Guardian article - it's cruel to keep trans women from single sex spaces

[Procrastinator1]

I've never started a thread before, but I am very disappointed with this opinion piece and feel quite angry when I look at this and the reporting of the attack by "women", which is on a different thread.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/26/trans-women-single-sex-spaces-cruel-impossible

I know it is just that, an opinion piece, but I am unhappy with the "integrity" of the piece. I feel a letter coming on, but sometimes despair about the voice natal women have.

Interested to know more about the author's feminist community, "Level Up."

99.99% of Britain don't believe someone with a penis is actually a woman.

Even if everyone believed that it's just linguistics. We would still need to differentiate between penis owners and non penis owners to function as a society which respects and upholds the rights of those of us born without penises.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain wrote: "Perhaps a 74-page guide on how to interact respectfully with women wouldn't come amiss".

Hmm, judging by the overall tenor of that piece, and the subtext that some women are superfluous and irrelevant, I wonder if we're about to move into a new phase where, by clear demonstration of a failure to embrace our socialisation:
Older women aren't women;
Gender-critical feminists aren't just tedious, out-dated women who read theory and stuff, they aren't women;
Lady Macbeth issued a war-cry for young, playful feminists, those who centre gender equality, not women with, "Unsex me here";
"The Unwoke make us boak. Unwoke ladies belong in Hades".

Ereshkigal - I told DH once when we were discussing snack food. His response, "Was there any onion gravy?". So few people understand.

by clear demonstration of a failure to embrace our socialisation (we) aren't women

Hah, if this is the case I'll be needing one of my new allies to take over the childcare I'm currently doing so I can go and express my identity more appropriately elsewhere

“99.99% of Britain don't believe someone with a penis is actually a woman”
I don’t know what the stats are but it’s way more than 0.01% of people who believe a woman as is anyone that says they are. Most members of the Labour Party believe that. I believe we are seeing the logical results of postmodernism which rejects the idea of objective truth and social constructivism that says biology doesn’t really matter all that much and the differences between men and women and the gender pay gap and the likes are mostly down to discrimination and social conditioning. These ideas are widely accepted (especially in the political, education and media establishments) and enable a woman to be anyone who identifies as such and we are just only now seeing what that means in practice. Now that these logical conclusions are coming to a head I believe either post modernism and social constructivism will be rolled back or self ID and such like will become as accepted as homosexuality is now and we continue to move forward into this brave new world. Which direction we will go in I don’t know, but I believe this is the cross roads we are at.

The idea that women and girls should act as human shields for men who are just as afraid of men as women are strikes me as bizarre

Indeed. Explicitly, as when there is a rally or protect and we are called upon to be good "cis allies" by protecting trans people from they don't really know who TERFs. And on a day-to-day level by opening up our single sex spaces, which are there in part to help keep us safe

Most members of the Labour Party believe that.

I don't think that they do - I think that they believe that it's something that they need to say that they believe in or face being censured by the party, certain elements of which have their own reasons for supporting transgenderism. As pp on here have said before, it's a bit like transubstantiation: most Catholics would say that they believe in it, but not think that they are committing acts of cannibalism every Mass

OleannasWimple above and ROwantrees elsewhere make me want to ask a question, Langcleg.

Anywhere, in the 74pp Guide to Being an Ally, do they address what to do if the person you're shielding decides to shove you? Possibly because you've just attempted to intervene to prevent an assault? Would that be an appropriate time to pose a humble and appropriately caveated question, while mindful that you're entitled to neither an answer nor an explanation?

These ideas are widely accepted (especially in the political, education and media establishments)

And there you have it. The privileged people with nothing to lose believe it because a) they have nothing to lose because they are privileged and b) because privileged people with nothing to lose can make lucrative careers out of navel-gazing.

Meanwhile, the 99% don't believe any such thing. Because their lives are not so privileged that they have lost all connection with material reality.

Anywhere, in the 74pp Guide to Being an Ally, do they address what to do if the person you're shielding decides to shove you?

I'd hazard a guess at "no". But I'm sure they spend a lot of time on literally violent micro-aggressions.

To drop this in near the end, somehow equating it with permitting men the right to use female spaces, to protect men who want to be women, is disgusting. The writer of that piece should be ashamed of even mentioning actual violence against real women in the same article. Disgusting!

