GC Ultra / GC Lite?

Keep that in mind when you're looking at who advocates for what and why - and where.

Helpful overview of history: https://womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/

I'm including this for the final sentence of the section I've quoted. It's from Gay Liberation Front journal - Come Together - issue 11: Lesbians Come Together. It's from a piece by the GLF Transvestite, Transsexual and Drag Queen group, originally published in 1972 (and available for download):

A more central question is how to relate to other women. When we talk about our hopes and fantasies, it becomes apparent that what we want above all is to be accepted as women, primarily by other women. But will we achieve this by looking for ways in which we share experience with regular women or by developing a unique transvestite consciousness?

Sometimes the second approach seems real militant and proud, at other times it seems a cop-out, accepting the prejudiced view that we're not women, that we're some freaky third sex (or fourth or fifth?). Possibly we can find some light by considering the situation of black women and gay women, who develop black pride and gay pride, but still explore their feelings as women. Think how much more inspiring and beautiful the women's revolution will be when it joyously includes all women. Think of a Holloway demo with transvestite, transsexual and drag-queen women, gay women and heterosexual women, black, yellow, brown and white women, working women, housewives and career women. Certainly, whatever course we take as transvestites, transsexuals and drag queens, we must first destroy the trap wherein regular women set up standards by which they accept or reject us .

https://archive.org/details/cometogetheryear00walt/page/8/mode/2up

I suspect that it will all settle down again. People won't forget but they will move on. It has happened before, although maybe not this big. Or this sustained.

@Catsanfan Totally agree with you

That's a great thread @UtopiaPlanitia, and some interesting insights in the replies too

This is where I need someone like R0wantrees because she's brilliant collating all the data.

It's my understanding that places were being targeted long before Stonewall decided to jump on the bandwagon. And it was probably less jumping on the bandwagon and more that they were captured, deliberately.

It's the MO. We see it everywhere.

It was the Beaumont Society who, I believe, first targeted the legislation. Back then it was the sex discrimination act.

The Beaumont Society is/was a support group for autogynephiles.

I don't think you're ever going get any of these men to say yes, we're transvestite fetishists and we want to be able to perform this in public.

But you do have to look at who's behind it.

Even my own first foray into reading the politics of it, with regards to Maria Miller's equality report, I was shocked at how they didn't ask women's groups for any written submissions.

Instead they asked, among others, a flasher, a nutcase trans group who said all transwomen prisoners should be released instantly and be able to operate on one another, and a man who has spent his entire adult life promoting extreme pornography and lowering the age of the participants.

Since Debbie Hayton has told everybody he's AGP, he and several other people have acknowledged that the male sex drive is something like the biggest motivator known to man.

Keep that in mind when you're looking at who advocates for what and why - and where.

Social opprobrium cannot be underestimated. I agree with this but fear we're now so far down the 'liberal' route of 'wear what you want' being the culture it's going to be hard to restore this mechanism that previously worked so well on this issue.

The MSM don't seem to have reacted to DH's 'revelation' at all. I assume that, because his book was serialised in the DM, their attack dog opinionators were told 'family hold back'. Otherwise surely eg Jan Moir would have come up with something like "Now, darling of the WOKE LEFT Debbie Hayton has revealed so-called trans is just a SEXUAL FETISH, do we really want them sharing CHANGING ROOMS with our children?"

That is interesting. Thanks.

Hannah Berrelli had an interesting analysis of Stella’s opinion on AGP vs lesbian clothing choices:

https://x.com/HannahBerrelli/status/1756623318520619462?s=20

'In attempting to draw an equivalence between autogynephila and lesbians wearing clothes bought in the men's section, Stella has misunderstood the distinction between an autoerotic fetish and non-pathological human sexuality. I believe this error comes from her background in humanist psychology, where the therapist develops unconditional positive regard for the client as part of the therapeutic process. This may or may not be helpful within the context of psychotherapy, but it can lead to a distorted point of view outside of it. It should not be carried outside of sessions, or become the basis with which to make other judgements about people outside of that therapeutic relationship.

