The Deptford People Project and the impact of self-ID and transactivism on working class women

[BloodyFreezing]

Interesting interview with Lucy McDonagh, co-founder of the Deptford People Project in this article:

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/03/23/leftist-women-uk-refuse-accept-labours-attempts-silence-critiques-gender-identity/

The retain the privilege of men while also acquiring a Teflon coating of being the Most Oppressed People Ever™ (MOPE) meaning that on seeing the slightest sign of criticising they can shut it down with a cry of "transphobia".

If self-id comes in then 'woman' won't mean 'person with female reproductive system' any more. That's going to make it very hard to fight for women's rights, because you can't fight for something you can't define.

For example, if women are underpaid within a company, what's to stop the company quietly asking a few highly paid male people to identify as 'non-binary'? Gender pay-gap sorted.

We only know women are disadvantaged under patriarchy because we can define them as a group and compare them to men. If we can't do this any more, the disadvantage can no longer be seen and the rationale for addressing it is gone too.

I feel so betrayed by the Guardian in general

Join the line.

custardo the self id law is a perverts' charter. All of a sudden it is easy to get into women's spaces. Perverts and abusers who wouldn't ever live as a woman 100% and certainly wouldn't remove their cock and balls can pretend to be trans and get access. There are a hell of a lot of them around as every woman knows.

My biggest objection though is that it effectively enshrines in law that being a woman is all about makeup, tits, frocks and simpering, not XX chromosomes and a uterus. Thus a person with a penis can be a woman if he says he feels like what he thinks it is to be a woman, i.e. a stereotype.

If you as a woman point out that that's bollocks and he's a man, probably with some mental health issues, then you are guilty of a hate crime, same as if you were racist or homophobic.

That's an insane law to have in a country like the UK where we try to have fact-based laws. We don't teach creationism, we don't force people to go to church, we don't prescribe diet pills to anorexics.

Of course, we know some people believe in Adam and Eve, think non-believers are going to hell, think they are fat when they are thin and mostly they can carry on with their lives while believing such obvious falsehoods.

We are allowed to argue the facts and say no I don't believe that publicly though. Yet here we are with laws proposed where you are a vile bigot if you say "women don't have dicks" or "transwomen are men". It is fundamentally wrong.

Custardo If you 'get' why mixed psychiatric wards and hospital wards are a problem then you see the problem. The two main problems are risk and consent.

Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission showed that 95% of women using women’s services preferred to receive them from a women only-organisation.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-86-the-impact-of-changes-in-commissioning-and-funding-on-women-only-services.pdf

Women only services are more effective, for women.
thewomensresourcecentre.org.uk/resources/defending-women-only-services-2/

I usually lurk on here but I just wanted to say that article has blown my mind. I never thought of applying a class analysis to this as well, but OF COURSE.

Anyway, as you were.

I feel so betrayed by the Guardian in general

The Guardian is now the newspaper equivalent of your lefty bloke friend-of-a-friend who gets all fired up about poverty and the NHS and swears about the Tories, and you think he’s okay if a bit full of himself, but then you mention something about the sex trade and he spends three hours ranting at you about what a prude you are and how actually buying sex is a great way to support women’s empowerment. And then he strops off with his IPA beer and his ponytail to mansplain socialism to someone else.

53rdWay nailed it

@Custardo, in response to this question:

2) why not have a 3rd trans option when it comed to official ientity - and then the labour party can have trans branch officers and the trans community could also benefit from positive discrimination.

There was a trans(or possibly LGBT - perhaps someone else knows exactly) officer position up for grabs at the same time as the women’s officer position. Liliy chose to run for women’s officer instead. Personally I find that doubly outrageous as it means trans rights and needs are being doubly pushed forwards at the obvious expense of women.

I would add that it wouldn’t be so bad if Lily had quietly got on with being a women’s officer and proved everybody wrong. I don’t know for certain that Lily isn’t performing those duties as I’m not a constituent, but a brief look at Twitter would suggest not.

I usually lurk on here but I just wanted to say that article has blown my mind. I never thought of applying a class analysis to this as well, but OF COURSE.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it! They are gentrifying their way into the spaces and services of the most vulnerable women in the country. Women in prison; women in DV refuges; women under section in locked mental health wards; women using any of the bare bones services austerity has left them with. All vulnerable and marginalised women - who have no public voice at all - required to cede space to mostly white, mostly middle class, males, who are suddenly marginalised.

We only know women are disadvantaged under patriarchy because we can define them as a group and compare them to men. If we can't do this any more, the disadvantage can no longer be seen and the rationale for addressing it is gone too. - tallulah
this above makes sense to me - thank you. i feel it is wrong to altar the legal definition of a woman. i'm just struggling with widespread examples that are going to hit us on a day to day basis.

hence i get the NHS example

i get the pay gap example - and actually this example is not about trans people - but about the definition of what a woman is - i like this example.

I get to change the definition of a woman to include a section of society with a penis is wrong - BUT i go back to my daughters question

if we are an oppressed sex then what is the benefit to men?

you could jump a toilet queue in the gents declare 'i'm trans" and go in the womens - but ore often than not we have queues - so i guess using that exampl i coould go into the gents and declare the same

you might get the odd pervert in a hospital ward - someone with a mental health issue who wants to see a tit through a curtain or something - but its not going to be an every day. occurance that affects lots of women - not saying its right. just that it would probably affect v. few women - so why should women care based on this example.

i am still struggling a little if we are opressed, what tangible benefits do men get and...AND what then disaddvantages us.

“if we are an oppressed sex then what is the benefit to me1n?”

Good question

if we are an oppressed sex then what is the benefit to men

"Failed" men - I like this new trancel label some of us are using - get to lord it in the woman box instead of failing in the man box. It's the patriarchal urge to control.

I think it’s that transwomen consider themselves the least privileged identity group and therefore their needs come before everyone else’s. That’s identity politics.

You get to be ‘brave’ etc

I don’t like that at all (just in case anyone cares). Can’t even type it.

Plenty of men have a lot to gain from making single-sex spaces for women not exist any more. They don’t need to be trans for that.

Also, a certain type of men who consider themselves enlightened and progressive are absolutely relishing the chance to take out all their misogyny on a group of women it’s deemed ok to hate. See: fucking Twitter.

BUT i go back to my daughters question

if we are an oppressed sex then what is the benefit to men?

custardo Google autogynephilia. Do it yourself before mentioning to DD btw and beware nsfw.

i still dont think there is an answer here . not one that i understand in a context that would affect womankind

It is a great question.

There was a sad article with a pre-activist Paris Lees about her awful dad and the way she felt from early childhood on and people’s reactions.
I am sure it was genuine and truthful.

It didn’t answer custardo’s daughter’s question though because she didn’t disclose intimate details about sexuality (how could she? Why should she?)
So it is quite mysterious to me.

Sorry - I meant to make the point that what is in it for men is 'being better'. A man who is mediocre against other men in terms of physical performance can often beat women easily. It's happening a lot in sport.

autogynephilia - yep i read the other thread 'break it own for me' which was really enlightening.

are cross dressers who wear a dress for kicks threatening womans rights

you say yes

i'm asking how - on a wide scale
for instance

if you prefer a woman doctor/nurse - i do for a smear for instance. this affects us all i would guess to some extent - this certainly would affect women of certain religeons.

now would a law change men i could not request that i have a woman who has never had a dick doing my smear ? it this what it means?

any other examples