to think that we could have a different sort of discussion on trans issues that might be helpful?

[BertrandRussell]

We can discuss the nature of womanhood endlessly. Philosophical discussions are always absorbing and interesting and very necessary and there should be plenty of space for them. However, it seems to me that there are practical discussions that need to happen which always get subsumed into the theoretical. There always have and always will be transpeople, and for the vast majority of the time it’s not an issue. Or shouldn’t be- there are transphobes in the world who should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Of course trans people deserve all the rights and protections that everyone has. However, there are some areas where the rights of transpeople are in direct conflict with those of non transpeople, and the conflict looks unresolvable. But we need to find resolution- and quickly. Could this thread concentrate on how we do that, and not be sidetracked?
To me, the urgent issues are-

1. How do we make it possible to preserve spaces where women who have been hurt or traumatised by a man can be sure they won’t meet a male bodied person?
2. How do we record crime so that it does not look as if there is a rise in violent crime-including rape- committed by women?
3. How do we preserve women’s sport so that it is not taken over by male bodied people who have an automatic physical advantage over people who were born female?
4. How do we make it possible for people to want to form relationships based on genital preference without being considered bigoted?

Nobody can be 100% sure that anyone they meet isn't going to cause them harm which is why we have laws. And if the crimes of transwomen continue to be reported as women's crimes then soon women will become more violent, proving the fact that transwomen are no more violent than women!

cross posts there!

It's like everyone in control of facts and statistics has forgotten about safeguarding completely.

Safeguarding, homophobia and sexism.

The dropping of clangers when someone who considers themselves inclusive and kind, simultaneously is prepared to risk women's safety, be homophobic and sexist is rather alienating.

And sorry, but it's still fucking gross to call gay men, lesbian women and straight men and women 'attracted to genitals'.

Lesbians are attracted to other female persons, ffs.

There is no good faith discussion to be had with people who use terms like 'genital preferences'. IMO. Other's mileage may vary.

I’ve always been interested to know what the threshold number of women and girls being sexually assaulted before people start acknowledging there might be a teensy bit of a problem. Is it 10? 100? 1000? At which number reached will those who want to allow males into female spaces will they stop and say “ yeah, actually things aren’t great are they? Should probably have a re-think”?

I think if you’re prepared for this to happen you should be strong enough to put your number there. Clearly you’re happen with some women being collateral damage, so come on, pick a number!

*happy

I’ve always been interested to know what the threshold number of women and girls being sexually assaulted before people start acknowledging there might be a teensy bit of a problem. Is it 10? 100? 1000?

Exactly. And once you've picked the acceptable number, stand in front of those girls and women and explain to them exactly why it's OK for their safety and wellbeing to be compromised for the sake of males.

It affects our mental health too.

And our physical health.
And our physical safety.
And our sex based rights, services and spaces.
And our jobs and families and lives.

“I've addressed this earlier in the thread. I'm willing to accept a slight increase in the risk to natal women in order to protect transwomen“

Ah. I think we may have hit a real block for me here.

But here we are Buzz Still discussing it, still trying to make sense of it!

Have you read her "I'm out" post yet Bertrand ?

I am sorry that Peachy left and am incredibly disappointed that she chose to cite that as her reason for doing so. It seems so bloody dismissive,so very PA to do that!

Excellent thread

3rd / 4th space is a good solution IMO

I think it might also be useful, re the "No Outsiders" programme, to work on alternative educational material for young children that celebrates the diversity of families and reduces bullying over difference without sexualising / brainwashing children.

Insanely busy today but would be happy to contribute ideas to this,

hoodathunkit You've got 24 pages of catching up to do.... read you later

Frankly, I don't think it's good for women's mental health, either, to be endlessly gaslit over the nature of what is male and what is female.

Personally, the most traumatic moment of having kids with GD (and there have been many) are the people who insist that my son was always my daughter. No. You don't get to rewrite material reality -and my own history and memories! - like that. Stop. Just stop. When you say males are females, you lie.

Sorry Bertrand for ranting. I asked decent questions earlier in the thread, was open to genuine answers, shared my own attempts to balance care for a loved one and sanity, and come back to find, not only do those questions remain clearly unanswered (people are not prepared to state the outcomes of imposing their beliefs because they know those outcomes are wrong), but blatant homophobia and the declaration that risking women's wellbeing for male's wellbeing is OK.

Rant over, done. Will try to go back to politeness now.

