Article in The Critic

Lots of interesting things to think about. Thank you to those who take the time to write things out in such detail. I’ll come back to this discussion when I can give it the attention it deserves.

to the formidable women of FWR. Is there a collective noun for us? A coven? A nest, perhaps? Whatever it is, I’m glad to be in such intelligent, thoughtful and steadfast company.

But it doesn't challenge the idea that this group needs extra civil rights. Sarah Ditum seems to suggest that the current GRC process is too demanding.

I read that more as a call for feminists to stop focusing on GRCs, and the GRC process altogether, now that the self-ID fight fight appears to be over (at least for now - TRAs will keep pushing, and of course it is part of a worldwide push that has - apart from in the UK - received very little resistance).

I think she's signalling that GRCs are a distraction to the real issues we should be discussing, which have to do with the causes underlying the trans phenomenon. And I agree completely. If there's one thing I think we need the public to understand, it's that gender dysphoria is not one thing. It has different and complex causes in the different populations who are now claiming transgender status, especially in terms of age and sex. Is this being adequately addressed by the medical establishment, and are the needs of these different populations best served by current medical standards, or the trans rights movement? Clearly not. And yet, none of this is ever discussed, and everyone goes on talking as if 'trans' were one thing.

Right now, feminists who oppose the TRA agenda are seen as 'anti-trans'. We spend a great deal of time and energy (usually most of the very limited media space we are offered) explaining that we are not 'anti trans'. And the TRAs say, 'they oppose trans rights (as defined by us), so clearly they ARE anti-trans, as well as being hateful bigots who want our tiny minority group to die, etc.' It's a very unproductive conversation that is taking a huge mental toll on the women who are brave enough to engage in it publicly. Is it not time we tried to change things?

To be real, who cares if there is less red tape, or lower costs, around getting a GRC. It's still a legally instituted lie. Humans can't change sex, and governments cause all sorts of problems for society when they try to force the rest of us to pretend they can. BUT most of the public remain very sympathetic to people whom they believe were 'born in the wrong body', and they accept the trans movement's claims that GRCs and social accommodations are the best way to deal with this. Feminists know that isn't true, but it's up to us to convince others that an entirely different discussion needs to be held, and to do that we should move on from arguing about GRCs.

But why does nobody challenge the idea that extra civil rights should be awarded for people dressing as/impersonating/wanting to be the opposite sex, in the first place?

Why don't they ask what is gender dysphoria trying to solve?

And following on from that, why the hell don't they question why cross dressers, under the stonewall definition, are included in those extra civil rights?

Why is a sexual fetish being granted any kind of legal recognition?

I see what you are saying Datun and agree with it, but I think we aren't in a place right now where prominent GC journalists can ask these questions directly. Imagine if Sarah Ditum went on the radio and said, 'Why is a sexual fetish being granted any kind of legal recognition?' She'd be instantly accused of 'calling all trans people perverts' and probably never invited back. We need to find ways to open up the discussion that don't leave us vulnerable to media sensationalism or bad-faith attacks by TRAs.

I like Ditum's suggestions for public discussion points and her proposals for accommodations for trans-identified people (which would be opposed by TRAs, but would probably seem sensible to most people):

Dedicated services for trans people should be created in prisons and the refuge sector, in recognition both of women’s right to female-only provision and trans people’s right to provision that serves their particular circumstances.

There should also be increased funding for healthcare, with the understanding that healthcare entails a full exploration of differential diagnoses for patients who present with distress about their gender, especially when those patients are children.

There must be open scientific investigation into the causes of dysphoria, which seem likely to be very different in a 45-year-old male and a 14-year-old female.

And there should be long-term follow-up on the health implications of lifelong HRT for those who physically transition

Surely these are all proposals feminists can get behind, and if they were seriously discussed in the media and by politicians, imagine how radically they could change the whole tone and direction of the conversation! Instead of us having to have these endless ludicrous debates about whether women can have penises.

It was very interesting to me, when I've asked would you like to find a cure for gender dysphoria, who said yes and who said no.

Research into the causes, and those causes will be coming from wildly different places, would be very useful.

If that is indeed what Sarah's Ditum means, I'm right behind it.

