Annaliese Dodds: "sex and gender are different"

First para should have been a quote, sorry.

TRAs have been railroading organisations and political parties using 2 key mechanisms - 'no debate' and 'trans women are women'. This is what allowed them to get as far as they have with establishing 'norms'. The ones pulling the strings knew that this strategy might not last, and knew that 'removing rights' was an important back up.

You missed “trans people have always existed” and “you’re denying trans people’s existence” coupled with a determination to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that they are including both individuals with genuine dysphoria and erotic cross-dressers in that umbrella term, so that the sympathy which the public feel for dysphoric individuals can be appropriated by erotic cross-dressers to avoid any challenge, scrutiny to acknowledgement of their motivations.

I note that there’s a thread now which seeks to brand as bigots anyone who finds Helen Joyce’s analysis of the term “trans” persuasive.

They were asking for listeners’ ideas for topics yesterday, I emailed them suggesting they discuss this.
Not holding my breath though!

Just look at the Hampstead Pools.

There are three pools. They used to be: male sex; female sex; both sexes.

They could have renamed the mixed sex pool as “all genders” to be “inclusive”.

But no, a female-only facility could not be allowed to exist; it had to be ceded to the Male Sexual Entitlement lobbyists. So now it’s: male only; mixed sex; mixed sex.

Except they're not competing rights. It's women's rights and TRA demands. The "competing rights" narrative is designed to make us think we have to bargain. We don't. They have to stop just demanding our rights as theirs

I mean Guardian article

Although…

That Labour article has managed to annoy me more than most things so far

The idea you slightly irritate both sides in a bid for votes because you know you have an issue. Fark

Ok take ‘keep the Equality Act provisions that allow single-sex spaces like domestic violence refuges or rape counselling services to exclude the opposite sex, where that’s a proportionate means to legitimate ends – essentially, when you couldn’t reasonably provide the service otherwise’

What happens elsewhere? Which spaces mean the equivalent of a GP note (if that) where men gain access

And this last line

’The ultimate reward for going through this painful process is that in a decade’s time the nation hopefully looks back – as we did with gay marriage, and countless other LGBT reforms – and wonders why extending trans rights ever seemed so controversial.’

What does that mean in reality? That women have finally rolled over and accepted loss of rights. As extending trans rights always means a clash with women’s. And framing it with gay rights is always the gotcha from the classic TRA. That they try to look balanced to suck women in is more the insult.

I’m reminded of that line by Starmer - ‘take the public with you’. Throw a few slops out, refuse to answer questions and let women sleep walk into their own reduction of rights

Honestly they can jump. Fed up with the gaslighting on a grand scale.

This.

Not sure what the point of the doctor is anyway. You can’t physically change sex, trans it’s not considered a mental condition anymore as much as a political right.
Better off going to the local council and getting a license to say you are changing gender officially.

Emma Barnett seems to be the only Woman’s Hour presenter who will tackle these issues and she’s on maternity leave. Anita Rani is full on TWAW…I used to listen to WH a lot, but I can’t bear its refusal to address what I and many others think is one of the most important issues to women of our day, for fear of offending the Traliban.

You can imagine that would have happened many years ago - when Jenni Murray was a presenter - but somehow i think that would be a step too far for the BBC now. It would lay bare the reality that most MTF are now AGPs.

I think we'll have to rely on the print media for those sorts of revelations for the forseeable future.

RebelliousCow · Today 09:42
Regarding the spousal veto.....Discussion of this needs to be ramped up so that the public are fully aware of the nature of AGP, and of the stories of the increasing number of women and families being held hostage by their obsessive and narcissicstic husbands

Has Woman’s Hour ever made a programme about thus? It is a good subject for a women’s programme.

JoyceMeadowcroft1 · Today 09:29

my focus is on ensuring there are safe and dignified spaces for women and girls based on sex segregation

I think that is most people’s aim. However, laws would need to be changed or amended to make sex segregation legally possible, especially if there were an increasing number of GRC holders following from a one doctor rule.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Labour Party members did not seem to back up the position to make clear sex in the EA is biological sex (which trumps a GRC) during the debate.

Regarding the spousal veto.....Discussion of this needs to be ramped up so that the public are fully aware of the nature of AGP, and of the stories of the increasing number of women and families being held hostage by their obsessive and narcissicstic husbands.

I think it not just about male to female but also young girls who are being impacted female to male - this is equally important. The manipulation of the public in the guise of "be who you want to be" is appalling and this is why I feel there needs to be a hard line taken.

TRAs have been railroading organisations and political parties using 2 key mechanisms - 'no debate' and 'trans women are women'. This is what allowed them to get as far as they have with establishing 'norms'. The ones pulling the strings knew that this strategy might not last, and knew that 'removing rights' was an important back up.

Labour have conceded that there is a debate (there are competing rights) and they are using the term 'biological women'. Some TRAs are spitting feathers and churning out arguments that have now been lost.

The fight is now about what to about competing rights, and the brighter TRAs will focus on this. They will highlight that their rights are being eroded (eg for 10 years they have done x and now it's being proposed that they can't). Whilst arguments can be made that this shouldn't have happened, the issue is that it has and therefore a precedent can be set.

