Marks & Spencer protest

[invisibleoldwoman]

Here is an email sent to M&S today.

"I needed new bras. Normally I go to one of your stores, get fitted, get advice and buy several. Have a look around generally and maybe coffee or lunch in the cafe. Now, I cannot deal with the stress of worrying about whether I will have to deal with a male fitter, or men in the changing rooms. So I have bought my bras somewhere I don't have to deal with this. I have decided not to use your online shop as I do not wish to support a company that makes it impossible for me to feel comfortable visiting a changing room or asking for a personal service."

I have decided to send this sort of feedback everytime I fail to buy something somewhere where they have gone along with the self-id policy.

There are 351 posts on this topic...
The thread has been identified as 'proof' of Mumsnet's 'hysterical transphobia.' by Helen (Mermaids)

and Helen would know about hysteria. Isn't mermaid a bit of a genderist term?

The thread and inference is being used by some to lobby Mumsnet advertisers.

Merperson, perhaps?

The bloke who plays Jamie on GOT once attempted to describe male mer-people? and was struggling a bit (not his fault, he's Danish) and what he came up with was "manmaid". Which was cute and funny and made about as much sense as whatever Helen is trying to say in this instance.

Rowan: you can't outcrazy crazy. Self-censorship to a level that can never be twisted is impossible.

FWR tries to impose a rule that the word hysteria only has its historic meaning; it cannot ever be used and refuses to acknowledge its colloquial contemporary meaning.

Although I have been critical of the premise of this thread to be polite I avoided saying "hysterical" but sorry, I agree with Helen. If I had been honest that is what I thought too.

Great, please take that to the national press.

Woman not wanting to strip off in front of and have a bra fitting by a biological male is 'hysterical'. General public please vote.

Sorry Helen, many women aren't happy about it and their feelings matter too. Privacy and dignity for women matter too. And the general public are going to look at that and go - 'hysterical? THAT is supposed to be hysterical?'

And start to realise the extreme scenery chewing drama of the language being used by one side in this debate. Sunshine, oxygen, a fair hearing of both sides, that's exactly what I want please.

Women are not “hysterical” over this, they are frightened. We are frightened, I am frightened, as is my 13 year old daughter. The logical conclusion of self id is that we will all be faced with male people in places where male people have been excluded until now, and where most of us very much do not want to come across them. To feel worried, scared, and even panicked by this is not hysteria, it is bloody sensible.

@kneedeepinunicorns @R0wantrees Until there is confirmation we should refrain from any boycott.

The crux of this is whether overriding sex-based protections is a reasonable accommodation for people with a particular neurological variation that adversely affects their quality of life (gender dysphoria) and whether overriding sex-based protections is a reasonable accommodation for people who don't have gender dysphoria but still identify as trans. I would argue "sometimes" for the former and "never" for the latter, meaning that I cannot accept self-id unless we maximise sex-based protections at the same time, which would hurt the Miranda Yardleys and Debbie Haytons of this world

"SirVix-To feel worried, scared, and even panicked by this is not hysteria, it is bloody sensible."

These words should somehow appear at the top of any Trans thread, maybe in flashing text. People like me tend to have a blind spot for it, but it doesn't seem to be an exclusively male problem.

The crux of this is whether overriding sex-based protections is a reasonable accommodation for people with a particular neurological variation that adversely affects their quality of life (gender dysphoria) and whether overriding sex-based protections is a reasonable accommodation for people who don't have gender dysphoria but still identify as trans. I would argue "sometimes" for the former and "never" for the latter, meaning that I cannot accept self-id unless we maximise sex-based protections at the same time, which would hurt the Miranda Yardleys and Debbie Haytons of this world sad

Brilliantly summarised.

meaning that I cannot accept self-id

And that's before even considering the negligence inherent in deciding that members of a section of the population in which suicide attempts are endemic shouldn't be routinely referred to mental health professionals. Mental health referrals for trans people should be routine to ensure their safety, contrary to popular opinion, we "terfs" don't want trans people to kill themselves!

@Italiangreyhound, I am afraid I don't know much about China, but I get the point you are making. Thanks for your kind words also. The women in my institution are formidable. The great thing about the discipline is that it is all about exploring different realities and versions of reality and any resistance to this would be questioned. Psychology also draws upon ideas about 'the defended self', which looks at how we can shut ourselves off from thinking about and acknowledging thoughts that cause us to feel anxious or distressed. There is not much scope for shutting things down as a result of this!

My take on this thread is: some women want to change in areas that are for exclusive use by those with female-sexed bodies. They also want to be fitted for bras by people with female-sexed bodies. They would like to shop for bras in a store where access to both of these things is guaranteed.

