Thread 7 - No pitch forks or Pom Poms - Scottish political shenanigans

[TheShadowyFeminist]

New 🧵

But this isn’t the place for this debate. I have no wish to see trans people come to harm. Safe spaces for all would be my position.

@StatisticallyChallenged

How would you define a transwoman? I'm not being facetious - but how would you define who should be able to access a woman's refuge or other safe space?

A person who lives and presents as a woman.

I know that my own definition is probably outdated now and that there are now a whole range of issues surrounding that. Danielle M, the range of genders etc etc.

I'm not completely uninformed I'm just trying, like everyone else, to navigate this extremely complex issue.

I couldn't turn her away. I know that much.

@WouldBeGood

But this isn’t the place for this debate. I have no wish to see trans people come to harm. Safe spaces for all would be my position.

Why not? It's a space for Scottish political discussion and this is relevant surely given it's as you say a fundamental issue for many women choosing who to vote for.

There’s lots of debate on this on the feminist boards.

It’s not as simple as “couldn’t turn her away”. Then you’re effectively granting males the right to access spaces designed to be safe for women.

And don’t get me started on jails! Or sports.

I promise I’ll stop now. Happy to debate on another thread.

@WouldBeGood

I wouldn’t deny them safe spaces. Just not women only spaces.

But what if they are a woman? Where do you draw your line?

I just think it’s derailing @forfucksakenett. Don’t want to get off the point.

Obviously people have different views on this. I was just exploring why people might vote Tory.

No I'm not I'm not granting males access. I'm granting a trans woman access.

I don’t believe they are women.

Humza will have me in the jail

Where do you draw the line? The SG says that anyone can self ID as a woman. No need for anything else: just say you are.

The point of the thread is Scottish politics and this is a huge part of it judging by the amount of posters who, quite understandably, are using women's issues to help determine their vote.

You are obviously entitled to not want to talk about it but I don't see it as a derailment.

So I will throw my opinion in here. Fully transitioned I would hold the door open and welcome in. It's the identify as that is way to open for abuse in my opinion.

I think it's reasonable to vote (or not vote) for a party based on a single issue, if that issue is really important to you. If other policies are abhorrent, it's difficult, but in some cases it's really the only choice you have other than not voting at all/ spoiling your paper. I'd definitely let the relevant candidate/ party know, though. They may not take any interest, but at least you feel you've got your point across!

I voted Tory on the list once (pre-brexit etc obviously) though it made me actually queasy to do it . My Tory MSPs had actually been really helpful, reasonable and supportive on an issue I had contacted all my MSPs on, when all the other parties were frankly shit (one naming me in a parliamentary motion condemning the SG for having anything to do with me. Which was nice). Admittedly quite a drastic and niche reason, and not an especially high bar for the tories to reach to get my vote, but they did manage it...

Bit that's essentially the issue, isn't it? Go back maybe 10 years and that's what a TW was in most cases - the "Hailey from Coronations Street" stereotype. And most people when faced with someone who fitted that image would probably say they should be in a woman's refuge. Or would have. The Danielle M types (amongst others) have hardened some people's stances in general but even where they haven't have made it incredibly hard to discuss or even define. How do you create a line, how do you say "you can come in, but you can't " when the criteria might essentially amount to passing privilege?

It would help a lot if refuges were better funded as then it would be easier to create more which were suitable for being mixed sex. My friend was in one a few years ago - no men were allowed over the threshold but it was essentially a block of flats inside, each unit was totally secure and self contained so it could easily have been mixed sex. Others, as I said it, are closer to a shared house kind of setup with communal spaces. But the piss poor funding means that most places don't have a range of provision available.

Are there many men's refuges around? Genuine question, I don't know but I'm certainly far less aware of their existence

If a person is living as a woman and presents as woman then I would accept that they are a woman. Same as a woman presenting and living as a man.

That's of course where my own definition fails the test.

