Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

J Rees Mogg

178 replies

Mumsnut · 02/04/2018 13:14

In The Times today:

He is uneasy about some aspects of the transgender rights debate.

‘If you have people who have no intention of changing sex but think it would be fun to go into the women’s changing room, we cannot ignore that.’

OP posts:
BeUpStanding · 03/04/2018 09:02

@mumsnut What's the article title? I can't find it.

Can anyone point to the source article?

Thanksforthatamazingpost · 03/04/2018 09:12

“We don't agree with JRM, he just happens to agree with us on this issue.”

I’m reconciled now.

It’s a question of remembering who is agreeing with who(m)

Original poster
Mumsnut · 03/04/2018 09:30

Sorry, it was the Mail, not The Times. Most of it was about nappies.

OP posts:
Popchyk · 03/04/2018 09:44

I don't care who agrees with whom.

If JRM had come out and stated that it is fine for self-identifying men to stroll into women's spaces because we can trust them, then that would also be good.

Because it shines a light on the debate and will generate more debate.

We are at the point where any reporting is good.

3 months ago, we had zero reporting about this in mainstream media, and precious little elsewhere. Now we are starting to see the first few public figures having the courage to even discuss what the implications might be.

And now that JRM has said something quite mild, there will be other articles either agreeing with him or disagreeing with him. All of this is good.

Forget who he is, what did he say? "If you have people who have no intention of changing sex but think it would be fun to go into the women’s changing room, we cannot ignore that."

A mild statement that few would disagree with. And yet it generates headlines and discussion. That's the important thing. For me anyways.

OldCrone · 03/04/2018 10:16

In order to kick Self ID into the long grass we need a majority to be against it - that includes socially conservative.

And before that can happen, there needs to be debate. If JRM speaking out is what it takes to force that debate, then that can only be a good thing.

If the only argument the pro self-id lobby have is that if we agree with JRM on this issue we're all a bunch of hateful bigots, they're going to look fairly stupid once the debate really starts.

Part of what got us to where we are now is people saying 'if you believe in X you must believe in Y' - the linking of ideas which are supposed to go together. T being tagged onto LGB is what has given it its power. We need to get away from that and deal with each issue on its own.

Terftastic · 03/04/2018 10:59

The T being tagged onto the LGB has become problematic. Because the T is not about sexual orientation - it is about "gender identity" and now they've tagged on a whole load of other letters too. "Kink" was added last time I heard - or was that a joke? I genuinely can't tell anymore. Someone's having a laugh somewhere though.

The T (and the Q++++) is now making a mockery of the LGB, who were fighting for genuine equal rights - eg. equal marriage. Now the L (and even the G) are facing some sort of backlash over actual sexual orientation and same biological sex attraction.

Lesbian should now include transwomen with penises, (because they are real women!) and they should call themselves something else. "Gynosexual" has been suggested.

I have seen an MP re-tweet stuff to this effect. LibDem MP Jo Swinson retweeted this thread recently about same sex attraction.

Anyway, I digress.

People wanting the article this quote was taken from a Mail article, it's literally just a one-liner in this article www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5565727/Has-Jacob-Rees-Moggs-Nanny-let-slip-secrety-set-sights-No-10.html

RedToothBrush · 03/04/2018 12:25

Why is anyone surprised that Rees Mogg thinks this, and is prepared to put his head over the parapet over this?

I'm more surprised he hasn't done sooner...

I'm actually quite grateful he hasn't as it means there has been distance between this part of the right and the traditionally left wing feminists.

Mogg stepping in now, means the subject is hitting a nerve in certain circles within the population and that its politically worth his time to try and cash in on that.

This has positives and negatives.

I won't go singing his praises on this, for this reason. I'm cautious and concerned about what this means too.

Icantreachthepretzels · 03/04/2018 12:35

If the only argument the pro self-id lobby have is that if we agree with JRM on this issue we're all a bunch of hateful bigots, they're going to look fairly stupid once the debate really starts.

They are going to look really stupid once the debate really starts anyway because they haven't a leg to stand on. we may be on 'the wrong side of history' Hmm but we are on the right side of science!
But considering that the law is already under review and various companies/ associations have already changed their guidelines - it doesn't mean the law won't get changed before the debate really starts. (I mean when it really starts that actually means when it finally stops. Men are not women #nodebate.)
But the interference of someone like Mogg will only inspire the TRAs and their dude bros to push for more legislation and commit more VAWG and online harassment against concerned women as they will be convinced that this man's support proves how awful we are.
Things can get a lot worse before they get better - and JRM fanning the flames for his own ends does not help women. Helps misogynist, right on, left wing men to believe that they are allowed to mansplain being a woman, and harass real women, though.

