Labour Against Transphobia Facebook group

[NotTerfNorCis]

Lily Madigan and Aisling Musson are asking for 'screenshots and evidence of transphobic behaviour' so they can make Labour 'a truly safe space for all members regardless of their gender identity or lack thereof.' In other words, doxxing people so they can be thrown out of the party for gender-critical views.

The group write-up is:

A group formed to oppose the rising tide of Transphobia in the UK Labour Party and to seek to make the Party a truly safe space for all members regardless of their gender identity or lack thereof.

PLEASE READ THE PINNED POST

If you have screenshots and evidence of transphobic behaviour please put them in the google drive folder rather than offloading them straight into the group as it may otherwise be overwhelming and trans members should have the option to not have to look at upsetting comments.

Do not add anyone unless you are sure that they:

1. Are a member of the Labour Party
2. Believe the basis of gender is self-definition
3. Think that transphobia is grounds for expulsion from the party
4. Respect the autonomy of trans people to direct the fight against transphobia (I.e will not take decisions against the will of trans people)

If you are a trans and/or non binary person and you would like to be added to the secret group (trans/nb people only) please message lily madigan or aisling musson and we will add you.

Rules:

• No advocacy for violence, threats of violence of other illegal acts (quite apart from the morality of it, please do not get this group shut down)
• This is a not a discourse group. If you do not agree that transphobia is bad, that the Labour party has it and that we should fight it, this is not a group for you.
• Be respectful. As far as possible, please always be friendly, respectful and comradely and treat others as you would wish to be treated.

-No members of other parties.

• TERF is not a slur.

the next push/ campaign will be to remove single sex exemptions from the Equality

And the exemptions are already massively eroded anyway due to all these organisations following guidance pushed at them by trans orgs - most orgs seem to be blissfully unaware of the exemptions

I don’t believe self-I’d serves trans people well. What will be the impact on support to those who need it? I worry that they will be forced to use private clinics, or those overseas. Maybe that’s it? Maybe it can be crossed off the NHS budget as ‘not our problem’? People who are suffering and feel transitioning is the anwer - will they have any mental health support? Without a GRC they’ll always be ‘a bloke in a dress’. It’s an expensive business to transition to such a degree a man can pass as a woman.

well done Eamonn I was just thinking of the parties over here, I've contacted Claire Hanna before about other issues and shes been really good. If this gets into other political parties or interests Lady Silvia Hermon is a good advocate for women.

Cant imagine the DUP would be very "progressive" thinking on this topic!

Yes it's odd that the party dubbed "The Provisional Wing of the 17th Century" could be tactically useful.

Ohforfox, self id does not serve transwomen, as many transwomen think.

twitter.com/naturalallwoman/status/955767023052775424

I forgot all about Lady Silvia Hermon, @MrWriter. Isn't she also aligned with the Labour Party at Westminster?

ITS NOT ABIUT TRANS WOMEN ITS ABOUT MEN PRETENDING TO BE TRANS AND CHANGING THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE WORD WOMAN.

There's no hard delineation between these two groups of men - so-called 'trans women' and men who just want to appropriate things from women. India Willoughby is genuinely trans and he is also an outright misogynist who shouldn't be near any all-women's shortlist. If you accept the word 'trans woman', then you've already accepted the definition of woman changing to include men.

'Trans woman' is Newspeak par excellence, that's why all these Labour misogynists are hiding behind it. Why would anyone admit that this is about men when they can say 'trans women' instead, which niftily not only hides but reverses the gendered power relations at stake here?

Just to let you know that I have been in touch with Jennifer James and they are still very much committed to the original aim of the fundraising. If the decision goes the right way this afternoon and AWS are to be limited to women and transwomen with a GRC they will refund the money - but also look into how to support the 10 (to date) women that are at the receiving end of harassment from the TRAs directly as a result of the fundraising (I have told her that I would be happy for them to use my donation for this purpose instead if indeed the decision goes the right way).

They are holding off updating the GoFundMe page until the decision has been made, but basically, I think the message is, don't worry - we won't be using your money for anything other than the original purpose unless you agree otherwise.

