Women’s Place launch statement.

[BertrandRussell]

here

What do people think?

I'll support it, but.

I think things are moving so fast and getting so nasty that I'm now very concerned about the 'case by case basis' aspect of allowing trans identifying men into women's spaces.
That means someone has to look at a trans person and judge them. I don't think that is fair or reasonable on either party.

Where a space or service is currently sex based it should stay that way. If trans people feel they need their own service then they need to make a gender neutral one.
'Gender neutral' would mean anyone could use it without any process, and it wouldn't involve trans people having to out themselves.

I think it's brilliant - calm, measured and clear.

UpstartCrow, 'case by case basis' is how the equality act currently works for the sex based exceptions. Woman's place are calling for the principle of women only spaces to be upheld and extended where necessary, as well as a review of how the exceptions are (not being) used at the moment. The case by case justification is a big part of why organisations are afraid to use the exceptions at all.

CAse by case used to work, the honour system was fine for years, because the transsexual women were honourable. But if they have to have a fixed rule, than it has to be 'No'

They are working within the current law.

The current law is sufficient to protect women's actual rights.

That is different to cultural attitudes and protocols.

I, personally, see this as a step in the right direction.

Partly because it deconstructs the law down to its constituent parts and how it can be exploited. Thereby urging parliament to make the exemptions more visible and more commonly applied.

There is no law that says men can't say they are women, or go into women's toilets. Or, apparently, rape refuges and shelters.

But.

By asking, or insisting, on clarification around how women can reject men, they will, eventually, alter the public perception of what is and isn't acceptable.

"A proportionate means to legitimate aim."

I'm thinking of, say, a lesbian public gathering.

The organisers would have to take a poll of the lesbians and poll of the transwomen and make a decision.

Currently, transactivists disregard this process. By intimidation and bullying.

What needs to happen is that women acquire an unshakable conviction they can use the law to ensure their 'legitimate aim'.

It needs to become utterly commonplace, before the culture subsequently rides with it.

Recently there have been two incidents. The company who made bras for adolescent girls and the vegan lesbian restaurant.

They were both targeted and piled on by transactivists in attempt to change the words in their marketing and/or shut them down.

Then there was another company (I can't remember what they were selling/providing) who said:

WOMEN ONLY
As per the equality act section 2 sub clause 5

(or whatever it is).

Yes, transactivists could still have targeted them. But, culturally, it was a lot harder because the women knew the law.

Women complaining that they will not avail themselves of the service IS a legitimate aim.

They just need to invoke it. No company would be criticised for saying, but we will lose half our customers.

Agree it's a good measured statement. I'd have liked to have seen some reference to schools' policies regarding trans pupils but still good despite that.

They are carefully being ultra-temperate and making sure to present everything as pro-women and not anti-trans. I think they are doing an excellent job, in the face of extreme provocation.

Having said all that. Is it true that the GRA was brought in to enable trans people to marry someone of the same sex? Was that ahead of gay marriage?

Because if so, that is now an obsolete reason.

And the act could be repealed on that basis.

Which is what I, personally, I would like to see.

I don't think that 'it's difficult as culture has changed' is a good enough reason not to do it.

A Woman's Place is doing sterling work. But they are only one strand of 'women who object'.

I do, however, think that they are being quite clever. Working within the law and giving the government a fairly justifiable, and 'easy to promote', way to protect women.

Dang. I'd be rubbish at politics. It's so fucking sneaky.

I do, however, think that they are being quite clever. Working within the law and giving the government a fairly justifiable, and 'easy to promote', way to protect women.

They're primarily Labour activists. So I think what they are hoping to do is carve out a place for a "women's lobby" as it were, within the Labour Party, separate to the current wishy washy equalities bandwagon which has been taken over by pro-TRA voices. Hence the list of "women's demands" as a starting point. They're making sure they ignore the gender identity ideology completely - not even trying to dismantle it. Just saying, "This is what women need."

If your interest is in crafting policy (party policy or legislative detail) then this is a good way to proceed to get specific interests included.

Bertrand, thank you so much for doing this. I have never felt this strongly about the importance of any political decision making process, even Brexit. This is so important for all women.

I agree the tone is really important and I understand trying to be seen as reasonable in the current climate.

I think it is critical to be clear in your wording this is about how self-Id WOULD affect not WILL (currently have one of each). This is nowhere near a done deal and it's vital to be clear on that.

I think the climate is starting to shift in the media and politically, and once the wider electorate understand what is actually going on, they will be asking what the hell is the point of saying a man can be a woman, and is it really worth all the fuss and 'defending' of all these rights.

There's something else that I think is important but can't quite articulate yet - will come back later as have to go now.

I also think you should mention children's rights to single sex spaces. A wider selection of people care and more strongly about children's rights than women's rights.

When does it go out? There are a couple of people's opinions I could get who I think could be really useful, I can PM you if you like

Absolutely great. And another one who is pleased that it is measured, focuses on the law and is accessible to all.
Sadly no amount of (justifiable) rage on our part is going to change things - there are far too many SJWs out there ranting and raving.
But relentlessly throwing light on what is happening, exposing the awful risks to children, unpicking the tedious gaslighting and deliberate manipulation of language used to cover up realities, being tediously persistent, analytical and asking all the questions the transactivists are desperate to silence is what will have an impact.

I don’t see how anyone could argue with it, it’s all so damn reasonable. Perfect.

Its great.

