'This rigid, unyielding hierarchy of natural over unnatural, of biology over feeling, should terrify anyone progressive'

[Freespeecher]

'it is, after all, the same argument that has been used to deny women’s access to abortion and contraception for decades. Misogyny, homophobia and transphobia share much of the same DNA'.

Shon Faye, sans commentaires.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/19/anti-trans-rhetoric-homophobia-trans-rights#comments

It's the same old same old. Nothing new to see, and I find it tedious that Faye thinks people need a history lesson.

Fuck it.

This is a very difficult and loooong read. I hope Shon has a wee perusal.

It's not about feelz and heelz.

reneejg.net/2017/02/07/a-call-to-feminists-to-remember-the-history-and-sex-based-nature-of-womens-oppression/

So many parts of that article are bollocks, but this one deserves special attention.

Transphobia, too, emanates from a prejudice that a person’s stated identity is more trustworthy if it reflects their “natural” role in human reproduction.

No. ‘Transphobia’, as defined by you SF, emanates from the justifiable, legitimate, evidence-based concerns of women who are vulnerable to people of the opposite sex. The sex that remains part of you, regardless of your gender identity.

It's not nice reading just to add an extra warning.

I think SF has a point in as much as gay people's interests can conflict with a religious person's interests; just as trans people's interests can conflict with female's interests.

However, he doesn't communicate that feminists concerns are not about the letters used on a birth certificate but rather the entitlements that come with it.

Despite all the posturing that 'transwomen are women', according to the Equalities Act, if they have a GRC, whilst they are 'legally women', are should benefit from the related sex based protections that come with this, they also have the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' afforded to them by being male. This in itself proves that they are not the same as natal women.

He also fails to point out that same sex provision affords privacy, dignity and safety. When same-sex provision becomes same-gender provision, it fails to afford the dignity and privacy that comes from women resting assured that a male-bodied person will not be able to enter the provision at any given moment. Where the rationale for the provision is based upon our sexed bodies, it is non sensical to suggest that the sexed body of a natal male is inconsequential.

I think I have woken up in an alternate universe....the BTL comments are almost all gender critical! Am I dreaming? This was the Guardian wasn’t it?

I'm not reading anything written by SF but I did read some of the comments. How unusual for the Guardian to allow comments. And refreshing to see that even with heavy moderation most people are questioning the ideology.

Wow, this line:
"Transphobia, too, emanates from a prejudice that a person’s stated identity is more trustworthy if it reflects their “natural” role in human reproduction."

Someone''s stated "identity" doesn't trump reality. If I identify as a five year old, you have every right to question it if I appear to be 80 years old. If I identify as black, it is not 'prejudiced' to question this if I'm white. If I identify as paraplegic, how can my identity be trusted if I then get up and walk? Why do we now have to accept that people are what they say they are, even if all evidence points to the contrary? And why does this only work with regards to sex and gender, and no other social category?

So no coincidence that in the last two days the LibDem LGBT twitter feed are calling for Mumsnet to be shut down alleging that GC women are calling for a new section 28?

Re the section 28 thing, a MN user called mummybear701 literally did call for a s28 but for trans. In those exact words. I think that’s what they’re taking it from and they have a screenshot of it which they are retweeting.

The campaign to pressure Girlguiding to rescind its trans inclusive policy, with whispered mention of “risk” to cisgender girls from their trans friends on “overnight trips”, is reminiscent of the old “slippery slope” dog whistle about seduction of the young. All LGBT people, feminists and allies must reject this damaging narrative at every turn.

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the problem with bunking teenagers who can impregnate in with teenagers who can be impregnated, without notifying their parents, then you are incredibly naive and I don't trust your judgement.

Transphobia, too, emanates from a prejudice that a person’s stated identity is more trustworthy if it reflects their “natural” role in human reproduction. This rigid, unyielding hierarchy of natural over unnatural, of biology over feeling, should terrify anyone progressive: it is, after all, the same argument that has been used to deny women’s access to abortion and contraception for decades. Misogyny, homophobia and transphobia share much of the same DNA.

Faye's got this bass-ackwards. Misogyny is insisting that being a woman is anything other than a simple biological reality. Misogyny is saying woman is a feeling, an internal gendered soul, a collection of stereotypical interests. Misogyny is believing lady brain is a thing. Misogyny is saying that liking dresses and makeup and pink sparkly things makes you a woman. Misogyny is mistaking the cultural detritus of femininity for womanhood.

And women are denied contraception and abortion in order to control our reproductive capabilities - the biological reality of being a human being who happens to be born with a female reproductive system. Not because some of us like to paint our nails, or because we have lady brains.

