Is it possible not to agree thatTWAW

[BertrandRussell]

ans not be transphobic? Because I think transwomen are transwomen and deserve all the rights and protections of the law, and should to live their lives peacefully, unharnessed and using any names or pronouns they wish. But I don't think they are actually, literally women. Incidentally, neither does the only transperaon I know well enough who is old enough to ask. If thinking that makes me transphobic is she transphobic too?

I don't think even the most hardcore rad fems really mind a respectful trans woman who transitioned eons ago nipping in the ladies loo once in a while and of course I do not want a burly, predatory man changing next to me in a female changing room so there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

Agreed.

Yep! Knew it

Lol titchy!

FWIW I think peak trans is a shitty phrase - the problem clearly isn't with all trans people so why peak trans? Peak TRA I could understand.

Its peak trans ideology, not peak trans people.

Peak trans ideology is very nuanced and what trans person does not agree with trans ideology?

I haven't been aware of a battle between GC feminists and TRAs over the last 13 years, it's only become a problem really recently when the proposed changes were announced

It's been vicious - TRAs taking over every feminist/lgb space, threatening and closing down women-only services, no-platforming Julie Bindel and beyond, trying to get gender critical feminists sacked from their jobs, threatening venues to prevent women-only meetings .. it's been a strategic and comprehensive attack on gender crit voices for years. Finally our voices are starting to be heard in spite of this extraordinary effort to suppress them.

It's not just about loos and changing rooms though. If it was I think most of us would just resign ourselves to leaving the loo/changing room if a man entered, or indeed anyone who made us feel uncomfortable.

If TWAW, that skews stats regarding crime rates, having an effect on funding for strategies to tackle it, same with health issues, sports, gender pay gap reporting becomes even more useless than it is now, it will affect certain religions negatively, its a much bigger picture that the TWAW believers seem to miss rather spectacularly.

The first I heard of it was that journalist Suzanne Moore slagging off trans women calling them bed wetters in bad wigs - that can't have been more than 5 years ago?

And it was seen as completely outrageous - that stuff seems pretty commonplace now

And to be fair there are a lot of MRAs who already hated radfems for restricting their entitlement to control and abuse women and children with impunity - and they opportunistically jumped on the TRA bandwagon in an attempt to isolate lesbian radfems from the wider feminist movement because they saw a rift opening up between feminists who put men first and radfems who put women first. So now it is hard to tell the difference between a TRA and an MRA unless you have had a lot of experience with both. MRAs have definitely become more adept in this TRA costume as the years have rolled by.

There are a few brave transwomen (transsexuals) who openly state that they are not women daim. How many more may agree but be afraid to say it openly I don't know.
I think it's fair to say the signatories of this letter share feminists' concerns about self ID, so certainly not agreeing to full TWAW with the stonewall umbrella definition of trans.
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/04/standing-up-for-transsexual-rights

That's interesting catkind - I suppose many groups have purists (don't the TRAs call them truscum?) and the lesbian pride protesters were supposedly 'purist' lesbians. I can see why the two groups would have a mutual understanding.

Just popping back quickly to c&p my post re exemptions from other thread.

The NHS has 2 transwomen employees. Employee A has a GRC and has therefore lived for at least 2 yeas as a woman, has a diagnosis of gender disphoria and most likely has had some form of hormonal/ surgical treatment for this. Employee B on the other hand does not hold a GRC. Employee B is just at the beginning of their transition and has only changed name and pronouns.

At the moment, as Bespin has stated, if a female patient requests a female nurse, the NHS would apply the exemptions with regard to employee B, but not with employee A. As far as the NHS is concerned, employee A is female and the NHS can’t ask to see a GRC.

So then self ID comes into law. Employee B, who has no gender dysphoria diagnosis, has made no steps towards transitioning other than a name change applies applies for and is granted a GRC.

Before self ID: NHS would apply exemptions to employee B

After self ID: NHS would not apply exemptions to employee B.

Would you agree with my reasoning about how self ID and the EqA interact daim?

And daim said:

Yes I agree a GRC holder who has full reassignment surgery is less likely to have the EA exemptions applied to them than a non GRC holder. It's a good point.

I can't believe the fucking Internet/Google clean up. It is so hard to find articles on the history of all this. Here is an article on the Mitchfest 1991 incident which was written in 2008 which is still a sanitised version of events. I can't find links to the voices of the women who got freaked out when they saw a naked penis in the shower.

bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2008/08/womyn_born_womyn.php

LemonJello I don't know enough about the NHS but surely the duty of care to employees does not trump the duty of care to patients?

In theory I can see what you're trying to say but I'm sure if a scenario like employee B arose it would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

The EA states the exemptions can be applied to GRC holders so employee A could still have exemptions applied to them.

Similarly, under the current law employee B may be 'living as a woman' as required in order to obtain a GRC and therefore would be treated as a woman at work.

In any work place that deals with sensitive female issues, massive alarm bells would go off if a man was trying to ID as a woman just so he could be 'the woman' who deals with them. It's not going to suddenly appear perfectly normal if the admin process for getting a GRC changes.

