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/

If Mr Yardley wants to have a blog, write for the Morning Star, whatever it is, that is fine. Obviously. And if that awakens people 'out there' to the idiocy of trans, that is great.

But, my point was that for feminists to include men like him in the debate and to give him a voice is ridiculous. Women are so eager to find the 'good ones' and once they do, often as not, the fawning starts. These men are praised for stating biological reality, yet the fact of their delusion is ignored, in a way that a woman who states biological reality is not. These men are often centred in debate and given a voice, where it is absolutely inappropriate to do so.

Consider my BAME example. This is the same. To say that the hypothetical TRIC who is self aware enough to understand that she is White has an important voice in the fight for BAME rights is a nonsense. This is the same.

Using voices like Mr Yardley, 'Jenn' Smith , et al as weapons in this battle is a dangerous game.

And I firmly do not believe that the fight against TRA, the fight against Self ID, and feminism in general should focus, even in small part, on offering support to those 'genuine and nice' trans. There is no such thing as trans. There are only deluded people. The support, where it goes, should be directed at those women who for a variety of reasons have succumbed to the delusion that they are men.

And consider what happens when the 'good ones' go back to the dark side....

Aiofe Assumpta Hart anyone??
Helen Heaton???

Any one of these 'good ones' could go the same way. The delusion is already there.

To be honest, I don't see any huge difference between delusional TIMs who want to force their way into women's bathrooms and rape crisis centres, and delusional TIMs who come into women's meetings and take up valuable speaking time that could have gone to women. Isn't it just another level of validation? I'm so womanlike that even radfems welcome me...

The Woman's Place meeting had to go to great lengths to ensure that women could speak up publicly about the trans debate. And then some of that time was taken up by men speaking.

I'm glad some trans people are starting to speak up about the insanity that is self-id. But why do they need to invade our spaces in order to do it?

Secret - I agree. And the fact that these men are there, in these meetings, speaking up and stating 'I am a man!' (to rapturous applause) is FUCKING WEIRD. All of it. That he comes to the meeting. That he stands up and states that. That he gets cheered for doing so.

Consider my BAME example. It would be fucking weird......

As far as I am concerned, getting to this realisation is an important part of truly reaching Peak Trans, and an important part of good old fashioned Consciousness Raising.

You are right, you are so right. And women like Julia Long and Sheila Jeffreys are vilified by other feminists for saying that transwomen are not any kind of woman.
This is our female socialisation surely, taking care of feelings. Men just don't have that and it's what has allowed this movement, this delusion to gain such traction.

Men aren't women, men's voices aren't more important than women's voices, and feminism is about women's voices, not men's voices: I agree with all that.

But I don't agree that trans identified males being involved in women's defence of their spaces is odd. This whole problem is a men's problem which most of them are (in time-honoured fashion) making our problem. We and our spaces are getting dragged in by men's failure to take responsibility for the cracks in their own ideology of masculinity. Men should be sorting this out, not us. It's kind of weird that we're having to be involved.

It's quite an interesting thing for me to think about, actually.

My primary interest in structural inequality is social class so I've always seen myself as kind of radfem-adjacent rather than radfem.

Inclusion of any kind of male voice in feminist space activism (if that activism is seeking a wider audience than feminists) is something I probably need to think on further.

TheUterati

I agree in principle with everything you say.
But.
And it's a huge but.
I believe your approach will have us lose everything.
It has intellectual purity and honesty.
And we'll lose.
It's like walking onto a vicious battlefield, unarmed, and expecting the power of your argument to make everyone ceasefire. You'll be shot instantly, and the purity of the argument will go down with you.

Of course it's wrong that men are speaking up for us in this debate. Of course it's wrong that we sometimes say 'transwomen' instead of man. I agree, completely, that trans isn't actually a real thing. It's a misnomer. I just know that this is a process of convincing people, and that getting people from the position of 'transwomen are women no debate' to 'transwomen are men' usually happens in stages. People become more entrenched if you try to take them too fast.

