Helen Islan at it again

I don't think it has anything to do with "oppressor classes".

Perhaps not, when it comes to privacy&dignity. It's just that you know they'd liken it to hypothetical racist white women feeling their dignity is somehow threatened by the presence of black women, which is a backwards as well as racist analogy.

Plus I tend to think that, if white women routinely and systematically degrade black women to the point that the latter feel their dignity is threatened by having to undress in the same spaces as white women, then they may want a white-free single-sex space, and that's okay, and a fair provision to make while we work on dismantling the whole sexist&racist system. So far as I know black women don't generally actually want this though.

The reason I mentioned is oppression is because MB et al would be positioning themselves in the inferior position in the social hierarchy as a result of their transness, rather than recognising that their own membership of the male class actually puts them in the dominant position in the whole scenario.

Agreed on the language points, but I'm being twittered at incessantly and can't expand on them!

And then we'll have to explain yet again that the oppressed class has the right to oppressor-free spaces but the converse isn't true because this is one of the ways we attempt to redress the balance of power; and it'll fly totally over their heads because they don't believe in class analysis or sex-based oppression.

I don't think it has anything to do with "oppressor classes". If no such thing existed, I think privacy between the sexes would still be a thing. That doesn't mean it looks the same in every culture, but it exists for reasons that are not about being safe or oppression.

I was reading an article the other day on race and the white working class, rather than women and sex, but it said something that I think is true in this case as well. When all you have to describe your problem is the language of discrimination, that is what you will use.

We've impoverished ourselves in the area of sex as well. In part because of the idea that we needed to be liberated from prudish idea that sex wasn't just an animalistic natural thing, and also in an effort to emphasise that men and women are essentially the same. The only language that people understand is safety and the hierarchy of oppression.

I'm not sure though what concepts people have in common enough to develop some new language that could be used. Dignity people barely understand, maybe respect would be better accepted. But even there, I think it's often an impoverished concept.

Is it that the so-called sexual revolution, that won some women the right to say ‘yes’, but made it a lot harder to say no and be heard, also sought to re-conceptualise having boundaries as old fashioned and unsuitable for modern women?

Yeah, that's my take. I don't think that perspective really believes dignity is a thing at all. I would put it in terms of a sense of sacredness around the body, but again, that's religious language, and won't fly in secular conversations.

having a right go at Susie Green on Twitter, about how Mermaids should be led by trans adults not by evil "cis parents"

I don't really understand it, but it appears nonetheless to be a fact, that they will absolutely turn on allies if they're not actually trans. And will still turn on them, if they're not the right kind of trans.

Aggravation and frothing seems to be more important than any actual goal.

She kept her head well down when trans donors to Mermaids from the USA and Canada were having a right go at Susie Green on Twitter, about how Mermaids should be led by trans adults not by evil "cis parents"

Ha, I didn't know that had happened, thats hilarious And of course, its correct according to the ideology.

The answer is simple really. Campaign for trans sessions , go to mixed sex sessions . Instead the beef is always with the single sex sessions

Quite. Its the pond thing all over again tbh. A male, and a mixed exists, so why insist on males being in the female one?! Any single sex space, for any reason is discrimination against transpeople, and anyone who agrees with single sex spaces (even the many transsexuals who support womens spaces..) is a horrid transphobic bigot.

Of course, you know they'd just drag race into it if you push the privacy and dignity line.

And the comparators will be completely backwards in their tantrums.

And then we'll have to explain yet again that the oppressed class has the right to oppressor-free spaces but the converse isn't true because this is one of the ways we attempt to redress the balance of power; and it'll fly totally over their heads because they don't believe in class analysis or sex-based oppression.

I'm game for the attempt though.

I think this is key. It has annoyed me for a long time, that most men and some women, only understand the issue with men in women only spaces in terms of safety.

Me too. Particularly because it leaves it open to the TRAs to come back with either "there's no safety issue, cis women abuse too" and/or "it's not faaairr to penalise trans women for what cis men do"

But tell me I don't have the right to privacy and dignity, you're going to look like the misogynist you are.

I honestly think we need to have a massive push for boundaries, privacy and dignity to be understood as not only acceptable, but actually desirable.

Yes, absolutely.

“‘Multiple exclamation marks,’ he went on, shaking his head, ‘are a sure sign of a diseased mind.’(Terry Pratchett in “Eric”)

But I think part of it is that in secular western society doesn't have a very clear or widely accepted consistent way to talk about privacy.

I think this is key. It has annoyed me for a long time, that most men and some women, only understand the issue with men in women only spaces in terms of safety.

Most people accept that the probability of being raped must be minimised. But the universal declaration of human rights names ‘privacy, dignity and safety’.

I think it is an interesting question why this culture seems unwilling or unable to understand the concepts of privacy and dignity other than for women of certain religions.

Is it, that men are actually very willing to agree that the mighty penis would surely be threatening to the penis-less half of humans, but the concepts of privacy and dignity don’t praise penis so they refuse to think about it?

Is it that the so-called sexual revolution, that won some women the right to say ‘yes’, but made it a lot harder to say no and be heard, also sought to re-conceptualise having boundaries as old fashioned and unsuitable for modern women?

That would certainly tally with the postmodern claims that we mustn’t kink-shame, sex-work is work, and primary school children should learn about masturbation.

I honestly think we need to have a massive push for boundaries, privacy and dignity to be understood as not only acceptable, but actually desirable.

Both incidents were on feminist blogs at the time but I'm not sure those blogs still exist, what with the way Wordpress etc have been shutting any criticism of TRA actions down.

