And so it begins: Transwoman is running for women's officer of NUS

[PosieReturningParker]

Some of her aims:

Gender neutral sex ed
Women in leadership making room for transwomen (because you know how many women are in leadership roles)
BUS accepting transwomen to compete as women in sports

"In fact, I would recommend not to post any comments to the Anna Lee FB page if that person is involved with it."

I agree.

Anna's going to be elected isn't "she"? "She" has a lacklustre opposition and even a handful of naive female students sleepwalking into supporting a "transwoman" could see her elected to speak on their behalf.

I agree that we don't need to resort to mocking "her" chosen name or talk about how masculine Anna is. Even if a very feminine man wanted to be a woman's officer, he should not be allowed.

I agree that the passing thing is a bit of a red herring. Obviously someone who has had surgery and takes hormones is more likely to pass, but it doesn't seem logical or fair that someone who doesn't pass by virtue of eg height should be unable to access spaces and privileges that someone who does, can. Either all transwomen are women, or none of them are.

You are all bigger women than me. I'm just frustrated after being silenced for supporting the other candidate BY the other bloody candidate.

(I am a female student, this actually matters to me more than being yet another example of women-erasure by transwomen)

Are any Londoners interested in this? ex-muslim.org.uk/2016/02/nus-revise-safe-space-and-no-platform-policies-to-facilitate-not-restrict-free-expression-and-thought/

I agree with Tea, a transwoman who "passes" is still not a woman, so whilst Anna's appearance does appear to make the situation more ludicrous, it isn't the core issue.

Her appearance is a bit of an issue to me because it does feel like she's massively taking the piss out of women: "Look, they're so fucking dumb that all I have to do is put a dress on and they'll vote for me for women's officer" but I appreciate that may not be her motivation.

Fireflies - "If Lee is as vulnerable as she appears in some of the public material, then she could be a victim of a wider agenda - Sarah and others will meet Anna's basic needs to be accepted and valued, and if she doesn't have that elsewhere in her life, she will be open to their suggestions."

Lee is an adult male making choices that negatively impact women and girls. However sad Lees story might be, it doesn't change that fundamental fact. Lee wears ladyface, which is misogynist and would be unacceptable these days done to any other marginalised group. Lee makes campaign materials that are deliberately misleading. Lee uses their manifesto specifically to attack feminists and further marginalise women and women's issues from a position specifically intended to centre women.

Your theory seems to be that Lee is vulnerable because Lee might be desperate for validation. If you are correct, that means that Lee has prioritised their own narcissistic need for validation over women's right to representation, and is specifically indulging in anti-feminist campaigning in order to gather accolades from misogynists. Why should we concern ourselves with how a male's narcissism is being taken advantage of when it's women who are suffering all the disadvantages?

I get that you are trying to empathise with them, but I think that it is misplaced. Are you concerned because they describe themselves as disabled?

I wish we could return to the old terminology as this would make the situation so much easier.

Imagine the clarity in saying:
Transvestite men and pre-op transsexuals must use changing rooms according to their birth sex or the sex-neutral rooms.
Post-op transsexuals may use the changing rooms of their preferred sex. (obviously if that was the accepted choice)

It would also help clarify how many transwomen are transvestites (only wearing clothes, varying between presenting as men and women), pre-op transsexuals (taking hormones, constantly presenting as their preferred sex, potentially top surgery but not bottom surgery) and post-op transsexuals.

if you didn't know she was trans, she'd still have the experience of growing up male which is what makes her unfit for this role.

I agree, which is why I said in my post that some roles, including this one, can only be effective if a biological woman carries them out.

It would be wrong if a man disguised themselves as a woman in order to deceive the woman he seeks to represent.
However, what's offensive to me in this case is the assumption that women won't object to a man or a trans-woman representing them, so no attempt has been made to 'hide' their non-biological-woman status.

It's incredibly arrogant. The only analogy I can think of is to compare a sneak thief with a ram raid - one relies on the theft being undetected until the theft has been committed, the other relies on brute force with a disregard for the witnesses who may be present.

Hareem has actually protected her tweets now hasn't she?

I saw a reference somewhere to her complaining about TERFs.

[sceptical]

I don't think post-op transsexuals should have access to women's spaces either. They still aren't women. They're men who have chosen to have some really offensive misogynist cosmetic procedures done.

I mean really, I feel sad for them that they didn't like their body parts before, but making a shallow hole in their bodies from a piece of colon or an inside out penis to "approximate" a vagina - that's got to be one of the most disgustingly woman hating processes medical men have ever come up with.

I'm also a student. My comment got deleted too.

I was on a lefty page, huge with 20000 members, a few TWs joined. One of them was vile, started with a terrible joke about women, along the lines of changing a lightbulb... Anyway she decided this joke was the best way to ingratiate herself with 20,000 women. She got it very very wrong. When I asked her how she self identified she got very very nasty.... telling me she was more woman than I was and more attractive (oh how we laughed) and feminine... So this set the tone for how we responded to eachother.