How can we police the appearance of trans women when many biological women appear as very masculine, for example. I have an aunt who is mistaken for a man daily!

There is a minority of arseholes in every section of society. Their behaviour shouldn't determine the rights afforded to the majority.

Being a biological woman for example doesn't mean you are incapable of domestic abuse but she'd be allowed access to the refuge by virtue of her vagina?

Sorry I mean person presenting and living as a man.

Freudian.

And by arseholes I mean your Danielle M types

It's essentially become impossible to actually define, hasn't it?

I think this is why a lot of women have become quite hard line in reality, because once you try to define a line anywhere else it's like trying to draw a line in the desert in a sandstorm

That’s the problem. One can’t pick and choose once the line has been crossed.

I’m not alleging that TW are evil predators. But even the presence of a man could be upsetting and triggering for a woman who’s suffered abuse.

And I don’t believe that males should be able to self id as women and play in women’s sports. It’s dangerous as well as unfair.

@StatisticallyChallenged

It's essentially become impossible to actually define, hasn't it?

I think this is why a lot of women have become quite hard line in reality, because once you try to define a line anywhere else it's like trying to draw a line in the desert in a sandstorm

Yes. I think the desire to legislate has in fact made it more difficult for people to gain acceptance in some ways.

@StatisticallyChallenged

It's essentially become impossible to actually define, hasn't it?

I think this is why a lot of women have become quite hard line in reality, because once you try to define a line anywhere else it's like trying to draw a line in the desert in a sandstorm

Exactly.

I think I probably sound pretty negative but I think it's a lost battle and the women continuing to rail against trans folk are increasingly appearing bigoted even although their intentions are pretty good.

As @StatisticallyChallenged said on an earlier post a structural change in these contentious areas are required. We can't define the people adequately but we can control the spaces to an extent. Refuges, sport, etc should be the focus for change not the impossible definitions. Not that that's easy either tbf.

Sport does worry me a fair bit to be honest. As does the change in medical language. Chest feeding for example. Makes me feel all funny.

I don't think you could send a TW to a men's refuge, though?! Maybe a mixed sex "domestic abuse" refuge or similar, but I understand that in itself would have problems.

I imagine the main issue is preventing abusive behaviour within the refuge itself. I'm sure very few people would have an issue with a "genuine" TW in women's space, but the issue comes with the (presumably few) men who lie, basically, to gain access or advantage. But the whole self ID thing I think removes any safeguarding around that... in that there is no recourse to saying "no, you don't qualify to access our service". If everyone had to produce a birth cert or something on entry, and a formal GRC if the sex on that is different to the service sought it would at least be some kind of proactive thing to avoid the risk of "mistaken" admission.

Obviously someone (of either sex and whatever presentation they choose) abusing another resident can be thrown out - but presumably the issue is before that. If a complaint is made about someone, that residents feel uncomfortable or whatever, nothing can be done about that until actual abuse occurs. Which seems rather dodgy to me.

I think it's a combination - spaces need to be improved so that the number of areas of conflict reduces, but where that isn't feasible (sports, prisons, shared wards, single sex schools, older buildings where it's just not possible, etc etc) then it has to be ok to define on sex.

But that needs a lot of meeting in the middle, and it also seems from what I've heard and read that a fair proportion of trans people - or at least trans campaigners - would consider this "othering" and unacceptable. So a situation where itself hospital policy that a TW would have a private room (for example) would be objectionable for many.

No idea how we fix it

I don’t think it’s even lying about it or potential abuse, though they are issues.

If you’re in a safe women’s space, you may not want to share that with a person with a penis or a biological male for all sorts of reasons.

The lived experience of being a woman is something unique.

The conflation of sex and gender is also most irritating.

Makes you wonder why we need Scotgov , just a super council with all the parties represented. Would save an awful lot of money as clearly the people we need to do this job aren’t standing .

Hysterical co leader of Greens on this morning R4 suggesting we need independence to stop all the misery we suffer from Westminster. Wonder what misery she was talking about?