"Cis allies" being asked to provide "protection"

[OlennasWimple]

Can we talk about something that seems to be happening a lot at the moment: "cis allies" (note the " " ) are being asked to, in essence, prove their ally credentials but also take the risk and do the hard work apparently in order to protect transwomen (in particular) and transmen from attacks by terfs.

Just in the last week or so, there has been the video of the protestors on the stairs at the Jam Jar venue, which Bristol Sisters has claimed are "cis allies". There was a call out for "cis allies" to escort trans people home at night because they were scared that the terfs were in town and thus trans people were at risk of violent attack. The Free the She Wolf campaign explicitly asked for "cis allies" to attend the protest outside court in order to provide a human shield to protect the trans protesters who were going to be there.

And it's not just in person that "cis allies" are expected to get involved. When I posted the NUS slide presentation on "How to deal with terfs", one of the authors tweeted something along the lines of "Urgh, can a cis ally sort this out", and lo and behold a few new posters popped onto the thread to object to it, and of course MsIntern tweeted that she would get some of her MNHQ pals to take it down. (The slides also contain the suggestion that delegates "put yourself in between trans people and the TERFS")

What is going on here? How is the narrative growing that trans people are a) at significant risk of physical harm from terfs whilst also b) being significantly weaker than "cis allies" so they need their protection? Why are so many people apparently so keen to do this - to prove their woke credentials? Because they are hanging onto the coat tails of an exciting new movement and want to remain part of the gang? Why are so many of them women, when surely if you were looking for bouncers and security guards to keep you safe, you would want big burly men? (Pesky biology meaning that they are stronger than terfs)

Is this a new phenomenon? Have straight women always been asked to sacrifice themselves to the cause for no reward? Or is this just the TRA equivalent of making the sandwiches and putting away the chairs at the end of the meeting?

Clearly lots of people who should have, have not learned from this.

Quite.

God don’t get me started on how the left currently treat their working class electorate... 🤦🏻‍♀️ It makes my blood boil.

Not only that Tallulah, the whole area is politicised to the point that people working in the area or the areas that touch on it (human development for example) are frightened of the political climate and know that anything that could be interpreted as GC supporting won’t get funded. So basic research that could be hijacked or spun isn’t being done.

Censorship, basically.

Spouting this stuff at working class communities in the north isn't going to sit well for Labour. The culture is to call a spade a spade and there isn't the same respect for intellectual bollocks in such circles, in part because its deliberately exclusionary. To say they are stupid is fundamentally wrong though. Nor will saying they are bigoted going to go down well.

Not going to go down well in rural communities either.

Very true. Imagine trying to have this argument with a farmer.

"There is absolutely no need to inquire about the type of genitalia possessed by the cattle that you're considering acquiring for your dairy farm, you disgusting bigot. History will judge you!"

Shh.. Don't upset the TRCs... 0_0

Imagine trying to have this argument with a farmer.

I live in hopes that Lil Owen will do one of his unseat-the-Tory campaigning days in my (rural) area. It would be quite the sight.

As someone who spent the first three-quarters of their life in a city and the most recent quarter in the countryside, I can attest that metropolitan political dynamics do not apply here!

reds post at 8.34 is bang on the money

The technique doesn't work on me as i have the attention span of a tired 2 year old and i see a page of incomprehensible words and switch off

In my previous lives i had to explain insurance and banking terms on occasion...if I couldn't get the customer to understand what i was saying that was my fault, not theirs

I'm willing to work with the proposition that biological facts are interpreted in society and influenced by historical understandings of what is 'natural' etc. But if that's the case, why would we continue to conceive of biological sex as a binary? Why not expand sex to dozens of categories like gender has been expanded? This could leave us with multiple sexes (e.g. women, trans women, men, trans men, etc) which could all be recognised in law with appropriate provisions re safety and discrimination.

What am I missing? I'm trying really hard to understand all of this but I'm still a bit stuck on why some people want to maintain a sex binary which is not necessarily related to gender, while also arguing that sex and gender are both social constructs. As always, I hope that's not an offensive question - I'm still trying to work it out in my head.

I don't think anyone "wants to maintain a sex binary"?
Sex binary just is
1 or 0, no 0.5.

It's like accusing people of wanting to maintain gravity.

Doesn't matter how any of us feel about it, it's going to keep existing regardless.

Yeah, but for those who argue that sex is socially constructed or fluid... in that argument I don't get why it's still binary. Like Chthulucence's post earlier in the thread: would chthulu support an argument for multiple sexes, perhaps with trans sexes within that? To me it seems like a logical conclusion if sex is socially constructed, but maybe I'm missing something.

What I keep asking (and never getting an answer to) is why we would want spaces segregated by "gender". For what purpose? I can think of lots of reasons to segregate by sex, but can't think of any reasons why I'd want a space exclusively for people who identify with femininity.

That actually sounds like the worst of both worlds angryattack

Oo I know - we could go with like, eight multiple rooms; one for each of the people on the spectrum diagram (the one with Barbie on) that mermaids use. It can be like the "take your pick" show of toilets.

Maybe we can work a "yes/no" game in there too.

Probably showing my age...

Im going to the one with the shortest queue

Pelvic floor is shot

Fucking biology

I'm still a bit stuck on why some people want to maintain a sex binary which is not necessarily related to gender, while also arguing that sex and gender are both social constructs.

The sex binary isn’t a matter of opinion. Biology doesn’t have opinions. So there’s no maintaining it. Humans are sexually dimorphic.
Sex isn’t a social construct. Gender is.

So sex exists, independent of what you or I or anyone thinks about it. Our opinions change nothing, society has no say in the existence of sex. Sex just is - like left and right.
Gender however is the set of societal expectations society has of each sex.

So gender and sex arent totally unrelated because we tend to define gender as what we expect each sex to do/be/wear/behave as. Gender expectations flow from what we expect a sex to be like. But gender expectations are a matter of opinion and subject to social change. Women wearing trousers for example, is no longer scandalous.

The solution surely is to keep sex based exemptions/spaces - because they are based on facts. Women are vulnerable because of their biological sex. Some men are a threat. Ergo women’s spaces increase safety. TIMs are Male and thus will be excluded from said spaces

Gender - well that can go jump for all I care. Rigid gender expectations help no one, they only narrow our outlooks.

What I keep asking (and never getting an answer to) is why we would want spaces segregated by "gender". For what purpose? I can think of lots of reasons to segregate by sex, but can't think of any reasons why I'd want a space exclusively for people who identify with femininity.

Yes, that's always puzzled me too. Maybe we need sex-segregated loos (one with sanitary bins/machines, one with urinals) plus a unisex 'powder room'?

while also arguing that sex and gender are both social constructs.

Does anyone ever actually do that? I can't imagine what anyone could possible mean by sex being a 'social construct'. It's a biological reality for humans as much as it is for any other sexual organism.

Does anyone ever actually do that? I can't imagine what anyone could possible mean by sex being a 'social construct'

I thought that was the position argued by chthulu earlier. But maybe I misunderstood. I wanted to try to figure out what that might mean. In practical terms, as Beyond11cisRetinol pointed out, it might lead to 71 different categories of public toilet. And even that wouldn't solve the problems people foresee re self ID.

Does anyone ever actually do that? I can't imagine what anyone could possible mean by sex being a 'social construct'.

Don't go anywhere near pomo Twitter, whatever you do. Sex being a social construct is an article of faith for a huge number of people.

But maybe I misunderstood.

No I don't think you did. As Lang says it's a key part of their beliefs.