Peggie case: controversial opinion

Bring back girl only schools, girls are then educated that their intellect matters, that they matter, that their worth is not dependent on pleasing men. The biggest disservice to women and girls was the insistence on mixed sex secondary schools, imo.

I think you raise a very fair point op and I'm not sure why you expected to be lambasted for it. There was a thread quite recently about why so many women support and enable trans ideology. And yes, the way women closed ranks around Dr Upton to denounce Sandie Peggie has been very uncomfortable to watch.

I'm sure there are multiple interconnected reasons, not least female socialisation to put everyone else's needs first. It feels like a 21st Century take on 'Have the men had enough?'

Also - and yes this is observation and anecdote, not data - I've found that women, as a group, are far more loyal to the left then men, and also more trusting.

I don't think it's about blame either.

I believe it's definitely something we need to talk about because, if we don't, the same thing will keep on happening.

See also 'sex work' and commercial surrogacy. Does my head in. As a proper working class socialist and radical feminist, anything that disproportionately effects working class women negatively riles me up. Bet you your last fiver these women wouldn't want to do either of those things, or want it for any of the women/girls they care about.
Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox. 🧼

I haven't RTFT but it's a little more complex than that. Females are socialised as children that they should prioritise males. And because of men ruling the world and controlling the narrative, women and girls feel indebted. Blaming women for this is like victim-blaming. Women and girls are brainwashed. Brainwashed to be on their hands and knees for men. The most violently hatefully toxic and aggressive advocates of trans ideology from experience, have been males. And when you have that around you, as a female, it's hard to break out of that. Especially if you want to survive.

Love this video. This is what most people think. So why are common sense views verboten? Change can't come soon enough.

Will Storr describes this performative virtue well in The Status Game: on social position and how we use it.

When he was interviewed about the book he highlighted the performative ‘better parent than you’ and ‘better at doormatting than you’ status games on MN.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-are-young-women-tearing-down-israeli-hostage-posters/

I don't really think your view is very controversial, but it could be taken the wrong way or as "proof" for misogynists.

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
― George Orwell, 1984

I always thought this was sexist but really it's spot on. Women have their fair share of negative traits too, but non-violent. And the men just don't care in this case, except for maybe the more right-leaning ones who are a bit more territorial/protective? (a trait which can be good or bad for women).

These pro-trans zealots are the modern day equivalent of Mao's Red Guard.

We're all part of a system so it's not to blame women in particular, it's just an observation.

I think they all support it for different reasons.

Women are showing how capable they think they are, making a show of their lack of vulnerability (not like those other, weak willed women), letting colleagues know that they are part of the gang. I used to have a pretty senior job in the HQ of a big bank and I absolutely recognise this attitude. Women were having babies with practically no mention of it, and back to work with no mention of the kids - you drank and socialised like the men, you made absolutely no concession to being seen as female. That was seen by everyone as weakness.

The men I think are doing it because it's a no trainer to keep quiet. It doesn't affect them and they can see the way the wind is blowing. Some hate women of course and like winding us up.

I pretty much agree. Women can be utterly appalling in their zeal to 'out lovely' each other. There's huge social cachet for women in being performatively kind it's hardly surprising that it's catnip to so many.

I have a friend who is a doctor, though currently not working. Her experience of the NHS was that misogyny and bullying were rife and that senior doctors could get away with almost anything because others would cover up for them and close ranks.

It’s quite possible that, for a woman to achieve promotion within that atmosphere, she almost inevitably has to buy into that anti-woman mentality.

I find it very difficult to predict how it would have gone, had the managers been male. There are too many possible factors. There are, for example, quite a few gay men who are adamant that other men who want access to women’s spaces must have access and that all women who object are evil.

The paternal type man, who might have been sympathetic to Sandie used to be common in Scotland, but I think they’re a dying breed. There are a lot more young, idealistic men, getting rapid promotion on the back of their “progressive” views.

I agree, OP, and like a poster above, I think there's a class dimension to it. Working class people, whether women or men, are much less likely to be on board with TWAW and TMAM.

Unfortunately it's the middle class who control everything, politics, academia, the arts, sport, etc etc. So here we are.

I agree. But I would add ‘middle class’ girls are more likely to be groomed to be kind, polite, quiet and good. And they’re more likely to have been promoted to positions of power than working class girls who were from plain truth speaking backgrounds.

We had teen DD when DH was that age - he couldn't see the many problems or thought they could be managed and lots of be kind.

Wasn't till he had issue in his workplace management passing buck lots of unreasonableness - actually started by an activist not trans student (HE) - everyone ended off pissed off and upset even when guidelines were followed that he did much more WTF.

That theoretical male manager could easily hide behind workplace rules or assumptions like the male in question would be considerate or that there were screens/cubicles and not engage with counter argumenent. It would really depend on character/experiences of that man and workplace culture - and frankly there are women managers out there who did push back even with threats to their careers - so I really don't think this is a man vs women issue just disappointment so many women refused to see the clear issues for their own reasons.

I dont agree with you but i think its an interesting point about whether a man would be so ready to force a woman to undress in front of Upton. So often you see an attitude among women of “we’ve all put up with it so you have to too”.

