AIBU To Remind Everyone That Self ID Was A Tory Policy?

[TooBigForMyBoots]

I've seen so many posts over the past few years with people urging us to vote Tory because at least the Conservatives know what a woman is.🙄

This is nonsense for the following reasons:

1. The Tories introduced Self ID under Theresa May's GRA Reform and Penny Mordaunt championed it.
2. Tory MPs have reported women to the police for retweeting AHF posts and tweets by JKR.
3. Trans contagion amongst teens happened under the Tory government.
4. Trans women in women's spaces such as hospitals and prisons and Girl Guides happened under the Tory government.
5. Rape in hospital that isn't considered "rape" because there was no man present? Tory government.
6. It's a Trojan Horse. Bridgend Tories won the seat with a small majority. Their Tory MP, once safely in his seat announced that he was trans and intended to become a woman. I am gutted for any GC/feminist voters who held their nose and voted Conservative only to end up with Jamie Wallace.
7. In the latest leadership race, Penny TWAW Mordaunt nearly became our new prime minister. Few (if any)Tories gave a fuck about her well documented TWAW stance.
8. 1 week after Starmer refused to answer "what is a woman?", PM Boris Johnson did the same. This was not publicised to anywhere near the same extent.

So some Tories know what a woman is.
Some Tories don't.
Most don't give a shit about women or their rights either way, they're just happy to use us in their culture wars.🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

I'm sorry but the vast majority of rape crisis centres do include trans woman and continue to function just fine - if they're closed due to lack of government funding that's surely far worse than allowing a trans woman who's raped to access a vital service.

Don't you find it alarming that funding is dependent on the services women build from the ground up opening their doors to males. On its own that would not be so awful if it wasn't for the fact that women aren't even allowed to have single sex support groups even when trans support groups also exist.

In Sarah's case her support group was attended by someone who was and presented as a male but said the magic words, "I identify as a woman" so was allowed in. How do you think that affected a group of women who were survivors of male sexual violence? There was a group the "TW" could have attended instead.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4540981-aibu-to-think-that-womens-rape-crisis-therapy-should-not-be-mixed-sex

Do you think this is OK?

You are an anti-capitalist, you espouse hard-left socialism. Your fellow travelers are those who do the same.

Look back at your previous threads, you have an obsession with the Conservatives.

I certainly don't want to take the "man" and "woman" out of policies that affect men and women differently.

I was responding to BarmyBrunhilde.

They may be making noises about undoing the damage, but it's not enough.

They are doing more than making noises but I can't be arsed to write out a list of their corrective actions for you AGAIN.

Transwomen are males. Rape crisis centres for males are and absolutely should be a thing.

However, women are overwhelmingly the victims of sa and rape in the UK, please don't quite Brazilian prostitute stats back, and so rightly need enough single sex provision to cope with that.
This shouldn't be dependent on admitting men as this excludes women with trauma, you know, the ones they claim to be helping.
It'd help if you were clear in your language use and didn't try and reframe it as something it's not.

Perfectly legit for rape victims to have access to single sex spaces.

And no, it in no way parallels other forms of discrimination. Use your head. Rape victims probably don't want men to be part of their healing process.

I think if service providers wish to include trans rape survivors in therapy groups that's their prerogative, and far better that the service exists than gets axed, as many many of these services have under the Tories (which is what some suggesting is preferable to 'block self id')

I am not pretending it was Conservative party policy, I'm stating it as fact. Theresa May announced it. They may be making noises about undoing the damage, but it's not enough. Not even close and they could easily do another u-turn on it.

Well self ID is Labour Lib Dem and Green policy. The only party who have shown any interest in listening to women on this issue and reevaluating is the Tories.

So where do we go from here?

Oh OK @ReneBumsWombats.

I think if service providers wish to include trans rape survivors in therapy groups that's their prerogative, and far better that the service exists than gets axed, as many many of these services have under the Tories (which is what some suggesting is preferable to 'block self id')

You didn't answer my question so I'll ask it again.

Do you think it's OK for a TW who presents as entirely male to attend a woman's sexual assault survivors group when provision has already been made, within the same service, for TW?

Do you think the TW is seeking support or validation?

Is that a reasonable thing to do to women?

Why won't you answer these types of questions?

But that's not what you're being asked. You're being asked whether women should be allowed to run single sex rape crisis centres without having their funding pulled for it.

Should they?

I think it's a nuanced area which blanket statements aren't helpful on. There will be some situations where a trans woman should be included and others were an alternative service is best. The link I was provided indicated a woman wanted to sue a survivors group for allowing a trans woman to attend, and that is what I responding to - they've made clear they include trans women, so it's up to any women whether or not they wish to join or not.

Why can't you answer the question?

Should women be allowed to set up single sex rape crisis centres for those who can't tolerate mixed sex ones? Should they be forced to accept male people on pain of losing the funding?

Or as FOJN said: Do you think it's OK for a TW who presents as entirely male to attend a woman's sexual assault survivors group when provision has already been made, within the same service, for TW?

Do you think the TW is seeking support or validation?

Is that a reasonable thing to do to women?

