James Kirkup 'Labour and Tories finally see the truth about the gender debate'

[R0wantrees]

You might not have noticed that yesterday the Government announced possible changes to the Gender Recognition Act. That’s what ministers wanted: the announcement was carefully made late in the day and was partly obscured by an earlier promise to ban “conversion therapy” that tries to stop gay people being gay.

Why did the Government bury its transgender announcement? The approach was very different last autumn when the Prime Minister herself fronted a prominent media drive which Tory spinners said showed that the Conservatives were inclining towards a system of “self-identified” gender. Yesterday, by contrast, ministers released a deliberately neutral set of consultation questions and kicked decisions on reform into early 2019 by saying the consultation will be open until late October. Conservatives who once rushed to embrace the reforms sought by some transgender lobbying groups are now — behind all their nice words — moving much more cautiously.

So what changed between the autumn of 2017 and this week? There are two factors, one public, one largely private. The public change was brought about by women. Quite a lot of them worry about a system that allows male-born people to take on the legal status of women (transwomen) and thus access spaces and services that the law reserves for women. Especially when some of those transwomen retain male genitalia.

For all that some people suggest it’s somehow prurient or distasteful to talk about penises in this debate, there is, as Nick Robinson put it in some excellent interviews on the Today Programme yesterday, no way to avoid this. The simple fact is that people with penises, whatever word we use to describe those people, are biologically different to people without penises, and that difference matters to many women in a way that cannot be dismissed as bigotry... (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

womanformallyknownaswoman
I think I read most of the thread, I cant remember to be honest and Im interested in your view.

Thank you James

I've put a link in AIBU for this article, in the hope of reaching a larger audience, and alerting others (who wouldn't normally frequent FWR) to what's happening.

No bomb threats are OK.

Great article. On the back of it, I'm signing up to The Spectator - save the money I was spending at Liberty.

That is astonishing about Amber Rudd, didn't realise it was her constituency.

I feel like I am learning more and more about how politicians really behave and it's not good.

Fantastic article. Doesn't it show the power of this group that MPs, journalists, commentators are too frightened to stand up and comment? However did we get to a point that people arguing in favour of science and biology are being called bigots.

And yes R0wantrees, I am certain that MNHQ have been under a level of threat and pressure that we can only imagine. When parliament is so silenced and fearful, we can only imagine just what threats have been aimed at them.

If you read this, James, thank you for your unwavering support. At the moment, that counts for an awful lot.

R0wantrees

Here's the text

You know @MNHQ I find your stance completely incongruent and very offensive as it is now attacking your own user base - which is strange organisational behaviour for a business.

But it seems my offence at being attacked, and that of all the other women here, don't matter to you any more. Again strange for a site that has built its reputation and business on valuing women and their perspectives, as well as leveraging their purchasing power.

You talk about civil debate yet your organisational behaviour causes the very conflict you seek to eliminate. We are not in control of that, you are. So why are you punishing us for something you are causing? That is administrative abuse. By ignoring and enabling all the trolling that goes on here, that is targeted to derail women's discussions and incite them and provoke unrest, you are, at best, bystander bullying, if not, at worse, joining in with the trolls.

The trolls use well-known tactics that mirror those in domestic violence. Yet instead of tackling the trolling, which would be a lawful and reasonable response, you "batter" the victims. Why?

If you want civil debate, why are you punishing those who want that as well but are denied it by the relentless trolling?

Threatening your core user base is also not a good look nor congruent with your brand positioning.

Of course, you could join all the other social media platforms and drive women off - but I thought your core user group was those women? The women who helped you build a business and standing as being one of the most influential women's sites in the UK - Wikipedia.

Exactly what are you trying to achieve? Because whatever it is, the methods you are using to compel it, are divisive and don't make sense from a strategic or user perspective and worse, are adding fuel to the fire you are trying to put out.

I imagine you are mindful of legal threats from certain quarters, and that your organisation seems vulnerable there, due to a precedent set by Gina Ford where the law needs enhancement to take account of the online environment. OK, I get that as would many others here. I also get that vulnerability will be exploited by the unscrupulous determined to make you pay for the views of your user base.