In relation to young people, particularly female, who feel some variation of gender dysphoria, this thread brings up some very important points.

DonkeySkin

I think that is a really good analysis. I didn't read the article as going soft but as trying to reframe the debate because the current trench warfare won't achieve a final resolution.

DonkeySkin I havent read the Dittum article yet.
But your points are very clear and I am going to have to go away and think about that.

"teenage girls presenting to gender clinics constitute a completely different population to the heterosexual men who identify as 'trans women'. "
I think you are bang-on and I am afraid to say I hadn't thought about it like that.

The former are trying to get away from the attentions of the latter, and, some might say, the latter are trying to exploit the boundaries of the former.

Thank you, I can feel my head buzzing while I think about that.

I think this is a very interesting, forward-thinking article that is much more radical than it first appears.

Behind the soothing 'let's try to get along' rhetoric, Ditum is suggesting ways that feminists can change the whole narrative around 'trans rights', now that self-ID is off the table.

And God knows, it desperately needs changing. We are stuck in a loop of shouting about whether 'trans women are women' and whether predators will exploit self-ID. Meanwhile, the whole edifice of what 'trans' is goes undiscussed. The fact that trans identity has very different etiologies in men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, boys and girls, is unknown to the vast majority of the public.

So we cannot have a proper discussion about what legal rights should pertain to trans identity, until these things are understood. And of course, the last thing the TRAs want is an open and honest discussion of these factors. Right now, most people basically believe the narrative that some people are 'born in the wrong body' and need medical treatment and social acceptance to alleviate this.

There must be open scientific investigation into the causes of dysphoria, which seem likely to be very different in a 45-year-old male and a 14-year-old female.

I see what you did there, Sarah

Ditum is suggesting strategies for feminists to bring these discussion points out into the open. One major strategy she is pointing to is to stop focusing on the GRA and who should be allowed to legally change sex, and to start talking about other things, such as the sex and age disparities among different groups of 'trans', the long-term health effects of hormones on children, etc.

This will (she hopes) take some of the heat out of the debate, which will enable more people to pay attention to it and join in, as the sheer nastiness of the self-ID fight has put many people off engaging with it.

Of course, this nastiness was a deliberate strategy of the TRAs, and I've no doubt they'll apply it to ANYTHING that feminists do, but it might be harder for them to continue to do this if we frame our arguments in terms of health, science, etc, instead of warning about predatory men taking advantage of self-ID.

We often talk about 'trans people' as if they are a monolith, instead of making clear that the teenage girls presenting to gender clinics constitute a completely different population to the heterosexual men who identify as 'trans women'. Unfortunately, all the focus on men who identify as women, and whether men will take advantage of self ID laws, has left the conversation in a rut where the main question is whether 'trans people' constitute a 'threat'. Why ARE teenage girls with complex mental health problems being lumped under the same category as men with a paraphilia? Why are we referring to both groups as 'trans people' and talking about them as if their needs were the same?

Many Mumsnetters, including me, have posted that they think the GRA should be repealed (along with all laws worldwide that allow the legal fiction of 'sex change'). But we've never really discussed how to go about building support for that idea. In the current political climate, that feels like an impossible goal, and that is because although most people don't agree with self-ID, most people DO have a great deal of sympathy for trans-identified people. They think (not unreasonably) that their lives must be very hard, and they want to make things easier for them if possible. The trans movement is saying: 'this is what we need to make our lives easier'. It's a very simple message and no wonder many people accept it unquestioningly.

And to a lot of the public, it looks like feminists are saying, 'no, we don't want to make the lives of this group of people with significant vulnerabilities easier, we are going to keep repeating that humans can't change sex, etc.' This point is where gender-critical feminists appear out of step with public opinion. Not on whether you can actually change sex or not - everyone knows you can't.

What Ditum is saying is that we should start to question whether the TRA demands are genuinely going to help trans-identified people to comfortably exist within society. I know it seems an anathema to focus on 'trans' instead of women, but that is only true if you are equating 'trans' with men. 'Trans' includes women, it includes children, and especially increasing numbers of girls. These 'trans' people are indeed our priority, as much as all other women and girls, and it is right that we should be asking whether the current trans movement and its demands really serve their welfare.