There does seem to be something a bit 'Chairman Mao' about the idea that the above can be viewed as something that should not be said!

@MsBeaujangles Glad you get it "There does seem to be something a bit 'Chairman Mao' about the idea that the above can be viewed as something that should not be said!"

If you ever read up on the Cultural Revolution look at how people were made to out each other (for wrong thought I guess) and also to apologuise for their wrong thoughts. Whenever I read check your privilege I think of this!

A s @susanbunch I know you work in some form of academia maybe you can explain this? It seems people do want to believe in something, this new trans gender agenda (not transsexual) is a belief system which requires a denial of physical reality. Ideal for a cult!

Plus it ironically targets not those men who do abuse all females and gender non conforming males/trans and LGBT people but rather women, including transsexual women, who do not believe.

How is this alloeed to be so in institutions of learning and in research? Belief over material reality. Will universities tackle this?

@MadBadDaddy I can’t see a post by you now, without imagining you perusing the thread , silver spoon in one hand and glass dish of sherry trifle in the other...

That's better than knowing what i actually look like, reading these threads when i should be working.

How is this alloeed to be so in institutions of learning and in research? Belief over material reality. Will universities tackle this?

No, is the short answer to that. I know, it seems perverse and illogical that the academy would not recognise or fight spread of an ideology, especially if it was based on untruths.

I think there are a few contributory causes. The first is that the universities are beholden to students because that is where they get their income. It has become very much a consumer culture. In the past, academics often didn't really give a toss about their undergraduate students. Now, everything is focused on student experience etc and a complaint from the student body would be taken seriously.

Secondly, there has become a tendency to simply no-platform certain views and gender critical ones are definitely among the silenced voices. Germaine Greer was famously no-platformed. Julie Bindel similar. Their views are simply not allowed to be heard. This means that they can neatly be portrayed as extreme, hateful and radical without anyone actually hearing them to make that assessment.

Thirdly, many many academics are now precariously employed, seeking renewal of contracts year on year. It's simply not worth the stress and hassle of what would happen if you stuck your neck above the parapet. The ones that have- Rebecca Reilly-Cooper and Julia Long for instance appear to longer be employed by their previous institutions as their profiles have been removed (Warwick and Anglia Ruskin). That might be a coincidence- Rebecca went on maternity leave last year and may be taking more time out, but no doubt their lives were made difficult by what they were saying. Unless you are very very senior, it's not worth it. Sheila Jefferys is an academic but a retired one, so no backlash from the university to worry about.

Fourthly, many leading academics (readers and professors) are vocally pro-trans. Professor Alex Sharpe at Keele is a transwoman. She wrote a scathing blog about Rebecca R-C's gender-critical work. She is obviously a lot more influential than Rebecca so more people will take notice of her.

So yes, it is very much a question of being silenced and keeping your head down. I am not even radically gender critical in that my views have been disagreed with on here (that is NOT a dig at anyone by the way, just an observation), but they are definitely more critical than the mainstream. But I can say hand on heart that it's not worth it for me. I would make myself virtually unemployable and I don't have the gravitas of more senior colleagues. I follow Karen Ingala-Smith and Women's Place on Twitter, but that's as far as I dare go. I can see that a few other colleagues follow them too so I think they are secretly GC, but it's not something we discuss.

Oh and fifthly, we have trans students whose welfare we have to consider. As critical as I am, I would not be prepared to deliver a lecture where I know that a member of the audience would find it upsetting (plus I would be hauled up on a disciplinary).

Hope that answers some of your questions...

inherentlyhuman.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/the-poverty-of-gender-critical-feminism/

Link to Alex Sharpe's critique of Rebecca Reilly-Cooper. Even in the first paragraph:

"having read Reilly-Cooper’s article which, in my view, possesses neither of the Conversation’s cornerstones, academic rigour or journalistic flare, I considered a ‘take-down’ to be the only appropriate response, other than, of course, simply ignoring it."

R R-C has thick skin. She is still relatively young and much more junior to someone like Sharpe.

And I am of course LOL that a law professor has confused 'flare' and 'flair', but that's just an aside.

Apologies- me again. Just saw the words 'slight of hand' in Sharpe's piece. Less inclined to think flare/flair was a typo now.... I feel bad now... If anyone else can spot any typos, this is a fun game.

@SusanBunch "Hope that answers some of your questions..."

It does thank you. It makes grim, sad sense. I think the fall out will be big. The gaslighting is my biggest worry.

Not sure how Alex Sharpe got to be so senior, the arguments in that article are pants!