Deleted/censorship on mumsnet now!

Perhaps the first step is a strict sensible legal definition of what a Transwoman or Transmam is so that we can get out from under this bloody umbrella.

The former is a subset of men and the latter is a subset of women. Regardless of cosmetic surgeries or other interventions and despite any and all attempts to change language to subjectivity so that it is impossible to use with clarity.

This is not only my protected belief but also material reality.

Hope that helps.

Any attempts at force teaming are just bloody rude. Leave women out if it, and give us back our language as well as our single sex spaces.

Uncommon Ground Media
'Forced Teaming, Feminism, LGB and ‘Trans Rights’
May 25, 2020 Dr Em

(extract)
Forced teaming is a term employed by those who work on abuse, grooming and predation. It was originally coined by Gavin De Becker in his work The Gift of Fear and is also used as a concept regarding criminal activity such as con-artists and romantic scamming. The predator will create the idea that there is a shared goal, or an attitude of we are all in this together, we are allies, in order to disarm, gain trust and manipulate his target. The social contract that most people have been educated or raised in – that we should try not to offend others, be polite, be accommodating – makes forced teaming incredibly difficult to resist. In general, we don’t want to be rude and say ‘actually, your problems or goals are different to mine and so no, we should not work together’ or ‘no, I don’t feel comfortable with this’. The shared goal can be, on an individual level, as small as a man helping carry shopping to a woman’s apartment in order to gain access and rape her. Forced teaming confuses our intuition and disarms us to threat. Jennifer Lombardo wrote in Abusive Relationships and Domestic Violence ‘people use words such as “we” and “us” to trick others into thinking they are part of a team’ when they aren’t. It builds trust when none should be there. Forced teaming, when applied to movements, can be as large as many men claiming feminism should work towards their goals not women’s, or that the LGB should work towards heterosexual entitlement." (continues)

uncommongroundmedia.com/forced-teaming-feminism-lgb-and-trans-rights/

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

Quite right Titbom and Fallingirl.

'The importance of language when talking about transgenderism: Julia Long'
19 August 2020
Women's Human Rights Campaign (WHRC)

"This talk was given by Julia Long during the launch of Women's Declaration in Germany."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlwKCfB5FVs

How men who prefer to think of themselves as something other than men define themselves should not be women’s problem to fix. Any attempts at force teaming are just bloody rude. Leave women out if it, and give us back our language as well as our single sex spaces.

In this 2017 speech Dr Julia Long (at the first We Need To Talk) highlights the importance of naming male violence within the context of feminist theory & history.

(extract)
"So why then is it important to make this distinction between sex and gender and why is it important to name men as men? Naming men as man was such a vital part of the women's liberation movement and feminist scholarship back in those early days. There were lots of books that had 'silence' in the title or essays that had 'silence' in the title because it was about women breaking the silences of our own lives and naming who was doing what to whom, and then seeing that there were patterns of this and that is how feminist theory emerged. So it's really crucial to name men as men because that is how we develop an understanding and an analysis of patriarchy. That's how. If we can't name men as men then we can't name patterns of male violence, we can't name who is in control.

So naming men as men, then, enables us to answer these kinds of questions: Who controls economic, social, political and cultural systems and institutions? In whose hands does this kind of economic and social and political power lay? Well, if we can name men as men then we can see exactly where it lies. And it also helps us to answer the question, who's doing what to whom? And so again, over decades, feminists have answered that question in terms of looking at what we know women are subjected to under patriarchal power relations between women and men: femicide, female infanticide, sex-selective abortion, female genital mutilation, rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, poverty, economic disadvantage, prostitution, pornography, discrimination, objectification - I'm thinking here in addition to all the sex industry, but just the normalised objectification of high heels and make up and cosmetic surgery and all of this stuff - illiteracy - hugely more of the world's poor and illiterate are women rather than men - denial of reproductive rights, exploitation of reproductive and domestic labour ... I mean that was just a kind of quick list off the top of my head." (continues)

transcription by pencilsinspace
pastebin.com/nGwr3i4U

**copyright permissions available

No group of males gets to define themselves as anything that by extension redefines women and girls in any way.

Leave us out of it, and identify as any subgroup of men you like. I don’t really care. What we need is a definition of women and girls that excludes all males, and policies should follow from that.

The Equality Act doesn’t work for women and girls anymore because it leaves it optional for institutions, services and businesses whether they wish to use a definition of women and girls that excludes everyone who is male, or not.

As is becoming ever more evident, including on this thread, we have to now have legislation that protects females as females.

How men who prefer to think of themselves as something other than men define themselves should not be women’s problem to fix. Any attempts at force teaming are just bloody rude. Leave women out if it, and give us back our language as well as our single sex spaces.

Some bedtime reading 👍 thanks.

Jorrris You are very welcome, the doctors who were contemporaries of John Money provide important context and insight. Money's influence cannot be underestimated. The idea of a 'gender identity' is his creation.

