#notalltranswomen

[BadasIwannaB]

An argument people often make when women voice their concerns about women only spaces:

‘Well hang on a second, I know quite a few trans women and they are just considerate nice people who just want to get on with their lives etc.’

Why can’t people see that this is spectacularly missing the point in just the same way as arguing ‘well NOT ALL MEN are [rapists/sexual harassers/misogynists/a danger to women]’?

I mean, I’m friends with a lot of men - they aren’t all bad. I’m even in an intimate relationship with one. But would that be a legit rebuttal to the arguments that women should have protected spaces without men? Clearly not! I’m not insulting my (or your) friends who are men, or implying men are all rapists etc. by agreeing that women should have protected spaces without men in them.

Similarly, then, why think that those who argue that these protected spaces should not be available to trans women must be assuming that all trans women are rapists/sexual harrassers etc., and must be saying something that’s terribly insulting to their (or your) friends who are trans women?

@PurpleCrowbar yes, you 'Monster'! How dare women have preferences about who they have sex with it are intimate with! It's DARVO! It's all reversal.

It's mad.

They hate women says no to anyone. I'vs had boyfriends of different colours but it's mine and their choice. If anyone was not interested in me I'd happily accept that choice. This is a key part of the problem, it's a fucking 'rapey' stance they are taking. Women always have freedom of choice and so do men. Your friend is the one who has outed themselves as a monster.

@WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice

I think your post is absolutely accurate. Especially number 10. While I love debating I feel we need less and more of finding responses to their shenanigans

Gah! Just wrote a long post on my phone and lost it.

Take 2 on the lap top.

I agree that the physical differences between male and female biology must be the emphasis. The off the peg retorts are.

1. Pervert! Obsessed with genitals.
2. Pedo! Talking about a kids genitals.
3. Penises have been concealed in women's spaces since forever and you haven't known about it. How are you going to police? Check their underwear? Pervert! Obsessed with genitals.
4. Think about how uncomfortable and embarrassed they would feel about trying to hide their penis and ballsack, for a minute. Let your female socialisation work to put your needs last like it is supposed to.
5. Hormones make penises become more ladylike and stop getting erections. They aren't a threat to women.
6. What about those who get their penises removed? Can't afford to get their penises removed? Are on the waiting list to get their penises removed? Are frightened of getting their penis removed? Surely you can't exclude them?

All these retorts/args rely on women and girls putting their feelings lasts, making people feel uncomfortable about talking about genitals, lies about the stats and the science and minimisation 'its all a fuss over nothing'.

So it is important to be unflinching about the biology, the science and the visceral reality of sex differences and the right for women and girls to have services and provision specific to them and excluding all males.

Keep your eye on the prize.

Don't allow them to drag you down their gender rabbit-hole.

That happened to me three times yesterday, Clarice. And I go in for long posts. Short posts take so much longer.

While I love debating I feel we need less and more of finding responses to their shenanigans

Indeed. We need to know what their shenanigans are. What they are doing behind the scene. Scrutinise their work. Visit the orgs they provided consultancy for. Wave Equality law at them. Fairplay for Women is great for this. Complain to media outlets for being partisan, join together with activist groups like Man Friday or Mayday for Women. Get the knowledge out there, wider. Keep writing to your MP. Write to your local council to check they include sex, not gender as a protected characteristic in their diversity and inclusion policy. Be openly supportive of people who speak out in their own name and defend them when they are criticised.

Lots to do. Do what you can.

Dang that mobile app prawn!

By the way - I think it is all working. Everything that is being done is definitely working. I see it shifting. I found it really interesting in the interview where Posie Parker interviews Dr RadFem, that DrRF is so new to all this but has been such an important individual in helping to turn the tide.

It just goes to show that you don't have to have it all mapped out to have a massive impact!

Great posts Clarice.

All these retorts/args rely on women and girls putting their feelings lasts, making people feel uncomfortable about talking about genitals, lies about the stats and the science and minimisation 'its all a fuss over nothing'.

YY.

Thanks Ereshkigal

Yes, really on fire there Clarice.

WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice what is our reply to all the whataboutery? I'll see your 6 and raise you one!

1. What about safeguarding and not putting girls and boys together for accommodation on school trips overnight and changing spaces?

1. What about victims of rape, 'domestic' abuse and sexual harrisment; why are women's rights obscured by males 'right' to identify as women?

1. What about accurate statistics on crime and pay and everything else where sex matters?

1. What about vulnerable women in prisons and hostels?

5.What about the messages we are sending to teenage girls (and children) that males in society get to determine what happens and where, STILL!

1. What about just being honest. A male who identifies as a woman is Stoll male. I think we need to say make and female and I will happily undergo a DNA test to accertain I am female.

1. Finally, what about 100 years of female emancipation? What politician is going to turn the clock back and give us fewer rights. History will judge our generation for what we are doing to women and girls.

We need safe spaces and protection for all trans people, including non-binary and gender fluid. Safe third spaces as well as female only and male only spaces.

We are thinking about trans people's safety as well as the safety of women and girls.

TRAs think only of their own agenda. Throwing women, girls and transsexuals under the bus.

But they cannot always see it, the hand maidens believe they are on the side of right!
What have I missed?

I think what you've missed is that if someone's start point is 'TWAW! If you question this you are a MONSTER!' - then all of those lovely & valid arguments are moot.

It's like trying to argue a pro choice stance against someone who believes that life is sacred from conception. Given that absolute, all dissent bounces straight back at you.

I think all we can do is think of the lurkers. Wasting our time on the handmaidens (amongst whom I'd probably count my mate - he's a slightly odd middleaged asexual bloke. We've also had some interesting conversations about sex work 'tolerance zones', which he thinks are great because lots of women obviously choose to work in prostitution so they must enjoy it...)

I agree both Purple and Italian

What about women is a fantastic way to blast through the notion that women and girls must take their place behind penis.

Yet of course the zombie-heads will always say, but no, TWAW, whilst looking glassy eyed and shuffling with outstretched arms.

But the lurkers will be peaking. Er no... a teenage boy who wanks into girls knickers is not female... I've not been bitten by a SJW zombie and am still capable of rational thought.

And they will see that this is serious.

It's like trying to argue a pro choice stance against someone who believes that life is sacred from conception. Given that absolute, all dissent bounces straight back at you.

The parallel I find myself making, Purple, is with Young Earth Creationists who insist the Earth is 6,000 years old. Given that they believe that what's at stake is nothing less than their immortal souls for all eternity the YEC cling to their belief against all reason.

However the parallel breaks down when you consider that YEC don't insist the rest of us share their belief. Nor do they demand to change the law to enforce it or try to insist the rest of us act as if it's true.

It's like trying to argue a pro choice stance against someone who believes that life is sacred from conception. Given that absolute, all dissent bounces straight back at you.

I used to be a secular anti-abortioner. Then I saw an image comparing the rights of women to those of corpses and began to rethink, eventually concluding that no one has a right to use another's body for life support. It was the contrast between post-mortem organ donation needing the corpse's consent but a foetus not needing consent if abortion is outlawed that made me question my stance. I'd read Thompson's violinist before and not seen it, it was that image that brought it home. We need something with that level of incontrovertible impact to illustrate why we need female-only spaces.

Correcting a small but significant omission from my last post: but a foetus not needing consent should say but a foetus not needing the pregnant woman's consent

@gardengeek Whats the no1 rule of MN? How do you get out of an abusive relationship?

I don't actually know.

@GardenGeek id the no 1 rule of Mumsnet No is a complete sentence?

LTB!

It's tricky though, GardenGeek. I have a major issue with giving gender, you know the social construct, any validity at all, never mind enshrining the bastarding concept in law. Gender is toxic, and forces people to either comply with nonsensical stereotypes or be othered. It isn't tangible, and I have yet to see a way of defining gender that doesn't revert to stereotype. And no matter what you suggest, it will never be good enough for the TRAs who are so keen to make their way into sex-segregated spaces, because that's the point we've reached.