How the erosion of LGBT rights effects female sex based rights.

[needatalk]

I've been reading various discussions and articles on this topic for some time and the conclusion that keeps popping up in my mind is the worry that my female rights will be as much eroded as LGBT rights in law.

I've seen a push in America especially Florida from activists and lawmakers, combining female and LGBT rights in the same grouping. In the UK, politicians are taking American policies. They are calling for diversity and equality to be dismantled in law. It's like time is going backwards in just on LGBT rights but on female sex based rights. Where less rights will exist for us females in the future to do subjects such as STEM or be Astronaut because of the stereotyping happening from suppose feminists who's concepts are the old typical stay at home leave the male to do the dangerous or go to work mentally.

My daughter is 8 years old and and I worry for her, to not able to have the right to do express herself as bisexual or lesbian because of erosion of LGBT rights. We all know homosexuality a long time ago was illegal and that can happen again for all LGBT rights. I worry that my daughter who loves space won't able to follow Rosemary Coogan become an astronaut which is something she dreams of because in the future people will say the radiation of space is too dangerous for females as they will get deformities in that area to prevent them for having babies or healthy babies. Science has disprove this but people are dismissing science now.

As much as I care and support about sex based rights, I can't forget the thought in my mind that my and my daughter's female rights are in as much danger of being taken away not by activists but by lawmakers who enforce sex based past stereotyping and us females lose equality which has been hard to fight for in the first place.

I'm so worried for the future for us females.

You literally said that suggestion conversion therapy is not unreasonable and compared it to therapy. Either you're completely ignorant to what conversion therapy is or you support it. So I apologise if you don't support it and you're actually saying you don't understand what it is?

Either is an odd position from someone who is part of a movement made up of left wing lesbians 😂 I still can't find anything to even remotely back that up by the way?

Hi Lampy. You keep referring to "men" - who else apart from Depp is on your mind here?

Also I'm interested in your assertion that JKR is "disingenuous" to claim to be a feminist because of this. Is your view then that the literal millions she has poured into supporting women and children is somehow just a pose to hide her real unfeminist ways? That the world would be better if she didn't bother supporting women and children because at times in her life she has in your view made bad/uninformed decisions?

I judge people by what they do but I also don't expect people to be perfect. I asked before but didn't get a reply - who do you hold up as a genuine feminst icon worthy of your respect? Because I'm pretty sure that if you scratch the surface of any woman who has lived more than a decade or two in the real world you will find someone who at times has given trust to someone who didn't deserve it, or had to choose between working within patrirachy to get things done or staying pure but ineffective.

Life is messy. Sometimes we have to roll our sleeves up and put our hand in the shit to unblock the drain.

Is pound shop Grace Lavery on the sauce, or is it more of a narcissistic rage thing? I wasn't sure it was possible for they/them to get less coherent and more bad faith, but here we are.

Yes, I'm a middle aged man. Does that make it wrong for me to be concerned about the effects of trans ideology on my daughter and other female humans in my life, as well as wider society?

I don't want her, or them, exposed to men in toilets, or to be disadvantaged in sports by these people. Is that so wrong? Should I not be concerned for her and wider society?

Why do those worries and concerns make me such a Tory horror?

Well this thread has been a wild ride.

It seems though that we have some dishonest guilt by association accusations that keep being relied on as if it is a meaningful debate position. It seem that this guilt by association revolves around the use of the term 'GC' and 'GC movement'.

For readers unsure of terminology:

The term ‘GC’ of course is a shortened version of ‘Gender Critical’, which is shortening of ‘Gender Critical feminist’. Gender critical feminist was the original term and referred to the feminist theory that rejected gender stereotypes. Meaning that those feminists rejected the stereotypes being used by trans people to define their identities. Feminists seek to abolish the gender stereotypes embraced by people who believe that people can change sex.