The difference is this and many other problems women face are caused by men

What I do find concerning is the complete hash they seem to have made of the whole situation

If you do it right you can sack almost anyone and they won't have any case against you but this is a right mess

I don't agree that these are solely mens problems to solve. Men are raised by women, taught by women at school. You cannot absolve women of the responsibility of modifying mens behaviour when a big chunk of mens behaviour is shaped by women when they are boys. Everyone is responsible for ending VAWG. From socialisation of young boys to enforcing the law and preventative measures against adult men. Female police officers, female teachers, female judges. All of these people are responsible for combating VAWG and abusive men who treat their wives badly.

You only have to look at the drivel posted on the relationship board to see that women settle for shit men and tolerate all sorts of low level crappy behaviour. It is women's responsibility to say "no, I will not serve you first and let my dinner go cold while I wash your clothes". We teach people how to treat us by allowing them to treat us certain ways and until women own that responsibility and stop waiting for men to bully eachother into buying their wives flowers and doing half the housework nothing will change. Of course it is mens responsibility to be good husbands and treat their wives well, but when they fall short of that standard it is women's responsibility to say no, that is not acceptable and end the relationship if they are unhappy.

There is this awful culture in media where men are portrayed as bumbling idiots who can't even make a sandwich and the women roll their eyes and say well you can't expect any more from them can you while cooking, looking after 3 kids, battling the MIL and being stressed out of their minds. It's this "not my job to make him a decent husband and he can't do any better anyway" attitude that perpetuates the useless shitty husband.

As for the transwomen not feeling comfortable in men's toilets being solely mens problem just proves my point. Lots of women suffer problems that are caused by other women, women are dismissed and belittled by other women in maternity care in particular. It is the midwives bullying the labouring mothers and doing things without their consent and ignoring their wishes resulting in harm to mothers and babies. For men to just say well that only affects women and only midwives can stop the bullying of pregnant so it is for women to sort out, not our problem wouldn't go down well with feminists but I honestly don't see how you could expect any different.

I think it's an interesting point, but I think it's complex, depending on workplace cultures/leadership.

There is socialisation of women to consider other's thoughts and feelings before their own (along with their safety/best interests).

I have worked in both male dominated and female dominated environments and they are quite different, although the main difference I found depended on the leadership - it could steer things one way or another - each could be bullying or supportive dependent on this.

Male environments often focus on team cohesion and can use drinking culture to achieve this. Men who don't fit into traditional male environments can be treated quite badly - seen as 'not a man' - and in this case I think men can reject men who behave this way as 'other'.

I found male led environments to be quite protective of women, particularly if they were in the minority and often could be over-protective, especially if older/brought up to be 'gentlemanly'. I think these men would view a man pushing themselves into a female environment as problematic and might act on it.

Younger men have been told this sort of 'chivalry' is wrong and sexist, which it can be and might think 'well it's up to women to sort it out - it's their problem' or might fear overstepping.

Men who don't like women/resent them may actively enjoy the discomfort of women in this situation.

I think few men would feel comfortable openly criticising/commenting on someone's crossdressing/female presenting fetish in the workplace and I think most workplaces at the moment would discourage/punish a man who tried to intervene in what toilets/changing rooms they used.

"Be nice"

We are called names when we disagree.

That's why.

I can not believe anyone sane actually believes men can turn into women.

AFAIK everyone who has given testimony against her is, sadly, female.

Is that who in post or who been chosen - ie have they chosen women to represent hopsital becuase they couldn't possibly be anti women and thus try and make hoisptal position seem more resoanable?

I know the post office ITV drama made some point about post office having a lot of women - and then reading actually many of the problems started while men were in those positions - bit of a glass cliff situation but also look they found nasty women not kind nurtring ones so we know they are evil as short hand in drama. When in RL the entire management structure and office culture at post office was wrong regardless of the sex of people in the posts.

Though if you told me it actually was the Crucible played out in a hospital setting - I wouldn't be shocked TBH beased on nearly 50 years on the planet.

Hmm, it's an interesting question. I think possibly it's more due to transgenderism being more widely accepted, and organisations, wanting to be seen as progressive, or wanting to avoid future lawsuits, pushing 'acceptance' without really thinking of the consequences.

Some women will fully buy in, because they don't want to rock the boat, and they want to advance their careers. Nearly every woman in a career is painfully aware how carefully they have to tread compared to men, so are potentially more likely to feel that they have to be compliant.

Some women will buy in because they want to be kind, and don't want to discriminate against a minority. Most don't know about AGP or people like Isla Bryson, because they assume the best of people. Even if they have doubts, they worry that those doubts come from the same place as racism or homophobia - women are generally socialised to be more introspective and self-doubting.

If they see someone sticking their head above the parapet, they may jump on it because that's what their work policy says they should do, or they're worried about being tainted as guilty by association, or they'll think the person is genuinely awful for being a bigot.

I think we see less of it from men (the traditional kind...), because generally, it doesn't affect them, so they don't care, and they feel that they have enough social standing that not caring either way won't negatively impact on them.

I think you have a point but I would add something else. I think probably a lot of men would be more likely to stick up for SP, possibly because they can see the stupidity of it all but also because they wouldnt want to seem sexist. However, I really think there is a subset of men who are well aware of what this ideology means for women and are actually welcoming it as a way to get back at us for some perceived slight or just general misogyny which has become mainstream. "Women have very little idea of how much men hate them". A few years ago I would have thought Greer was exaggerating. Now, my eyes have been opened.