I've now found an article about the cases ProdigalKitten mentions

www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/the_transgender_threat_to_boys_and_men_.html

The article itself is not that good, but it does have a few interesting links. Thanks for bringing them to my attention ProdigalKitten, and thanks OldCrone for your link.

[quote aliasundercover]@TheProdigalKittensReturn
There was an incident at a Korean spa in Chicago and a university's changing rooms somewhere in the US that I remember offhand
I've done a quick search, but I cannot find anything about this online. I don't suppose you have a link do you? I'd like to read more about it.[/quote]
This is the one I remember reading about - a transman who wanted to use a gay sauna.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/02/gay-sauna-criticised-telling-transgender-man-leave-female/

@TheProdigalKittensReturn
There was an incident at a Korean spa in Chicago and a university's changing rooms somewhere in the US that I remember offhand
I've done a quick search, but I cannot find anything about this online. I don't suppose you have a link do you? I'd like to read more about it.

In Helen's defence, sort of, I loathe the fact that religious minorities and races are used to justify why we should have single sex spaces. I really wish people would stop doing it. Likewise when celebrities try and shield themselves with men with "gender dysphoria". Women are just never enough.

Part of this is just strategic, people have been trained to see issues mainly in terms of identity groupings.

But I think part of it is that in secular western society doesn't have a very clear or widely accepted consistent way to talk about privacy. We can see how some religious groups clearly say that men and women are different and that sex is only meant to be between spouses, and so on, and that some people believe that deeply. But our own society tends to dismiss that the sexes differ much or at all beyond the shape of their reproductive organs, is casual about sex and sexualised images or clothing in public, and in fact a lot of the social consensus in recent years has been against single sex kinds of groups.

This is why sports is one area where people tend to be more easily convinced, they can see there is a real issue physically. Sometimes they can with safety. But most western liberals are inclined to see things like prvacy and dignity as socially learned and maybe even oppressive.

Some days I feel sorry for the women in the vanguard of attacking women's rights and protections, because so many of them believed a lie and did unconscionable things to their children under the guise of 'medical intervention', so I know their cognitive dissonance will be deafening and probably painful.

Other days I think that most women I know have suffered in one way or another and didn't turn that round to try and destroy other women, so Islan, Green, Jette Knox and all the other quislings bent on damaging other women can get stuffed.

I almost feel sorry for her, depending on what she has done to her child their really is no going back and she can't afford to have any doubts about her position.

And while you're at it, please explain the 'unfair' and 'unequal' treatment this lobby sees as wrongs in need of righting?

Mumsnet are desperate for trans people asking for fair and equal treatment to be labelled ‘Men’s Rights activism’,

The delusionality and denial is just baffling.

The lobby this Tweeter belongs to is not 'trans people asking for fair and equal treatment', but a lobby seeking to remove all female only spaces for all female people regardless of circumstance, because this benefits males. ie that the feelings and needs of a few males and their personal circumstances is always in every single circumstance, more important than the needs and situation and feelings of any female in the UK. The feelings and dignity and fairness for those males matters: yet the feelings and dignity and fairness of females is a lot of bad behaviour, lies and malice and should not be attended to. (Even when they are the same as the males.)

Please, someone, tell me where the fair and equal treatment is here for females?

Please, someone, give me some reason why this individual is somehow managing to call this privileging of males over females something different to male rights activism/male supremacism?

Anyone?

The situation for BAME and religious women is important. They are massively underrepresented in recreational sport (with consequential health and social isolation issues). Public bodies have a duty under s 149 Equality Act to pay due regard to needs of the potential and actual users of public services (and look at issues like why mixed services dont work for some BAME women) and make provision accordingly. The Southall Black Sisters case is very important about specialist provision www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71f60d03e7f57ea7eb0

I loathe the fact that religious minorities and races are used to justify why we should have single sex spaces.

You're right that we shouldn't have to invoke other protected characteristics in order to get our own needs met. But equally I think it's important to highlight the issues faced by women in some religious groups.

It's that whole intersectional wossname, isn't it? It's a subset of women who'll be actively prohibited by their menfolk and communities from accessing services, if those services aren't single-sex. I don't know if "secular privilege" is considered a thing but we owe it to our sisters who don't have it to make sure their needs are met too.

(End of that Scapigliata quote should be 'I know the type')

A Tale of Two Twitters:

1 - La Scapigliata on DARVO:

What this man did is called DARVO - typical reaction by abusive men, and sex offenders in particular, whereby when confronted with their crimes, they Deny the crime ever happened, they Attack the victim, alleging the victim was a liar or that she attacked him, Reversing Victim and Offender (DARVO). So when I see a man who is campaigning to force teen girls to toilet, shower, sleep next to fully genitally intact strange men, and these men call those girls “bigots” and the women who fight for safety of those kids “child molesters” (mobile.twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/1267775015900123138)

1. Helen Mimmymum on DARVO:

Mumsnet are desperate for trans people asking for fair and equal treatment to be labelled ‘Men’s Rights activism’, because in doing so, they can position themselves as the ‘victims’ rather than the aggressors they actually are! #DARVO. One of the essential objectives by ‘gender critical’ anti-trans campaigners is that they must be seen as the victims at all times.

This is the greatest trick privileged powerful abusers play, and allows them to be able to abuse trans people without scrutiny or criticism.

(twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1267588309045383169)

Helen tweeted Audible about Mumsnet saying that it is anti trans with no evidence except opinion pieces and tweets, and now she is promoting that article that is inciting violence against women... What kind of fools are Audible.