That women should not be banned from Social Media for asking the question ( Thread 4)

[Langrycleg]

Many women have been suspended from sm for asking the question:

“Do you believe that male sexed people should be allowed access to changing rooms and showers for female sexed people and teenagers?”
Seems like a perfectly reasonable question which we should be allowed to ask.

Let’s vote with our AIBU.

It doesn't give any examples of someone who was pressurised into sex with a trans women because she was told she would be transphobic otherwise.

Actually pressured into having sex. You mean coerced into having sex. Rape?

@334bu

*Can you give an example of anyone saying they were pressurised into having sex because a trans women told them it would be transphobic not to? Or is this like the girls supposedly exposed to male genitals in changing rooms due to trans inclusion? Something that doesn't appear to have ever actually happened let alone being widespread.*

Typical jj!

People waste time getting numerous examples of this and jj will say " but they weren't actually forced to have sex so it doesn't count" No they were just called transphobes when they refused and were vilified on social media. But who cares just women after all!!

Well isn't that the claim, that lesbians are being coerced into sex by trans women on the basis they are transphobic otherwise? And that in fact this is mainstream trans ideology?

And yet no-one can give an example of it happening or point to any mainstream trans rights organisation that says this. Yes there is a discussion amongst a few mostly young queer people about sexuality and how sexuality and attraction to different types of bodies might be socially produced. Yes there have even been a handful of people who have tweeted they think it's transphobic for lesbians not to include trans women in their dating pool. But this is a fringe view in an already fringe scene. It is no more trans ideology then Posie Parkers demand for armed male vigilantes in womens toilets is gender critical ideology.

www.gettheloutuk.com/attachments/LesbiansAtGroundZeroFindings.pdf

Well isn't that the claim, that lesbians are being coerced into sex by trans women on the basis they are transphobic otherwise? And that in fact this is mainstream trans ideology?

We're saying the coercion happens. The idea of the cotton ceiling is part of mainstream trans ideology, because trans ideology cannot admit that exclusive same sex attraction exists, because the whole shaky house of cards is under threat if there is any concession to the idea that MTF trans people aren't in every way the same as women apart from their sexed bodies.

point to any mainstream trans rights organisation that says this.

Right. So if a TRA organisation hasn't acknowledged it it must not exist. Good to know.

Yes there have even been a handful of people who have tweeted they think it's transphobic for lesbians not to include trans women in their dating pool.

It's thousands, jj. Not a "handful". You obviously haven't seen what I have, so you should have the decency to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Well isn't that the claim, that lesbians are being coerced into sex by trans women on the basis they are transphobic otherwise? And that in fact this is mainstream trans ideology?

We're saying the coercion happens. The idea of the cotton ceiling is part of mainstream trans ideology, because trans ideology cannot admit that exclusive same sex attraction exists, because the whole shaky house of cards is under threat if there is any concession to the idea that MTF trans people aren't in every way the same as women apart from their sexed bodies.

Same sex attraction exists. It is not transphobic to not want to have sex with a trans person. Lesbians who don't want to have sex with someone with a penis are not transphobes. I don't know a single trans person, and many of them are activisty in some way, who would disagree with these statements and I reckon I know a lot more than you.

Same sex attraction exists. It is not transphobic to not want to have sex with a trans person.

Except a vast number of people appear to think it is.

I'm not remotely interested in how many trans people you know and what they think. It doesn't trump my personal experience of what I've seen directed at women, particularly lesbians, on social media over nearly a decade.

I posted links. It's not a fringe belief, by any means. It's the logical conclusion to chanting TWAW.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Same sex attraction exists. It is not transphobic to not want to have sex with a trans person.

Except a vast number of people appear to think it is.

No, a very small number of people on social media who you have spent years obsessing about think this. Go out and meet some actual trans people and you will find very different views.

There are a ridiculous number of idiots on Twitter who think biological sex has been "debunked" as a concept. It's hardly a stretch to believe that same sex attraction is "genital fetishism".

