Debunking some myths

[pallas81]

I know I will be crucified for this but I aim to reach out to those who consider themselves open minded on the issue of reform to the Gender Recognition Act.
There is a great deal of talk about the dangers of male predators in female only spaces. It needs to be pointed out that this has nothing to do with the 2004 Gender Recognition Act or its possible reform. As the law currently stands, transgender women are perfectly entitled to use female toilets, changing rooms and facilities such as shelters and rape crisis centres. A Gender Recognition Certificate is NOT required. In fact, in law, it is illegal to demand such a certificate.
Transgender people are protected under the 2010 Equality Act. For those who are vehemently opposed to trans people having certain rights, you should be campaigning against the Equality Act instead of occupying yourselves with self identification.
However, I should point out that in the countries that have already adopted self identification as law there is no evidence that male predators have used it to prey on vulnerable women.
I'm afraid that much of the anger around this issue looks like paranoid fantasy when one knows the facts. Despite the best efforts of squalid sites like Transcrime, the rates of criminal behaviour among self-identified trans people is much much lower than the societal average and there is ZERO respectable evidence that self identified transgender females represent any threat to non-transgender females of any age.
If you wish to comment, please try to be courteous. Thank you.

In fact Rufus the contrary is true - it is the trans allies who don't understand gender, and more specifically don't understand that "gender" has two quite distinct meanings in this discussion. The first is as the word has traditionally been used in the social sciences, to connote a system of socially and culturally constructed limitations on behaviours, roles, occupations, activities and dress which are considered by that culture to be appropriate for one sex or the other. (As an anthropologist will tell you, some of these cross cultures with some consistency - child rearing is almost always a "female" activity, hunting big game or ploughing with heavy draft animals almost always "male", whereas some are culturally variable - Medieval England, weaving is a "man's job", Medieval Iceland, weaving is a "woman's job"). The second meaning is of course "gender" as "internal sense of maleness or femaleness", much beloved of transactivists

Radical feminists see gender in its first connotation as an oppressive system from which men and women need to be liberated. They tend to see gender in its second connotation as a made up concept like eternal souls, transubstantiation (and transmigration - in fact it has a lot in common with that, in that you're being asked to believe that a lady soul can end up in a male body).

I'd say we rad fems have a much more nuanced and clearly thought out understanding of gender than the likes of Bibi upthread.

A lot of the trans activists seem have a very warped view of radical feminism IME.

They seem to confuse "radical feminist" with "boring, conservative old woman who wants to stop us breaking down stereotypes and to keep everyone in gendered boxes"

I think half of them haven't got a clue how ironic (or just plain wrong) that is - or that what radfems advocate wrt breaking down gender stereotypes is more radical than their position, not less.

I think transactivists, in the main, don't care what any one else's viewpoint is. They just want everyone to agree with them and let them proceed on their merry way.

twitter.com/lgbtqnation/status/1071857391589765121?s=19

Why do you call the Transcrimeuk.com site squalid, Pallas81? I could understand calling a crime squalid, but not the report of it. The information is useful, especially in these days of police calling rapists women if that’s what the rapist wants!

Men who become transwomen commit crimes at the same rate as other men. And almost half the male criminals wanting to be transferred to women’s prisons are sex offenders. These are real statistics, not made-up ones. Don’t you think women have a right to know this?

Excuse me but I'm concerned because I read somewhere that the Man Friday protests last year resulted in a female only swimming pool on Haampstead Heath being redesignated as a Mixed sex swimming pool.

My question would be is this correct?

If so, how we need to exercise great caution to avoid protest having negative outcomes for our liberties.

No, that's not what happened. Edward Lord (Freemason- you know the org that bans women members) ran a ridiculous 'consultation' on the issue, dismissed around 50% of the 40,000 responses on random spurious grounds which have never been fully explained, then claimed 65% of remaining responses supported the change - and made it happen.

It was always going to be the case regardless of what anyone else did or said.

Thanks for putting that right, Bettybeans. Our opponents pump out lies and keep repeating them, so we just have to keep reminding people of the truth. Thanks also to AliceToo for checking the facts.

Are you okay with transwomen who pass - ie those who look obviously feminine and unless they said something or you ran a chromosomal test on, you'd assume they were cis-women?

Am I OK with them coming into female only spaces? No!

Where do you draw the line? Are you aying you'll accept a transwoman post-op? Or are you saying you refuse to acknowledge them as a woman at any point... even though the law and most of society does?

I accept transwomen in life, no problem. I do not accept them in female spaces, be they pre-op, post-op or anywhere in between: they are male and have no right to be there.

Just read this thread as a lurker. Bibi really didn't know how to debate. You can tell when someone has no supporting facts when they just throw personal insults.