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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why has the trans lobby been so successful?

122 replies

feesh · 06/05/2018 18:01

. Have been following the discussions on here over the last few months.

I never really identified with feminism before, so it’s been quite eye opening.

The thing I don’t understand is why the trans campaign has been SO successful. We have barely acheived gay rights, yet the trans lobby has had massive gains in only a few short months of campaigning. They have had victories that other campaigns can only dream of.

Part of the reason for me dwelling on this is that I’ve been working in conservation and environmental management for years and we have barely made any headway into changing hearts and minds, yet the realities of what we are facing with environmental destruction are even scarier than the erosion of women’s rights, but nobody ever seems to get outraged about it (apart from the plastics issue, about which I think the tide is finally turning).

Who is behind the trans lobby? Where does all this power and money come from?

OP posts:
NaturalBornWoman · 07/05/2018 22:05

Funny how back in the 70s and 80s men managed to be GNC without peeing in the women's toilets

So true, I went out with blokes who wore more eyeliner than I did.

IfyouseeRitaMoreno · 07/05/2018 22:15

I think it’s been so popular because people don’t see it as important. It’s a minority group. A cause Celebre. Something that people can use to virtue signal about without it impacting their lives.

And that’s why people got behind it. It looks good on paper. It SEEMINGLY affects no one. It signals one’s own virtuousness (Owen Jones I’m looking at you).

And women can be expected to fall in line because we can’t say no to minority rights because we have benefitted from the attention paid to “women and minorities”.

We are seen as a minority.

ChickenMe · 07/05/2018 22:18

Yes re: 70s/80s
Bowie, Bolan, Jagger..heck even Gary Glitter (!) might be pushed to be trans today altho to be fair with Glitter it was a career move really whereas the former three definitely experimented with their sexuality and wore "feminine" garb off duty as well as on. Yet they were still men.
Forgot Boy George. How could I forget him? This trans stuff seems to be reinforcing gender stereotypes more than ever before. Back in the 80s George O'Dowd, a gay man with flamboyant fashion tastes.
2018: "do you think you might be female because you fancy men and like fashion?" I bet...

IfyouseeRitaMoreno · 07/05/2018 22:20

But it’s no surprise. Society has polarised gender roles so fucking much in the last couple of decades that you think you need to jump ship to be yourself.

KayM2 · 07/05/2018 22:36

I am not so sure that the progress that the "trans " lobby has been all that quick. The word " trans" , though might be significant. Whenthe Gender recognition Act came into force ( 2004, I think) the word Trans was not about. We talked of ourselves as " transsexual"men or women. The word " trans" seems to be pretty new, and to some of us pretty much a weight round our necks and a step backward; it means almost nothing, and is too wide to mean much. As for the money, I am only on the fringes of the trans/ transgender/ transsexual world these days, and I see no sign of any wads of cash. Who would benefit from progress towards acceptance of trans ( sic) people? Only trans people, you'd think. If someone knows more about this, I'd love to hear it. There seem spot be loads and loads of trans / non binary etc people about suddenly. Great, fine, lovely, cool s a rule, etc, till they want a new style "quicky self diagnosed GIC. Can't blame them for wanting it; gender dysphoria is foul, but for many transsexual people, it is not necessarily a welcome development as far as public acceptance goes. But, I don't think there is any money, as such.

crispbuttyfan · 07/05/2018 22:41

And as 'transphobe' is one of the words that has long since lost all shared meaning, can I suggest replacing it with 'people who don't necessarily unquestioningly agree with trans ideology'? And not using the word 'cis' for obvious reasons.

So people who are homophobic can be described as "people who don't necessarily unquestioningly agree with homosexual ideology"

Funny because thats exactly what evangelists say about homosexuals.....

Quote from the family research council “Homophobia” is a term that stigmatizes
those with traditional values by implying
that they (not homosexuals) are the ones with a
mental illness (even though recent research has
concluded that “homophobia” in this clinical sense
actually does not exist.15) "

Homophobes use nonsensical framing to deny 'homophobia' exists...
Transphobes... etc etc

Rather than disingenuous side-stepping, take a reality check.

RedToothBrush · 07/05/2018 23:44

If you are a lesbian experiencing homophobic abuse and threats from a political group, I hardly think that makes you prejudiced to call that political group or individuals expressing those views out for it.

This is the problem: you have multiple minority groups here.

We keep getting fed the trope that if you are trans, you can't be sexist (you can) or if you are trans you can't be homophobic (you can), in much the same way that you used to be told that if you were a POC you couldn't be racist (you can).

