Miranda Yardley's contribution to the Woman's Place meeting on Tuesday

[LifelongVaginaOwner]

I've always tended toward using 'transwomen' and preferred pronouns - if only out of courtesy. Miranda's points though have really made me reconsider. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

mirandayardley.com/en/contribution-discussion-womens-place-uk-meeting-27-february-2018/

And perhaps we could get back to seeing fetishists as dodgy bastards best avoided and transsexuals as vulnerable people whose rights need protecting.

So how do we know who is a fetishist and who is not? If transsexuals are vulnerable people whose rights need protecting (which I agree with), then surely those rights include using preferred pronouns? Is Miranda now happy to be called 'he'? Is Miranda now going to revert back to being called a masculine name?

I can kind of see the point, but I do fear that it will just add fuel to the flames and make feminists look like bigots. Especially as actual bigots also refuse to call trans people by their preferred pronouns. It would be unworkable in workplaces and in educational settings, because you would be in contravention of the Equality Act for a start.

So how do we know who is a fetishist and who is not?

Well, under self-ID we don't - not just legally but also because cultural mores and norms get broken down.

Back in the day, with a few thousand transsexuals (and that's all it is) scattered around the entire country, the old school honour system combined with individual friendship circles pretty much took care of it.

I don't think we need to view people with a fetish as dodgy bastards, just as people with a fetish the rest of us have a right not to take part in, the same as any other fetish. But otherwise, yes, we need to go back to the distinction between them and transsexuals. The two groups are not the same, they do not have the same issues, and the old school honour system does not work with fetishists.

I think it's great Miranda has said this, but I'm aware that other transsexuals would not agree, and I'm willing to consider their feelings.

Miranda Yardley is definitely an ally. He's been around radical feminists for quite a while now, and may well have got to the point where he is hardening his stance.

Despite being trans, and all that entails, he totally gets it. And, precisely because he is trans himself, I imagine that's not easy.

He comes in for relentless abuse from TRAs, because of his opinions.

I don't disagree with what he's saying. The problem is it breaches equality law.

Insisting on using not personal pronouns is considered discriminatory. And would be very problematic on a practical, day-to-day level.

But I certainly think, at least in the abstract and talking about the concept, it's a step in the right direction.

Which is why TIM is becoming more popular. It stops the gaslighting. There is no way, however, you will ever get a TRA/AGP on side with it.

Their whole being is tied up in being addressed as female.

The inexorable acceptance of the word cis is, in my opinion, far more of an urgent problem. Because it is being accepted. In guidelines, newspapers, etc. Without a single bloody thought as to why women may not like it. And what it actually means.

I may be forced, by equality law, to use preferred pronouns. But the word cis has no legal backing.

I wonder what would happen if all these men who blithely use it, without understanding the reasons, were consistently referred to as 'not a woman who identifies as a man'.

It's not really happening.

How would Piers Morgan, for instance, feel if everyone told him that the definition of himself was 'not a woman who...'.

I don't think we need to view people with a fetish as dodgy bastards, just as people with a fetish the rest of us have a right not to take part in, the same as any other fetish.

NO.

You're missing the entire point of AGP. AGP, as a fetish, is directed at forcing and coercing others to take part in the fetish in order to gain validation.

AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them invade women's spaces for validation. AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them demand sexual inclusion by lesbians. AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them ignore consent. AGP TIMs have a fetish that makes them ignore boundaries.

The fetish is the danger to women here. If AGP men were being AGP in their bedrooms and not women's toilets, changing rooms, prisons, shelters, shortlists, and everywhere else women and only women are, then yes, fine, who's to judge. But that's not what it is.

I completely agree with LangCleg.

The fetish is progressive, in that it can evolve and deepen.

Men with AGP can fetishise women's actual biology, menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc.

And there is a horrible dual aspect to it. Lust and envy. And when you read about it, the envy can provoke quite violent internal feelings.

And, apart from anything else, it's a highly misogynistic fetish. It's not harmless as a concept.

It involves seeing women as weak, subordinate victims. See forced feminisation.

Forcing women to use preferred pronouns etc is arousing. There is a damaging dominant quality to it.

Miranda seems to be on quite a journey. I hope that (s)he (you) has support along the way.

I don't view all people with fetishes as dodgy, but given that this one is specifically focused on acting out misogynistic ideas about women and getting a thrill out of violating our boundaries then yes, a person with it is going to be dodgy.

" But otherwise, yes, we need to go back to the distinction between them and transsexuals."