It is a universal belief that people cannot change sex. The vast majority of the world’s population don’t believe people can change sex. So therefore people across a wide spectrum of political views share that opinion based on scientific evidence.

Some people who are considered far right wing also share the belief that people cannot change sex. It is not a controversial thing to believe. No chopping of cocks will change a person’s sex. Those groups also tend to embrace gender stereotypes.

However, to falsely align feminists with people who may have very different motivations to them yet want outcomes that look similar when described at top level description only, extreme activists have dropped the ‘feminist’ from
the term ‘gender critical feminist’:

This is how ‘gender critical‘ is dishonestly misused. To falsely bolster discussions about political alignment.

Those other groups who also believe that sex cannot be changed, yet embrace gender stereotypes are falsely labelled ‘gender critical’. They are not. But by falsely labelling the different groups this way, by force teaming feminists with far right groups, extreme trans activists and lazy people who simply repeat what those activists say, portray feminists as allies of the far right. This is done to discredit feminists and to portray them as hateful towards trans people. This is false.

This tactic is using 'guilt by association' to discredit feminist campaigns with the ultimate goal of shaming feminists for the actions of other people who are also campaigning for the same very broad outcome but with different motivations, or who support policies that feminists do not support.

I noticed too that accusations of associations with nazis starting from the sly 'accepting support of ... nazis' has been repeated several times now. From a poster that seems to insist on people answering and providing evidence to support, yet has not provided specifics or evidence of association for the repeated claims about nazis.

Considering the accusation solidified into 'having nazis at rallies', I can only think this is an accusation about the Melbourne women's rally that the leader of the Victorian Liberal Party John Pesutto had to publicly apologise last week for his comments. Those making false claims about such associations with regards to the rally's organisers to avoid a highly embarassing court case that would show that Pesutto's staff did not do due diligence when making the claim that the poster here is making.

For those reading who don't know what happened at the Melbourne rally, a group of neo-nazis turned up to the rally a women's group were permitted to hold. So too did groups protesting for Trans rights, plus ANTIFA and the Victorian Socialist Party. For some unknown reason the police allowed the neo nazis access to the street where they then spent the majority of their time down the end antagonising the Victorian Socialist Party and others. Then they moved up to be in front of the trans rights protestors and unfurled a banner aimed at trans people. At no time did they interact with the women's rally as a group or speak to the organisers or speak to the women. Those neo-nazis then paraded off the site after further antagonising the trans rights protestors.

The organisers had no idea who the group was until after the event and they started to get reports of what happened.

The neo-nazi group also declared that they certainly did not support the women's rally or feminist campaign issues.

So if this is not the incident that the poster has been repeatedly referring to, then what rally and what group are being referred to. Because at this stage there really seems to be this ambiguousness to these 'nazi' references.

If 'guilt by association' is going to be deployed in this way, then it is very quickly and easily countered by many examples of 'associations', and indeed proven actions, of many 'prominent spokespeople' who support the prioritisation of gender identity above sex where sex matters to the outcome for female people.

you platform them even when they have Nazis at their rallies

You know who else turn up to every single GC rally (rather than just a single one)? Transactivists. There are trans people and their supporters at pretty much every GC rally. They only don’t go to them when it is raining. So LBGTQ groups support GC women too? They can’t seem to keep away from them.

No, I literally did not. I questioned whether any of that 5% figure you quoted are actually same sex attracted or whether it is entirely made up of people who believe they identify as members of the opposite sex and who have misrepresented the understandable concerns of their loved ones that maybe they ought to talk to a professional as "conversion therapy".

Let's be very clear about this.

Sexual orientation is innate, it's not something you grow out of, and there's no particular issue with being same sex attracted in this day and age. As far as I can see the only drawback is if you are a gay man or a bisexual man in a relationship with another man and you would like to have children but neither of you can become pregnant or give birth.