Instead of thinking in terms of the most vulnerable in a situation we are led down the garden path by this notion that if you have a particular identity you are part of a rigid hierarchy of oppression, which has no nuance. In this system transwomen are placed right at the bottom, below all other individuals, which is quite frankly bollocks.

It is not prejudiced to point this out.

Indeed its an essential part of safeguarding frameworks. If you are saying that we should ignore this framework and treat all transwomen as the most utterly oppressed in society be my guest and actually say it. Lets have it on record and out in the open.

Otherwise piss off with the transphobia shrill. We need to have the freedom to be able to express concerns about individuals and groups if we perceive a threat. Even if that fear is ultimately proved unfounded.

When we are unable to do this, this is where scandals like Rochdale occur.

It is not transphobic to point out the necessity and essential need for safeguarding frameworks and how shouting transphobia at the drop of a hat, undermines this. It becomes meaningless and actually acts as a great big red flag.

The advancement of homosexual rights did not include this identity hierarchy over the most vulnerable. Nor did it include bodily alterations or medicalisation. Nor did it advocate violence against anyone who didn't hold quite the same opinion. Strangely enough these issues in any other situation would raise eyebrows.

Put it into the context of trans and 'alakazam' these concerns have to disappear in a puff of smoke?

Excuse whilst I fall about laughing at anyone wailing 'oh but transphobia' as a result.

Na. Anyone who trying to bypass, de-legitimise or otherwise dismantle existing safeguarding frameworks needs a long hard look at.

Let me put this straight to you. Just because you're trans doesn't mean you should get a free pass and be treated any differently to anyone else.

And thats what a hell of a lot of this wailing 'transphobia' is about. Wanting special treatment and privilege - not equal rights - that others do not have and not liking it when someone says 'er hang on a second' thats a bit of an issue.

Yes transphobia absolutely does exist. There are cases where there are no other vulnerable parties involved and there is straight discrimination. There are cases where people are abused because of what they are.

But too often its used as a defence about what people are saying not who they are. It is the behaviour that is problematic and that's what a lot of people are calling out and being smeared for doing so.

I'm equal ops. If you behave like an arsehole, I reserve the right to call you an arsehole. Regardless of your identity.

I encourage others to do the same.

KayM2 · 07/05/2018 23:56

This has been a very interesting thread. I've just lost a few Facebook and real life Friends because I signed a letter to the Guardian, and to listen to the flack I got you would think that I was the only TS woman who was against the changes in the GRA. But I am clearly not.

Some of us are strongly against any changes that endanger the settled and accepted lives of transsexual people, yes,there is that, but some of us are sincere when we regard the suggested changes as potentially, and actually, a danger to women and girls. Most transgender people are totally trustworthy , but how can one tell.... none of this was a big problem, till we got to today's situation, where there are quite large numbers who currently identify as non binary, etc etc. . The notional subdivisions are legion, and flexible. Are we supposed to look forward to people being able to whip up a self ID GRC in a fortnight,and trust that all will be well, all of the time?

I get told, regularly, that women and girls who are abused are usually abused by people they know. As if we did not know that. It is irrelevant. I have a GRC. I am never challenged, and nor are my friends, though quite often people must twig. We have taken hormones, most of us have had ops, we are settled in our identity, and it shows. It does not get to that position in 3 months. Nor do the mental changes of transition take three months. It is a log process. Agonisingly long for many transsexual people. A real ordeal. But to shorten that ordeal by disadvantaging others is not right.The radfems are right on this, as they are on their analysis of our wider society.

misscockerspaniel · 08/05/2018 09:10

KayM2 Thanks for being a signatory to that letter in the Guardian. Any chance you could pen something similar to Penny Mordaunt, explaining why the proposed changes are wrong?

R0wantrees · 08/05/2018 09:28

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242812--Amnesty-International-Mermaids-and-Stonewall-have-signed-an-open-letter-to-Penny-Mordaunt-stating-the-importance-of-reforming-the-Gender-Recognition-Act

copied post over from thread above:
Link to alternative view from people who are transgender:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3240366-Letter-in-The-Guardian-from-Transexuals-saying-self-ID-not-the-answer

forthcoming parliamentary events
9th May Caitlin Jenner speaks on Diversity
[[www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3240113-caitlyn-jenner-to-speak-to-parliament]

15th May Stonewall reception for MPs
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3223840-Parliament-hosting-Stonewall-panel-event-on-trans-issues-and-changes-to-GRA

17th May Peter Kyle MP (Labour) Has secured a 3 hour debate in the Commons to mark International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

James Kirkup raised questions in The Spectator after the recent Home Affairs Hate Crime discussion:
(extract)
" [Stephen Doughty MP] said. “Do you think the use of the phrase “trans lobby” is an appropriate one?”

