Review "Six Conversations we're Scared to have"

Which spaces do we get to keep? Which ones do we have to allow males into?

And is any male who says he's a transwoman free to use them, or are you favouring a process, GRC, etc, first?

@Helleofabore

So, I ask again and I hope that you might answer: What other protected characteristic groups have been told that they need to allow the oppressor class access to their provisions? What other groups are you, an equality activist, directing who should and shouldn't be included in their characteristic?

This only makes sense if you believe trans women are men, which I don’t.

Trans women are not female (biological), but they are women (social/political).

Oppression isn’t a single, flat experience. Trans women face both misogyny and transphobia—a unique and often more dangerous combination. Including them in women’s spaces acknowledges this layered experience, rather than erasing it.

I am a lifelong feminist. And I feel justified in having this opinion as a cis-woman. But I wouldn’t get involved in arguments about forms of oppression that don’t affect me personally.

I think there may be times to use the provisions in the Equality Act (as existed even before the Supreme Court ruling) to prevent trans women having access to some women’s spaces sometimes, subject to a risk assessment. But I think banning trans women from all women’s spaces is cruel and unnecessary.

Well, obviously that. Isn't it great that lefty men have found a socially acceptable outlet for screaming at women?

And it's much cheaper than spending years in therapy complaining about how their mother wouldn't give them cutted up pear.

And it offers the chance to abuse and other some nasty women, of course. Don't underestimate the attraction of that for a certain type of male.

Neil is very keen to include barely legal goth girls, as long as they sign an NDA first.

I suspect his main interest in the trans community is that some ostentatious white knighting might distract us from the other things he's been up to.

Thank you for explaining.

If Margaret Attwood believes that male people can be female people, then I would call her sexist too. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the group you need to protect from negative sexist discrimination, then how do you protect that group?

And why do you think pointing to a woman and saying ‘Whatabout her?’ is an articulate answer to my post? Are you able to discuss the issues I brought up, or is pointing to Margaret Attwood and saying ‘Whatabout her?’ your only reaction?

😬😬😬 please tell me more about his inclusive feminism.

Did the time she got attacked for saying something trans rights activists didn’t like completely pass you by?

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/qbbtba/margaret_atwood_shares_terf_article_talking_about/?rdt=35511

her previous virtue signalling didn’t count for much then.

😶

Neil Gaiman!

That aged well.

She has famously signed an open letter stating “we believe that trans women are women”

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/10/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-neil-gaiman-trans-transgender-rights-open-letter/

I mean, MA is by no means god, but she is still undeniably a (trans-inclusive) feminist.

It’s not because of “prejudice” that most women don’t want “trans women” in female only spaces. It’s because they are men, and female only spaces are for women. HTH.

Could you to explain your thinking here, please?

Don’t you mean straw woman argument?

Have you read Juno Dawson’s book The Gender Games? Or listened to middle-aged transwomen recounting their origin stories?

I know lots of transwomen who freely accept that their feelings around gender were very strongly influenced by the sex stereotyping messages they received in childhood, so it seems odd to me that you have not only never heard a transwoman describe this feeling they experienced, but that you’re so certain as to what every transwoman thinks that you can confidently assert that “no-one is saying that” - I can assure you that many of them are saying that.

Anyone who supports the misogynistic homophobic "trans" cult is by definition a sexist. It does jar when she can be so perceptive about men oppressing women yet has a blind spot when the men doing the oppression dress up as women.

Margaret Atwood does not believe TWAW. It is impossible for Margaret Atwood to believe TWAW. Atwood's feminism is overwhelmingly rooted in the physical reality of female bodies and female reproductive capacity.

Atwood, as a good Canadian liberal, knows that TWAW is the kind of thing you're supposed to say. And she's got a taste of the backlash that happens when it's suspected you don't really believe it.

None of which means men can be women. I mean I hate to say this, but Atwood is not a prophet giving us revelations that disprove everything we know about biology.

Do you consider Margaret Atwood to be sexist then?

Nobody is saying that about “insufficiently masculine men” - in fact, you just said it and then said it’s regressive. Perfect example of a straw man argument.

