Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
OldCrone · 03/04/2018 14:48

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.

What he was quoted as saying was ‘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.’

I can't imagine anyone even asking him why he thinks that. Because anyone who thinks otherwise is either hopelessly naive or is one of the people who might take advantage.

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 14:51

*What he was quoted as saying was ‘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.’

I can't imagine anyone even asking him why he thinks that. Because anyone who thinks otherwise is either hopelessly naive or is one of the people who might take advantage.*

YY to this.

A strange cross-party selection of people who happen to have a basic grasp on physical and biological reality start raising similar questions. What a shock!

newtlover · 03/04/2018 14:55

it's obvious to us- there are predatory men who will either take the opportunity to attack women OR they will get some affirmation of their own identity by being there.

WRT the first, why does that matter? because women have the right to bodily integrity and freedom from fear.
But other answers might be
I don't want another man looking at my woman (wife/daughter)
I don't want my woman touched by another man
which might also seem like commonsense to some people

OldCrone · 03/04/2018 15:14

newtlover
How would you feel about your daughter being in a changing room with a man? Don't you want to protect her? Why is it wrong for a man to feel protective towards his daughters? I also don't see what's wrong with a man supporting his wife if she is at risk of being assaulted in a changing room.

As MargeH said Feminists won't win this on their own. This doesn't affect men in the same way it affects women. If the motivation for some men to fight self-id is protection of the women and girls in their lives, why is that a problem? I don't think a man has to view his wife as 'property' just because he wants to stop her being assaulted by another man.

newtlover · 03/04/2018 15:20

can you not see the difference between
Jane (who is my wife/daughter) has the right to privacy and dignity, so I oppose this trend, self id, which would compromise that. I love her and support her rights.
and
Jane's MY wife. I'm the only man who has the right to see her in a vulnerable state.

TerfsUp · 03/04/2018 15:21

Because the two are usually mutually exclusive....

Yes, they are. Nice of you to notice that. Grin

whoputthecatout · 03/04/2018 15:25

Yes newtlover - I can see the difference, but frankly right now I couldn't give a toss. We need all the allies we can get whatever their dodgy motives might, or might not be.

And I say that as a 60s/70s old style second wave feminist who fought tooth and nail for women's rights in those decades.

This is not about left/right and can we bear to hold our noses and support someone who is not on 'our' side, whichever side that might be.

It is between those who based their arguments on biological and scientific reality and those who base it on 'feelz', misplaced compassion, lefty progression or sparkly glitter.

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 15:33

It is between those who based their arguments on biological and scientific reality and those who base it on 'feelz', misplaced compassion, lefty progression or sparkly glitter.

Good point.

Proposals for someone to 'self-id' their biological sex = proposals for a 'post-truth' law.

newtlover · 03/04/2018 15:33

But what if, joining us on the side of biological and scientific reality we have people who base their arguments on what god says or what is 'natural'?
for the immediate aim of getting rid of self ID, the likes of JRM may be useful. But we need to be very careful, because his next move will be to restrict our reproductive riights.

MargeH · 03/04/2018 15:37

Seconded, whoputthecatout

whoputthecatout · 03/04/2018 15:44

I understand what you are saying newtlover and of course we have to look at motives. But if this self ID goes forward the ramifications will be so immense that fighting for reproductive rights will be irrelevant.

Sufficient unto the day, as they say. Fight the battle in front of you and keep your powder dry for future wars.

MargeH · 03/04/2018 15:47

I agree with virtually nothing Jeremy Corbyn stands for, but I'd welcome his support on this.

OldCrone · 03/04/2018 15:48

newtlover
I can see the difference, but I don't think it's relevant if our aim is to keep the rapists out of the women's changing rooms.

Jane (who is my wife/daughter) has the right to privacy and dignity, so I oppose this trend, self id, which would compromise that. I love her and support her rights.
Jane wants a safe space free of penises and her husband is a lovely man who cares about her privacy, safety and dignity.

Jane's MY wife. I'm the only man who has the right to see her in a vulnerable state.
Jane wants a safe space free of penises and her husband views her as his property.

Allowing Jane to have that safe space is more important than examining what sort of person her husband is or what sort of relationship they have.

Terftastic · 03/04/2018 15:54

I can see the difference - that difference being part of feminist analysis.

But it's not of pressing importance right now - I think women who are not interested in feminist theory are equally likely to be uncomfortable with self ID and men in women's spaces.

