...to think that if you repeatedly get your cock out in public (allegedly) you aren't fit to offer advice to government about whether women-only facilities should become mixed-sex?

[ArcheryAnnie]

OK, I know IABU in offering a Daily Fail link, but the Guardian haven't yet covered this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6003331/Britains-official-transgender-student-officer-suspended.html

Jess Bradley was one of the very limited number of people invited to give evidence to Maria Miller's Women and Equalities Select Committee investigation, which kicked off the current proposals to change the Gender Recognition Act so that anyone who says they are a woman is legally regarded as a woman, even if they still have a penis (and a beard and anything else they like - saying "I am a woman" would literally be the only requirement). These proposed changes in the law would mean the end of women-only services and de facto mean all services, including hospital wards, changing rooms, etc, would become mixed-sex.

Jess Bradley was also until very recently a director of Action for Trans Health, an activist group whose list of batshit demands includes the immediate release of all trans prisoners.

AIBU to think that everyone in government and beyond (including the NHS) who took advice from this individual should now reassess the value of that advice?

That doesn't work for me, because I consider 'women' to be inclusive of transwomen. I know that this position won't be acceptable to you but that's the issue I have and it's not one I'll compromise on.

The "trans" is to denote that they're male, when most people understand a woman as being an adult human female, whatever odd philosophical beliefs some people have. Language matters.

Astonishingly, getting your ladydick out is an act of defiance against the oppressive norms of society, and should be applauded. Society does not like it, because it only accepts women (and JB is a woman, remember) taking their kit off when given permission to do so. Making an independent decision to show your women's genitals (and in this case, the dick is a female organ) is to challenge this, so hurrah hurrah

I can't believe I just read this. What I saw was a man's penis which is in no way a female organ (or not when I was taught biology anyway) it was shown in public and photographed and shared online. JB is not a woman physically, s/he hasn't had his penis removed.

'And you can define women however you like - but you can't stop me from doing the same.'

You are not defining women though. The word woman has existed for 100's of years - dating back to old english.

What you are doing is redefining women

YY Drnectarine. Exactly.

For someone so engaged in this debate this is a surprising misunderstanding of what it means to be trans. Nobody is suggesting that trans people change sex. But sex and gender are not the same thing, and do not necessarily correspond with each other.

The irony of this is remarkable. Have you engaged in this debate over the past few years? If so, how can you have missed that the conflation of physical sex and gender identity (or the prioritisation of gender identity over physical sex), is one of the biggest issues? The ideology is either:

• trans women ARE women, due to innate gender identity, therefore their bodies are female, even the aspects (chromasomes, physique, penis, prostate) which would conventionally be considered male. To point out that 'woman' is a legal/social/medical definition based purely on physical characteristics, is 'folk biology', 'third-grade science' or to be 'obsessed with genitals'. Under this ideology, there is no finite material definition of woman, and therefore no sex-based protections.

(And, yes: under this definition, a trans woman exposing her penis is not committing a typically male exposure-based crime; she's simply celebrating her female body and transgressing repressive social norms, like women who bare their breasts at protests.)

• trans women ARE women, but their innate gender identity is at odds with their physical body. This male body causes them great distress and should not be referenced, even in the context of safeguarding women. To mention it in any way is to be invasive, aggressive or prurient.

(Such a person would never deliberately expose their penis, either for their own gratification or others' discomfort, so any person who did do such a thing is therefore not a trans woman, and need not be considered in any debate about the potential risks of trans women in women's spaces.)

Both options ensure that women are not allowed to participate fully in any discussion about their own spaces and safety without being castigated, either for their old-fashioned views about the physical state of being female (it's evolved from that; you're on the wrong side of history) or for being unnecessarily unkind (everyone knows gender identity trumps sex, so why are you being so mean as to exclude trans women, who've already suffered enough?).

For many people, your statement that 'nobody is suggesting that trans people change sex' would be considered deeply transphobic, unless you added the disclaimer '...because a trans woman has ALWAYS been a woman, just one who's mistakenly been assigned male for a portion of her life, which we must never mention'.

