Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Does anyone ever have a "are we the baddies"* moment?

662 replies

Menstrualcycledisplayteam · 27/02/2021 21:39

  • it's a Mitchell & Webb sketch, probably on Youtube.

I'm a bit disheartened this week, if I'm honest. I sometimes feel like this is a fight that we're just not going to win. Two main things recently, one personal, one geo-political I suppose.

On the geo-political level, I look across the Pond to the US, where the only people who are saying the same things as us are frigging Rand Paul and Marjorie Taylor Greene, neither of which are people that I associate my politics as being anywhere close to. There is just no bloody way that the Left, my home, will align with us now, given who our "allies" are in the States. They just can't, even those that agree with us will never position themselves as having the same concerns as Marjorie Q-Anon Parkland Taylor Bloody Greene.

The second is personal. I work for a large global organisation in a senior role. We had our Global Leadership "Away Day" a few weeks ago (on Teams, of course) and there was a presentation from some US colleagues on LGBTQ+, being able to bring your whole self to work, that kind of thing, from two gay colleagues, one lesbian one gay. So far, so good - absolutely the right thing for my organisation to be doing. Then they got onto pronouns and how everyone should start every meeting asking what pronouns attendees want to have used and encouraging everyone to put them in our email sign-offs. I'm never going to do that, but I can already see it happening around the organisation (particularly the US, but some of the easily led/want to be noticed over here will soon follow suit).

My husband won't listen to me talk about this sort of stuff anymore - he agrees with me, but says that it is basically like someone saying they "don't agree with all that Black Lives Matter stuff". My best friend works with young people and whilst I've tried to approach it with her very gently, including all of the stats about single sex spaces and how women and children's safety is negatively affected as a result, her reaction is that she gets all of that but she works with children every day who are tortured by their own bodies.

I know that our concerns are justified, I know that women's safety/opportunities are going to be negatively affected but - if I'm completely honest with myself - I just can't see how we're going to stop it. Julie Bindel has a tweet pinned to her feed which is basically that the misogyny at the moment is like a tidal wave and that's how it feels.

I'm not sure why I'm writing this really - certainly not to bring anyone down but there's no-one I can speak to about this in real life. How do you even go about discussing these things when, in my work at least, it would probably get me fired and everyone around me in my personal life has either bought into the nonsense hook line and sinker, or just doesn't want to hear it?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Mockolate · 28/07/2021 02:21

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

I cannot see the contradiction.
OK, fair enough.
PurgatoryOfPotholes · 28/07/2021 02:19

Women incarcerated in California’s largest women’s prison are describing the conditions as “a nightmare’s worst nightmare” after the introduction of new pregnancy resources in the Central California Women's Facility (CCWF) medical clinics. The new resources are a tacit admission by officials that women should expect to be raped when housed in prison with men, where all sex is considered non-consensual by default within the system.

New posters recently appeared in medical rooms outlining the options available to “pregnant people” in prison, including prenatal care, abortion, and adoption. The poster also declares that women have the right to “contraceptive counseling and your choice of birth control methods by a licensed health care provider within 60-180 days prior to scheduled release date.” However, the only methods available to incarcerated women to prevent pregnancy are condoms, which appeared shortly after the men, and Plan B emergency contraceptives. (Full poster text, as reported to us from inside).

Prior to the passage of SB 132, pregnancies among incarcerated women were vanishingly rare in California women’s prisons. Women who entered the justice system already pregnant are typically held in county jail or separate medical facilities until they give birth.

Women’s prisons across the state appear to be making final preparations such as these for a massive wave of transfers afternearly 300 requestswere initiated following SB 132 going into effect in January of this year. So far, only about 20 of the transfers have been processed (and exactly zero transfer requests have been denied) — leaving hundreds of men,many of whom are sex offenders, awaiting entry into the women’s estate.

Other secret policies have been put in place as the prisons brace for the influx of violent men. Trusted sources inside California Institute of Women (CIW) tell us that one reason for the backlog in transferring men who have requested transfer is the prison is making the men take a course in how to deal withtheir fears about living with women. In April, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) implemented a new mandatory 16-hour class as a prerequisite for any inmates wishing to transfer. (They also added two classes that the men must take after being transferred, but there are reportedly no consequences for failure to complete those courses.)