Where's the distinction? Isn't India w a transexual?

and both Debbie and Kristina don't seem to agree with Miranda on this

As I've said on other thread, I think it's not just OK, but even necessary that we all have different opinions on all sorts of things about this issue, and still be able to work together, and I don't expect Debbie, Kristina and Miranda to be any different on this.

Unlike the TRAs, we're not a hivemind, and we don't aspire to be, and we don't punish deviations from the accepted line, because there isn't one accepted line, and that's OK too.

I've changed my mind quite substantially along the way on a lot of points surrounding this issue, some big, some minor, and I expect others have done the same.

" But otherwise, yes, we need to go back to the distinction between them and transsexuals."

Where's the distinction? Isn't India w a transexual?

Exactly this.

I'm noticing a trend to create categories of 'good/real/true/nice transwomen' vs 'self id agps' , with honorary entry to womanhood granted to the former and denied to the latter.

There is no clear delineation, and transexuals can also be AGP, and can also be gay, and still get their misogynistic jollies from putting women in their place.

I think Miran's opinions are evolving. And I think he's getting to the place where he will have reached the logical conclusion. I'm hoping other TiMs get there too eventually.

I agree with Julia Long that really, there isn't such a thing as a transwoman.
Only a man who holds certain false beliefs about women and about himself.

How palatable that statement is, is another thing entirely. I will occasionally make certain linguistic compromises if the result is to build public opinion effectively. I won't lie. But I will tailor my language to my audience.

As did the trans lobby.
They didn't launch their lobbying with "transwomen are women, down with cis" did they? They slowly boiled us like frogs in a pot. One slight concession at a time, they pushed the Overton window.

We may have to do the same.

Baracker I agree with you. And Julia.

So do I

Agree or not, and I think I do, but if this is about preventing self-ID becoming the norm in this country as in Canada, Ireland, Malta etc then I don't think it will be achieved by being seen as a rejection of all transwomen.
The translobby and transideology has become so entrenched and powerful in such a short space of time and viewed as being on "the right side of history" (TM Owen Jones) by so many, the battle just to preserve sex-segregated spaces will be a tough enough sell, even more so having to constantly refute accusations of transphobia at every turn.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn. Not transsexuals vs AGP, for the reasons given above. But men who consciously reject masculinity while retaining their awareness that they are irrevocably male vs men who claim for any reason whatsoever to be women.

I am an ally to men who are trying to grapple with the crisis of masculinity rather than projecting it onto women, because I think this is a job that needs to be done and that men need to be the people doing it.

There are so many different things going on with transgenderism: the Venn diagram of reasons for transition being just one of them. Not all males who transition have a sexual motive (HSTS wanting to sleep with straight men; AGP men attracted to themselves as women). And some AGPs are also dysphoric so it's a Venn diagram, not a binary. Female reasons for transition are different. Young people's reasons are different.

And then there is the affiliation with the authoritarian left.

And then there is the science denial.

And then there is the weird cult behaviour.

And then there is the attack on lesbians and activist feminists.

And then there is... so many other things.

I doubt any of us would agree on absolutely everything in this big old tangled web. And I doubt any of us would completely agree the priorities on a list of all them over which should take precedence.

But I think almost all of us can agree that self-ID shouldn't be written into law and that single sex exemptions in the EA should be retained and invoked more often. So that's where we should concentrate our efforts, regardless of personal point of view.

I'm not missing the point at all. (But way to go at being patronising) AGP is no different to lots of other fetishes. It's not a problem if the fetishist keeps it to themselves. If they expect other people to unwillingly take part, then it is a problem.

I'm afraid, I can't go along with LangCleg and Datun because they seem to be suggesting we should be, well I don't know, policing peoples' thoughts? People have thoughts, some of them are unpleasant, but unless they are acting on them there is nothing we can do. Yes, AGP is unpleasant and misogynistic, but that's not new, it's been a thing since forever. The same is true of many other fetishes, bigotries, and personality traits. We can't change those either. But we can work to keep those men out of our spaces and away from opportunities to change laws.

I have a feeling I'm massively out of step with the rest of this section, but meh. I prefer to fight the battles I have a chance of winning. I don't see any point in trying to police what people think or yelling at someone who is on the same side. So, as you were ...

There are so many different things going on with transgenderism

Agreed - and this complex situation is too often oversimplified here.