It's worth mentioning that the reason this has only been reported in the daily mail and not other outlets is because Jess has hired expensive libel lawyers Carter Ruck to stop the story being published on privacy grounds, using the cliff richard case a 's a precident.
The irony of someone happy to wave their cock about in public wanting privacy is not lost on me.
www.thesun.co.uk/news/6883375/sun-barred-exposing-union-official-flasher-cliff-ruling/

Jess Bradley should SUE Justine for even allowing discussion on this, according to v active TRA

Mmmmmm I've been waiting for the threads to be pulled.

Both options ensure that women are not allowed to participate fully in any discussion about their own spaces and safety without being castigated, either for their old-fashioned views about the physical state of being female (it's evolved from that; you're on the wrong side of history) or for being unnecessarily unkind (everyone knows gender identity trumps sex, so why are you being so mean as to exclude trans women, who've already suffered enough?).

This exactly. Great post Konacha.

YANBU

They need to start doing clearance for these people

The more they come to the limelight the more their backgrounds don’t stand up

You end up with a bunch of stright white men who are sexual deviants demanding to get closer to women yuk

And because they have managed to convince the medical community this is not a MH they don’t get the help they need for the devicency

NameChangedAgain18

Nobody is suggesting that trans people change sex.

so if they know their men why the fuck should they be allowed in women’s spaces then?

Well, suing someone "because they're rolling in it" will not generally stand up in court.

It is factually correct that Jess Bradley has been suspended due to the "Exhibitionist" site, and allegedly exposing their penis in public/the workplace.

It is also a fact that Jess Bradley has been advising the government on the GRA consultation. It is also a fact that Jess Bradley said on Sky News that self-ID'ing transwomen (ie. Jess Bradley) should have access to female facilities, on the basis of self ID.

No.1 rule is that you cannot sue someone for telling the truth.

I think it would be fair comment/opinion to question whether such a person is the right person to listen to on this subject? Or whether we should perhaps listen to the points women's rights groups have been making - that allowing self-ID would open up an loophole for any man, any predator, any voyeur or flasher - to gain access to vulnerable women.

I don't know how many more examples of this crap we need before we're listened to about this.

The NUS paid this perv to be a representative of a vulnerable cohort of young adults, whilst they photographed their genitals at work and blogged about rape and incest.

Excellent due diligence there NUS. If they don’t take an unequivocal position against Bradley’s gross misconduct, then they should be publicly lambasted and their charity status revoked.

Really, is safeguarding just not a thing anymore?

Really, is safeguarding just not a thing anymore?

It's passé. Boring old women's and children's rights aren't sexy enough.

And because they have managed to convince the medical community this is not a MH they don’t get the help they need

Yes this hugely concerns me. Comorbid mental health issues are being ignored in the rush to affirm being "trans" as a non pathological issue. And that's no good for anyone.

Well to be fair, we almost got 100 years out of the last 10,000. Best not be greedy, eh?!

Absolutely DickTERFin

Shame posters daughters and our granddaughters and so on won’t have the same sense of freedom and control over matters that impact them directly

Never mind we can tell them about the good old days when what a woman said actually mattered when she was talking about being a women rather than what a man in a dress says

Wow progression eh

I'm saying that if she has behaved inappropriately and exposed herself etc then she clearly isn't a suitable government adviser because she lacks the right moral attitude and human decency.

You make it sound like Bradleys behaviour, and what they are campaigning for, aren't inextricably related.

Bradley has been campaigning for access to female spaces, on the basis that the sort of behaviour women are worried about won't happen, whilst participating in that very behaviour.

It's not just a 'bad attitude'.

People born male who are ardently campaigning for access to females, should be excluded on that very basis. Wanting to dismantle females' boundaries should disqualify you from having an opinion about them.

The number of women who are surprised about this news?

Zero.

YANBU

And it makes my blood boil.