Even on this board, the newly peaktransed are only happy to go as far as 'truetrans/bad agp" for now.

When the pragmatic approach needs compromise, it isn't because compromise is nice or right or fair or reasonable.
It's because it might be the only way to win. My ethical line is that I won't lie. But I will, tactically, adopt language on occasion that fits the audience if it benefits the situation. And I will accept the voices of men saying what I am saying if it means people hear the message. I will hate it, because it should just be womens voices, but I'll suck it up. And I see those men as allies, and I acknowledge that they put themselves at personal risk to do it. And I'm prepared to stick my neck out for them if they help advance our position.

In your example of the transblack woman above, you need to extend it properly. There would be thousands of transblacks. They would be easily distinguishable as white regardless. Laws would already exist protecting them. They would dominate news stories and public discussions. Public opinion would already have shifted to how they were the most vulnerable group, dying in droves because bigots won't accept them. Pseudoscience would pop up everywhere supporting blackbrain theory. Actual black people would already be no platformed across all political parties and the MAJORITY of black, white and all ethnic groups would have announced their full support for trans black people.
Only a tiny minority are prepared to speak out and they face a huge backlash, even prosecution for their views. The voices of trans black people are heard above all others.

NOW, do you imagine the resistance would utilise the voices of certain 'transblack' people who were now critical of the ideology that they once believed?

I think desperate times call for desperate measures.

That extended analogy is chilling, so completely recognisable.

As an aside, I haven't heard anything about Helen Heaton since he exited an online group I was in.

Did he actively go to the 'dark side'? Does anyone know?

I agree with TheUterati.

Miranda Yardley has a very privileged position,so much so he is applauded for saying exactly what women have been saying for ages. I agree there's no such thing as trans, I have no interest in listening to a delusional man who calls himself she and her.

What is he actually famous for, apart from being trans? Why is he speaking on behalf of women when he's been part of the problem?

it should just be womens voices

But why should it? Part of our female socialisation is the idea that we are responsible for sorting everything out, we are responsible for everyone's feelings. But we can't solve this problem because it isn't our problem.

Fine for us to say 'we don't recognise you as women so stay out of our spaces'. Fine for us to try to get to the bottom of what is causing young women to attempt to flee femaleness. But all the rest of it is a men's conversation that men need to be having.

GC TIMs need to be speaking out as well as GC men in general and ideally they'd be speaking to each other rather than to us. But I'm in favour of them speaking and communicating in all ways that are possible to get that conversation started.

As I see it, Miranda is almost at the conclusion of a journey that has come full circle. And the conclusion is one all 'trans' people need to get to, for their benefit and ours. I'm not going to offer Miranda as some sacrificial lamb. He's male, but he's put himself on the line for women at great personal cost and I'm not leaving him behind.

If a hundred women decide to listen to what we are saying because they noticed, thanks to Miranda's presence, that we DON'T hate 'transwomen' then we are that much closer to reaching critical mass.

I don't understand the practicalities of rejecting some MIT as women, yet embracing others. I get that some have an obvious sexual agenda to their 'transition', but it's not always easy to see. And, even if the reason for 'transition' is childhood trauma or to avoid harassment, that still does not make them women.

How do we allow the good ones in, but keep the bad ones out? Do we just assume the GRC tests for this and every MIT in our space has one? Do they get to be women in all regards - in hospital wards, prisons, sporting events and all women shortlists?

I think the fight would be easier if we just stated that a women is female, not a surgical or hormone altered male. A women is a human female not a social role. It would also be a clear reason why transit children and teenagers is wrong.

I don't have a problem with MIT speaking up, but I think it is inappropriate at a women's meeting. We need to be able to meet and express ourselves without a male presence.

As I see it, Miranda is almost at the conclusion of a journey that has come full circle.

