WPUK Brighton Meeting: Turning the Tide

[PlonitbatPlonit]

Tickets now available to hear Kathleen Stock, Helen Saxby, Gill Smith and Ruth Serwotka in Brighton on 16 July

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-womans-place-is-turning-the-tide-tickets-47592125328

Helen Saxby's blog notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/

Article by Gill Smith www.transgendertrend.com/lesbian-detransitioner-must-question-primary-solution/

Kathleen Stock's blog medium.com/@kathleenstock

Article by Ruth Serwotka morningstaronline.co.uk/article/why-do-we-need-new-womens-movement

I told the disrupting woman to shut up and stop being rude but yes the chair could have sorted this sooner

VulvaofSteel yy to daim's story sounding like bad fanfiction! That's a perfect description. I thought the account was very much like one of those accounts where someone describes their own heroic actions at high school which end "...and then everyone applauded". Sure they did, sure they did.

I will say, I think it was bad form the woman front left wasn't asked to be quiet as she was very distracting.

You mean the heckler jeering, shouting 'bollocks' etc the whole time?

I agree. I think I would have left with a different impression if the chair had reminded her it was supposed to be a respectful meeting. I think she egged the others on.

I was there, I think it is a shame that daim left before hearing the TRAs speaking their bit. Totally agree about the loudmouth on the left, but the audience, pretty unanimously, told her to shut up.

As for the demographic. On one side, protesting, we have a bunch of largely MC, idealistic, kids who think they can change the world by just being accepting of everyone. I've got a few of those at home. On the panel and in the audience we have women and men who have probably been that kid. They now come with a lifetime of experience of what it is to be a woman / man in our society. They may be parents who have struggled to support GNC kids faced with an onslaught of pink and blue toys, they are likely to have faced, or seen, systemic misogyny in their workplace. Many of the women in the audience will have experienced DV. Many of us are academics, we think hard about complex stuff.

Seriously daim - who do you think might have a better understanding of the unintended consequences of a major change to the law?

a trans woman now is legally a women. Therefore we are unable to object right now if a trans woman performs our smear and have been unable to object since 2004

I don't know if this is even true, but I find it astonishing that this is presented as a positive point. Women! Your boundaries have been ignored since forever 2004, so don't bother complaining now!

don't know if this is even true, but I find it astonishing that this is presented as a positive point. Women! Your boundaries have been ignored since forever 2004, so don't bother complaining now!

Exactly this. It's a very common rationale that TRAs and their allies appear to think is compelling.

WPUK are not anti-trans; they make it clear time and again that they respect trans people's right to be who they are and not to be discriminated against.

Anyone with the ability to read, watch videos and attend these meetings know that WPUK are pro-women not anti-trans. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Activists need to make WPUK etc the 'enemy': they need to frame their 'fight' against a backdrop that paints trans people as victims.

They do this by taking women's real and valid concerns then twisting and manipulating these words and the meaning of these words.

This shuts down vital debate and everyday discussion, and creates a narrative that allows activists to pitch the trans community as the most victimised and endangered in society.

The hugely worrying thing is that many individual trans-identified people believe this narrative - and many are genuinely scared, upset and inflamed by it.

It allows them to believe that the world is against them. And it isolates them further from anyone outside of their trans group - including their own family and non-trans friends.

Of course it's the youngest and most vulnerable of the trans community that will always be hit hardest emotionally. And separated further from reality.

The stirrers and manipulators in real life and on here may think they're being clever, may get off on provoking and winding women up and feeling validated by this, but the sad facts are that this behaviour only drives harmful division and risks the mental health of those they are trying to 'defend.'

I'm rather unpleasantly reminded of the sort of man who thinks that if a woman willingly has sex with one man/some men she's somehow no longer able to not consent to other men and therefore has no business reporting rape.

About the demographic, it struck me that there are two main groups transitioning - main, but not only to be clear. These are white, middle-aged men, and young white teenage girls. Correct me if I am wrong. So the main group with concerns are going to be the female peers of the older, male transitioners and the mothers (and maybe fathers) of the teenage girls/young women generation.

I say maybe fathers because a meeting of WPUK might be seen quite reasonably as a meeting for women and they respect that boundary.

So the demographic makes sense in those terms.

I'm rather unpleasantly reminded of the sort of man who thinks that if a woman willingly has sex with one man/some men she's somehow no longer able to not consent to other men and therefore has no business reporting rape.