The facilities are also increasing security measures in preparation for potentially hundreds of new dangerous and violent men living alongside the vulnerable female inmate population. Women’s prisons have traditionally been lower-security and afforded more privileges to inmates since incarcerated women are less violent than men and pose a lower risk to Correctional Officers (COs) and each other. CCWF’s prison yard, for example, had been home for over three decades to trees which provided shade from the desert sun and a home to local birds. Once the men started coming, the trees were cut down, as they were seen as a security risk. (CCWF denies this happened, despite the first-hand accounts from incarcerated women). The security level of individual male inmates is otherwise completely disregarded once they enter the women’s facility, as prisons opt instead to remove privileges from all inmates.

We believe that all of these policies have been put in place in preparation for processing the over 200 remaining transfer requests. While prison officials may be doing their best to protect women while their hands are tied by the law, the onus of these new policies, as usual, falls largely on the women.

The men who wish to transfer need only take alaughable “Right Person, Right Prison” class— which covers hard-hitting topics like: “You may be asked questions, How will you handle that?”, “Trans fears of being housed with cis”, and “What’s in it for you?”. Apparently, CDCR believes this is an adequate way of screening the men requesting transfer to ensure that housing them with women is appropriate.

The women, meanwhile, are being prepared with free condoms and guidance on how to obtain an abortion in prison.

Speaking to Amie Ichikawa, founder ofWoman II Womanand advocate for incarcerated women, one woman currently housed in CCWF said it was like the prison had “given the okay for them to rape us, cause you have a plan to take care of the aftermath.”

At a recent CCWF Captains’ Meeting, one woman read a statement in which she pleaded for help and accused COs of ignoring their previous concerns about being housed with a serial rapist:

“How do we feel safe in our community? When we reach out for help we get nothing… There has been an assault on a woman and we still are silenced. We have had our hope taken away once again. Does anyone care that we are being forced to house with 6’2, 250+ lbs men with penises that are here for brutally raping women? We have been warned by the officials in this prison, more are coming with worse charges. Where is the safety concern for us. If we say we are in fear, we are the ones locked up.”

CDCRclaimedto have considered the risk of pregnancy during the development of SB 132, which allowed inmates to be housed according to their self-proclaimed “gender identity” regardless of their sex and anatomy. As men started entering the facility, however, the facilities seemed unprepared to handle the reality of a mixed-sex prison. Although sexual acts (even “consensual” ones) are prohibited and result in disciplinary action if caught, CCWF startedproviding condoms to inmates. However, there are strict rules regarding their usage including that inmates are not allowed to have more than three condoms on their person at a time, and unwrapped condoms are considered contraband.

The prison has been unable to prevent or stop sexual activity between male inmates housed with incarcerated women, though. Sources tell us there have been incidents of sexual assault, as well as illicit sexual activity between the male inmates and women, putting the women at risk of pregnancy and disease, including HIV, as well as increased risk of disciplinary actions that can affect chances of parole. Avoiding the negative consequences of sex between males and females is, of course, one reason why prisons are single-sex to begin with.

As more men arrive at the women’s facilities, the crisis will only worsen. In just six months since the enactment of SB 132, the number of incarcerated people self-identifying as trans or non-binary (thus becoming eligible to request a facility transfer) has increased from 1,088 to 1,237. The nearly 300 pending transfers are only the beginning of the invasion of women’s prisons by violent male inmates, including convicted murderers and rapists.

“You might as well declare the prison is co-ed and ship us off to Pelican Bay!” one devastated woman currently incarcerated in CCWF said.

WoLF is working closely with incarcerated women impacted by these policies, and we intend to fight from every angle to defend the rights of California’s incarcerated women.

Continues www.womensliberationfront.org/news/ca-womens-prisons-anticipate-pregnancy-sb123

Why don't people care about this more?

I've known for years that people didn't care that much about prisoner welfare, but this takes it to another level. People aren't just averting their eyes to avoid learning about it, they're ignoring the information after they've been told.

If you are in favour of separating prisons by gender instead of sex, how many extra rapes are an acceptable price to you for that change?

How many extra rapes would have to occur within women's prisons before you would oppose male prisoners being placed with female prisoners?

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 28/07/2021 01:56

I cannot see the contradiction.

Megasausagehead · 28/07/2021 00:49

🤦‍♀️

Mockolate · 28/07/2021 00:43

I do not believe that all males (which includes transwomen) are a danger and I do not feel threatened by all males. So, I do not hold a prejudice that all males are a threat.