What I don't get is, why do we need to include "transwomen" within the category of women, rather than acknowledging they are gender non-conforming/feminine males? The category of 'man' can very easily accommodate men who present themselves in stereotypically feminine ways. It seems incredibly regressive to say that just because a man is insufficiently masculine then he must be a woman.

"all marginalised people, including trans women, who face high levels of discrimination and violence"

You might want to go and look for the numbers. I suspect you'll be very surprised.

" we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society"

The struggles you face are because you were born a woman. The struggles trans women face are because they are men wishing to present as women. Which struggles do you share with them, exactly?

You clearly want to do what's right. But you can't do that if you allow myths and fuzzy arguments to affect your thinking.

If womanhood is not solely defined by biology, it has no meaning, and that’s why we have the self-ID predator’s paradise that feminists have had to fight against.

if you can just decide you’re woman when you’re male, based on something other than biology, then that is by definition sexist because you’re saying there’s something that makes a person a woman that isn’t biological, but cultural or personality-based or behaviour-based etc. it’s only possible to think that if you’re a sexist who doesn’t get that apart from our biological experiences and the ways they limit us (both males and females are limited in what they can do by biology, but overall females are more disadvantaged), there isn’t anything that all women have in common. Clothes, hair, make-up, social roles, social attitudes, sexual orientation, career, and on and on none of these make you a woman, only biology does. There is no other way it makes any sense.

if we say that as a male you can announce you’re a woman and have access to women’s spaces and categories, then any male can have that. Because the only evidence is that the person says so, and it can’t be proved and even questioning it became verboten because trans people ‘are who they say they are”/“a ceptance without exception”. It’s also transphobic to expect a male iding as a woman to have surgery, look like a woman, etc. That means, pre-ruling, any man can just say I’m a woman and that is literally all he has to do to get access to vulnerable women, steal sports medals and prizes, have his fetish indulged or just intimidate women for fun.

if you can’t see that this approach is a massive green flag to predatory dangerous men, and that the same situation doesn’t happen the other way around (because biological differences are real) then you must have lost all logical reasoning ability.

And even if a male genuinely thinks he’s a woman and means no harm, it still isn’t fair on women anyway. They still lose out on their sports, safety, dignity and privacy because a male is there.

I’m sorry for anyone who is unhappy about their sex and feels like they “should be” or “are” the opposite sex, but the fact is they are not.

we can also affirm that womanhood is partly a political identity shaped by shared struggles within a gendered society—not solely defined by biology.

You can affirm all you like - you're still wrong.

I think for a lot of my contemporaries, they weren't around for the 1960s, they weren't around for second wave feminism, they don't remember mass industrial action, they sort of remember gay rights but by the time we reached adulthood Stonewall was already well on the way to making it safe and corporate...

Yes, they want their 1968 moment.

I think lots of people convince themselves that trans is the next civil rights movement and want to be in the photos when its retold.

The Izzard types pose a problem because the fluidity contradicts the "born this way" assertions about pink brains in blue bodies or whatever it is. Eddie Izzard, though he may not know this, is acting out the Judith Butler idea that sex/gender is all just a performance.

But in some ways, though I've known plenty of trans people, I'm less interested in what they claim about themselves than how convinced TRAs think. I know plenty of highly educated TRAs who are very capable of critical thinking in other areas, but when it comes to trans they go completely into magical thinking. At least if you assume they believe what they say.

They think that, not only can a man become a woman, but it's something like a nonbeliever becoming a Muslim - if you say it and believe it, it's true. Not only that, but it's always been true - James who became Jane at age 50 was always really Jane.

They think that a biologically male person who asserts a female identity takes on all the attributes of femaleness. That he has a female, not male, likelihood of criminal offending. That he has no male advantage in female sports.

I'm convinced that their outbursts of irrational anger when contradicted are because they know what they're saying isn't true. But the things they're saying that aren't true are very important to their image as good people.

James who became Jane at 50 is a source of cognitive dissonance. You know Jane doesn't remotely pass as female, but because you're a nice person and a good friend you have to keep telling him how feminine he is. You certainly don't want to speculate about whether he's an AGP fetishist.

I think, for a lot of people, this is the meaning of "trans inclusion is solidarity". So much of this is about lying - to yourself and the world - to maintain your self-image as a good person. And those of us who won't lie, by definition, aren't kind.