As it happens, Dr Carmichael in her lecture said some things that seem relevant here:

“Gender has become amazingly topical and we have to be really careful not to assume that anyone is exploring or questioning their gender is going to want to change their bodies in line with that. The extremes on either side are not helpful. We need to look at the grey areas in between. To do that we need to be able to talk and discuss these issues. All too often stakeholders become lobby groups.”

She did not name any stakeholder. But her words might be relevant to a charity called Mermaids. Mermaids is a charity that describes itself as “a support group for children and young people with gender dysphoria and their families”. Its CEO, Susie Green describes herself as “parent to a daughter who was born male.” Mermaids is a relatively small charity (it had income of £127,000 in the year to March 2017) with a big reach. It has prominent backers and its advice and recommendations have been absorbed and adopted by many public bodies."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

thread discussing the meeting:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3237973-Commons-debate
Submission to the meeting from Trans Media Watch:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3238618-Trans-Media-Watch-has-written-to-parliament-saying-trans-identified-male-can-be-considered-as-hate-speech-and-that-Mumsnet-users-referring-to-penises-are-being-transphobic

Recent response from minister via MP recognising that there are a wide range of stakeholders who will be included in consultation:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3240272-Response-received-from-Minister-via-MP

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3236009-Rudd-resigns-Who-is-new-Women-and-Equalities-Minister

R0wantrees · 08/05/2018 09:35

All MPs and political parties are fearful of being accused of 'U turns'

The anniversary of Section 28 is significant and is a source of shame the Conservative party.
[NB this was the first political protest that I took part in as a student}

LangCleg · 08/05/2018 09:41

Anyone who trying to bypass, de-legitimise or otherwise dismantle existing safeguarding frameworks needs a long hard look at.

YY.

For example - what is more important? An adult's (trans or otherwise) right to privacy or the safeguarding of children (trans or otherwise)? Any dilution of safeguarding frameworks leaves all children vulnerable (whether they are trans or not) and provides loopholes for predators (whether they are trans or not). Nobody with any decency or integrity would put privacy above safeguarding.

I don't think even extreme transactivists actually want to increase risk for children. But their total inability to see any other stakeholders than trans people in any given issue - combined with the total refusal to listen to anyone else for even two seconds - makes them arrogantly blind to the consequences for others of some of their demands.

Lancelottie · 08/05/2018 09:51

And the changes will not allow men into women's spaces. You don't need a legal background to understand this.

Schools near us are being very firmly told that they must allow transgirls into girls' loos at school, rather than offering a different option.

From the point of view of the girls, that is a boy in the girls' space. You must know this? The inside of a child's head is their own affair, and doesn't affect the situation for the other children.

(Ours currently only has transboys, who don't want to use the boys' loos, and who can blame them?)

R0wantrees · 08/05/2018 09:54

apologies as have messed up a line of info above which should read:

15th May Stonewall reception for MPs
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3223840-Parliament-hosting-Stonewall-panel-event-on-trans-issues-and-changes-to-GRA

R0wantrees · 08/05/2018 09:58

I don't think even extreme transactivists actually want to increase risk for children. But their total inability to see any other stakeholders than trans people in any given issue - combined with the total refusal to listen to anyone else for even two seconds - makes them arrogantly blind to the consequences for others of some of their demands.

as discussed on two threads yesterday, this may also apply with regards vulnerable women in prisons:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242178-Transgender-killers-split-up-by-prison-chiefs
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242264-Transgender-murders-in-Scottish-womens-prison

ScarletBegonias · 08/05/2018 10:11

Schools near us are being very firmly told that they must allow transgirls into girls' loos at school, rather than offering a different option.

I was looking yesterday at East Sussex County Council's "Trans Exclusion Toolkit" guidance for schools. It includes the following:

On a boy who identifies as a girl using the girls' changing rooms - "It would not be appropriate to remove the trans person from the changing rooms if a concern is raised by a parent or carer. In this situation, it would be far more appropriate to look at offering an alternative changing arrangement for the child who feels uncomfortable around the trans person."

And on a boy who identifies as a girl and wants to take part in a girls' sporting event - "Pupils or students who feel that a trans child should not be involved in certain sporting activities may themselves need to be supported to do a different activity."

I find it very difficult to believe that MPs, let alone the wider public, are aware that this is the line being taken and would support it.

