House of Commons event - anyone else going?

[grandplans]

If so, see you there!

Do you think it'll be mobbed by TRAs as the venue's been announced in advance or not because of the security at the HOC?

That's Sheila Jeffreys' take on it. Anyone can read her books, she doesn't keep it a secret. It's just one angle. And I think it is a relevant one. She gave quite a similar speech at the event in York. But it was Linda Bellos who got picked on then.

I wasn't there and don't know the detail but my heart sank when I heard about the camel toe prosthetics being shown. I just thought that this is arguably playing into a kind of old fashioned disgust at non-conformist behaviour and dress, which is what they are trying to accuse us of. We have many more important points to make than just "ew, look what they wear" - and that's exactly what they're trying to say we're all about.

Transphobia, to me, should rightly mean: a prejudiced mistreatment of those who do not obey old fashioned conventions about how they present, given their sex. I DO NOT want to be associated with that sort of attitude. (I know the term means all sorts of other crap in practice, now, but it is its associations with unpleasant attitudes of prejudice and disgust for the nonconformist that means it has gained such traction as an accusation)

There may well have been nuance in the talk but that becomes completely irrelevant. The only thing that will be associated with the event and those who attended is that transgender people were described as being parasites. Next week on Question Time Paris Lees will share this and people will rightly be appalled and horrified...

Perhaps people should share the details of what Paris was in prison for. It's a little bit worse. Paris Lees is a violent male.

So sick of women having to be above reproach in every single little thing before they can speak.

Eresh, you're right. I guess I am used to it from work etc, where I usually feel very easily in the wrong relative to men and I am keenly aware all the time that I haven't remotely a leg to stand on unless there are literally no criticisms possible.

It's how I've managed to develop a career and I guess I've internalised it because before when I expected to be treated fairly, I never was, and I was fucked over many times.

Just speaking practically that's the safest way but I suppose it's not exactly liberation.

I think that's one of the things which is really difficult to explain succinctly. I do judge people who have certain fetishes (even private ones, only involving consenting adults), but on the whole I think people should be allowed to be as weird as they like in private, as long as it's consensual and not bothering anyone else.

Where the camel-toe knickers and the rubber bodysuits do affect others (ie all women) is in establishing "woman" as nothing but a pornified skin, a porn image to be put on and then peeled off whenever you feel like. And involving everyone else in your fetish, without their consent, whenever you go out dressed like this.

I think it's perfectly valid to have an "eww, that's yuk" response to some fetishes, but my opposition to bodysuits and camel-toe knickers isn't based on my "eww, that's yuk" response (although I do have a "eeew, that's yuk" response regardless) but on what it means for how it transgresses women's boundaries. But that's quite difficult to get across.

I know Grinch, I'm not exempt from these pressures and haven't always stood up to it myself. My frustration is partly at myself. None of us are unaffected by society and socialisation

And this isn't about women having to be above reproach before we can speak. It's about smart campaigning, and how we reach everybody that we want to reach. I want to win.

We're feminists - with a bit of luck, we'll all say exactly what we want, even if we disagree with each other on some of it. But it's also perfectly OK to have these conversations, to discuss amongst ourselves where our own lines are (and they will be different for all of us).

Anyone speaking up will be thoroughly investigated... www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/15/green-party-peer-jenny-jones-accidentally-retweeted-message-comparing-trans-reforms-to-child-rape/

I know, but sometimes we are going to say something that we think is self evident or a useful metaphor that some people consider beyond the pale. I think we need to challenge why women are always held to a higher standard than the likes of Madigan, Lees, Maloney etc.

Perhaps people should share the details of what Paris was in prison for. It's a little bit worse. Paris Lees is a violent male

They won't. Share these details in question time. Paris Lees will go on looking glamorous and talking about parasites and that will be that.

I'm so cross about all of this.

Above reproach??? Jesus it doesn't take much tact and understanding of the media not to call trans people parasites!

That pink news reporter must have been rubbing her hands in glee.

Thanks Eresh.

I get the distinction Annie, and I totally get your pragmatism as well - I want to win too.

www.newsweek.com/trans-women-are-parasites-occupying-bodies-oppressed-says-academic-846563

Erishgal, I take your point, but we already know that's the case. I mean, being a self-confessed rapist and a murderer isn't enough to disqualify you from having a public platform if you are trans and male, and here we are arguing whether "parasite" is a bad word for one of us to say from a public platform. But that's the reality - and we can challenge it, and continue to challenge it, and try not to let it make us self-censor (and I know I self-censor all the time), but I think we should also be constantly aware of how we are getting our messages across, and try not to make really obvious own-goals. We want people to listen to us, and it takes very little for people to make a decision about who we are and what we want and stop listening to us ever again.

(The reality here is that Sheila Jeffries won't give a damn what I think, which is how it should be! But I can still say I don't think it was a smart move, nonetheless.)

“If I went around calling various minority groups ‘parasites’ at a meeting in Parliament, I’m pretty sure those comments would be condemned and I would be ostracized for being a hateful bigot. Why is it seen as socially acceptable to refer to trans women in this way?”

And I'm inclined to agree with her.

The reality here is that Sheila Jeffries won't give a damn what I think, which is how it should be! But I can still say I don't think it was a smart move, nonetheless.)

Yes, and as you quite rightly said, it's ok not to agree with stuff.

It was a specific presentation about how male sexual fetishes are eroding women's rights. Are you saying that this shouldn't be allowed to be said? She didn't say it was people with gender dysphoria, she was referring to autogynephilia.

I don't know anything about Paris Lees' past in prison, can anyone clarify?

Of course I'm not saying it shouldnt have 'been allowed' but it muddies the waters and was a deliberately inflammatory thing to say which quite rightly the press have picked up on.

It seems to me that what we're fighting for as much as anything is a woman's right to have, and state, an opinion on male sexual behaviour. That is really important and important in its own right.

So something 'off' said by a woman is picked up and publicised. Yet threats and abuse by trans people magically sail under the radar. Funny that.

For example: phone calls and threats against Millwall Football Club once they were known to be hosting a debate were so bad that it had to be cancelled. Tumbleweed. Yup, definitely funny.

perhaps TRA also see this as a fight but have clear and sophisticated strategy?