OK, that seems a bit of an oxymoron though when coupled with this

not that all transwomen are a physical threat, but that they have the same offending patterns as other males.
and then all male people, regardless of how they identify, should be excluded from that space

You've just said they all should be banned just in case but they're not all a physical threat.
So not sure which is it then?

justaftb · 28/07/2021 00:24

@Mockolate

Unless you're coming at it from an all trans women are men and therefore BEWARE danger viewpoint....And if so, maybe an element of check your prejudices comes into play?

Well, yes, as per my final paragraph, I do believe that all transwomen are male. That is not a prejudice but a fact. I do not believe that all males (which includes transwomen) are a danger and I do not feel threatened by all males. So, I do not hold a prejudice that all males are a threat.

The gender critical argument is not that all transwomen are a physical threat, but that they have the same offending patterns as other males. If, for example, we agree that some single-sex spaces were created to protect vulnerable females from male people, then all male people, regardless of how they identify, should be excluded from that space.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 28/07/2021 00:13

For those who don't know about slop buckets, have a read.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/25/prisoners-use-buckets-toilets-slop-practice-supposed-have-banned/

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 28/07/2021 00:06

extract

One in 50 inmates in adult male prisons now claims to be transgender

Trans convicts entitled to shower and sleep alone, and have separate clothing

Claims rapists are abusing the system because of how easy it is to claim you are trans, claims 'real' trans inmate

Paedophile Gary Cooper (now Carrie) is now comfortably serving 20-year sentence as a woman

Among the prisoners at Littlehey jail in Cambridgeshire is an inmate called Carrie Cooper. In a previous life on the outside, Carrie Cooper was delivery driver Gary Cooper, a paedophile whose crimes included the rape and abduction of a young girl.

But Cooper is serving her sentence, totalling more than 20 years, as a woman after changing her identity following her imprisonment in 2011.

There are only two possible explanations for the dramatic rise. Either the figures, based on questionnaires circulated in prisons, are a true reflection of the demographic in our jails.

Or the system — more in tune, supposedly, with modern Britain — is being exploited in growing numbers by criminals with ulterior motives.

The fact the ‘one in 50’ statistic is more than ten times previous Home Office estimates, and at least four times the proportion in the general population, suggests the latter.

Which brings us back to Carrie Cooper. Has she genuinely ‘transitioned’ or is she playing the system?

Inside Time, a newspaper for prisoners, has received dozens of letters about this issue.

The following is from an inmate who describes herself as a ‘genuine trans prisoner’ and who, until recently, was held at Littlehey — the same jail as Carrie Cooper.

‘The sickest part of this is that the system can do sod-all about these trans bandwagon jumpers, because the policy states they must be treated as transgender prisoners if they say they are.

‘I have had staff and other inmates express their disgust to me (a genuine trans prisoner) over this behaviour.

‘It is trans imposters who give real transgender people a bad name, in and out of prison. To genuine trans people — stay strong.’ The author, whose name was supplied to the paper, said she knew of ‘17’ fellow prisoners who had jumped on ‘the trans bandwagon’.

As a member of the ‘trans community’ herself, she cannot be easily dismissed or undermined by accusations of bigotry and transphobia, insults often used by the transgender lobby to discredit critics.

Continues: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7287343/PAUL-BRACCHI-1-50-inmates-male-prisons-claim-transgender.html

There are two possibilities here. Either everyone is who they say they are, and these people are genuinely transgender, or some/most are lying.

Which is it? Maybe you don't mind who you share a room with, but if your daughter, sister, or mother was in prison, do you think she might find it even more humiliating to us a slop bucket (that is, a chamber pot) in front of a non-female cellmate?

Jorriss · 28/07/2021 00:05

Unless you're coming at it from an all trans women are men and therefore BEWARE danger viewpoint.

Well obviously all transwomen are men by definition. So we have sex segregated space for a reason. Can you let me know which males / transwomen are safe to let into womens spaces? Because I can't tell just by looking at them. I don't think anyone can. But knowing that males are responsible for the majority of violent / sexual assault, (no matter how they identify) then there's a good reason to have sex segregated space isn't there. Probably safer in that case to keep sex segregated space as it always was. Rather than gender segregated space.

BrandineDelRoy · 27/07/2021 23:58

Sorry, I meant "or none?"

BrandineDelRoy · 27/07/2021 23:57

@Mockolate

The resistance against gay rights was rooted in the moral repugnance that homosexuality was 'unnatural' that prevailed at the time (and that continue to prevail in some places). Resistance was not based on reason or fact.

OK, can get on board with this
but how is it that being trans is automatically a threat?
Unless you're coming at it from an all trans women are men and therefore BEWARE danger viewpoint.
And if so, maybe an element of check your prejudices comes into play?