I see this pattern again and again with the whole cotton ceiling thing: "if you're a lesbian who has ever used a dildo or a strap-on then don't claim that your refusal to have PIV sex is anything other than transphobic". Because once a woman has agreed to be penetrated by one thing with one person, then they should be forced to be penetrated by any male that wants to, forever and always.

a trans woman now is legally a women. Therefore we are unable to object right now if a trans woman performs our smear and have been unable to object since 2004

I don't know if this is even true, but I find it astonishing that this is presented as a positive point. Women! Your boundaries have been ignored since forever 2004, so don't bother complaining now!

I find it astonishing that barely anyone on here has noticed or cared that trans women have been legally women since 2004. All the objections about the 'change to the law' have already been law for 14 years. It's bizarre.

“thought was a stroke of genius. Never seen so many uncomfortable women.“

i see why daim has so much empathy for middle-aged AGPs, clearly a big fan of making women uncomfortable.

Some photos from the local rag of the demonstration outside:
www.theargus.co.uk/news/16358076.trans-activists-demonstrate-against-controversial-event/

Thanks Hullabalooo it's interesting to hear an account of the night from a different perspective.

Still a bit confused as to why a person with brightly colored hair is meant to make women uncomfortable.

I find it astonishing that barely anyone on here has noticed or cared that trans women have been legally women since 2004. All the objections about the 'change to the law' have already been law for 14 years. It's bizarre.

And yet this completely fails to address my original point. Is it meant to make us all sit back and think "well, shit, then we shouldn't bother. No boundaries for us!" or what?

I agree. I think I would have left with a different impression if the chair had reminded her it was supposed to be a respectful meeting. I think she egged the others on.

The chair did. I heard no one else from the GC side making rude or unhelpful comments. Lots however asked her to be quiet including me.

@daimbars I feel like you're spectacularly missing the point. Yes you're right, these legal positions have been in place since 2004.

But socially, times are changing. And being able to object to something that makes you uncomfortable is no longer a personal prerogative but grounds for shouts of transphobia. It has become an attack on free speech, and women's freedom in a way that it clearly wasn't in 2004. Surely you can see this.

Yes, I can object to any medical practitioner, on any grounds. But what I now risk is being called a bigot and a transphobe for it and I imagine there any many women who simply will not have the courage to object to something they don't want in this current climate of policing women's words and thoughts.

And yet this completely fails to address my original point. Is it meant to make us all sit back and think "well, shit, then we shouldn't bother. No boundaries for us!" or what?

It's a valiant attempt, I'll give Daim and assorted TRAs that. You might have noticed Daim, but this is a movement about enshrining women's rights to sex segregated spaces. These proposed changes to the GRA are only one part. There will need to be a cultural change, we know this. The law is a subjective test - "legitimate" and "proportionate" so it is affected by public perception and how seriously women's rights and concerns are taken overall.

Some heavy duty projecting going on here.

thought was a stroke of genius. Never seen so many uncomfortable women.“

i see why daim has so much empathy for middle-aged AGPs, clearly a big fan of making women uncomfortable.

DOn't worry about the women in the queue. Literally, no one gave a shit. No one was even slightly uncomfortable. It's interesting the way people see what they want to see though.

She was joking with the women in front of me about their drinks, and the male security guard was threatening to take them himself It was all pretty friendly. If anyone was uncomfortable it was because they'd just had to walk through loads of protesters shouting in their ears. Who were then staring through the big glass windows 10 feet away, doing their best to look intimidating whilst actually looking like 12 year old MC brats.

I find it astonishing that barely anyone on here has noticed or cared that trans women have been legally women since 2004.

That'll be because it was kept deliberately low-key, I should think. I don't know how old you are, Daimbars, but the narrative at the time was one of sympathy for the very, very few individuals who desperately needed to transition for their own mental health; and (sometimes) who wished to be able to marry, and couldn't do that with the then ban on same-sex marriage.

No one publicised the full consequences, because few people realised what they were. Now we're trying to be sure we know what they are.

There will need to be a cultural change, we know this.

Of course, as does Daim. Otherwise , they'd not be fighting for it. They'd simply say we already won in 2004.

Also, in 2004 if I told a doctor who clearly looked like a man I requested a female doctor, I'd never be called transphobic. I be given an apology.

Thanks for the article, Kikashi. That's quite a good neutral piece of reporting.