Yes. And, while it's men who need to be hearing what Miranda is saying, it's something we feminists can usefully push in their direction. There is a small contingent of interested men attending WPUK meetings. This is something they can take and, hopefully, amplify.

I don't understand the practicalities of rejecting some MIT as women, yet embracing others

Me neither. It can't and doesn't work. I used to call them Tim's but that gives weight to trans being real. I'm going to start calling them transvestites which is what they are.

Miranda Yardley can talk all day. I don't believe he's achieving anything except for encouraging the idea that there are good and bad Tim's and that the ones who say they are good should be accepted by women.

He has an audience of women who already agree with him. He's preaching to the converted. How on earth can he be an ally to women when he has called himself a transwoman based on offensive stereotypes and a feeling in his head?

I think Miranda is an ally who has spoken up for women at great personal cost. I think having voices of a trans person born male but identifying is female AND having biological women's rights on our side is essential for us at this point in time. It allows critique of the idea that a man can be a woman BY a man. It also allows an airing of some of the behaviour of people in the trans community from a neutral/informed perspective.

Sorry should say and standing up for bio women's rights not and having them on our side.

I also think the debate should be reframed from us vs them. This should be about how ALL of us can find a way to live together in the world in a way that means we can be ourselves and everyone can be safe and protected.

Boxes how would that happen?

I don't understand the practicalities of rejecting some MIT as women, yet embracing others

Agreed. But I don't think the women at WPUK are doing that.

How on earth can he be an ally to women when he has called himself a transwoman based on offensive stereotypes and a feeling in his head?

I don't think that is his position, at least not any more. He knows he's a man. He advocates this.

We are literally deprogramming people here like victims of a cult. It's a process.

I think people who are logical believe that logic is persuasive to all, and that is wrong.

Huge swathes of people are impervious to argument and logic, principles and fairness. They care only about their peer group and the rules they are supposed to adopt; the script they are supposed to learn.

If there is one thing I've learned it's that enormous numbers of people will believe black is white and up is down and 2+2 =5 if their peer group will punish them for saying otherwise. That people will ignore the truth if they've already made judgements about the person speaking it.

We have to reach more people, not just the ones who can speak feminist theory, or understand what a social construct is, or can say 'patriarchy' without feeling like a knob. We have to reach people who are led by emotions and not rationalism.

I agree Barracker.

I'd also add that I see gender identity ideology as a collective madness that has gripped the psyche of the Western world - it isn't confined to people who identify as trans. Trans-identified people make visible a lot of the illogical, contradictory and sexist beliefs that most people hold about 'gender', and these beliefs are held at the deepest (unconscious) level.

Trans ideology clearly has a mystical appeal to whole swathes of society. It's no accident that so many people - from doctors to politicians to teachers to parents - have embraced it with a religious fervour. The psychologist Lisa Marchiano used Jung's concept of psychic epidemics to explain the current mania for trans, and you don't have to be a Jungian to find it very apt:

Having lived through both World Wars, Jung was aware of the dangers of what he termed “psychic epidemics.” He discussed the spontaneous manifestation of an archetype within collective life as indicative of a critical time during which there is a serious risk of a destructive psychic epidemic.

That is one of the non-trivial ways that transgenderism differs from transracialism - we aren't seeing huge numbers of people, especially young people, declaring themselves transracial. Clearly 'gender' manifests in psychic disruptions in a way that race doesn't, and archetypes around masculinity and femininity are probably the oldest ones in existence.

The concept (delusion) of having the freedom to 'choose' one's sex appeals to so many people on so many levels - feminists especially. Many women seem to find irresistible the idea that we could transcend our female biology by uncoupling it from the definition of 'woman' (and in fact denial of the importance of the sexed body underlay much of second-wave 'equality' feminism, and the notion that men and women are basically interchangeable is part of the reason feminists are now having such trouble getting women to grasp the dangers of doing away with sex-based protections).