Dr Em's articles are also well worth reading to understand better the roots of this movement.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3896788-Important-series-of-articles-by-Dr-Em-Sexist-History-at-the-Heart-of-the-Science-on-Transsexualism-Part-I-Benjamin-Ihlenfeld-Money-Ehrhardt

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3900484-Dr-Em-article-Sexist-History-at-the-Heart-of-the-Science-on-Transsexualism-Part-II-Robert-Stoller-True-Trans-an-ideology-which-is-antithetical-to-feminism

R0wantrees thanks for the link. That's quite an eye opener.

Perhaps the first step is a strict sensible legal definition of what a Transwoman or Transmam is so that we can get out from under this bloody umbrella.

I disagree. I think the words 'transwomen' and 'transmen' should cease to be used. They give a false impression that they have something in common with the opposite sex - that transwomen are a type of woman rather than a man.

But that used to mean transexuals with severe dysphoria. Now there is no one, consistent, cohesive, logical meaning in the new 'gender identity'
How can there be, when the entire ideology is based on every individual's entirely subjective, completely unprovable feelings?

This lecture by Quentin Van Meter details how the ideology was covertly made policy across the board in the USA and beyond.

"At the Teens4Truth Conference, Ft. Worth, TX, Nov. 18, 2017. A physician who was in the Johns Hopkins Univ. Hospital group where "transgender medicine" was developed describes the lies, bad medicine, and fraud behind that movement. Quentin Van Meter, MD, FCP is a pediatric endocrinologist. He is a Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists."

Stonewall are an influential campaigning group in the UK, however it is a relatively small (but significant) part of an international movement. It is a mistake to see it as "the problem" when it is a symptom and single example of widespread institutional capture.

Perhaps the first step is a strict sensible legal definition of what a Transwoman or Transmam is so that we can get out from under this bloody umbrella

But that used to mean transexuals with severe dysphoria. Now there is no one, consistent, cohesive, logical meaning in the new 'gender identity'
How can there be, when the entire ideology is based on every individual's entirely subjective, completely unprovable feelings?

There is sex. Binary. Non changeable. Easy to segregated by. Protects females.

What is gender? Because it seems to be mostly about wanting to present as the stereotype of the opposite sex.
So then what about all the other hundred genders?
Do we need non binary toilets? Toilets for make up wearers? People who wear trousers? Long hair havers?

If 'gender' isn't sex, (the one thing we appear to agree with TRA's on) or about sex, then why on earth do males actually need access to female anything? Sex segregated spaces? Clue is in the name.

We are now in a position where across the globe, women and children are being legally forced to provide validation for adult male identities. Based on nothing but their say so.

Perhaps the first step is a strict sensible legal definition of what a Transwoman or Transmam is so that we can get out from under this bloody umbrella.

@Imasoulman

This is the thing I've struggled with this whole time though - do you think a workable definition can actually be agreed on?

[quote R0wantrees]I know lots of Trans people don't agree with Stonewall because I talk to them.

By " We" I mean " Us" Trans people and Feminists, Women and Trsns are both being damaged by them.

Stonewall was persuaded by transactivist lobbygroups to take on their campaigns. The damage that has been done to Safeguarding frameworks and women's sex based rights pre-dates capture of this particular UK LGB charity.

relevant thread:
AngryAttackKittens wrote, Thu 03-Jan-19
"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."

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

I understand and accept that but Stonewall are the current driver of what is happening, they are the figurehead.
I believe change starts there.

I know lots of Trans people don't agree with Stonewall because I talk to them.

By " We" I mean " Us" Trans people and Feminists, Women and Trsns are both being damaged by them.

Stonewall was persuaded by transactivist lobbygroups to take on their campaigns. The damage that has been done to Safeguarding frameworks and women's sex based rights pre-dates capture of this particular UK LGB charity.

relevant thread:
AngryAttackKittens wrote, Thu 03-Jan-19
"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."

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

[quote AlfonsoTheMango]**@Imasoulman* - The concept of AGP has only been around for a couple of decades so if anything was a euphemism which it's not, it would be the other way around.*

No, it has been around for centuries. It took Blanchard to study the phenomenon and give it a name.

The sooner we all stop worrying about what Stonewall say the better.

Worrying about what Stonewall say? Given their reach and influence, that is impossible.

They are only motivated by the need of a financial revenue nothing else, they won the battle for Gay equality and suddenly found themselves redundant and so took up the Trans banner.

Yes, we know that.

Most sensible Trans people know that Stomewall do more harm than good.

Where is your evidence for this statement?

Somehow we need to make government aware that we don't want or need Stonewall.

Who is the "we" of which you speak? Transpeople? Are you doing so?[/quote]

The phenomenon may have been around for ages but the concept is fairly new.

It's not impossible to discount Stonewall or any other organisation if the will is there and the people bring enough pressure to bear change can happen.

I know lots of Trans people don't agree with Stonewall because I talk to them.

By " We" I mean " Us" Trans people and Feminists, Women and Trsns are both being damaged by them.
Yes I do my best to explain my point of view all the time.

Excellent posts Fallingirl.

It really is odd that it never used to be a difficult concept, request or convention that female spaces and services were only for females and male spaces and services were for males. No genital inspections were required.