What does it matter what alarm bells ring? You won’t be allowed to question it without being accused of a fucking hate crime.

Every time TRAs say "that will never happen" either it does or it already has...

An employer might not have any idea when calling an individual to interview and then would be unable to question the interviewee about Lemonjello’s scenario without facing a claim for discrimination.

So what can the employer do to ensure the woman’s rights are protected? How does that work practically?

I haven't been aware of a battle between GC feminists and TRAs over the last 13 years, it's only become a problem really recently when the proposed changes were announced

Some of us saw the transgender advocates constant harassment of the members of the LGBT communities for spending time and energy on marriage rights and not focusing exclusively on Transgender rights. Including the effort to subsume the LGB under the trans umbrella. Feminists were aware of this because we were fighting for LGB marriage rights right along with them, even though we opposed the institution itself.
MRAs harassment of Feminists is much older than the interwebs.
There is now no discernible difference between the MRAs and TRAs because they joined forces years ago in the war on women.

titchy and ADastardlyThing this will amuse you, just bought a ticket for Women's Place feminist conference in Brighton on Tuesday. Let's see if they manage to peak me (I bet they don't)

I hope you will be keeping the venue details confidential daimbars?

Good on you daim, seriously, I don't necessarily agree with everything discussed at the meetings (I recall hearing some imo too radical views but I'm sure that was maybe just one or two speakers) but it's good to hear them in a structured way without the other side shouting down - and I do apply that too the other side too tbh - because how can we form the views we do without that?

So if you have bought a ticket I'm not amused. I admire you for wanting to truly hear the other side.

LemonJello I don't know enough about the NHS but surely the duty of care to employees does not trump the duty of care to patients?

Yes I believe you are right. I don’t know much about it either but I was going on what bespin had said about the nhs based on professional experience of transitioning while employed by them.

In theory I can see what you're trying to say but I'm sure if a scenario like employee B arose it would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

What makes you sure? Bespin said otherwise. If a GRC is obtained, and it is illegal to ask for it, and a persons birth cert says female, then how would the employer legally be able to deal with it?

The EA states the exemptions can be applied to GRC holders so employee A could still have exemptions applied to them.

In theory yes, but bespin says this does not happen in practice if employee has GRC and therefore female birth cert.

Similarly, under the current law employee B may be 'living as a woman' as required in order to obtain a GRC and therefore would be treated as a woman at work.
In any work place that deals with sensitive female issues, massive alarm bells would go off if a man was trying to ID as a woman just so he could be 'the woman' who deals with them. It's not going to suddenly appear perfectly normal if the admin process for getting a GRC changes.

Again I think you are right here but my concern here is not about men abusing the system (although I do think this is a concern). It is about the patient being faced with a transwoman who she knows may not be subject to the medical gatekeeping that previously engendered trust in the whole “sex change” scenario, and whom she knows could be trans as defined by Stonewall eg transvestite with fetish.
That knowledge that she could be faced with someone this, is enough to put some women off accessing the healthcare they need eg smears.

Trust in the process is vital. And at the moment is not there. And I see absolutely no effort to address women’s concerns- either they are brushed away or they are used as stuck to beat women with for being “transphobic”.

I am certain that most people employed in the caring professions are just that- caring and professional. I’m sure most would understand the impact their trans status would have on a patient requesting a female member of staff.

But we have seen that not all do unfortunately. I’m thinking of the case where a woman requested a female member of staff to carry out her smear and was faced with a transwoman.

That has really happened. Women are not making this stuff up. These are legitimate concerns and I’m afraid that your certainty that it would be dealt with appropriately is not enough to reassure us when it has demonstrably not been dealt with appropriately already!

Top of Mail online page.

He is going for the religious argument.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5952625/Christian-doctor-fired-saying-people-choose-gender-reveals-speak-out.html

Lemon Jello
as we appear to be on a nhs thing and my name seems to be getting mentioned a bit. Let's try and clear this up for you. right employee A with the GRA, the exemptions can be applied but it would need to be stated in the job role or in the advert if a new role that this was the case. I suppose if someone challenged it and the trust agreed then they could also change the role of that post. Any trans person knowingly applying could lose there job. someone working within that role would be asked not to and put on the at risk job list. This is easy to undertake when you are aware of someone's trans status but people are not always aware of people's trans status.

The case of re health care professional I have a number of issues wity as we have never had the detail about that case that would show why this happened and who the trans health worker was, it would be very surprising that this was somone in a professional role in a team like this as you would hope. that both them and the trust would be aware of the impact. when I have asked for more detailed information nothing as been provided so we can look how this occured.

If a person can accept the phenomenon of being transgender, in my mind it leads to accepting TWAW.

This is a very weird assertion. Of course I can accept the phenomenon of being transgender - transpeople are apparently all over the internet; I don't suppose they're all being transgender for shits and giggles. But I don't accept that transwomen are women because they're not; they're transwomen. Deserving of respect and protection from harm like any other human, certainly, but they're not women unless we broaden the definition of "woman" to mean "believing that you're a woman", which is self-evidently circular and therefore not a definition at all.

Do TRAs actually have a definition of "woman" that isn't circular?