I think the GC argument will carry more weight when focussed on what females need and should have a right to. I think focussing on the ins and outs of the trans side of things is a waste of time and can be used to diminish the GC position (eg we are impacting on trans people). This is a negative/problematic by product of single sex spaces, but isn't the concern of females.

There are plenty of people willing and able to fight for trans people to have fulfilling lives. I'm genuinely happy for them to work on this. In the meantime, now there is debate and a recognition that sex and gender are different, my focus is on ensuring there are safe and dignified spaces for women and girls based on sex segregation.

If they make it easier to get a grc, still medicalised but just one Doctor, blokes will just shop around for a twaw Doctor. I can think of a few. Their names will be passed around on SM. And, as pp have asked, what is the point of a grc anyway? We've essentially got self id anyway.

Annelise Dodds tried to circumvent any critique or analysis of her own cynical f proposal by suggesting there would be "bad faith" arguments aagiants it. Anyone with a critique or who points out the flaws will be a " bad faith" actor.

This Self Id fudge is meant to represent a good faith move by Labour - and the hope is that an uneducated, blissfully unaware public will buy that.

I agree that the whole issue has become messy which is why I feel there needs to be very hard line imposed - I feel that the way this ideology has crept into the public domain and become accepted has manipulated the public and caught many unaware. My view is clear - male and female are not the same, no movement between the two, no crossover.

Case by case all sounds lovely.

But the reality is that everything for women has been intentionally made a hostile target by a political lobby with no conscience, no interest in or care for women, with their only focus being capture, control and compliance to the interests of men.

Those services have been searched for, harassed, threatened with legal action, innundated with emails and phone calls (I'm remembering the refuge where the lobby and its flying monkeys intentionally bombarded with calls with the plan of making the staff's life a living hell, and ensuring that they could not help their clients - you know, women at risk of their lives in extreme distress - because they ought to be dropping everything and saluting the new boss.) Smeared all over social media, lied to about how the law worked and what would happen to them for non compliance.

Small groups such as lesbian groups, women's support groups for health conditions only affecting females, small rape survivor support groups, have had to disband and go underground to escape these men determined to force these women to operate under their control. And it has been that hostile . Many women's groups initially trusted and did their best to treat these men as women, and discovered that the men were not interested in joining, but in using. The group became untenable for the women, but that did not matter because the men only wanted the group and the women for their own need-meeting, they had no fucks to give about their impact or how mere women were affected.

The local authorities and charities increased the pressure by intentionally controlling funding, so that unless a service complied, obeyed and shouted that they Loved Big Brother, they lost funding and contracts and went out of business.

This has been a fucking war.

The politician in the tweet above nailed it. This is ALL ABOUT forcing women to do the bidding of autogynephilic men. And it is abhorrent. As abhorrent as destroying women's groups and services because those women wanted to help women and not focus solely on being compliant props in male identity needs.

There is no good will anywhere in this movement towards women. No tolerance. No mutual care. No interest at all. Just rage and punishment and derogation and sneering. And yet women are still being reproachfully scolded to say please sir, may I have another.

Fuck that. Any woman without a major problem with that is in dire need of doing the Freedom Programme, and any man without a major problem with that IS the fucking problem.

Serious question - what is the point of a GRC anyway if no one can ever ask to see it and just have to take someone's word that they hold one?

Andrew Miller/Amy George pled guilty to sexual assault, not rape. Clearly still very traumatic for his victim.

There now must be a concerted effort to highlight the many abuses and failures of Self Id in the countries in which it has passed. The line that there are " no issues" is simply not true - and the public needs to be made aware of the many examples where there very much are issues.

The number of male sex offenders in women's jails in the U.S, and the controversy of males in women's sports there; the case of the Canadian beauticians being taken to court for refusing to wax male genitalia; the way in which actual femicide is no longer recorded in Argentina if the murderer of a woman identifies as a woman....and so on.

People need tio be aware that Isla Bryson was not an isolated case.....that just a couple of weeks later another man ( in the borders) posing as a woman kidnapped and raped an 11 year old girl; the numerous cases of Trans identified men in court on charges related to sexual abuse and child pornography ( all whilst being referred to as 'a woman').

It also makes even more routine, than it currently is, for male criminals to be referred to as 'women' and for sex based statistics to become meaningless and useless.

This.

I honestly don’t understand how single-sex spaces can be practically applied. We already have a situation where TRAs are openly using toilets and changing rooms. They say they’ve been doing this for years. They are breaking no law. There is no practical way to prevent them. Even if they clarified that sex in the EA means birth registered sex this is unlikely to make a difference. All other single sex services/ sports etc rely on the service provider making use of the exceptions in the EA (which they are often reluctant to do). It also relies on service providers having accurate information about a person’s sex and if that person is prepared to lie and has been allowed to change all their identity documents this becomes an issue. Therefore any change to the GRA that makes it easier for men to change their BC to say they are women is bad for women.

Labour must (by now) fully comprehend these difficulties. So unless they specifically address HOW they intend to support (and they should actively support them) the SSEs then these statements are pointless.