Now, as you quite rightly say, the sense of entitlement and the inability of men to hear or accept the word no and who wilfully and totally dismiss the concept of consent has caused the problems we are facing now.

Adult and juvenile females - women and girls - need, want and are entitled to single sex spaces and services that remain resolutely single sex, no males however they identify allowed access. Women and girls are not on this earth to serve as validation tools, human shields or collateral damage for men. The word is NO, consent is NOT given. Men: hear it, accept it and abide by it.

I don't know of a unified group with a strong enough voice to be heard.

There are however huge numbers of Trans people that are just as anti Stonewall as most of the women here.

We see what is happening to the youngsters and it alarms us as well.
Many of us understand that single sex spaces are important and actually respect them.

I could go on but the point is on most points the average Trans person is on the same page as the average feminist.

Change needs to happen and yes we need a voice to do that.
Pressure has to be bought to bear on the government, legislation has to change. Perhaps the first step is a strict sensible legal definition of what a Transwoman or Transmam is so that we can get out from under this bloody umbrella.
Compromises have to be made but at this point it's the Trans community that need to make them, women have lost to much already and are rightly to angry to accept any less.

There needs to be a sensible level headed alliance working towards the same goals.

It's going to be a long process but I for one will keep plugging away, I will start the conversation on a few of the more sensible forums maybe someone more capable than me will be inspired.

Sex segregated spaces used to work without legislation or underwear police at the entrance. Social convention used to be enough.

Sadly, men have now demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to respect women enough for social convention to be enough.

It is supremely arrogant of men to get testerical about “inspectors at toilet doors”, and in usual darvo manner pretend it is women who want this. It is men who have demonstrated that men cannot be trusted. It is men declaring that they will access women’s toilets by force or by stealth.

Men have brought about the issue we are now facing, that society regrettably has to put much more effort into keeping men aways from spaces where women and children are vulnerable.

I am not naive enough to believe everything was rosy in the past, I can just judge the present, where we can now see very clearly that men are making a massive “land grab” into the few spaces that were women’s alone. And this has made it clearer that we need to, as a society, put more carfeul thought into keeping males at bay.

Whether the men wanting access to women’s spaces are sexually motivated or driven by something else, society needs to step up and probably legislate where up until now it was thought social norms would be sufficient.

Males on these very threads keep demonstrating why the boundaries around women and girls spaces have to be tighter not looser.

@Imasoulman - The concept of AGP has only been around for a couple of decades so if anything was a euphemism which it's not, it would be the other way around.

No, it has been around for centuries. It took Blanchard to study the phenomenon and give it a name.

The sooner we all stop worrying about what Stonewall say the better.

Worrying about what Stonewall say? Given their reach and influence, that is impossible.

They are only motivated by the need of a financial revenue nothing else, they won the battle for Gay equality and suddenly found themselves redundant and so took up the Trans banner.

Yes, we know that.

Most sensible Trans people know that Stomewall do more harm than good.

Where is your evidence for this statement?

Somehow we need to make government aware that we don't want or need Stonewall.

Who is the "we" of which you speak? Transpeople? Are you doing so?

Just like those posters who were pushing the agenda for 'genital inspectors at the doors' cannot acknowledge that what they are really saying is that males who identify as women will simply continue to ignore the needs of females and any laws that have been put in place to support those needs of females. It is actually a transphobic thing say.

I don’t care whether any given man has removed his penis or any other body part. I will never feel at ease with any man in a women’s hospital ward, changing room, homeless shelter etc.

Men really are a penis obsessed lot. A man is still bigger and stronger than a woman after removing any body parts.

But more than any other body parts, it is their heads that are the problem. We know women’s bodies have always been considered fair game for men to gawp at. We know that women’s time and attention has always been considered a resource that men can freely avail themselves of. We know that too many men get a kind of sick kick out of breaching women’s boundaries. We know that too many men believe they have a god given right to breach women’s boundaries.

With or without genitalia, it is that assumption that they have a right to override the boundaries of women and girls that should exclude them from all women only spaces.

It is not the presence or absence of a penis, but the presence of the sense of entitlement, that should exclude all males.

Ironically, if any male should be allowed to use a women only space, say in some kind of emergency, it is those who would be mortified and feel most strongly that they shouldn’t be there, that could be allowed in. In an emergency.

So if there is one body part that by its removal could give males access to women only spaces, let it be the head.

The last few posts have very eloquently put how the majority of us feel on this thread. Do you see how our lived experiences are being denied and safe spaces infiltrated? What do you have to say in answer to that @onelittlefrog?

There seems to be absolutely no concept of the level of double standards shown here. It’s almost funny. Except everyone’s going down the rabbit hole

And those who were pushing those double standards simply never come back and answer. I am sure that they are so entrenched that they simply cannot ever acknowledge their prejudice.

Just like those posters who were pushing the agenda for 'genital inspectors at the doors' cannot acknowledge that what they are really saying is that males who identify as women will simply continue to ignore the needs of females and any laws that have been put in place to support those needs of females. It is actually a transphobic thing say.

Still, their intention is not to persuade either the posters or the very many readers of the thread. We know that.