Men who identify as women obviously see a freedom in what they fantasise their feminine ideal to be. Trans-identified women and girls are not wrong for imagining that identifying out of their sex (or attempting to) will offer them greater freedom and respect. And to everyone, gender identity ideology promises the ultimate freedom of the individual: the ability for the mind to triumph over the body and thus subordinate one of the immutable facts of our mammalian existence to the power of modern technology and the will. What I am saying that it isn't only trans-identified people who hold delusional beliefs about sex and gender. If it were, gender identity ideology could not have gotten the grip that it has on society.

Therefore I welcome trans-identified men who have come to a more grounded perspective speaking out and exposing the falsities of gender identity ideology. (However, I will not use female pronouns for them, and I won't refer to them by the Orwellian neologism 'transwoman'). I also don't see trans-identified people as fundamentally different from the rest of us. That is one of the big myths of trans doctrine - that some people are born 'cis' and some are born 'trans'. No. There are no trans and cis people, just women and men. This is why I always use 'trans-identified', instead of 'trans' - to counter the notion that 'trans' is an inborn characteristic. AGP men creep me the fuck out, but again, I see them as sexually obsessive, narcissistic men - they aren't that different from other men of that ilk, they are just much more successful at hoodwinking people into indulging their behaviour (which is why I think a lot of non-AGP, garden variety predators are now claiming 'transwoman' identity too, but that's another issue).

That said, I am uncomfortable with the way women police themselves and other women in the presence of trans-identified men. It prevents us from speaking as freely and honestly as we might because we are scared of hurting feelings. It does worry me that WPUK is centring the voices of TIMs to the extent that they are. As if they just automatically assume the organisation will lack authority and credence without male voices. I was dismayed to hear Julia Long was booed (or maybe tut-tutted?) for stating very basic facts at the last WPUK meeting.

Sorry, that was a bit rambling. TL; DR: gender identity ideology is a collective madness, so all critical voices, including those of trans-identified men, apply in this landscape. But women's activism on this issue needs to be clear about centring women and promoting their voices.

gender identity ideology is a collective madness, so all critical voices, including those of trans-identified men, apply in this landscape. But women's activism on this issue needs to be clear about centring women and promoting their voices

That, I can very much get behind.

No. It IS odd having 'trans identified' males arguing for women's spaces. It is just as odd as it would be having the hypothetical TRIC given a voice in ANYTHING to do with BAME rights. There is a crashing disconnect with a 'trans identified' male having the grasp on reality which allows him to state that he is a man. What the fuck is he doing then? Why the fuck is he having surgery? Why the fuck is he calling himself by a woman's name? Why the fuck is he saying he is trans-anything. There is no trans, there is only delusion.

Barrack - no I don't believe that Black men would be having any of it. They would claim and assert their own voices. And we need to do the same.

Yes, this is a fight. And yes the blogs, the Morning Star articles, the YouTube films etc can all be useful. But we, as women, as those who are impacted by this, as those whose womanhood is compromised by 'trans-anything' need to THINK. It's the prioritising of these men by feminists, the fawning, the praise for stating simply biological truth, the looking for the 'good ones', ignoring the delusion in the 'good ones', accepting that 'trans' is a thing, putting efforts into supporting these 'good ones' in their delusion. THAT it what I am most concerned about.

Why is 'transsexual' unproblematic? What is that supposed to be? There is no 'transsexual'. There is only a man who has mutilated his body with surgery and drugs. In any other context we would say this is extreme self harm. Why are these 'transsexuals' OK and the 'transgender' not? Linguistically, transgender is less problematic: you wish to inhabit the gendered roles that society deems appropriate for the opposite sex (of course this is what it literally means, not how it is used in TRA discourse). Transsexual means you inhabit the opposite sex. Well you can't. Sex is fixed. Tough shit.

Barrack - yes just under a year ago Helen did go 'transwomen are women'.

Similarly, I am sick of these 'I am a nice transwoman, come and ask me anything' threads that pop up.

It's all fucking gaslighting.