Asking these kinds of questions takes the narrative out of TRA hands, allows for the debunking of certain propaganda, puts pressure on the medical industry to rein in the paediatric gender docs, and opens up the discussion to include the factors that are really driving the gender identity phenomenon, all of which are needed if we want to shift the momentum and change the cultural direction around 'trans'.

Ditum has been trying to strike some kind of Both Sides, Some TWAW type position for years, so nothing new there.

She needs to talk to some transwidows. Her suggestion for the spousal exit clause is way off the mark.

I've contacted Sarah about this and we're going to have a conversation about it, shortly. I'm in the horrors about it becoming something that Feminists suggest, going forward.

Oh sorry I didn’t mean to post that.

many people just don’t understand the bigger picture. Sometimes that because the

that seems at odds with what I would have expected from her. War weary and worn down? Wanting to bind wounds and offer the olive branch?
No, I think it's just that - despite what you read on here sometimes - GC feminists are not of a single mind. We've mostly pulled together for the last few years to fight off self ID becoming law. Now I think we'll start to see more disagreement.
It was happening on these boards too, until JK Rowling brought everyone together again.

I don't think it's a bad thing in itself - disagreement is inevitable and healthy - but I hope we don't take our eye off the ball before the game's even over.

At the moment the GRC process includes a requirement to 'live as the opposite sex'. How does a man 'live as a woman'? How is this different from living as a man?

She did talk about more scientific investigation into the cause of dysphoria. I thought that would address these points, or does it not?

Yes it would be great to address the causes of gender dysphoria. I suspect it would uncover all manner of homophobia, lesphobia, sexism, etc. Quite apart from helping the individual, I suspect it would be a bit of an eye-opener for society in general.

But that is separate to awarding extra civil rights to someone who suffers from it. They should have the same rights as everyone else. And they do.

If, for instance, an effeminate man transitions, because he is rejecting the toxic masculinity that is expected from him and finds that his softer nature fits better with his idea of a woman, why should anyone legitimise or endorse that? It's just sexism.

And that's the best case scenario.

What if you are an autogynephile and the idea of being sexually degraded as a woman, is arousing, because that's how you view women? We should give you extra civil rights? Instead of rejecting the concept as the rank misogyny it is?

On this, I'm just going to state

Whatever Datun says.

Interesting.

She did talk about more scientific investigation into the cause of dysphoria. I thought that would address these points, or does it not?

But it doesn't challenge the idea that this group needs extra civil rights.
Sarah Ditum seems to suggest that the current GRC process is too demanding.

"What there can be consensus around – once the ruinous extreme of self-identification has been dispensed with – is that the process of obtaining a GRC should be made as humane and accessible (and cheap) as possible."

Meaning what, another consultation? Or some 'minor' changes behind the scenes?

It's very easy to get the ball rolling on the GRC process. Hormones and surgery are not compulsory.

Datun is right. We are still stuck on the wrong questions.

The most interesting and surprising thing for me about that article is that it is written by Sarah Ditum. From what I know of her, she has been a doughty advocate and warrior for women's rights and protections for several years both on air and in print and has taken a hell of a lot of abuse - I'm sure I don't know the half of it. Perhaps that's why in the wake of the government's intention to drop the Miller nonsense, she is now putting forward a liberal proposal for reform that seems at odds with what I would have expected from her. War weary and worn down? Wanting to bind wounds and offer the olive branch? I don't know.
It seems like a lifetime ago I saw a so-called discussion programme on (I think) Channel 4 in which she was subjected to a barrage by a combination of a hopeless and partisan moderator, activist 'audience' and hecklers. Despite such maulings, she continued making the case and taking the flak, like other women who've kept on raising their voices in public.

Her comments about the politics that brought about the Miller debacle are interesting - Cameron and May wanting to be seen to be liberal and not the nasty party, takes us right back to the campaign for same-sex marriage. Both of them were against it but felt obliged to come out for it, eventually. The way she refers to 'anti-intellectualism' is a diplomatic way of saying - well, what I'd say! - that certain key people involved were simply too thick for the job. And add to that the political pressure from May or Cameron to give way to the same determined and emboldened lobby. It's still shameful how that parliamentary select committee for women and equality could conduct such a shoddy and shallow exercise.