Relatively balanced and acknowledges transwomen also have rights and need protections, and we must not lose sight of that. Perhaps some solutions could be suggested eg. how transwomen are housed in the prison system or other services.

Whatever happens we should not have a situation where simple declaration of ones gender gives a right to the services of that sex. A discussion of how this 'case by case' analysis would work might be more productive than denigrating transwomen outright as so many recent threads have.

Case by case could give a worse outcome for some trans people. It might come back to 'do you pass' which is unacceptable for them, and for the person who has to make that decision.

Hang on, I thought you were on the other side Bertrand?

UpstartCrow
This is the crux of the matter for me. The old 'quack like a duck' test. Guidelines have stated 'visually and for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from aquired gender' - might reduce psychological distress but not actual threat of male strength/sex drive etc. they could still have. Conversely the case of Tara Hudson shows we are puting transwomen in grave danger by having a blanket policy of assignment by sex at birth or GRC in the prison system. What about separating transwomen from ciswomen within female institutions, which might be happening already. Then it would be the 'old school transsexuals' pitted against the new wave of 'men' being flung around. There is no perfect answer.

You seem to be changing your original stance on the issue mummybear701 - great!

I always understood the 'case by case' to be not so much about an individual transgender person, but the institution or activity eg a women's refuge making the case that the space needs to be sex-segregated - even excluding TW with a GRC (who are legally women) - because it needs to be completely safe for natal women.

I understood the current Equalities Act to allow legal TW (with a GRC) still to be excluded on the basis of sex-segregation in certain circumstances - such as rape crisis, certain medical situations etc.

And that the proposed GRA changes would try to remove that protection of sex-segregation for women (because patriarchy etc etc), thus contravening the Equalities Act.

Is that so?

Of course, my experience has been that (certainly in my place of work) self-identification rules. And if you question that - not even formally in the workplace, but via one's social media - they try to get you sacked. Yes, it happens.

What about separating transwomen from ciswomen within female institutions

As pointed out on several other threads, there is no capacity in the female estate. Because such a vanishingly tiny number of women commit crimes that make them a danger to others, the female estate never needed to invest in them. The capacity is so low that in Scotland and NI, the most dangerous category of prisoner, if female, has to be accommodated in the male estate. In England and Wales, there is only one prison capable of accommodating them.

Good so far, will be interesting to see the follow-up.

Whatever happens we should not have a situation where simple declaration of ones gender gives a right to the services of that sex.

A discussion of how this 'case by case' analysis would work might be more productive than denigrating transwomen outright as so many recent threads have.

Mummy

I feel the need to point out that you cannot state your first paragraph, without understanding the second.

It's really not interesting, conducive, or a good use of the time of feminists to drill down into the trans-ideology.

It's frustrating, infuriating and depressing.

It's like forcing yourself to look at incel websites. Something we know exist, but, in their case, are fortunately not given much credence.

Feminists are the last people to want to 'denigrate' on a regular basis. Even when they talk about the reason for feminism, the oppression by men, they're very careful to say NAMALT.

But without pointing out that misogynists make up a large part of the trans cohort, the things they say, why they say them and the effect it has, you would just be left with your first paragraph.

You calling it denigration is misleading. Denigration is unfair criticism.

None of this analysis is unfair.

The only unfair part is that we are having to do it in the first place.

Women are allowed to criticize things. Being polite is not an obligation that goes along with having a vagina, especially not in a feminist space.

There's plenty of discussion of which cases absolutely require segregation by sex rather than gender and for which the exemptions in the equality act need to be invoked on this site. Prisons, NHS, changing rooms - we talk about this stuff all the time.

I'm going to ask my MP Stella Creasy to read this.
I emailed her last year when the first talks of allowing legal self-ID started, she replied saying she completely agreed with Maria Miller and thought I was doing feminism all wrong by not being "inclusive" enough.
I also emailed her to draw attention to the recent AWS go fund me page and to say Labour were in grave danger of alienating women.
No reply.

I think I will attach this document and email it to her, with a few links to recent articles of a "terfy" nature (well done to you lot for getting some journalists in the mainstream press onside. I know MNfeminists have played a huge part in this).

I doubt she'll reply but at least she'll be hearing from other viewpoints outside of her "inclusive" bubble.

Is there anything else I can do?

It does boil my ovaries that we are expected to resolve the issues that transwomen face. It should be down to men to sort it out seeing as (a) transwomen are men and (b) non-trans men are the ones that are causing them the problems.

But... I do think it helps our cause to show there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to just throwing open the doors to women’s safe spaces to all-comers. E.g. if there is no capacity for safe separate areas in women’s prisons - these spaces should be created, so that transwomen can feel “validated” because they are in a women’s prison and vulnerable women won’t have to share a space with male-bodied people.

And have gender-neutral / trans-friendly alternatives alongside female-only spaces for e.g. toilets, changing rooms, etc. Ensure there is adequate provision for trans people to keep them safe and allow them to go about their lives.

Obviously, as long as TRAs insist everyone accepts TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN!! #nodebate, we aren’t going to get very far with them. There are many sensible voices in the trans community - but how do we help them be heard over the screaming banshee(male)s? I don’t know.

This is a bit rambling. Sorry.

It should be down to men to sort it out seeing as (a) transwomen are men

Well technically they are sorting it out. By stomping all over women and taking our rights. I'm not sure there is an expectation that we resolve anything - just roll over and submit.