I mean, why is "we should allow TW-inclusive services" a fine statement to make, while "we should allow female-only services" is an unhelpful blanket statement that doesn't incorporate the right nuance?

That's a rhetorical question, right? 😉

The link I was provided indicated a woman wanted to sue a survivors group for allowing a trans woman to attend, and that is what I responding to - they've made clear they include trans women, so it's up to any women whether or not they wish to join or not.

You didn't read the details did you?

There was a separate support group for TW but they chose to attend the women's groups whilst looking indistinguishable from a man.

Would you think it was OK for men to attend the women's group? If not why not? Can you think of any reason why women might find a single sex group more therapeutic?

If a TW and a man are indistinguishable from each other are women bigots for being unable to see magical gender essence?

The centre may as well have not been closed from Sarah's perspective, she self excluded because she didn't find a woman's group with an obvious male in it a healing place.

Your refusal to answer the questions I've asked makes it clear you know the situation is indefensible.

Haha!

No. It's a very serious one and I'd like an answer.

Because it could constitute discrimination against a trans woman to blanketly exclude all of them from a service? Each case is different and needs nuance. And also - how would such a thing be policed?

If a post-op trans woman who has her documents updated to female is outed while part of a therapy group, should she be ejected? Realistically trans people make up a tiny proportion of the population, while services for victims of sexual violence are being decimated due to lack of funding. The funding and accessibility of these services is far more of a priority for me as a voter than the thorny legalese around the inclusion of a tiny minority of the population.

To put it yet another way: why are third spaces, ADDITIONAL spaces, to offer MORE options, not acceptable? Why must it always be that the female spaces are compromised? Why must this option for women be REMOVED?

If it really is only about a safe place to wee or to get trauma services? Why isn't an additional, gender-neutral space enough? Why must it be women's spaces or nothing?

I would be very interested to hear the trans woman's account of how things went down - there's certain elements of that account that I'm rather sceptical of. There are scenarios where alternative groups should be suggested and a trans woman might well be excluded, and I don't have a problem with that, and it's perfectly legal.

Now maybe you could answer a question from me. In the last 12 years of Tory government many services supporting survivors of sexual violence have been closed due to lack of funding. What's more important to you - voting a party that opposes self id, but refuses to fund the services, or voting for a party that supports self id but will fund the service? Because for me it's a no-brainer.

The rape crisis centre in question already had a group for men, trans and women.
A man joined the women's so she had to self exclude.
She politely asked to set up a female only group.
Was told no.
Leaving her without services.
Discrimination doesn't apply because tw are men and men would be equally excluded from a women's space.
Post op also not relevant here as the tw in question presented as male.complete with facial hair.
But post op doesn't give you the right to traumatise rape.victims.

How is it discrimination if services are also available for TW?

Why don't you accept additional options as a solutions? Why must you take options away?

Denying female only spaces discriminates against women who cannot tolerate a mixed sex crisis space. They may have cultural beliefs (observant Muslim or Jewish women, for example) or trauma or a disability that prevent it. Many of them will go without the service rather than be denied a female counsellor or space.

Why is that OK?

This isn't about support at all. It's about using all female spaces, even ones designed for those traumatised by male violence, as validation for the idea that a female gender - which nobody can define - is the same as bodily female sex. No matter what the cost to female people.

This is delusional

Now maybe you could answer a question from me. In the last 12 years of Tory government many services supporting survivors of sexual violence have been closed due to lack of funding. What's more important to you - voting a party that opposes self id, but refuses to fund the services, or voting for a party that supports self id but will fund the service? Because for me it's a no-brainer.

I might agree with you if the parties which supported self ID were absolutely explicit that they would protect single sex services and spaces, and in certain situations make them mandatory as long as there was also provision for trans people. As it is many of those parties would also like to amend the EA2010 to change the PC of sex to gender which means that there would be no single sex services. Under those circumstances I'd prioritise first principles; you need to be able to clearly define who or what is being afforded protection by the EA; women have no meaningful rights if the category woman also includes men.

I think I've been more than civil to you despite the fact that I find your attitude to female rape survivors absolutely dispicable and you didn't answer my question, you just fudged it.You still haven't read the details of the case, the RCC does not dispute that a support group for TW was available.

In the last 12 years of Tory government many services supporting survivors of sexual violence have been closed due to lack of funding. What's more important to you - voting a party that opposes self id, but refuses to fund the services, or voting for a party that supports self id but will fund the service?

If it's a party that won't allow women to set up single sex rape crisis centres even in addition to mixed sex ones, I'm not in favour. If you don't believe women deserve sex-based rights - if you don't think female people exist as a cohesive socio-political class with needs unique to them - then I don't want to live under your party.

Because it could constitute discrimination against a trans woman to blanketly exclude all of them from a service? Each case is different and needs nuance. And also - how would such a thing be policed?

You are wrong.

It is lawful to exclude a transwoman, with or without a GRC, if the action is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. In Sarah's situation the service became less effective by allowing TW to attend the women's support group and given that alternative provision was made for TW the RCC would have had no problem lawfully excluding TW from the women's group. The service (women's support group) became less effective because the people is was set up to serve (women) self excluded.