Are only some transwomen men?or non?
334bu · 27/07/2021 23:45

Unless you're coming at it from an all trans women are men and therefore BEWARE danger viewpoint.And if so, maybe an element of check your prejudices comes into play?

Are you saying all men are dangerous or that transwomen are never dangerous? Prejudiced against who?

FloralBunting · 27/07/2021 23:45

Mockolate, why do you think single sex provision exists? Because, it seems that unless you understand that it exists to give women safety and opportunity because men as a class are a danger to women, and have significant biological advantages in our society set up, then you're gojng to be forever missing the point.

Women need to be able to exclude males from some things, however those males feel.about their own identity. That's the basis for all of this. 'Trans' is simply a distraction side show. I don't really care about gender identity, but sex matters.

Mockolate · 27/07/2021 23:38

The resistance against gay rights was rooted in the moral repugnance that homosexuality was 'unnatural' that prevailed at the time (and that continue to prevail in some places). Resistance was not based on reason or fact.

OK, can get on board with this
but how is it that being trans is automatically a threat?
Unless you're coming at it from an all trans women are men and therefore BEWARE danger viewpoint.
And if so, maybe an element of check your prejudices comes into play?

justaftb · 27/07/2021 23:31

No. Have never felt like a baddie.

Critics like to equate current gender critical views and past widespread homophobia. The resistance against gay rights was rooted in the moral repugnance that homosexuality was 'unnatural' that prevailed at the time (and that continue to prevail in some places). Resistance was not based on reason or fact.

I have seen no moral arguments against gender identity theory that are based on disgust put forward by the leading voices in gender critical thinking. I have not had any conversation around this topic where disgust has been a factor in someone's objections to gender identity politics. Religious people who are anti gender identity politics may have a moral objection, but despite attempts to align all gender critical people with the American right, I see the movement here in the UK being driven by liberal centrists, leftwing feminists and rightwing feminists.

The starting point for gender critical thinking is the recognition of the established scientific fact that biological sex is immutable. All humans are either XX or XY. People with disorders of sex development are still either XY or XX. That is not a moral position. To state that someone is a biological male or female is not a moral judgement. It is a statement of fact.

Mockolate · 27/07/2021 22:43

Pretty arrogant and presumptuous to question whether something refers to you then decide that it did, before the poster can affirm or not

Seeing as the poster was referring to me before, and putting words in my mouth, and nobody has had any "other" opinion since, it's pretty clear who they meant.
Happy to be corrected though if wasn't to me.

Megasausagehead · 27/07/2021 22:42

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

CardinalLolzy · 27/07/2021 22:31

Going back on topic, I think @QuimReaper and @Siblingquandary had some good points.
I doubt most people on here fully agree on each and every thing. But most agree that sex is the basis of women's oppression and that that matters. Where that leads you is down to you.

CardinalLolzy · 27/07/2021 22:29

Pretty arrogant and presumptuous to question whether something refers to you then decide that it did, before the poster can affirm or not, in order to go on to insult them and put words in their mouths.
But hey.
That's just my thoughts.
I see which questions don't get answered, just lazily deflected. (In general, on this board).

Mockolate · 27/07/2021 22:23

But if the PP read that and educated themselves, who could they then bully?

Are you referring to me again seeing as I'm a previous poster you seem to be randomly saying stuff at I haven't even said?
If so, I haven't bullied anyone.
Anywhere.
Just put my thoughts on here.
Plus pretty arrogant and presumptious to presume I haven't read up articles, and if I disagree with you it must mean I'm uneducated or whatever the heck it is you're implying now.

NotTerfNorCis · 27/07/2021 22:02

And I can still not understand the attraction for skittles.

Nasty gooey things. M&Ms are much nicer.

RufustheBadgeringReindeer · 27/07/2021 22:02

I think i was still at the ‘stamp’ collecting level to be honest helleofabore 😀

Helleofabore · 27/07/2021 22:01

NotTerfNorCis

And I can still not understand the attraction for skittles.

Helleofabore · 27/07/2021 21:58

RufustheBadgeringReindeer

It was very ‘in’ at the time in my part of the world… Grin

CuriousaboutSamphire · 27/07/2021 21:51

@NotTerfNorCis

SWAKCTLWS

Okay I'm stumped... Googling just brings up hits about Skittles!

Hella explained her 10 year old self's reasoning just a couple of posts up 😁