Having a transgender identity can be caused by multiple different factors, there's significant evidence that it is environmental rather than innate, many young people will grow out of it if left well alone, and there are significant drawbacks to being a trans adult. You don't fit easily into single sex spaces (being in one will distress you whereas being in the other will distress other people), if you have taken hormones or had surgery you are likely to have serious health problems, and your pool of potential sexual partners is going to be drastically reduced, to name but a few. That's without even considering the fertility aspect, or the impact on your family and partner if you already have one. Being a trans adult is an unfortunate outcome in a way that being a gay adult is not, and so it's entirely reasonable to say that trans identifying people should be undergoing thorough therapy to establish that their dysphoria is genuine and permanent and that there is no alternative explanation for it before they make any irreversible changes.

This is not conversion therapy, it's basic safeguarding.

The affirmation only model is arguably gay conversion therapy because it encourages young same sex attracted people to transition and live as a "straight" member of the opposite sex rather than accept themselves as gay.

The current debate in Parliament about conversion therapy is one to ensure that using broad terms such as 'conversion therapy' doesn't inadvertantly result in explorative therapy being considered conversion therapy. As has happened in other countries who did not include specific language to protect clinicians and parents from such accusations.

I believe that LGB groups have been clear that in the UK, conversion therapy for homosexual and bisexual people is already illegal so there is already legal protections in place for them. However, considering that at least one clinician in the UK has been investigated for attempting conversion therapy by a patient with a trans identity when it was exploratory therapy, it certainly is vital to get the legislation around this clear.

Plus considering the findings of the Cass Report, I would consider that the wording of the legislation to be something that now even the Labour Party who have said they support the report would be interested in clarifying.

If you're referring to Kellie-Jay Keen, she has expressly stated that she does not have links to neo Nazis.

Do you want to know the real reason why neo Nazis show up to these events in places like Melbourne?

It's not to show support for Kellie-Jay Keen or women wanting to speak about their rights.

It's because they know that thousands of trans activists are planning to show up to oppose those women speaking peacefully, and so they expect there to be a nice dirty fight, which is what they like. If trans activists left women the fuck alone and allowed them to just gather together to speak about their own experiences, there would be no chaos, no mayhem, nothing of any interest to neo Nazis.

And to put it bluntly, if there is an event which turns into a fight between women's rights protesters, trans activists and a small number of neo Nazis, and the trans activists are the ones wearing balaclavas, carrying weapons, assaulting women and calling for TERFs to be decapitated, the neo Nazis are not the worst people there, are they?

Conversion therapy like giving gay teens drugs and mutilating surgeries to ‘change gender’ and make them ‘straight’?

What is quite bizarre though is this accusation. It now seems that only people who align with a belief, or with all an organisers and all every speakers beliefs, attend events open to the public.

So all those who attended an event to get a better understanding of a topic or the people attending in the past, they were all 'aligned' with the organisers and speakers. How does that work when speakers are directly opposed to each other's views?

Even more, how the fuck does this concept work in reality? Of course people with opposing views on some or all issues will attend events to hear other's views. It happens every single day. All around the world. Because that is how people learn and gain understanding of views, whether they agree with them or not. Attending an event does not mean alignment.

Plus, speaking at an event doesn't even mean alignment. A good panel should include opposing positions so the people listening can hear all perspectives.

And an open mic rally, where it is publicly known that any female person of any political belief can speak as long as it is respectful, is a great place to learn about different perspectives. Even those you disagree with.

And yes, by this bizarre point that 'someone attending an event therefore they are aligned with the organisers / speakers / attendees' must mean that those protesting the event are also then aligned with the organisers / speakers / attendees if you then take that concept to its extremes.

If the poster is referring to the Melbourne rally, I am very happy to giving the timings of the neo-nazis movements in the event area that shows that those men were there only to antagonise those protesting women speaking.

If it is not the Melbourne rally, then I think that it is time for the poster to be absolutely clear just what it is that they are referring to. Because this 'nazi' accusation has been repeated numerous times now with no substantiation.