It isn't a small number. It's a widely shared view on social media.

Hopefully any lurkers will read my links or the MN thread I've collated and posted a link to below. There are many many examples. The young woman on Tiktok that a pp mentioned being one. She was forced to grovel.

I'm not interested in being gaslighted by TRA allies about things I've personally seen.

To be fair though, what you're saying upthread "what I've seen" is clearly anecdotal which you are always quick to point out to others.

Yes there have even been a handful of people who have tweeted they think it's transphobic for lesbians not to include trans women in their dating pool. But this is a fringe view

Jj appearing to disagree with that clearly homophobic view. ^

In the same minute, JJ appearing to agree with it:

It is a study of friends of the authors and selected lesbian from lesbian only groups who are part of a decades long campaign to exclude trans women from lesbian spaces.

Very interesting article written today by a female solicitor about Stonewall's Diversity Champion scheme in the workplace and the fact that it goes beyond the requirements of the EqA.

This was mentioned and denied by JJ upthread.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/

It's no wonder people don't know what the law says anymore really when Stonewall are claiming it is something that it is not in this country.

To be fair though, what you're saying upthread "what I've seen" is clearly anecdotal which you are always quick to point out to others.

Yes. I'm saying that I've personally experienced seeing a huge amount of posts saying that exclusive same sex attraction (ie only to females/males) is transphobia. Most of the GC women on this thread will have because it's a mainstream view. You don't have to believe me, but you can't tell me that I don't know what I have seen.

So why are there so many transwomen pretending to be lesbians on lesbian only dating sites.?

Lots of cotton ceiling examples from Get the L Out New Zealand lesbian-rights-nz.org/

@lifeturnsonadime

Very interesting article written today by a female solicitor about Stonewall's Diversity Champion scheme in the workplace and the fact that it goes beyond the requirements of the EqA.

This was mentioned and denied by JJ upthread.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/

It's no wonder people don't know what the law says anymore really when Stonewall are claiming it is something that it is not in this country.

Indeed

More than 850 employers have signed themselves up as Diversity Champions. It’s an impressive list, full of global mega-corporations and household names; magic circle law firms; prestigious universities; government departments and regulators. Amazon, Marks & Spencer, Nestlé; Imperial College London, Oxford University, the Royal College of Art; the Crown Prosecution Service and the Care Quality Standards Commission, to name but a few.

The point of the exercise is to embed Stonewall’s values, and Stonewall’s interpretation of the law, deep into the organisation’s policies and management and workplace culture. So policies must be drafted. Staff must be trained on them. Senior managers must demonstrate buy-in. Junior and academic staff must be shamed or coerced into active “allyship.” Efforts must be made to influence suppliers, customers and service users. Social media accounts must toe the party line.

Now what was it jj said when we pointed this ^^ out?

Do you realise how bonkers this sounds? As if a rsmall charity could brainwash both the judiciary and the Law Society into not understanding the law

JJ knows we can show our workings out. I'll never understand why they are always so quick to supply the paper and pencil.

@Datun

Yes there have even been a handful of people who have tweeted they think it's transphobic for lesbians not to include trans women in their dating pool. But this is a fringe view

Jj appearing to disagree with that clearly homophobic view. ^

In the same minute, JJ appearing to agree with it:

It is a study of friends of the authors and selected lesbian from lesbian only groups who are part of a decades long campaign to exclude trans women from lesbian spaces.

I am also concerned that maybe this is not considered an issue until a lesbian is 'coerced' into non-consentual sex.

The hand waving away of 'only a fringe issue' is also a concern.

Yes there is a discussion amongst a few mostly young queer people about sexuality and how sexuality and attraction to different types of bodies might be socially produced. Yes there have even been a handful of people who have tweeted they think it's transphobic for lesbians not to include trans women in their dating pool. But this is a fringe view in an already fringe scene.

So .... because there is just a few of them doing it ... it is ok?
So..... because it is young lesbians being pressured .... it is ok?
So ... because young women are being harmed, nothing to see here!!!

