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?

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.

This. Exactly.

Just this week Jennifer James's complaints about the things men have called her were dismissed with a nothing to see here.

A member of the Labour Party can call a woman member a deplorable cunt and it's not a problem or of slightest concern.

A renowned feminist describes men who wear female skins as part of a sexual fetish parasitic and it's apparently the end of the world.

We are fighting these arguments on an uneven playing field which is kind of the whole point as to why fetishising our oppression is offensive.

Some people may have been offended but so what. We are perpetually offended by the idea that woman is a costume someone can take on and off.

I do broadly agree with the high road approach but as a pp said we are not a hive mind and people like Jeffries or Greer are never going to toe a prescribed line.

In the course of this battle we ARE going to offend people regardless of what we say. The very basis of our argument, that women are different to transwomen hugely offends them, our vaginas, our uteruses offend them.

We might as well get used to being offensive.

"I agree with what some have said about some of the stuff being a bit radical."

If people had listened to the radicals from the get go then we wouldn't be in this mess. People need to be listening now to the women who know what they're talking about, instead of hand wringing about abusive men and their hurt feelings

“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?”

Name another minority group that leeches off women and is bent on destroying women's spaces, sports, refuges, lesbians, gay kids ... who sends rape and death threats, closes down meetings, bullies, tells lies, goes after women's jobs and families, says that being a woman is nothing to do with biology and everything to do with their fetishes ...

I'm happy to call them parastites too.

The thing about a word like "parasite" is that it doesn't matter how reasonable or appropriate it is as a word to use in these specific circumstances, because it comes with political and historical baggage that we just can't wish away. It is exactly a Katie Hopkins kind of word, deployed against refugees, etc, and it doesn't matter a jot that Sheila Jeffries used it in a completely different, justified context, about a completely different set of people (and ones with considerable privilege, unlike refugees, etc). It doesn't matter a jot if we use a dogwhistle word not knowing that it's a dogwhistle word, or not meaning it as a dogwhistle word, because it will be heard as a dogwhistle word, regardless.

For example, while there might be legitimate, non-controversial, totally appropriate uses of the phrases "rivers of blood" or "all lives matter" in some contexts, I would never ever use them in a political speech, even if the political speech was about actual blood-rivers or actual mattering-lives, and even though my intentions would be absolutely anti-racist, not pro-racist. I would avoid those phrases because those two phrases also have considerable political and historical baggage, and those dogwhistles would be heard, even if using them as dogwhistles was as far from my mind as it could possibly be.

Is this self-censoring? Possibly. But it's also sensible, if we want to be heard. It's also sensible to understand why there might be backlash if I did use those phrases, just as there's been backlash here.

(Got to go to work - will catch up on this one later!)

Article on meeting from Left Foot Forward:
leftfootforward.org/2018/03/debate-on-gender-recognition-act-forced-to-be-held-in-parliament-after-millwall-fc-face-outcry/

In the course of this battle we ARE going to offend people regardless of what we say. The very basis of our argument, that women are different to transwomen hugely offends them, our vaginas, our uteruses offend them.

YY.

When we try to be nice all we do is signal our subordinate status and implicitly give dominant others permission to trample all over us.

This has come up before. And people were arguing that people shouldn't say anything remotely bad to blow off steam when faced with relentless misogyny even in a private secret Facebook group because they should expect it to be infiltrated. That's too much to expect of people. It's fine to disagree with how people communicate but I think it's shading into tone policing.

Men, including trans identified males, get to practically say whatever they want. They get to call women deplorable cunts in a Labour capacity and Labour turns a blind eye. They get to have committed hideously violent acts in the past and claim to be sensitive flowers upset by misgendering. They get to incite actual violence against disobedient women. And no one much cares.

When we try to be nice all we do is signal our subordinate status and implicitly give dominant others permission to trample all over us.

So much this!

Women, particularly feminist women, are always being told to “be nicer” “use less strident/aggressive language”, that they will “catch more flies with honey than vinegar”........

I agree Bertrand it continues the socialisation that as adults women should continue to be nice to men with always the caveat namalt.

Can I ask a question: was there an outcome from the meeting? What are next steps? What effects did it / may it have?

Antigrinch - outcomes (from my personal perspective) were - it happened. Women were not silenced, women were able to speak their truths, and raise their concerns, and be heard, in parliament nonetheless. Try as they might, with their threats and harrassment, the TRAs were not able to shut us down. Awareness and understanding of the issues surrounding not just self-ID but also the threats the TRA movement pose to feminism/women’s liberation movements were laid bare. Women who attended - and those who didn’t - feel supported and spurred on to keep engaging and keep fighting knowing they are not alone in their worries, they’re not out of touch or bigoted for seeing that hard fought for women’s rights and spaces are under threat and wanting to protect them, for wanting to protect children and young people from a lifetime of medical and surgical intervention for not conforming to harmful gender stereotypes, for wanting to expose the fetishisation of women’s bodies for what it is,and for saying no, they do not consent to partake in men’s autogynephilia, or cross gender arousal, or whatever terminology you wish to use.