I have attempted to read this thread but my brain has melted slightly.

I think our resident PSGL’s stance is (some) GC women have publicly agreed with some right wing people on a single topic i.e. sex is immutable; people with penises should not be sharing single sex accommodation with women (female women, for absolute clarity). Therefore GC women are right wing and evil, or something.

Do I have that right?

At the same time, PSGL is entirely unworried that the people PSGL supports include rapists and paedophiles?

yep.

And I mean, we can produce endless examples of the views and actions that are harmful to female people and to children of some of the very prominent spokespeople who seek to prioritise gender over sex where sex is considered very important to protect or to provide opportunities specifically for all people who are female.

We could start listing them but the thing is that it tends to kill a thread because there is a lot of evidence and it is not based on 'this person is friends with x' or 'this person has not spoken out about y therefore must be vilified'.

Yebbut transwomen are the most important kind of women because they are men.

Anti-trans = Anti-woman

Because the reality is, those who refer to feminists as 'anti-trans' when feminists are campaigning to protect female people seek to remove those protections for female people. Hence if they want to use the hyperbolic and overly emotional and false term 'anti-trans' then they must except the logical opposite label.

Because every time someone posts using that ludicrous term for women who believe in the prioritisation of sex over gender when sex matters, they simply show they have no argument and all they have is emotional manipulation.

And it is emotional manipulation to position women's discussion and points about the issues that concern them as 'anti-trans'. The term centres people who have transgender identities and removes the focus away from female people who feminists are centring. Most clearly though, the term inherently demonises and vilifies the people being labelled as 'anti-trans' by trying to position them as hateful and bigoted.

However, there is one thing that using that term does do.

It highlights that there are conflicts in outcomes when considering the demands of those extreme transgender rights activists.

Because reasonable transgender rights activists are those who recognise the rights that another group needs and seeks to find equitable solutions. Solutions that maintain the protection of female people and children while providing for the needs of people with transgender identities. Those transgender rights activists do not position feminists and women's rights campaigners as 'anti-trans'.

Not all trans people campaigning rightfully for their protections to be strengthened are making extreme demands nor are vilifying and demonising feminists and women's rights campaigners. But that doesn't stop some people dishonestly applying the label 'anti-trans' to people they disagree with.

Good posts, Helleofabore especially about ridiculous assertions of being associated with Nazis.

It makes as much sense as saying that Rosie Duffield is a Tory, because she attends Parliament.

Also, for those reading along who want to know more about the history of the feminists who have been those who have raising the alarm about the conflicts between the extreme demands from some groups and needs of female people, this documentary might be helpful.

This documentary has captured many of those early voices. Many of them are lesbian voices as posters have stated on this thread.

Early feminist voices also include people such as Julie Bindel, Linda Belios, Bev Jackson and Kate Harris.

This youtube link could also be useful from Holly Lawford Smith in Australia.

However, I have also read reports detailing Lesbian feminist groups in the 1970s that refused to agree that male people were women in the USA.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

I wonder how many lesbian feminists we need to mention and how far back their participation needs to be evidenced for the claim that there are many left leaning lesbians in the movement and it can be said that they were among the first, if not the first, people to be raising the alarm that this is an issue. The hand waving dismissal of these women has been astonishing to see on this thread.

Edited to add: The documentary is the one that extreme transgender rights activists blocked being shown in Edinburgh University multiple times. I think on the fourth attempt, it was shown. I believe the first blockage attempt also included male people who declared they were women spitting and intimidating the mainly female audience. I even think a physical assault occurred. Other blockage attempts included forcing female people to walk accross male protestors who also grabbed those female people's legs as they walked past. All because they disgreed with the documentary and declared that screening it made people unsafe.

Yep.

JK Rowling and Kellie-Jay Keen are responsible for anyone who attends one of their events or retweets them, but trans activists are not responsible for Karen White or Katie Dolatowski.

