Labour against transphobia group - thread 2

[QuentinSummers]

Follow on from
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3144285-Labour-Against-Transphobia-Facebook-group?msgid=75082467#75082467

Please don’t leave the Labour Party yet! New statement says:
““The rights of all groups to debate the implications of reforming the gender recognition act should be supported. I very much hope that any discussion on this matter is conducted in arespectful and inclusive manner.””
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-to-clarify-policy-over-trans-women-on-all-female-shortlists?CMP=share_btn_tw
Time to get the Woman’s Place model resolution to branches, CLPs, women’s forums etc.
www.socfem.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CLP-model-motion.pdf

I have always been in favour of people staying within the party to fight this one if they can. Having said this, I see nothing here that looks any different. This says their policy is self-ID but they will consult. Great. Several key female MPs have just come out in various newspapers saying labour will bring this in if the Tories don't. And going heavy on the 'only the kind of bigot who would oppose same sex marriage would even question this policy' line. They have heavily contributed to an atmosphere where women feel frightened to speak out due to fear of being called a 'transphobe' or beaten up or having complaints made to their employer. How can a consultation be in any way meaningful in these circumstances?

And going heavy on the 'only the kind of bigot who would oppose same sex marriage would even question this policy' line. They have heavily contributed to an atmosphere where women feel frightened to speak out due to fear of being called a 'transphobe' or beaten up or having complaints made to their employer. How can a consultation be in any way meaningful in these circumstances?

Exactly. I think it's a nod to reasonableness with no real intent to meaningfully consult at all.

I wouldn't assume GC people will find many allies in the Labour Party to fight with them:

twitter.com/Davane2014/status/959018735964172289

I agree it’s not looking good. But most of the MPs’ comments have been confined to All Women shortlists in the Labour Party. Reforming the GRA is a much wider debate. Issues like whether self-defined transwomen have to “live as a woman” and what that means exactly, whether they have to live as a woman 100% of the time or can dip in and out. And what about transmen? Will Gentlemen’s Clubs have to allow self-declared female-bodied “men” to sign up? Men-only golf clubs? And there’s a whole debate about children and young people.

The race logic is just bizarre. It doesn't even make sense. Black women are women exactly the same as any women because they are adult human females. Trans identified males are not women because they are the opposite sex.

Nauticant are any members on that thread members of the Labour Party?

(Self-declared ones - not asking to share personal or sensitive data)

The race logic is just bizarre.

These folk are patriarchal white supremacists. They have no idea at all that they are thinking racist thoughts. They have no idea at all that they thinking sexist thoughts. And because they sit at the apex of society, nobody has ever, can ever, or will ever, shake them from their smug self assurance.

If it wasn't so terrifying, it would be funny that they self-identify as progressive.

Is there a small window in their early thirties?

It would help to explain the appeal of self-ID AWS - zero possibility of those peak maternity leave years troubling all these brave new (trans)women MPs.

That one's apparently leaving twitter while he works to prove his innocence from accusations of racism. Bless.

The race logic is just bizarre. It doesn't even make sense. Black women are women exactly the same as any women because they are adult human females. Trans identified males are not women because they are the opposite sex.

Indeed. Its just vile. Black women are women because they are women. Male people are not women because they are men. Men = adult human males, not some mystical unsay able new definition of the word.

I read this a few days back, about how 'intersectionality' has been hijacked (whats new...) by transactivists. I was unaware of the history behind it all tbh

idgeofreason.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/intersectionality-what-it-is-what-it-is-why-its-been-debased/

I'd like to see if Labour plan to tackle the primogeniture exception. Because it's one thing going after women, quite another going after rich white men for the sake of the odd TIF, and it would be interesting to see a justification for them not having leapt on this 'transphobic' policy yet.

Oh collidascope that's brilliant. Because that is where the whole house of fucking cards falls down.

YES, it is fascinating how primogeniture is exempted isn't it?!

The thing that might affect men is exempted !!

Hard not to be cynical - That they know exactly what self-ID will do to women.

Yes and they can see how chancers might use it. Except chancers trying to see women and girls with no clothes on because THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED ANYWHERE TO ANYONE

We are asking the wrong question then. It should be 'are transmen men?'

Transmen are completely ignore don't throughout the vast majority of the debate. The greens do list them in their policy (transmen are men, transwomen are women) but I've not seen them mentioned elsewhere.

It's quite interesting the primogeniture angle..

Yes and they can see how chancers might use it. Except chancers trying to see women and girls with no clothes on because THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED ANYWHERE TO ANYONE

But women are inherently manipulative and would clearly just lie to steal things from their brothers. Never have men ever been manipulative or looked to abuse any 'rule'. Women will abuse this so must be kept in their box. Men will not abuse this. Especially not sexual predators. No way. Never.

Agree it’s all about the MtF transwomen. Which is particularly odd because surely if we are to take the needs of trans people seriously in public policy we should find out a bit what their actual needs are. Both MtF and FtM trans people.

Like in that ridiculous BSA survey from NatCen. Keeps talking about the increasing prominence of ‘transgender people’ but makes literally NO MENTION of FtM Transmen. As if they simply do not exist.
Or more accurately as if ‘trans’ only equals men who ID as women.

It’s hilarious. Doesn’t even say, er sorry we couldn’t actually think of any transmen.

’Transgender people and their stories are becoming increasingly visible in society; with the emergence of various public figures in the last decade or more such as celebrity Caitlyn Jenner, actress Laverne Cox, Big Brother winner Nadia Almada and former soldier Chelsea Manning. [..] The Danish Girl starring Eddie Redmayne, Hayley Cropper on Coronation Street, and the first of its kind, BBC2 sitcom Boy meets Girl.’

www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39147/bsa34_moral_issues_final.pdf

It’s actually not hilarious at all it’s really worrying because policy makers will use this stuff so uncritically.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that trans identified males are failed men and so therefore women because women are failed men. They teach Aristotle's views on the matter in schools to this day so it should not surprise us that every generation is conditioned to misogyny.

Oh, we are fucked, aren't we? As we always were. Always, we are the sex that is unworthy, untrustworthy, and now, "violent" - when it suits them. Like when LM is "scared" of Linda Bellos.

We thought we almost had it - equality - we thought most people were working towards equality of women. We were wrong. They absolutely aren't. As JJ says - we didn't even make it to 50%. They would rather see see transwomen in positions of power than women..Women are thrown under the bus.

The Indy piece by Angela Rayner hasn't gone down too well in the comments. I hope someone in her office is feeding back the results. twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/959032920932417537
.