She said stuff like (in a supposed humorous tone) how she'd like to tie some women to a radiator in a basement and torture them.

A mod on that board PM'd me to say this TW had a very male voice and was threatened by her, but felt she couldn't say as she'd be thought of as prejudice.

Kids puking will be back.

I get that you are trying to empathise with them, but I think that it is misplaced. Are you concerned because they describe themselves as disabled?

No, the disabled label is just muddying the water I think.

It very much depends whether you think there is an organised , concerted effort to displace women from their current position in society by "using" the tran-agenda to do so.

If we assume there is, then those leading that agenda would seek out vulnerable trans-women and "groom" them, for want of a better word, in order to recruit them to carry out the high risk actions that further their cause.
Similar to a drug-dealer using addicts to act a mule/carrier - a dealer will befriend the addict, giving the addict what they need, before then persuading them that acting as a mule is the "right" thing to do.

Everyone needs validation and to have a feeling of belonging. A vulnerable, "new" trans-woman like Anna, who is exploring her own emotions and feelings, and who may well be sufffering from fragile mental health, has limited opportunities for that validation - and so is open to abuse by unscrupulous individuals and groups who have an agenda that Anna may have very little understanding of.

I see what you're saying, and I think you're right that exactly that is happening - a small core of men who id as 'trans' are operating mostly (not completely cos they love a bit of publicity themselves) behind the scenes and grooming up noobs and fall guys. Sarah Noble, Sarah Brown, Roz Kaveney, Natacha 'only at the weekends' Kennedy.. The same names crop up over and over again.

I don't think there is anything that can be done about it though. The 'puppetmasters' aren't actually hiding, there is plenty of public evidence that they are dishonest, misogynist, narcissistic, and enjoy stalking, threatening and slandering women. It's like - if anyone wants to throw in with all that because there's some validation cookies in it for them - what can we do about it? These are adults, they're making the choices that work for them with no regard at all for the impact on other people.

It's like - if anyone wants to throw in with all that because there's some validation cookies in it for them - what can we do about it? These are adults, they're making the choices that work for them with no regard at all for the impact on other people.

I'm not sure we can "do" anything about it, any more than we can "do" anything about other vulnerable people being taken in by unsrupulous individuals with a different agenda. They (the vulnerable individual) are oblivious to the impact that their choices have on others, because they are being advised and guided by people they trust.

However, it does have an impact on how "we" can counter it. There is little point in attacking Anna as an individual if she is expendible to the cause she is representing. She is an "easy" target because she has been placed in a risky role. The puppetmasters aren't taking overt risk - so finding a way of discrediting and exposing them takes more effort.

I wonder if it possible to use their own agenda to weaken them? For instance, if the Care Act was strengthened to recognise the inherant vulnerabilities of trans-women (and trans-men), so giving additional protection to people like Anna from being "used" in that way?

I don't think post-op transsexuals should have access to women's spaces either. They still aren't women.

Fair enough Vincent - I certainly agree in terms of refuges but I personally wouldn't mind sharing a changing room with a post-op TS despite not viewing them as women, obviously people draw their lines in different places and I understand your thinking.

My main point is that if we went back to the language that differentiates between TV and post-op TS then it would clarify situations such as the changing room guidelines. It also would give a clear barrier to stop men abusing the rules such as has been the case with a number of swimming pools lately.

Fireflies - I see what you're saying, interesting points, I've not considered the topic from that perspective. I don't know the ins and outs of the Care Act, but I don't think there is any evidence that identifying as trans makes one vulnerable though? More that there are vulnerable people identifying as trans in order to be validated or supported or 'cured' even, but it's other underlying problems that make them vulnerable.

I agree there is no point attacking Lee as an individual, but I don't see the point on focussing on Lee as an individual at all, including in a sympathetic way. The focus should be on Lee's actions and what they mean for women.

OneFlew - yes I agree with your point about language. We should be able to linguistically distinguish between men suffering from an identity disorder, men engaging in a fetish, and men just wearing clothes that aren't designated as "men's" who somehow get caught in the "must be a laydee" crossfire. The language pushed by the trans movement deliberately makes this difficult, it would be helpful if we could all stop using it, but legislation is fuzzy on whether we can do that? Clarity seems to have been classified as a form of hate speech? I don't know how to address that short of waiting for it to come up in court, and I don't trust courts to listen to women or take a feminist position on the difference between sex and gender..

Yes, I think a main aim of the TA movement is obfuscation. Not just between the people they classify as transwomen, but also their determination that transwomen are women and we should have no linguistic way to differentiate between the two.

Been blocked as well. It's just all so shady. What's going on with the NUS?