Make it make sense.

Every time I see this title in my watched threads it strikes me as so ironic that the OP's typo makes their headline the opposite of what they intended, and changes it from goady into sort-of(1) true 😂

(1) sort-of true because of couse it's not really LGBT rights she's talking about here, it's T-rights. LGB rights have no impact on women's rights. Eroding LGB rights is a bad thng we should all resist, and yes, I agree with the OP that the same groups that attack LGB rights also attack feminism and women's rights.

But eroding trans-specific rights, the rights that only trans people have to redefine and appropriate others' identity, history, political voice, legal rights and protections and social spaces and opportunities does indeed effect, as in (re) establish, women's rights and is therefore something we as a civilised society aiming to undo the effects millenia of disempowerment and marginalisation has had on women's place in our culture should be all in favour of.

It is so so important that we separate these two sets of rights, the LGB and the T. Otherwise we risk sleepwalking (to be generous, or being deliberating manipulated to be cyncial) into believing that women have to choose between standing up for women and LGB rights but accepting the appropriation of female-specific language, spaces, rights and opportunities by men who believe the way they think, the clothes they want to wear or the sexual acts they enjoy makes them women, or standing up for the existence of women as a separate physical, legal, social and political group to men but also endorsing people who wish to roll back feminist and LGB gains.

It's a false dichotomy. Women can and do reject male appropriation of womanhood without signing up for sexism and homophobia. Indeed it's generally the exact opposite - they reject male appropriation of womanhood because it is sexist and homophobic. Anyone who claims not to see this is either not thinking very deeply or deliberately spreading falsehoods.

To be fair, I am not sure that the OP quite articulated what they meant. I refer to the ‘supposed feminists’ advocating for women not to do certain roles? Sounds like a misunderstanding of either who is and isn’t a feminist or a misunderstanding of what those women are saying. I could be wrong. Which feminists would be preventing OP’s daughter from becoming an astronaut? Or was that a comment about the erosion of support and opportunities given to female students if that category now includes some male people too?

I think OP was trying to say that regressive groups who oppose LGBT-all-in-the-same-breath because they don't like people breaking gender roles are also anti feminist (true), so feminists recognising that sex impacts women's experiences, risks and needs are the same as sexists reducing women to their sex (not true).

Her fear is that feminists saying one of the reasons women need different rights and supports to men is because child bearing and rearing takes more from women biologically and socially might lead to regressive groups restricting what women can do in case it impacts their reproductive role.

T is about enforcing gender roles, not breaking them down.

I agree with you, but I'm taking here about the motivations of other groups.

The regressive groups I'm thinking of see gender (ie socalised differences between men and women) as a natural expression of sex so from their perspective T is transgressive and unnatural.

T ideology meanwhile sees gender as separate from sex and possible for either sex. They genuinely believe that having men claim to be women is breaking gender roles by freeing people from the constraints of their sex, or something.

I agree the T ideologists haven't thought it through to realise, or realise but are choosing not to admit, that the only basis anyone came up with the idea of gender-separate-to-sex in the first place is gender stereotypes, and that a trans woman doing "woman stuff" and thereby being "a woman" is not in fact changing the expectation that female people do "woman stuff" one jot.

But they don't see it that way. It's only from the gender critical perspective you see that both groups are enforcing gender.

That's my perspective so I do agree with you, but it's also true to say that the reason the first group hates/rejects the second is because the first group perceives them as transgressing gender roles, which is what is relevant in the context of my post.

I was also, incidentally, including LGB in transgressing gender roles from the regressive perspective, because from that mindset heterosexual atttraction is part of being "right" for your sex, and those who are not heterosexual are not quite as manly or womanly as they should be. (Which incidentally is also why there is a historic link between LGB and T that made the later force teaming possible and still genuinely supported by many LGB people , but that's way off topic for this post)