what are you thinking? Christ.

For the record, it's entirely possible to simultaneously agree with Barracker's critique and be friends with Debbie Hayton. I am one such, as Debbie would no doubt confirm.

I've never been lectured or tone policed by either Barracker or Debbie. Or told by either to amend my views for the sake of fucking kindness. Perhaps you might like to reflect on that.

Sarah Ditum
Thanks for coming on to this thread.

I agree that posters like Barracker and co are doing themselves no favours.

I think she's implying 'extreme' = bad
I think you need to come to terms with the environment we're in, which is very favourable to gender ideology. Flat out stating TWAM is "extreme". It just is. Sorry.
Not saying I agree with that but being referred to as "extreme" isn't an insult or mean it's just an acknowledgement.

HL is doing good work.

I agree with Baracker.

I agree with her that gender critical feminism needs to absolutely exile the tiny minority that is hostile to trans people.

Who? How does "hostility" to trans people manifest itself?

Is knowing that mammals cannot change sex, hostile to trans people?

You think I should be exiled but it's mean of me to protest?

Because although I'm not hostile I know that is what you need to determine me to be, because I don't believe in any exceptions.

Apparently my believing that Debbie Hayton should not have the right to force their presence in a public female changing room on my eleven year old daughter is... ungracious?

Why are you so keen to characterise women and girls with objections as the aggressors here?

Can you not allow even a chink of possibility that this is not about what we owe Debbie - but about what Debbie owes us?

Our rights, my rights, my child's rights to be recognised as a sex are not compatible with Debbie's desired rights to overrule our recognition as such in the circumstances Debbie has determined matter to Debbie.

Would you think me hostile if I shook Debbie's hand, wished a long and happy life, but declared myself an entirely different sex class from Debbie and immovable in my defence of my right to assert that in every circumstance that sex is relevant?

Debbie does not accept my right to differentiate myself and define my boundaries, nor my daughter's rights either.

I am not the aggressor. I am simply unwilling to sacrifice my own and my daughter's sex based boundaries to appease anyone.

Sarah Ditum here. Surprised and disappointed that this thread has turned into criticising Helen for not being robust enough. She's my editor. I would never have been able to write anything gender critical without her willingness to support journalism on this. She has personally taken huge flak - under her own name, not a pseudonym - for addressing the problems with gender identity doctrine and GRA reform. And I agree with her that gender critical feminism needs to absolutely exile the tiny minority that is hostile to trans people. It's cruel, it's ungracious to transwomen like Debbie Hayton who've stuck their necks out for women and GNC young people, and it allows people to instantly dismiss our arguments. Besides which, if you're going to snipe at Helen for being too nice, good luck convincing other women to go over the trenches on this publicly. It's nasty enough dealing with lost work, social ostracism and the threat of milkshaking without being shot in the back by anonymous feminists.

Barracker I agree with you.

Waves from beyond the pale.

Creating the legal fiction of sex change was the first - and crucial - mistake. With appalling consequences. I can't prioritise transexuals' rights as women over women's rights - men did that for us by deciding that the female sex would become an opt-in category untethered to biological reality. A particular type of mental illness, caused by patriarchal excess, cannot be the concern - let alone focus - of women's political movement to save our legal protections, resources and services.

Why can't those ostensibly paid to think this stuff through just...think?? We can't erect any kind of stable edifice of interconnected rights on the wonky foundation of the legal fiction of sex change. I know Rosa Freedman and Rosemary Auchmuty have been trying to protect transexuals' rights as women, while also protecting women's rights. I don't know that this niceness and self-abnegation and prostration before a legal fiction benefits women.

It leads me to wonder about the limits of law as regards women's rights, duties and freedoms. And, yes, it's frustrating to watch them running in circles.

BUT I have to remind myself that there's a wider historical lens through which to view the current chaos: not so long ago, women were men's chattel, and couldn't own property, and men could rape us in marriage with impunity, and have our kids taken from us with no recourse. We are, for the purpose of the law of England and Wales, just about human in some respects, albeit still a sex class exploited for our sexual and reproductive characteristics...How's that for a paradox?

It's true that, if sex loses it's legal meaning here, we are royally screwed. We aren't going to let that happen on our watch. And the circular motion will - I hope - resolve, leaving in place a woman-centred law.