The difference between a GNC woman feeling confident and ‘sexy’ in men’s clothes is that she isn’t engaging in a fetish. How can we know this? Because a fetish necessarily takes something as an object (in place of a genital), the typical examples being feet, or leather, etc. There is a process of objectification going on. What’s the object for AGPs? Women. What’s the object for GNC women in men’s clothes? There isn’t one, they’re relating to themselves as a subject and expressing their subjectivity. If Stella O’Malley had said the equivalent to an AGP was a woman finding it sexually exciting to walk around brandishing a stonking fake penis for all to see (roughly the equivalent maybe for AGP’s objectification of breasts) and masturbating in their father’s sweaty shirts, then maybe she’d have a case, but she didn’t give that example, because it doesn’t exist. GNC women in men’s shoes are expressing their subjectivity, AGP’s in women’s dresses are expressing a relationship to an external object (women, their idea of a woman) and indulging a fetish. A fetish is necessarily an objectification, not even of oneself, but a body part, or external object.

When Stella O’Malley sets up that GNC women in men’s clothes are perhaps an equivalent to AGPs, she is also setting up the ground for all women, such as a feminine woman who feels confident and sexy in a dress, is an AGP equivalent. In doing so she is annulling the fetishistic aspect of it and all that comes with it (compulsion / obsessionality, its replacement of normal sexuality [interest in another’s subjectivity] as withdrawal into the object occurs, masturbation, necessary dehumanisation, etc.] GNC women do not relate to flannel shirts as fetish objects.

Expressing your subjectivity within the masculine / feminine dichotomy is a totally non-pathological, decidedly not autoerotic part of human subjectivity, that is arguably practiced much more by straight people than gay people. How many gay couples do you know where both partners are rigidly gendered (masc / fem), versus straight couples? Its far more prevalent in the straight world. It's just not considered pathological when straight people do it because there is no homosexuality to do the work of pathologization (which is why Stella went to GNC lesbians, rather than discussing straight men who wear men’s suits everyday for work and mechanics overalls at the weekend whilst working on their car collection).'

@Metamorphosising I agree, although I'd rather (maybe naively) believe that what we have as a result of the 2 acts are unintended consequences. If you have more information on who you believe lobbied with the direct intent at the time I'd be really interested, I asked the same question of Datun upthread.

With regards to the protected using the protected characteristic of sex to say that a tw is creating a hostile environment then this would surely turn on fact and degree? I'd like to think that if we had someone like the Canadian Teacher in the work place a woman would be able to argue this point.

Unfortunately the competing rights and the way that Stonewall have lobbied means that this kind of thing hasn't, as far as I know, gone to Tribunal.

And then women have been silenced.

I totally agree that a debate now needs to be had.

I agree, Kara’s thread was excellent: she laid out her thinking clearly and kept her objective in mind. She stated her boundaries calmly and clearly.

I found Clare Pages’s analysis interesting too - thanks for posting it 👍👍.

Barry Wall has also pointed out (on Twitter) that there is 'jostling' going on within the ranks of public sphere GC campaigners and points out that jostling happens frequently in collaborative efforts. And, to a point, I agree with him and don’t expect the people involved in campaigning to be a hive mind.

I think it’s the condescension and the deliberate conflation of disagreeing views with trying to compel speech (from people like Turner, Kavanagh and Doyle) that upsets me most. As well as what comes across as the matey-ness in closing ranks against the plebs. I’m a nobody but I contribute what I can in terms of effort, support and money; this weekend I’ve been made aware that, seemingly, that contribution is often viewed with less respect than I had imagined. I think, in future, my best allocation of effort is to try to keep my eyes on the goal and contribute to crowdjustice cases that have a chance of clarifying legal rights.

Yes. Someone on a previous thread on this topic said that it's good if men who work with children wear women's clothes as it's a postive role model for boys who want to wear girls clothes.

It is tricky; one the one hand we are saying that a little boy who likes dressing up in his sister's princess outfits should be free to do so without anyone jumping on him and declaring him trans - because we're clear that clothes do not dictate or explicitly denote sex. Women may wear trousers, this doesn't make them men...