This person has exercised huge influence over serious changes to laws and social norms. But if I were to stand up now in my office and say that having male bodied people in spaces I thought safe for me and my daughters bothers me, I would find myself in a discliplinary meeting before I could sit down.

Doesn’t seem quite fair, somehow.

There is currently a government consultation out about how to reform the GRA (gender recognition act) and the equality act.

Right now, ‘sex’ (not gender) is one protected characteristic under the Equality act. all the other laws that protect women were rolled back and replaced with this one law. If it gets damaged, that’s it. the government have hinted they will introduce what’s called ‘self ID.’ That means that any man can access a woman’s space simply by saying they are a woman. There will be no checks, you will not be able to challenge them at all.
No more women’s loos.
Or changing rooms.
Male prisoners will be able to be housed with female if they demand (some already have, sexual assaults have happened.)
No right to single sex wards
No right to have men excluded from domestic violence refuges.

Jess Bradley is part of a group lobbying for , among other things self ID. Not a single woman’s group was consulted on this.

The government are hinting they will keep the EA but bring in self ID. The problem is that self ID will make the EA completely unworkable.

If you want to fill out the consultation it’s here: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Bradley has been campaigning for access to female spaces, on the basis that the sort of behaviour women are worried about won't happen, whilst participating in that very behaviour.

But this NEVER HAPPENS, right? Especially when they as good as admit to it themselves.

I'm sick of all this politically-correct bollocks. The person in the article is a MAN. The person has MALE genitalia, not female. No matter what name/clothing/attitude the person has, the correct terminology is man, male, he, him, his.

But you’ll be deleted for saying what we all know to be the truth, Lynne.
Big Brother Is Watching You.

pacers

But if I were to stand up now in my office and say that having male bodied people in spaces I thought safe for me and my daughters bothers me, I would find myself in a discliplinary meeting before I could sit down

I believe you, what is so interesting though is if I stood up at my workplace and said "Jess Bradley thinks his penis is a female penis and demands access to women's spaces" people would think it was insane.

I suspect the difference is you work in rhe public sector? It's an outrage that these views have taken hold and applied as if the demand comes from the general public and not a niche group of activists on twitter.

OP you are definitely not being unreasonable, a person who does this should not be advising anyone. Since that person is not denying their behaviour, only the legal status of that behaviour, there is also an issue of their presence in a workplace setting. Since it seems there are photographs of a penis being 'waved around' an identifiable office space then, regardless of the owner of the penis, it's surely still a violation of office conduct? Or do we now think it's okay to do this kind of thing at work?

Also Araiwa if people should be consulted on matters that affect them why were, for example, all parents of girl guides not consulted on changes to policy on the presence of transwomen in the guides? Is it not a problem that a father would be made to sleep separately from female guides and female guide leaders BUT that same man could if they declare themselves to be female - simply say they are - be able to sleep/shower with women and young girls? There are huge safeguarding issues here and the relevant parents/women are not being consulted at all.

Are women in prison being consulted on whether they want to share space with people with a penis? NO.

Are the vulnerable women in Canada sharing rooms with people with a penis being consulted no, or the ones sharing showers? NO.

Is that really what we want to happen here?

And don't bring up Ireland etc they retain single sex segregation in prisons etc and they have a tiny population.

Is it really okay to say an 8/9/10 year old - an age when most in this culture still believe in Father Christmas/the Tooth Fairy/the Easter Bunny - knows enough about the world and is capable of distinguishing fact from reality can decide to change gender - and therefore potentially end up on a path that could lead to lifelong sterility, drugs that cause huge side-effects etc...Are parents being consulted? Are both sides of the debate being consulted NO.

When Women's Hour this morning promotes gender transition as if it's problem-free did they invite a counter-argument from someone like Lily Maynard who can outline the potential problems. No.

Why are women and parents supposed to move over, not protest and not have their voices heard? But when it comes to someone like Jess Bradley we are all supposed to shut up and listen. And as if that's not enough be supportive.