Guardian today:

“a meeting on the issue of self-identification on Wednesday, which was hosted in the houses of parliament by rightwing MP Philip Davies after Millwall football club pulled out of hosting the event, following pressure from transrights campaigners.*

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/17/legal-challenge-to-labour-over-shortlists-and-transwomen

That’s Philip Davies the anti-feminist campaigner, not David TC Davies the Welsh Tory backbencher. So not only have they got the name wrong, they’ve got the name wrong in a way which conveniently reinforces the “we’re the REAL feminists, they’re just bigots” message that all the “transrights” organisations quoted in the articule are going with.

Oh, FFS Grauniad! Facts!

www.ipso.co.uk/make-a-complaint/

Get on it everyone.

I agree with Archery Annie. I also agree women are always told to 'be nicer' and that's a problem. But everyone has to choose their language carefully in political debate.

Actually, wait, it seems the guardian isn’t regulated by IPSO.

Not sure who their regulatory body is.

I'm absolutely the first person to be strategic, over this issue. Boxing smart, rather than boxing hard.

My eye is always on how effective something is.

So I agree that the use of the word parasite is a pain.

But autogynephilia is the huge elephant in the room.

It's the drive behind transactivism, it's the most misogynistic aspect of the issue, it permeates throughout.

At the same time, it's being comprehensively and relentlessly whitewashed from the narrative. Tech savvy TRAs are changing all mention of it on Wikipedia, etc. To pretend it doesn't even exist.

The fetish is parasitical. A quick skim of the trans widows thread shows exactly how.

Do I wish Sheila hadn't used that specific word? Yes, probably.

But now she has, it should be turned into an advantage. It should open the door to a discussion on AGP.

If anyone complains about the use of the word, the natural rebuttal is to say yes but it was about AGP and this is why.

And I realise it could easily be a bit of a battle as to whether that word stays as a disadvantage, or gets turned into a discussion.

But the feeling of the self censorship and a slightly apologetic attitude, won't help.

Because it's true. Women get called everything under the sun. And no one gives a toss.

David Davies was called a cunt by an LGBT group. Purely for allowing women to speak.

Where are all the headlines about that?

AGP and cross dressing is not a protected characteristic. The very idea is ludicrous. And yet, to all intents and purposes, that's exactly what it is.

This should be an explosive, mind boggling point in the narrative that stops the legislation in its tracks.

But it isn't. It's being comprehensively disregarded.

Raising awareness of it is urgent and paramount.

The bodysuit aspect might be niche, but the fetish is anything but.

The word parasite needs to be firmly associated with AGP, so AGP gets the airing it needs.

You can complain to the Guardian directly about their (lack of) accuracy here:
www.theguardian.com/info/2014/sep/12/-sp-how-to-make-a-complaint-about-guardian-or-observer-content

But I have no idea who their regulatory body is.

Ok, complaints to the guardian should be emailed to:
[email protected]

Details on how to complain here:
www.theguardian.com/info/2014/sep/12/-sp-how-to-make-a-complaint-about-guardian-or-observer-content

Points of complaint

1. Innaccuracy - they have printed a lie that Philip Davies hosted the meeting. This was freely, easily findable information and seems to be a difficult ‘mistake’ to make. So therefore
2. Personal behaviour - their own guidelines state “reporters should make every effort.....to report the news, not to make the news”. Publication of this is disingenous, inflammatory, designed to influence the debate.

I’ve just fired off an email (now late for work grr) and encourage others to do so too.

I've just read the article and it says David Davies. Either I'm missing something or they've corrected it.

She didn't say it was people with gender dysphoria, she was referring to autogynephilia.

And it's about time that this is shouted from everyrooftop. Our issue is with autogynephiles who have appropriated the Transsexual plight. Not many know the distinction and the lines are now blurred and embedded.

If more knew about autogynephiles and what this actually means, I imagine a greater support to this issue.

So, parasitic? YES. FUCK YES. If that offends anyone here, then do as I did and take time off this thread to learn. I'm not saying this to be patronising nor condescending (the written word and all that), but I faltered some years back when I first came to FWR and felt some sympathy for trans folk and some anger towards feminists for being so cruel towards people who suffered dysphoria. I had a rude awakening when some regulars gave me short sharp thrift so I researched. Fuck me, it was a rude awakening. A frightening awakening, a sickening awakening.

Why hasn't anyone correlated the mega rise in numbers of "Transwomen" with mega easily availability of porn? With sexual crime against women? Figures have risen to an epic amount because the huge number of men with fetishist behaviour have slink under the umbrella term because it conveniently legitimises their behaviour. And it's us women that are demonised for not going along with it. Anyone doubting this, look for our transWidows thread and it will break your heart.

Lines are blurred so much that the general populous don't see it. I'd even go as far as saying that genuine folk who suffer dysphoria now don't see it.

The bottom line is for me, I am not wanting to legitimise a wank-culture and I don't want to fucking be a part of that wank-culture. If what I say offends you, tough shit. I'm sick of all this crap.

They’ve corrected it - I copy/pasted that straight from the Guardian. Good. Although it is a pretty telling mistake for them to make.

Thought they typically mentioned when they’d made corrections in the online version? It’s not a typo...