However, the obvious corollary then is 'what's the problem with men wearing skirts?'

If clothes do not maketh the man/woman, then I agree with MalagaNights that we are rather stuck in how to stop men dressing in non-normative ways which may or may not be an expression of a paraphilia, regardless if they're working with children or not.

A man with fake breasts, wearing women’s lingerie, etc, would fall under the same threatening sexism as putting up pornographic pictures of women on the walls, or making intrusive sexual comments.

Thanks for this perspective @Metamorphosising it makes sense to me as this is how many women feel around these men. It's feels like a similar thing to being exposed to pornography.

If you have legal knowledge I'd be intersted in the proposal for an EA which reverses this. Would it just be removing GR from the EA?
Problem is I can't see that getting political or public support.

In the Sex Discrimination Act, where the wording of ‘hostile, degrading and offensive environment’ was borrowed and stupidly broadened in the EA, this crossdressing behaviour at work and in schools would have been covered under sexual harassment.

A man with fake breasts, wearing women’s lingerie, etc, would fall under the same threatening sexism as putting up pornographic pictures of women on the walls, or making intrusive sexual comments.

With this ridiculous inclusion of the ill-defined category or ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA, a man now can claim that objecting to his fetish wear or not going along with his fetish, or not pretending to go along with it is ‘harassment’ because this makes him feel that the environment is ‘hostile, degrading and offensive’ to him on the grounds of his ‘proposing to undergo a process of gender reassignment’.

It’s ridiculous, the EA has entirely turned the sex discrimination act on its head, in terms of protecting women from workplace harassment. It now protects men perpetrating workplace harassment- using the women’s toilets and showers, making intrusive comments ‘all girls together’, being inappropriately sexual, etc.

This absolutely must be reversed. I believe this outcome was the desired and deliberate one in the minds of the activists who pushed for GR to be included in the EA.

It's really come to something when we're suggesting schools need a policy which says: No Fetish Gear at work.

Oh for the days when that was such an obvious statement no one would ever have said it.

I can't see HR putting that into policies though. They'd then have to define fetish, and fetish gear and how they'll judge what is and what isn't. Minefield.

Aren't we stuck because even if gender reassignment was removed from the equality act, the "gender dysphoria"/mental illness aspect would be potentially protected under disability and the "innate gendered soul" concept protected under religion or belief? AGP men would claim one or the other as many already do.

I'm not sure I do. I still can't see how it could be legislated for. I haven't seen any suggestions that seem workable.

I think it has be managed more thruogh social approbrium, but I'm a bit pessimistic about the culture to do that at this point.

But I'll keep talking about transvestites and do my bit to restore the obvious sexual link in all this and I'll keep following these discussins to see if I can grasp the legal suggestions for mananging this that are so far are escaping me.

Yes… the Hayton version of AGP doesn’t seem consistent to others. And certainly not sissy porn.

Exactly!
Patriarchy is as Patriarchy does, whatever women come up with to protect ourselves will just be exploited.

But personally I would remove gender re-assignment from the equality act. I absolutely believe it was inserted for exactly this reason (AGP normalisation).

Datun, I'm really interested in this and why you believe this to be the case.

From what I recall about legal commentary at the time that the Act was introduced the legal profession believed it, not to be limited to necessary, but mostly for males who believed they were trapped in the wrong body/ looking to go onto medical transition.

My thinking is that the legislation then enabled the likes of Stonewall to widen the definition to cross dressers/ agps rather than it being the intention.

Either way we are in the same place.

Not around preventing covert agp men using GR as cover for cosplay?

if you want this written out of the equality act, then we're going to have to start raising the profile of it.

And not Debbie Hayton's version of it.

The clarification guidance was around sex specific provisions I think?

Not around preventing covert agp men using GR as cover for cosplay? Or was this raised as well? and what was the suggested clarifaction or amendments that would address this?
I haven't seen this.

It's achingly ironic.

Because transgenderism relies, every which way, that we maintain strict rules about men's clothes and women's clothes.

And in order to chip away at it, we'd have to agree!