I am very concerned by the wording of these past few tweets. Am I the only one that interprets it as it is ok that young lesbians are being pressured by transwomen to have unwanted sex with penises because it is a 'fringe scene'? That the transwomen should not be considered in the wrong because it is a discussion amongst a few mostly young queer people about sexuality and how sexuality and attraction to different types of bodies might be socially produced.

So, young lesbians being harmed is being minimised here.

Then j j seems to imply and this is where I could be wrong, that unless an actual act of co-erced sex takes place, the pressure is ok.

n+1

@lifeturnsonadime

Very interesting article written today by a female solicitor about Stonewall's Diversity Champion scheme in the workplace and the fact that it goes beyond the requirements of the EqA.

This was mentioned and denied by JJ upthread.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/

It's no wonder people don't know what the law says anymore really when Stonewall are claiming it is something that it is not in this country.

The Equalities Act is the bare minimum. There is nothing untowards about introducing inclusion policies which go beyind it.

And this quote it complete nonsense

Other challenges to Stonewall-inspired policies are under way, including to the Ministry of Justice’s policy relating to trans women in prison; to the EHRC’s guidance on single-sex spaces; and to the College of Policing’s policy on the recording of “non-crime hate incidents.”

The College of Policing's policy was based on the Macpherson Inquiry recommendations and the EHRC guidance was produced in 2011, four years before Stonewall began supporting trans people.

This obsession that Stonewall are secretly behind everything gender critical people don't like is pure conspiracy theory. I even saw someone claiming Stonewall were behind Biden's support for trans rights recently. It's batshit.

From the article I linked :

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/

*Stonewall constantly pushes the idea that self-identification already has legal consequences, and self-identifying trans women (without a GRC) are automatically entitled to access women-only spaces. Employers that accept this and permit self-identifying trans women to use women’s toilets, locker rooms, or changing or washing facilities, etc may face indirect discrimination claims. This is a provision, criterion or practice that is applied to the whole workforce, but which is likely to put women at a particular disadvantage compared to men: the employer will be required to show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

If women suffer sexual harassment as a result of these policies, employers are likely to be vicariously liable for that.*

and further and I think I raised this in an earlier thread

*Stonewall encourages employers to adopt policies under which “transphobia” is made a disciplinary matter. That would not be problematic if the Stonewall definition of transphobia were confined to hatred of trans people, or bullying or harassment or other mistreatment of them because of their status as such. But the Stonewall definition goes further:

The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it.

Employers that adopt a definition along these lines are threatening to police their employees’ thoughts and speech to an unacceptable degree. One would hope that most employees would refrain from bullying or harassing any of their colleagues on any grounds, including gender reassingment; and most employees will be content to use their trans colleagues’ pronouns of choice. But it is also to be expected that employees will remain aware of their colleagues’ biological sex. Much of the time this need not arise: in most workplace contexts, sex is irrelevant and can (and should) simply be ignored.

But there are times when sex does matter. If a female employee goes to HR with a complaint that she feels embarrassed to use the ladies’ toilets when she has her period, because a colleague who is a trans woman has taken to using the same facilities, what is to be done? If she is told that the problem is with her, and her “transphobic” attitude to her colleague, she would seem to have grounds for a complaint of sex discrimination and/or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. If she walks into the toilet, but turns around and leaves on seeing her trans colleague there, will she be disciplined for “transphobic bullying”? If so, again, she is likely to have grounds for a claim.

If employers try to insist that employees either internally or outwardly accept that “trans women are women” in every possible sense, and there are no circumstances in which biological sex matters, they are imposing not merely a behavioural code on their employees, but a positive belief system. They are not entitled to do that: disciplining employees for politely expressing their dissent from the Stonewall creed is likely to be unlawful discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. (The employment judge who decided Forstater v CGD Europe at first instance may have taken a different view, but that decision does not set a binding precedent and has been heavily criticised, e.g. by Karon Monaghan QC on the UK Human Rights Blog. It seems unlikely to survive the scrutiny of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.)*

[quote jj1968]The government does agree with us re. single sex spaces. Liz Truss stated it in her speech last September (ish) and the law is very clear - did you read the link I attached? The Law Society and much of the judiciary have been trained by Stonewall and taken false advice from the EHRC so I'm not surprised they agree. What proof do you have that 'most lawyers' agree - have you asked them all or are you just looking at the ones who align with Dentons/Stonewall?

