Letter in The Guardian from Transexuals saying self ID not the answer

[invisibleoldwoman]

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/04/standing-up-for-transsexual-rights?CMP=share_btn_fb

SupermatchGame - Sorry why is W dangerous?

In your previous post you quoted the following:

"The Gender Recognition Act enables legal ‘sex changes’ - what legally constitutes male and female has changed. We share Sandland’s (2005) view that as we can now have men with vaginas and women with penises, the act does undermine the binary of two morphologically distinct sexes."

This is why Whittle is dangerous.

Sex is a protected characteristic. We rely on that for our rights. Whittle wants to undermine that. I'm saying no.

The biggest thing I took from that thread is that the gender clusterfuck is not new and it's not accidental. Whittle expressed those views in 2007. Whittle started W's activism with the Beaumont society which was an organisation for cross-dressing men. Whittle was extremely influential in the passing of the GRA. Since at least 1994 there has been a 'trans umbrella' which has included fetishistic cross dressing men.

Also SW sees no safeguarding issues with GirlGuiding's new trans inclusion policies because guide leaders can carry and give out contraceptives.

That's a whole other sort of dangerous.

Link to a thread on twitter by one of the signatories:

twitter.com/davessidekick/status/992899730735816704?s=21

Well worth a read.

But another message that the letter conveys is that transsexualism is a real and valid thing

Are you saying it isn't? At the risk of repeating myself there has been thread after thread on FWR lamenting that self ID is detrimental to what many posters on here call "old school transexuals" .

Yet when these "old school transexuals " raise their head above the parapet this is what happens.

I really don't understand what your problem is, lass.

The angry bird twitter link (below) is good. Not hard to work out (one of) the people that it's referring to.

Whittle was involved in drafting the Yogyakarta Principles

www.boell.de/en/2016/07/20/yogyakarta-principles-provide-guidance-and-are-constant-reference-point

Whittle is awful. Truly sour and selfish, truly ice cold about the safety and bodily dignity of women.

Pratchet that is such a good description.

Also extremely arrogant. In that thread trying to make out that their flesh-crawling, sexual-boundary-absent style of parenting - 'so right on and modern'- is the way to parent.
"Just sit down and talk to them". So deeply indoctrinated in a culture of male sexual entitlement it was as though Hugh Hefner was raised from the dead and started preaching about sex to our daughters.

It gave me chills.

That’s not answering the question. It’s saying the thing ‘changing’ is taking on some superficial physical aspects of the other thing. The superficial appearance does not change the actual classification of the thing.

If I dye my brown hair red, it's still brown hair.

This is an interesting analogy. Because if you needed to describe yourself to someone you'd never met, or give an official witness statement to the police about somebody else, you would say that your/their hair was red. You might mention it was an obvious dye job, or you might not if it looked properly red.

No one can change sex. But they can change their markers to indicate to others that they wish to be treated socially as the opposite sex.

But they can change their markers to indicate to others that they wish to be treated socially as the opposite sex

But if someone says "your hair is obviously died - what are you- brown-haired?"

You wouldn't accuse them of hate speech and literal violence. Maybe a bit rude, depending on the setting.

So this is my point. People squirm an wriggle and when you push them it’s actually apparent that no one believes that humans can actually change sex. So the people in question remain Male

Then there’s the ‘but.’

But for all intents and purposes...
But to be kind...
But if it doesn’t affect you...

And that’s the crux. Because then we ask well does it affect us? What if we pretend, for purposes of niceness?

And it’s been like that, in the past. The niceness and a sort of gentlewomans agreement that ok we know you’re not female but we are going to be decent, in you come, sit down.

Now: now we have men wanting to self ID. And that does affect us. It affects same sex space provision. It affects safeguarding. It has the potential to blow every bit of legislation that protects women and girls (and children generally) out of the water. That’s a whole different kettle of fish, because that is an active threat.,

Now, tell me why I should be nice? Because nice now doesn’t mean that gentleman’s agreement - it means shutting up and bending over.

Bowl I completely agree with you.

