From Willoughby's article:
"It’s all too easy at the moment for someone to claim transgender rights who isn’t actually transgender."
So - where does IW stand on self-identification then?
And does IW not realise they're contradicting themselves from one paragraph to the next?
Para 1: "Transgender has become a horrible, vague word that makes no distinction between someone with a medical condition requiring intervention, and a bloke who likes to frock-up once a week."
Para 2: "There’s a world of difference – but it no longer gets mentioned. Presumably because everyone is walking around on tip-toes. This trans free-for-all is playing into the hands of people like Jenni Murray and Germaine Greer – who use the ‘men in dresses’ myth to spread their poison, and encourage derision of women like me."
So who are these blokes who like to frock-up once a week, if men in dresses is a myth?
Regardless - I find this article quite interesting. It being written, it being published - interesting. As are some of IW's tweets in response to other tweeters about this article:
- Is a transvestite the same as a transgender woman? Should they both be treated the same in law? Places they can legitimately use? IMHO no
- Do I want transgender women forever grouped with those who dip in and out? No. It's not my fight
Hmm. IW seems to want only transexuals to be considered as transgenders and everyone else are transvestites. Is that umbrealla term 'trans' starting to let the rain in?