ScarletBegonias · 08/05/2018 10:32

I meant, of course, to refer to the Trans Inclusion toolkit in my post above. Not Exclusion.

It seems the constant repetition of TERF on Twitter has had an effect on me.

crispbuttyfan · 08/05/2018 10:34

And the changes will not allow men into women's spaces. You don't need a legal background to understand this.

*Schools near us are being very firmly told that they must allow transgirls into girls' loos at school, rather than offering a different option.

From the point of view of the girls, that is a boy in the girls' space. You must know this? The inside of a child's head is their own affair, and doesn't affect the situation for the other children.*

Do you see, that you just claimed changes to the GRA will allow trans people to enter the appropriate facilities that match their gender, and yet despite that not happening yet, trans people already have this right due to the equality act in 2010?

Even by your own admission, changes to the gra will not affect something that is ALREADY written in law.

R0wantrees · 08/05/2018 10:40

crispbutty
Are you aware of the issue raised in two threads yesterday with regards trans women prisoners Sophie Eastwood and Alex Stewart?

Reported here:
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-killers-kept-apart-after-12493525
(extract)
"Despite their new female identities neither have had surgery, and fellow inmates complained that they felt intimidated around the pair because of their behaviour.

A source said: “It got beyond the joke. No one has a problem with transgender people. But they do have a problem when they suspect that the transgender identities are being used as a way of getting a cushier time in prison. It totally undermines real transgender prisoners.”

Tinkletinklelittlebat · 08/05/2018 10:40

changes will not allow men into women's spaces

Oh don't be silly, what on earth do you think self ID is about?

Tinkletinklelittlebat · 08/05/2018 10:43

If you're behind self ID then you are behind people using spaces according to their personal gender choice and not their biological sex.

This means men in women's spaces.

If you're ok with that then argue for that, try a bit of winning hearts and minds to abandon sex segregation and get women happy to have men in their spaces. But the refusal to be open and honest about it is really annoying.

Ereshkigal · 08/05/2018 11:04

Crisp is being disingenuous. Self ID will normalise males in female spaces and further erode the idea of sex protections in law, which has already been damaged by the legal fiction of the GRA. The EA already allows this by the back door and puts the onus on the service provider to decide whose rights they want to safeguard and which carries more risk to them in terms of publicity and litigation. To retain rights for women we need to block self ID here and also strengthen women's sex based protections so that there is a universal equality duty to consider women's needs (as a disadvantaged group) at least as much as transgender people's, where there is a conflict.

R0wantrees · 08/05/2018 11:11

In March James Kirkup wrote in The Spectator "Fear and Loathing Grips the Gender Debate":
(extract)
"If this was simply a story of a small number of nasty people online and – sometimes – on the street doing bad things to women who speak up about a political issue, I suspect this problem wouldn’t persist. The relevant legal and political authorities would indeed pay attention to that fear, and maybe even do something, even if that was just listening to those women, meeting them, answering their questions.

But that doesn’t seem to be happening. It’s because those women have been – quite successfully and even skilfully – demonised and stigmatised, put beyond the pale of civilised debate as those who question orthodoxy often are. They’ve been given a name, a name that means they’re bad people, people who should not speak and should not be heard. That name is “Terf,” which once meant “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist” but now appears to stand in its own right as a term of abuse and dismissal alongside the other short, harsh words often used to question the worth and virtue of women.

And that small number of people who direct violence and abuse at “Terfs” are swimming in a larger sea of contempt and dismissal. Their conduct takes place in a social context where hostility to “Terfs” has become not just normal but even amusing, where there is no social cost to talking about and perhaps even inciting violence towards women who hold “unacceptable” views. Simply, some people, including people who would never themselves engage in that sort of violence, are doing things that make violent discourse and even violence look and feel OK. Sadly, they include journalists and politicians, people who parade their support for minority groups but speak about feminist women in terms they would never use about other people."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/fear-and-loathing-grips-the-gender-debate/

Lancelottie · 08/05/2018 11:12

Do you see, that you just claimed changes to the GRA will allow trans people to enter the appropriate facilities that match their gender, and yet despite that not happening yet, trans people already have this right

No. I didn't 'claim' anything of the sort. I made a statement: schools are being told that they need to do this. They don't. But it illustrates a current situation where all the males concerned are, by definition, self-IDing as female; they aren't legally female, as they are too young.

Lancelottie · 08/05/2018 11:15

Girls need a boy-free option for toilets and changing rooms at school. Transgirls probably also need a boy-free option. Because transgirls are not biological girls, my view is that these need to be different places, otherwise the girls have lost their rights.

Persuade me otherwise?