It would be an interesting experiment actually. Ask one of those people who is happy with this idea to stand in an assembly hall of 1000 women and ask them to state loudly “I am prepared to accept that [insert number] will be assaulted for this cause. I stand by this and I do not think this can be safeguarded against any further”.

Then repeat the exercise in 10 years (should this idea come to pass), and ask that same person to stand up and say with full conviction “I realise that [insert number]* of you have been assaulted for this cause. I do not think it could have been avoided. I am still sure it was the right thing to do.”

(*it’s naive to think the number will be zero)

“I've addressed this earlier in the thread. I'm willing to accept a slight increase in the risk to natal women in order to protect transwomen“

Except making women's spaces mixed sex doesn't protect transwomen.

And as Hampstead proves it's not about protection, it's about validation.

Hampstead ponds is the most explicit example, but it's everywhere.

Jean hatchet riding for murdered women being sent scans of ovaries (she has ovarian cancer), because her not including tranwomen in her rides is considered transphobic.

It's nothing to do with safety.

This is my point about why it isn't about women and girls that have already been affected by male violence it needs to be all women and girls otherwise we will just keep increasing the numbers of women and girls affected by male violence.

I can see how difficult it must be to feel in a minority of one. And I know that when I come across a trans inclusive feminist ( I hate that expression because I consider myself trans inclusive even though I know that will illicit hollow laughter in some quarters) that I am inclined to bombard them- I am so desperate for information/explanations. And it must be overwhelming to feel like trans-google.

Hampstead ponds is the most explicit example, but it's everywhere. Which is why Betrand chose it, I suppose!

Bertrand How do you feel about the thread now? is there, should there be a part 2, do you think? Slightly modified, to take in all of the issues raised here?

My opinion? Despite of/ because of Peachy's input your questions still stand, largely unchanged. And that is telling...

Peachy if you are lurking. Despite the fact that many posters disagreed with you I really do appreciate the time and effort you put into the thread. It is a pity you felt you had to bail, and I am disappointed at your reason for doing so, but do accept that this is a topic that raises more questions than it answers and cognitive dissonance is often very painful.

Again, my thanks.

It's overwhelming to keep being told you are a bigot for being unable to believe that 2+2=5.

No excuses for homophobia. No excuses for being prepared to shove other natal women under the bus. Not even one.

I would LOVE to google the answers to my questions, I honestly would. So far the only available answers to 'what happens to women who don't and can't share the gender faith' is 'die in a grease fire' or 'who cares' ?

If people aren't prepared to answer questions about the faith they would like to use to reorganise society, I think they should keep their faith to themself, and their own lives, and not inflict it on others.

Crap. I can't stop being angry now. But hey, women's trauma doesn't matter. What are mummies ? Just silly old fashioned people who carry on in hysterics.

Jean hatchet riding for murdered women being sent scans of ovaries (she has ovarian cancer), because her not including tranwomen in her rides is considered transphobic.

Jesus. I hadn’t realised this. How utterly revolting of them.
They really don’t want to spend their own time and Stonewalls massive reserves of cash on safety provision do they. The priority is clearly intimidating women who resist the trans ideology.

I am so desperate for information/explanations. And it must be overwhelming to feel like trans-google.

I know you have always tried to elicit information, without tempers fraying. I admire your tenacity.

I genuinely believe that the reason people feel overwhelmed isn't because everyone is asking them (although that's probably a bit alarming), but because the answers fall flat on their face.

I could have as many people asking me, and I'd be fine. Because my answers are coherent, logical and don't endanger women. Especially as people were bending over backwards to be restrained and patient in the teeth of nonsensical assertions.

It's one thing being a transactivist, it's quite another being someone like peach. Who appears to be a regular woman wanting to be kind and inclusive, when you expose their thinking as homophobic and sexist. I'm not surprised it was affecting her mental health.

HumberElla

If your blood pressure can take it...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3609364-Kitty-Holland-of-the-Irish-Times-declaring-Jean-Hatchet-s-upcoming-ride-for-murderec-women-transphobic

The Jean Hatchet thing is just so incredibly depressing.

Disabled people will no longer have designated space or support if I can define myself as disabled and so can anyone else

To be fair though, you do now sled ID as having a disability. The actual definition is very loose and isn't dependent on having a particular condition, but rather how you are affected by any condition. In fact many forms now ask if you consider yourself disabled or to have a disability.