Do you realise how bonkers this sounds? As if a rsmall charity could brainwash both the judiciary and the Law Society into not understanding the law. And Truss was prepared to go to court against a gender critical activist who decided the GEO's guidance was unlawful.

Has Karon Monaghan QC, one of the UK's most repsected equalities lawyers who is sympathetic to the GC cause been brainwashed by Stonewall:

If there is a change so that self-identification becomes the route to a GRC [ ... ] you will not need to change the model of the Equality Act. A trans woman with a GRC will still enjoy protection against discrimination because she is a trans woman, and she will enjoy protection as a woman because she has a GRC, but she will still be subject to the exemptions in relation to single-sex services. Whether or not she has a GRC [ ... ] she can still lawfully be excluded from single-sex services such as rape crisis centres and so on, subject to thresholds being reached. It cannot be an arbitrary refusal: “We’re calling this a single-sex space. You can’t come in.” It cannot be that. It has to reach a certain threshold of proportionality and so on.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/1470.pdf[/quote]
Do you realise how bonkers this sounds? As if a rsmall charity could brainwash both the judiciary and the Law Society into not understanding the law.

I know right!! Totally bonkers.

All true.

Stonewall is definitely punching above its weight. It's own claim to have 'trained' employers of 1/4 of the UK workforce (that's 32m/4 = 8 million people).

That training, as I think has been pointed out involves becoming a Stonewall Champion (some employed mumsnetters may have seen the logos introduced into their employers websites, when they go back to the office after covid, they may see more changes like 'gender neutral' (mixed sex) toilets and/or trans/nb identifying people being invited to use the facilities of their choice, regardless of the needs of the women).

Stonewall Champions pay an annual subscription and have to fulfil quite an exhaustive set of criteria (well Nottingham police found it too exhaustive, taking up so much time that they ditched the scheme). This checklist involves updating the company policies (internal and external where applicable) to become more trans friendly.

That sounds lovely but it involves adopting the false Stonewall version of the Equality Act 2010 and replacing the protected characteristic of Sex (important) with Gender (not the same as sex) or Gender Identity (who knows). It seems to largely involve dismantling single sex provision for women.

One of the key points here is that Stonewall requires companies to update their external policies to dismantle single sex provision because Stonewall's stated aim on their manifesto (yes, the government and the police, BBC, CPS, schools, NHS, Ofcom etc etc (taxpayer funded) are funding a political organisation) is to change the Equality Act 2010 to remove single sex exemptions and to add Gender Identity as a protected characteristic (so that will be in addition to Gender Reassignment as a pc). AND they want male-bodied trans people to be able to play rugby with women despite World Rugby saying that it is way too dangerous.

One very noticeable characteristic of this 'training' is that employers then seem to be under the impression that there must be no dissent among affected employees and concerned nurses are finding challenges in hospital wards where male-bodied trans people are choosing to be placed on a ward with women in breach of the usually strict single sex accommodation policy but strangely not recorded as a breach.... no data = no problem??

How do those busy frontline staff (pretty overworked already) arbitrate between a distressed woman who can't share a ward with a male person and a male person who feels very strongly that they are entitled to choose a female ward and if the staff discuss the trans status of the patient, the policy states that they are liable to prosecution and a large fine. How to get people to shut up?

The Equalities Act is the bare minimum

I agree that employers can always do more with their policies but the policies Stonewall advocate mean that employers must break other existing laws.

Employers do not have the right to police thought or to discipline female employees for requiring single sex spaces. This is what Stonewall are telling employers. It is wrong.