Popchyk · 03/04/2018 12:51

I don't agree that this is interference from JRM or fanning the flames. He is allowed an opinion on it. And his opinion is very mild.

The TRAs will react against it, of course. And that will push the debate further into the mainstream. All of this is good.

How can we have a "debate" if public figures should not be allowed to discuss it even in the most mild terms without being accused of interference or fanning the flames for stating something that is quite basic reasoning?

Isn't that just yet another attempt at silencing?

MargeH · 03/04/2018 13:08

JRM has a great deal of Tory grassroots support (see betting odds)

www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-conservative-leader

so he will be listened to.

MargeH · 03/04/2018 13:14

And his comment has been pick up by James Kirkup in The Spectator

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/jacob-rees-mogg-radical-feminist/

and Mumsnet gets a mention too!

And Mumsnet, of course, where the unlikely alliances forged by the gender debate are frequently observed with happy surprise: welcome to The Spectator, MNetters.

Melamin · 03/04/2018 13:21

Amusing headline Smile

Terftastic · 03/04/2018 13:22

I thank James Kirkup from the bottom of my heart, for his constant raising of this, and for never failing to mention MNetters Grin

I've been thinking about subscribing to the Spectator for a while now - when I do, it will be tanks to him.

Icantreachthepretzels · 03/04/2018 13:41

How can we have a "debate" if public figures should not be allowed to discuss it

I never said he couldn't discuss it. I just don't think we want to be seen standing alongside him. And I also don't think anyone ought to trust him - on this or any matter.

Like I said before. Let him say what he wants. We carry on saying what we want - just don't go out of your way to point out the similarity between his views and yours. It will be used against you in some circles. Yes they might be blinkered, no it might not be reasonable or sensible -doesn't mean it won't happen. (my mother, for example, knows nothing of the trans debate but would disagree with JRM if he said the sky was blue. She would view with suspicion anyone that went along with this blueist belief of the heavens because she finds JRM so abhorrent. it is not just momentumites that would use his support against us. )

Just because we may agree on this one issue - feminists need to be putting a lot of distance between themselves and JRM.

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 13:56

The point to highlight is that people across the political spectrum are raising the complex issues that need discussed and addressed with Self-ID. This is an issue that affects women, society, and freedom of speech whatever political leaning you have. Voices saying the same thing from political views that normally have next to nothing in common make it clear there are issues here that need discussed and explained to and with the general electorate.

MargeH · 03/04/2018 13:58

Feminists won't win this on their own.

Terftastic · 03/04/2018 14:00

MargeH is right.

RedToothBrush · 03/04/2018 14:12

Marge is right.

BastardGingerCat · 03/04/2018 14:13

The more people who point out that the Emperor is naked the better. At least with JRM you know that he's arrived at a consistent position rather than taking the popular stance - look at where that's got us, a world where women can have penises and apparently the only reason FGM is horrific is because it's transphobic.

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 14:18

Also agree with Marge.

Widening the terms used in the media to describe the impact will help to get wider attention.

Women and parents with questions and concerns, as well as feminists.

Pro-women not anti-trans groups.

The idea that many including some trans people feel that it is possible to be pro-women's rights and pro-trans rights, and are raising concerns from this perspective.

MargeH · 03/04/2018 14:19

And feminists calling him a bigot, (as on page 1 of this thread) because of some perceived notion of what he stands for, demeans us all.

I'm a Conservative party member but a atheist, so he certainly doesn't represent my worldview. But I admire him for standing up for his beliefs, despite ridicule from all quarters. Bet than Hedge-your-bets Farron, for sure.

newtlover · 03/04/2018 14:21

I think the potential problem of having someone like this agree with us is not just that the transactivists will say 'he's a hateful bigot, he agrees with you, so you must be a hateful bigot'
I think it's more that, as a pp suggests, if we were to ask him to explain WHY he agrees with us, the answer wouldn't just be 'commonsense innit' it might be something to do with women as property that needs protecting- I imagine, not knowing how these guys think. Then, we may get criticised on the grounds that we share the thinking, rather than just agreeing with the conclusion.

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 14:25

I would still criticise someone for being a bigot if I felt they were being bigoted, even if they agree with me on something.

TRAs will use anything they can to discredit anyone who argues against them.

The fact that lots of people from across the political spectrum have questions about self-id is a strong point in favour of debating them.

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 14:29

Also, being able to notice and point out that someone with a penis who says they are a woman being allowed into otherwise same sex spaces is basic common sense for those with a basic grasp on reality.

So not surprising that a range of types of people might question it really.

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 14:30

Sorry should be a 'might be problematic' in there.