It's also gone way beyond a left wing vs right wing thing now - I will stand with my Conservative sisters on this.

In fact, the way things are going in the Labour Party at the moment, I may well be actually joining my Conservative sisters soon.

BastardGingerCat · 03/04/2018 16:20

With the Jane example, Jane may want sex segregated changing rooms because she's been attacked before, or because she has religious beliefs that mean she thinks she shouldn't be unclothed in front of a man that isn't her husband, or because she's just extremely self conscious. Heck, she may even want them because she truly hates all men - the fact is that Jane's desire for this should be respected no matter her reasons and if her husband's support for her incorporates any or all of those reasons I don't particularly care as long as we're not taking away women's fundamental rights to sex segregated spaces.

newtlover · 03/04/2018 17:15

I get where you are coming from, and in terms of mobilising public opinion I sort of agree. But I'm wary of lending any credence to a man in power whose next move might damage women.

let's protect women by keeping men out of their private spaces
let's protect women by keepig them out of male dominated environments
let's protect women by making sure they don't go out at night alone
etc

Winewinewinegin · 03/04/2018 17:21

Agree that JRM's overall approach to women's rights does not overlap with the general feminist perspectives on this board in many other areas.

Also that general or unquestioning support for someone with traditional catholic/conservative views and who has met with Steve Bannon would be deeply unwise. Wonder what JRM's view on 'white feminism' is?

MargeH · 03/04/2018 17:25

Sorry, newtlover, but that kind of ideological thinking is likely to alienate more people that it attracts. And numbers (aka votes) matter when it comes to politicians changing policy. Goodness knows how you make those who have already publically stated 'transwomen are women' do a U-turn on this. Egg on their face is something politicians like to avoid at all costs.

People were similarly turning their noses up at Rod Liddle a week ago. You really can't afford to be that sniffy about your bedfellows on this issue.

Viviennemary · 03/04/2018 17:30

His views are sometimes a little bit old fashioned for even me. But I agree this transgender stuff is getting out of hand. I think a lot of Tories are much more sensible than some of those leftie labour Momentum types.

MargeH · 03/04/2018 17:31

Winewinewinegin

At least JRM is open about his beliefs and principles (which, as an atheist, I don't share btw.)

Better than a certain Mr Blair who, as I recall, joined the Catholic church as soon as he was out of office, whilst adhering to the "We don't do God" mantra as PM. And Tim Farron who was really mealy-mouthed about his.

AncientLights · 03/04/2018 17:33

He's not my MP but I emailed him at the HoC just to say thanks for making the point. I got an automated reply: he only replies to letters. The Member for the 18th century indeed.

MargeH · 03/04/2018 17:34

Viviennemary

I'm not a fan either, but he has a lot of supporters and I'd put money on every one of them being anti self-ID.

Don't shoot the messengers.....

OldCrone · 03/04/2018 17:39

But I'm wary of lending any credence to a man in power whose next move might damage women.
I agree, but I still think that anyone speaking out about this, even Jacob Rees Mogg or Katie Hopkins, brings the debate closer, and the issues out in the open. At the moment it's all 'no debate, transwomen are women, feminists are transphobic bigots'. Anything that gets the debate out in the open and shows that there are other sides to it is a step in the right direction. And his statement as it was quoted is totally reasonable, whatever his motivations for saying it.

Ereshkigal · 03/04/2018 17:50

I've thought about it a lot and I agree with OldCrone. At the moment we are being written off as a fringe group despite the fact that no one wants this, but the TRAs can point to the lack of support for feminists and say everyone agrees with them that TIMs are women and fine with men in women's spaces. Which is clearly bollocks, but they get away with it, just about, because people don't want to get involved. We need the issue blown right open.

LassWiADelicateAir · 03/04/2018 17:51

can you not see the difference between
Jane (who is my wife/daughter) has the right to privacy and dignity, so I oppose this trend, self id, which would compromise that. I love her and support her rights.
and
Jane's MY wife. I'm the only man who has the right to see her in a vulnerable state

That comment is asuming an awful lot, including rather offensive assumptions, about what is in JRM's head. If I were going to presume to tell the world what JRM thinks if anything I would assume privacy and dignity for individuals counts high.

Sorry, newtlover, but that kind of ideological thinking is likely to alienate more people that it attracts

How many feminists can dance on a pin- head? To what music are they dancing? Etc, etc.