I am Janice Turner's No 1 fan - another excellent article

[Stopmakingsense]

This one picks up in particular the huge rise in women identifying as men, and the increasing inability of anyone being able to question it:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/even-asking-questions-is-now-transphobic-ztk3rlrfk?shareToken=1f64a5116171eb54a9a866590e6432ec

No I definitely don't think all of it is calculated. Some of it is heartfelt I'm sure. But there's a core of disruptive, aggressive TRAS who seem to be MRAs and/or have AGP who I will call out every time.

I'm am dubious about going along with anyone with male genitalia who says they are a woman even if they are not any of the above though.

I'm sure Rachel Dolezal was acting in good faith and felt that she was black quite honestly because she associated with black culture so strongly. I've read a bit about her and it seems to come from a good place. But the world told her to take a hike with that stuff - rightly. I'm not sure I see any difference with this situation. If she was offensive to black people why would this not be offensive to women? Why should we have to accommodate this ? Because we are kind and nurturing ? I have nothing but sympathy for people who honestly find themselves in this situation but that doesn't mean I need to collude with the idea that women can have penises.

I'm also not comfortable with the idea that a proper feminist response to trans issues and trans people means going out of your way to use the pronouns that they have asked you not to use. I can't see any point in being deliberately insulting to someone who hasn't actually done you any harm. (As PP have said, there's a difference between not believing in the same gods as someone else and going out of your way to tell them their imaginary friend is imaginary and their religious rituals stupid, when the person is not actually inflicting their beliefs on you but just going about their daily business).

The whole business is such a mess, though. It's really, really difficult to get a handle on what's actually happening and what is malicious rumour, fake news, paranoia or misunderstanding. (The latest thing I heard - which I think may well have some truth in it - is that a lot of the worst and most abusive 'transactivists' on social media are, basically, trolls with no interest in transpeople's rights or wellbeing, but a lot of enthusiasm for feminist-bashing).

And here's that female socialization again. While they discuss if it is OK to punch feminists, we discuss whether we're too unkind if we call them "he" and "him".

The James ....? whose dissertation was refused by Bath Spa was on the Today programme. Missed the person before him, arguing that this research should be refused, but James... seemed very articulate and, actually, a trans ally. Worth listening to on catch up.

Well each to their own SGB. I personally think pandering to the pronouns and calling males "women" is what's got us into this mess in the first place. I probably wouldn't be deliberately rude and inflammatory in person but I'm never going to stop feeling that it's quite an outrageous imposition on me, frankly.

I tend to say 'they' which is neither buying into the fiction that one can change sex (and he/she denotes sex, not gender) nor erasing that person's reality (that they do not identify as their born sex, whatever that really means).

I don't believe that we are simply talking about social media trolls though Reanimated. We are talking about people who have the ear of the government to the extent that women's spaces are no longer solely for women, and many, many people are afraid to speak out publicly for fear of being branded a bigot and, in some jobs, disciplined. Those are very powerful social media trolls.

ReanimatedSGB

Yes, there is a lot of talk about these people just being men's rights activists and trolls.

However some of those claims are coming from the transactivist side. In order to disassociate themselves from the violence, whilst benefiting from the fear it engenders and the shutting down of discussion.

On the other hand. These people are gleefully warning women on social media that they are coming to a bathroom near them soon.

So whether they are genuine or not, is a bit moot. They will be the ones exploiting the law.

Exactly. The likes of Danielle Muscato might well be trolling the world in plain sight, but if they self id as a woman there's no difference between them and any other self declared trans "woman".

If I know the person and it is FtF or if it is in any official document I use the correct pro-noun although in many cases it chokes me to do so. In one case, I like the person a lot, but they benefitted greatly from male privilege when they were a man and this now seems forgotten. In another, they don't even try and I am of the view that their 'trans' nature is actually about misogyny. They don't get off sexually by being seen as a woman, they 'get off' on their male power by humiliating women and making them acquiesce to their demands whilst simultaneously playing the victim. To me this feels like violence. If it is anonymous and I have no respect for the person then the gloves are off and it is 'he' or 'they' depending on context.

Just posted this on another thread:

The researcher in Janice's article on Saturday was interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme after the sport & headlines @ c8.35am. It was a pretty good interview. They had a contribution from a trans advocate at the start to say why they thought this kind of research was problematic and could be misused. Then the researcher was interviewed at length and allowed to make his arguments, which he did with eminent reasonableness and clarity.

If I know the person and it is FtF...

I've clearly read too many of these threads, as I read that as 'female-to-female' and couldn't work out what multiple gender transformation you were talking about.

FtF is me when I shower and change out of the messy clothes I have been using to paint the walls or do the garden into a dress, heels and make up to go to work.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4537777/transgender-law-proposals-assault-hyde-park-opinion/

Have you seen this in The Sun. Excellent well researched clear article.

They have said the previously unsayable. Men keeping their penises want in your bathroom, prison, locker room. And if you don't like it you'll get a slap.

Interesting. Some quite good concise explanations there (which is one of the things tabloid writing can do well, though it doesn't always). They've gone with the concern about male-bodied people in hospitals and prisons as the key one. I think powerful life-changing drugs being given to children, and women's sport being taken over by male-bodied competitors, would be the others I would lead with.

Bet Julia Long never envisioned the day she'd be sympathetically quoted by the Sun. Strange bedfellows all this is making!

Good grief. First I'm agreeing with The Times, now The Sun!

I have to confess that I am unsure about the James Caspian story since we are only getting one side of the story and it looks perfect. I'm not suggesting it didn't happen, but I'd like to hear both sides and see evidence of Bath Spa University saying that “engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research carries a risk to the University”.

Indeed Poppy. That piece in the Sun was probably the most accurate I have read so far. Hope they cover the Trans Health Manifesto. That should peaktrans their readers pretty sharpish

Thanks to all for keeping these discussions going and for the links. Just catching up now and v happy to see The Sun cover the issue from our perspective.

With "assigned female" or "assigned male" I get a picture in my head of the midwife with a clipboard saying "hmm, not enough males today, best quickly sew a penis on this one", or "best pop a uterus in this one, keep the quota up".

Is that why the midwife takes the baby away for a few minutes? I always thought it was to weigh, measure and do APGAR scores etc, but it seems the clear tank where they do the checks is a "sorting bassinet" (a la the Hogwarts sorting hat).

Have the university refuted the claim, though? I agree that there must be evidence in the form of a letter, as ethics committees provide formal responses. It may have been verbal advice, though, prior to formal application.

I can understand measured advice being given if the level of ethical approval needed is more complicated and high level than the level of study warrants (e.g. an undergraduate wanting to interview problem drug users for their dissertation through the NHS). But there would have to be valid time and resource issues to consider, as well as the level of experience of the student, and how they wanted to recruit. There are also complexities around the level of risk and sensitivity in the subject as well. But 'politically incorrect' does not capture these nuances, it seems a cop out.

So yes, it would be good to know more about the context and content of this advice.

I am talking about James Caspian's rejected study, sorry for lack of clarity.

I think I read that it was in an email?
Certainly, he would need to have been very certain he could prove it, to go public with this, and the newspapers that carried the story would want to have seen proof.

Is that why the midwife takes the baby away for a few minutes? I always thought it was to weigh, measure and do APGAR scores etc, but it seems the clear tank where they do the checks is a "sorting bassinet" (a la the Hogwarts sorting hat).

I also wondered if they had a sorting hat. But this explains it all. That is what they are up to [lightbulb]