“a MN user called mummybear701 literally did call for a s28 but for trans. In those exact words. ”

Except that’s not what she was doing. The poster concerned was being sarcastic and is, in fact, pro-trans rights.
That’s the problem with taking posts out of context.

Yes I know! But has someone found that thread and screen-shotted it to contradict what’s being said on twitter? Because at the moment they have it there in black and white which is quite scary.

It’s infuriating me that so many people, who weren’t even born when Section 28 was proposed, are trying to use it for their own ends in this way.

Shon Faye and Owen Jones were babies. They have no experience of what they’re talking about!

One thing SF does have a point about is how the struggle for gay rights has been whitewashed. People absolutely believed that gay rights were a threat to straight people up until relatively recently. Some people still think they do but it’s unacceptable to say so. Gay people were subject to the most horrendous abuse and prejudice before the law finally changed. (Not saying it’s the same as the trans fight for rights)

There have been a huge number of comments and tweets screen shot and deliberately taken out of context to create a narrative about women who are asking questions about legislation which may impact them.
Sadly, the nature of SM is that this narrative is easily absorbed, especially by people with deeply felt fears and concerns.
I feel very confident that a high proportion of the women on FWR boards over the age of 30 will have actively protested Section 28 and lobbied for its removal. (it was the public protest that I took part in)
The fact that the LibDem LGBT twitter users are leading their allegation with a comment which is pretty clearly NOT calling for section 28 should speak volumes. No doubt at some point it will be understood in context.
SM creates perceptions and this has been exploited by some TRAs.
Where did the belief come from that WPUK had women who were carrying baseball bats/ burning books/ calling for vulnerable children to be exposed / inciting rape and violence towards people who are transgender?
A website such as this may answer some of the questions...
This site is dedicated to exposing the lies and distortions propagated by some transactivists to cause division and hatred. Some are outright untruths, some are deliberate attempts to mislead, and some are just plain stupidity. Trans people, like everyone else, deserve to be listened to and respected. The discussions around trans issues are complex and nuanced, covering biology, psychology, law, medicine, ethics, even philosophy. How can we possibly find the answers to all of those questions when people are demonised for even asking them? When we reject their lies, we might all get the peace, freedom and respect we deserve.

liesoftransactivists.com

(first public protest)

Oh some of the comments are quite heartening actually. 'John' has nailed it:

I don't care how you choose to dress, what you do with your body, or who you have sex with. What I have a problem with is people who think that declaring themselves to be women while having been raised male gives them the right to invade spaces biological women have claimed for themselves. Aside from all the complicated sexpol stuff, it just seems like incredibly bad manners.

It is really interesting that the majority of btl comments are questioning trans ideology/ gender critical

I really do think that the more this 'debate' gets out in the open, the better - for gender critical people that is.

I really do hope that Stonewall and the like start to reflect on protecting the interests of trans people in a way that doesn't trample over others and so trans people don't get thrown under a bus because of their current dogmatic, ill considered demands.

Biology over feelings does not equal women over men, which he's trying to imply

Not one click for the guardian tho

Biology over feelings.

Facts over opinions basically. Yup, I’m fine with that. Objective reality over superstition? Yup fine with that too. That’s kind of what the renaissance was aiming at.

If anyone would like to live in a society where superstition and opinion trump facts, there are some simply lovely theocracies to choose from.

Guardian comments getting a wee bit terfy - who would have thought it.

Or maybe they always were under all the deletions.

It's actually interesting to see what a left leaning comments section looks like on the issue (when largely unmoderated). It shows that outside of twitter people are not hive minds.

There were a couple of comments, both from gay men, one who perhaps understandably could only see trans rights through the prism of gay rights yet the other gay man could see how current rhetoric is problematic for women.

On a related note I see via twitter that Brian Paddick (Lib Dem) has agreed to meet with WPUK to discuss concerns.

Presumably SF thinks feelings should be prioritised over biology. I’m sure homeopaths, anti-vaccers and other assorted anti-science crackpots would be in agreement.

I have read the Guardian for years and still do. My experience is that most comments under articles on transgender have been both thoughtful as well as gender critical. The problem in the last couple of years has been not opening the comments. I see allowing comments under Shon Faye's article as a little bit of progress.

I am not happy that the Guardian or the Labour Party although I am not happy with either of them on this issue. I believe that it is possible to change things from within and for me I cannot see any obvious alternatives at the moment. Perhaps the Guardian is beginning to realise that it is necessary to look at both sides of the discussion. I live in hope.