Unlike the TRAs, we're not a hivemind, and we don't aspire to be

Actually, I am getting the strong impression that there are many who do want us to be a hivemind and who are frightened by questioning and debate, which they see as dissent. A few threads lately have reflected this, where there has been room for really interesting discussion and this has been shut down with the party line enforced.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed

I don't think you're massively out of step.

And I have no chance of policing anyone's thoughts.

It's not possible.

The problem I have with AGP is that it can be hidden, whilst being practised, forcing women (and men and children) to be unwitting participants.

The transwomen ARE women is a direct result of the fetish, not gender dysphoria.

Obviously people have fetishes, and I don't give a toss. I can't care about everything at once. Sometimes you just have to leave an issue up to people who have a greater understanding of it and who it impacts the most (if it does at all).

This one, though, relies on seeing women as victims. Which again, if it didn't impact on me, I wouldn't have to think about it.

But it does, so I do.

It's not just about changing the law, it's about the cultural acceptance of a fetish, which has hijacked, and is now wearing the disguise of, a mental disorder.

What I mean is, without explaining and acknowledging the drive behind this, self ID doesn't look as harmful as it really is.

We need to stop this.

We need to stop centering men like Miranda Yardley in this debate. We need to stop listening to their opinions on this subject.

We need to stop looking for the 'good ones'.

There is no such thing as trans. We need to stop differentiating between the 'bad' AGPs and the 'good' ones who are not AGP. There are ALL men and they are ALL delusional.

Consider this person I have (hopefully managed to) post a picture of:

Suppose that, despite what she has done to her body, she said:
Yes, I know I am not really Black. I know I can never be Black. I know I will always be White.

What would you all say? Would you differentiate between her and the other 'bad' ones who claimed to be Black? And/or who had a fetish about it? Or would you say: THIS IS STILL FUCKING INSANE SHIT.

Would you try to find different ways of referring to this person and people like her? Would you call her a TRIC (Trans-racially-identified-Causcasian)? Or would you just call her a deluded White woman?

Trying to find ANY terminology to refer to these people that departs from naming them as men is reifying delusion and buying into the lie.

Let's suppose that Black people centred this woman, this TRIC, in their antiracism campaigns, gave her a voice, listened to her over and above ACTUAL BLACK PEOPLE who were saying the same thing. let's suppose that Black people centred this woman in their discussions around Black and Ethnic Minority rights.

What would you all say? Would you say, yup that seems like a fair thing, cos after all she's a TRIC, but is aware that she is White, and she is an ally.

Or, would you say: get a fucking grip! This is insanity! Why are you giving this person a voice!

If you were Radical in your leanings, you would also say: why are you giving a voice to a member of the oppressor class? The very fact that you are prioritising a White person above Black people, is an example of racism.

So why not here?

This needs to stop. Just as this TRIC is not an ally to Black people, and is not an ally in the fight against racism, so Miranda and all like him are not allies to feminism and are not allies in this battle. Stop praising men like Miranda for being only partially delusional.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree.

However, I think we are within a hair's breadth in this country of allowing any man to self-ID as a woman. I really believe that if most people understood the implications of it, they would be against it and in my limited conversations about it with people, they are.

If, I start talking about "the oppressor class" and saying someone's son who is suffering horribly and hating their own body and wants to be a woman is just deluded, I don't think it will get anywhere. People will view it as some feminist cat-fight or heartless dogma.

I don't want to end up like Meghan Murphy and other gender-critical people in Canada fighting a battle that has already been lost.

I think MY's voice is invaluable because (s)he can 'speak from the other side' about what being trans means and does not mean. I'm rather hoping that (s)he can be a role model with a rather different view from the TRAs re what transitioning means, especially for younger people considering it. I'm not touching the 'is she a woman' question, but she does not have to be a woman to be an important ally. I rather hope too that in this struggle we can offer trans allies real support in return for their support.

TheUterati while I entirely sympathise, I think that the conversation outside feminist circles needs to highlight that some trans-identifying people are also cognisant of material reality. That's important for a campaign directed at the general public.

And I also think, now that Miranda is really going there and conceptualising his life as a man's journey, it's a good voice to include. So much of this is about masculinity and the entitlement of the (lady) penis.

I quite look forward to seeing where Miranda goes next to be honest.

I mean, on this board we can all see the entitled penis announcing itself via transactivism. There might be dresses and lipsticks and pouts and jelly tits but we all see the entitled penis underneath. We all know this is masculine behaviour. The accoutrements don't disguise it.

This is an aspect of the debate that needs airing, I think. It's not about clothes or cosmetic surgery or hormones - it's about socialised behaviour.