Two women are killed each week by a current or former partner in England and Wales. We are not doing enough to protect and support women in this country. The stakes are too high for us to be derailed by talk about bathrooms and swimming pools

That sentence about two women a week being murdered really pissed me off. It was an aside that was dropped in an offhand manner, having nothing to do with with the type of 'fun feminism' the writer wants to (self) promote.

Naomi Hersi (who to my shame is the only murder victim from this year who I could name, because that name is dragged up at every opportunity) was afforded several paragraphs waxing lyrical about hair, music tennis and whatever.

Meanwhile not a single word about any of the natal women who have been killed this year. Half way through the year so around 50 so far? No names or life info available to the writer, it would seem, despite the massive media coverage she implies in contrast to the murder of transwomen.

Carys Afoko can afucko off.

Carys Afoko can also fuck off, when women who are actually doing something about the two women a week who are murdered - like the amazing Jean Hatchet - are being attacked themselves because they dare to centre women in their activism.

What has Carys actually done for the female murder victims who die at the hands of the people who are supposed to love them?

From article in OP: "The stakes are too high for us to be derailed by talk about bathrooms and swimming pools".

Women! Including those who are probably not women (see previous post)! You are womaning and feministing wrong.

Even tho' Level Up wants feminism and campaigning to be "as fun and enjoyable as possible and try not to take ourselves too seriously all the time", that does not include wearing floral swim hats and going for a dip in an open-air pool. Even if it does produce a level of media coverage that does not otherwise happen. It's the wrong sort of leaves on the line coverage.

This is your Public Service Announcement for the edification of The Unwoke Who Cause Us to Boak.

Carys Afoko has the right sentiments but luckily her understanding of the legal situation is rather poor.

Transwomen who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment do have the legal right to use women's spaces today. There is an exception to this right - but it is very narrow and has to be applied on a case by case basis. Any organisation that had an outright ban on transwomen using a women's space would be at risk of being sued.

74 page guide???

I know Lily Madigan has requested allies send her money for treats via PayPal before but that's one hell of a rider.

(Oh, and a belief system that's so fragile that it can't be explained, let alone discussed, is surely doomed to failure).

I'm imagining it like 74 pages of Versailles etiquette. I mean, presumably it covers seating arrangements and where the allies should sit? Would allies be relegated to standing?

For example:

Using one of the most often cited subjects of this code of etiquette are the rules of seating arrangements. The king and queen always had a fauteuil, an armchair to sit upon. Within their presence, no one else was allowed an armchair, excepting another monarch. A chair with a back but no arms was allowed for those closest in rank to the king, such as his brother or children. The tabouret, a padded, drum-shaped stool was awarded to those holding the rank of duchess. Lesser ranking nobility would be expected to stand.

etiquipedia.blogspot.com/2013/12/etiquette-at-versailles-and-who-was.html

It just rams home how inadequate and privileged "allies" are for most of those 74 pages. It's like reading a 74 page Everyday Feminism listicle.

SarahAr, under safeguarding rules, a naked transwoman with a penis in single sex showers could and would be removed. The police confirmed this when consulted. Little girls, and grown women, have the right not to be exposed - literally - to male genitals in a public place

There were "feminists" like Carys Afoko when I was young. They centred their feminism around men and male priorities, just as she is doing now. Groveling for scraps from their lordships' table. Tiresome bloody woman

I have just seen in my Facebook feed a message from 'Jeremy Corbyn for PM' linking this article and saying 'These are our sisters and we stand with them. Not a (pretty nasty) bunch who claim to be feminists, yet go out of their way to bully and victimise trans women'
Truly there are no words..

SarahAr, under safeguarding rules, a naked transwoman with a penis in single sex showers could and would be removed. The police confirmed this when consulted. Little girls, and grown women, have the right not to be exposed - literally - to male genitals in a public place

So then, presumably Self-ID is OK since sufficient protection is already in place?

No, Snappity, it isn't, and you know exactly why because the issues have been discussed at length on threads in which you participated.

Over and over I come back to the same thing. It appears to be an effort to drive women out of the public sphere and revert social progress back to the 1850s.

I’m afraid I agree with this.

I see this movement as akin to the alt right in rolling back social progress. It’s a pushback against the reduction in power of white males. The alt right is attacking on race lines. This lot are attacking on sex lines. Both have the same goal.