She also asked me to apologise to the amazing Mumsnet people for the state of flux.

(will post on other relevant threads so apologies if you read this repeatedly!)

Ohforfox, self id does not serve transwomen, as many transwomen think.

I disagree. The male supremacist trans movement serves all trans-identified men, including transsexuals, that's why so few have come out against it.

The trans movement does actually benefit transsexuals (even while being hellbent on destroying the meaning of the word), simply because transsexuals are a tiny minority, while 'transgender' is a broad and ever growing umbrella, and they could never gain the kind of influence they have without being part of this mass movement.

As I pointed out above, India Willoughby is a 'true transsexual', and he has no respect for women and is happy to stomp all over our rights (he was on Sky News a few months ago rubbishing the idea that female prisoners had anything to fear from being imprisoned with male rapists). Willoughby is only vaguely worried about 'gender fluid' people possibly diluting his struggles - he is not seriously concerned that he is going to lose basic rights to the trans movement, and is mostly on board with its demands. That's because he won't be seriously hurt by them. Women will.

Is India a 'true transsexual?' Are we using that to mean someone who has had bottom surgery? I am convinced India is AGP

India is against self definition because they want the gatekeeping but it's all part of the validation thing. They want people to thing they are a 'realer' woman than trans women who haven't had the surgery. A not unreasonable psychological response to castrating yourself to be honest. Of course as their behaviour on CBB showed that is not what makes a woman.

India is worried that cross dressing fetishists are going to undermine her credibility.

And she is right.

The problem is her credibility has no more basis in fact than theirs.

I can see the point of only accepting transwomen with a GRC, but purely on the basis that there will be fewer of them.

Not because they have any greater claim.

I can see the point of only accepting transwomen with a GRC, but purely on the basis that there will be fewer of them.

My position exactly!

“We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!”

The Crucible....

The only tiny bit of support i can offer re self-ID is that having to mutilate yourself to be comfortable with your body feels so wrong. When I see young (ex-lesbian) trasnmen hating their breasts and having them amputated, I weep. I'm not sure if it's possible to get a GRC without bottom surgery? if it is, then we keep opposing self-ID. If not, then the law does need to be rewritten to define genuine 'transition' to another identity, but lets not pretend that anyone can change sex.

parnish surgery is not a requirement for a grc

Not just bottom surgery, NO surgery is legally required for a grc.
The criteria are:

• over 18
• lived "in the opposite sex" for at least two years
• diagnosis of gender dysphoria

How do you 'live as the opposite sex'? Buy your clothes from Topshop instead of Topman?

The AGP in Nottingham who tried to run a women only group showing women how to orgasm, has had no genital surgery and has a GRC

Well indeed - that's why I put it in scare quotes

Btw, I meant to include - no hormone treatment is legally required either

How do you 'live as the opposite sex'? Buy your clothes from Topshop instead of Topman?

And this is how transactivists use feminism against women.

Women have been saying wearing a dress does not make you a woman.

So now transactivists don't bother changing their male appearance at all.

Conveniently dismissing that what actually make you a woman is biology.

I don't have to wear a dress to be a woman!

Biology?

You Bigot.

I'm not sure if it's possible to get a GRC without bottom surgery?

The only thing that's required is a certain element of medical gatekeeping of you as a patient and relatively serious intent. Which would go out of the window if self ID comes in.

What makes you think lily will shortly no longer be women's Officer?

we are assuming that pressure is coming from below, from the trans activists. But I wonder, given the huge funding for this, if pressure is coming from above too?

Looking at gender stuff in different countries, we have different equality laws to many places - it is why the case in Ireland is different to here - that have no equality act. So posibly stuff has been pushed through without actually coming up against a really clear cut rule like the AWS stuff. Its kind of stopped them in their tracks. See if the gender id law had gone ahead then it would not even be an issue. Perhaps there is pressure coming from ABOVE that we dont know about

Thanks all. So transitioning to get a GRC is, effectively, self-ID but with some history and the intention to make it permanent, and medical recognition of this. Sometimes with medical and surgical changes, sometimes not. So, that gives safeguards to protect women's rights a bit. Why in the name of the great goddess Minerva, do they want more?