You are the meat in the sandwich so to speak. However, welcome to our world. So you have a golden opportunity to cement your brand and standing plus increase revenue. Yet you choose the opposite path that will harm your long-term business, for the sake of expediency.

I'll remind you that only a couple of banks did the right, moral thing by not foreclosing on miner's mortgages and loans during the 1984/5 strike. The miners and others never forgot them and moved all their business to them once they were back in work. Those banks understood their user base, which were a key part of their profitability, and chose to stick by them, as it made good business and moral sense in the long run.

You seem to be taking the path of the also-ran banks - driven by short-termism and unable to take the moral high ground, that ultimately is in your business best interest. That is disappointing, to say the least.

Comment 2 :

womanformallyknownaswoman Wed 04-Jul-18 02:59:19

Appendum - if the desire is to reduce the real threat of legal actions designed to make you pay for the views of your users, may I suggest you scrap the recent guidelines and introduce one along the lines of:

The law as it stands makes us vulnerable to claims of bullying where personal attacks and slurs on individuals are prevalent from our user-base. Therefore, because the law is as it is, and we can't change it, would you please moderate your comments to ensure that no personal attacks are made. The grey area here is misgendering. Therefore use neutral terms like they.

We do not necessarily endorse this self-censoring, however, it is necessary to keep us legally compliant and to limit any possible vexatious legal action against us, which we are not in a position to defend ourselves against, due to the current law not taking account of the contemporary online environment.

We would, as a loyal user base, no doubt even mount campaigns to get the law changed to help you.

So work with us not against us - we are on your side - or trying to be, despite you pushing us away at present.

Another with and for James.

Such a bunch of man haters aren't we!

Really good comments. My guess is the lawyers are in a spin about it as these organisations are awash with money and lawyers, not to mention having trained the police and all other agencies. It must be very frightening for MNHQ.

I'm continually bloody frightened and I know that I never post goady comments - yet the fear is profound - and when you add to that the mind-fuckery of being told that there is no such thing as a biological women and the penis is now female etc etc....

James 🥇💐

In the context of the Government's consultation starting, all media outlets and social media platforms will have been under pressure not to prejudice this.

I think this article hopefully indicates that more needs to be done to recognise the pressures exerted on women, women's groups and perhaps even Mumsnet.

I don't think the government and political parties will be able to ignore this.

Maybe the recent policies will come to be seen in a different light, as been neccessary to continue to host the discussion?

Thank you for your optimistic view James. It is really needed

Loved the article
Why are normal women standing up and politicians and men too afraid?

And James is another with underpants of steel.

Thank you James for speaking out

I'm another one that's taken out a subscription - it seems important to recognise those journalists standing up for free speech.
Now if we could just get members of parliament to do the same....

I really hope the lovely James' optimism isn't misplaced. It's really heartening to hear that those in power are talking about this, even if it's covertly. Hopefully they will come out of the shadows soon. I think yesterday's letter in the Morning Star was a first step in this.

I liked the fact that Janes mentioned the effect of the steady stream of letters and emails that MPs have been receiving, we can make a difference! If you haven’t already written to your MP I urge you to do so now.

Not just women like us, but us.

Every woman who's told someone else, written a letter, sent an email, posted on social, been to an event, posted on Mumsnet.

Is anyone else feeling rather proud right now?

Thank you, thank you, thank you Mr Kirkup

Fantastic article. Doesn't it show the power of this group that MPs, journalists, commentators are too frightened to stand up and comment? However did we get to a point that people arguing in favour of science and biology are being called bigots.

Agree with all of this. How did we get to this?

Thank you James.

And thank you Len McCluskey and co-signatories of the letter to the Morning Star.

In the context of the Government's consultation starting, all media outlets and social media platforms will have been under pressure not to prejudice this.

They will have been under pressure by well funded, lawyered up trans lobby orgs who have been stealthily and successfully chipping away at women's rights.

They have successfully pressured them to prejudice the terms of the debate in their favour.

Have a look at the BBC current style guidelines on trans issues. Have a look at the BBC bias threads. Have a look at the Fair Play for Women BBC letter.

How did we get to this?
Twitter.