Now: now we have men wanting to self ID. And that does affect us. It affects same sex space provision. It affects safeguarding. It has the potential to blow every bit of legislation that protects women and girls (and children generally) out of the water. That’s a whole different kettle of fish

Exactly. And when the self-ID demand comes complete - as we see very often on social media - with text book male pattern abusive behaviour, straight from the Freedom Programme or the Duluth Wheel, it's a QED.

yes Bowlofbabelfish, I said on a previous thread that got deleted (seems to happen a lot round here these days), that being nice is easier in the short term, but in the long run you just end up with someone's tanks on your front lawn.

So, no more being nice. Now I'm being honest.

Transwomen shouldn't tick the F box at parkrun because they're men and it's dishonest.

Transwomen shouldn't use the ladies toilets because they are single sex facilities and transwomen are men

Transwomen shouldn't be patients in women's hospital wards because they are single sex facilities and transwomen are men

When providing intimate care or medical procedures to women, a transwoman should be considered to be the same as a man, because they are. So if the woman requested a female, a female does the job

BowlofBabelFish
I know exactly where you’re coming from, and I agree in many respects. I had a phase of repeatedly asking the gender non-critical posters ‘Do you believe humans are sexually dimorphic’, which is similar but different to your question ‘Can people change sex’. I agree, women are under threat. I agree, we need to defend our spaces. However, I also have a lot of sympathy with transsexuals, who have a condition they don’t choose and were not causing problems before these gender zealots turned up. I understand it is the place of feminists to defend the rights of women and girls. But I have a (possibly female socialization driven) urge to also defend those transsexuals who don’t demand that they are the opposite sex, just ask to be treated as though they are.

Yes, let's not forget that trying to 'pass' as the opposite sex is deception.

It isn't 'polite' or 'kind' or 'nice' to knowingly deceive people. It is the opposite.

Most people would feel wretched attempting to deceive every person they meet - they would be desperate to come clean.

I also have a lot of sympathy with transsexuals, who have a condition they don’t choose and were not causing problems before these gender zealots turned up.

Me too.

Although also understand where Reluctant and Lang are coming from. The Danegeld problem.

There is a big difference for me between choosing to respect someone's views/preferences and being forced to act as though I believe in them.

So to whoever it was yesterday on one of the threads said that there is a 'radical separatist group' here, these last few posts (from Bowl at 9.04) illustrate perfectly how those women arrived at their position. The women who had been being nice, when faced with the proposed changes said hang on a minute, this might be bad for women, and a whole shitstorm of abuse rained down. So they drew firm boundaries.

I also have a lot of sympathy with transsexuals, who have a condition they don’t choose and were not causing problems before these gender zealots turned up

Me three. But I honestly don't see how we stop the gender zealots while continuing to accommodate transsexuals. I think it has to be all or nothing.

There is a big difference for me between choosing to respect someone's views/preferences and being forced to act as though I believe in them

this is a very fundamental point.

TRAs are seeking to extract with threats what was previously freely given.

Here is a long Twitter thread from one of the letter's signatories. Two things: a) I agree with everything the thread says; b) it's perfectly clear that this is advocating for transsexuals not for women.

There is nothing at all wrong with that - every group should be able to advocate for itself and be heard. But it's not the same fight in all respects. As women, we should be aware of that, applaud the intervention, and be ready to work together on areas of agreement but still with our own boundaries and aims in place.

twitter.com/RadFemAngryBird/status/992889534089256965

flowers I too have/had a great deal of sympathy for transsexuals. They should be able to access treatment and it must be a hard condition to live with.

The thing about rights though is that they end where they hurt others. The religion analogy is a good one. I’m an atheist, I have Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish friends. None of us push our beliefs on each other and I would fight for their rights to believe and worship as they wish.

But... i also opposed Blair’s blasphemy laws because at that point, we would have lost a significant secular protection.
I will fight any attempt to make me believe any of the tenets of any of those religions
And I reserve the right to disbelieve and criticise the ideologies behind those religions. Not criticise my friends, not discriminate against them, but to have the right to say ‘actually this specific bit of doctrine I have an issue with.’

What’s happening now with TRAs is he equivalent of my Christian friend going from politely not really discussing religion when we meet up to her campaigning for blasphemy to be a crime, and theocratic laws to be brought in, legislating belief.

Our niceness is being exploited here. This is a basic human rights issue.