regressive and (actually transphobic) supporters of the "woman's place" position

[drwitch]

This is just a suggestion that perhaps we should be careful about retweeting and linking articles that are from the socially conservative viewpoint. writing by people Paul Embrey or Brendan O'Neil and many articles in the Daily Mail for example will often include lots that I agree with but there will be a couple of remarks that suggest that it is the non-conformity that bothers them rather than the need to provide sex based exemptions. It is a very thin line between a justification of safe spaces for women because of the interaction between physical differences and historic oppression and one that thinks women are just delicate flowers that shouldn't say boo to a goose. I think some article on the right get the balance wrong so we should watch out

On a similar note I think the concentration on bathrooms is dangerous it smacks too much of trumps bathroom ban, we should talk more about women only short lists, refuges, sports and pay monitioring

I have seen suggestions on Twitter that womens groups are funded by far right religious groups which is just nonsense as we all know.

However I agree that the toilets issue is the lesser problem. Actually TW should be fine in male or female toilets, I don't think that toilets in the UK are particularly dangerous places at the moment. This is because they are single sex and males do not as a general principal have access to female toilets. The issue with toilets is that we don't get so used to seeing males in female toilets that they are no longer safe for anyone.

Prisons, hospital wards, AWS and sports for me is where the issue can be most clearly seen. And of course it is easy enough to monitor whether someone is male or female here.

It is nonsense but when "a women places" retweets paul embrey - he of the "its hypocritical to care about families in the context of border separations but support the repeal of clause 8 in ireland" (paraphrase) -fame it does not look good

Your first paragraph is more subtle than your title suggests! (And I agree with it.)

I definitely agree with your second paragraph. You only need to see how keen trans allies are to move the conversation onto "bathroom bans". Any opponent is likely to be called a bathroom obsessive and being seen to argue over this issue can work as a massive turn-off to passers-by.

The doctor who appeared on This Morning with MB did not come across well and religion was used as the main argument for his 'belief' so yes, there needs to be care in presenting this as fact based.

The toilet issue can be used to trivialise bigger matters (even Julie Bindel's interview with Richard Madely was diverted onto toilets thanks to Richard's 'expert' analysis).

Thankfully she put everyone back on bloody track!

Ooh I missed Bindel!

so does everybody agree?

Wanderabout - I think it was from December. She owns it. She always does.

It is nonsense but when "a women places" retweets paul embrey - he of the "its hypocritical to care about families in the context of border separations but support the repeal of clause 8 in ireland" (paraphrase) -fame it does not look good

I'm not aware of Paul Embrey's views on every subject but neither him or O' Neil are on the Right. Embrey is a Labour trade unionist as are founding members of WPUK so if they are retweeting him that will be the connection.

I understand where you are coming from and certainly don't think that anything that comes from the US fundie right wing is helpful, in fact I'm not sure that anything US based is that helpful in debate about UK politics because our political systems and culture are quite different.

I don't really subscribe to the idea that someone has to hold 100% of the same political opinions as me for their comment to be deemed worthy. I feel that sort of thing is half of why we are in a bit of a mess currently in all sorts of areas as it leads to political tribalism.

It is important to read things carefully before deciding if you endorse the POV, I agree with that much.

There was a Spectator article last week by Barry Humphries that discussed transgenderism and whilst I agreed with and shared Kirkup's piece from the same edition I didn't with Humphries because I felt it was a bit disparaging towards TG people even though he was essentially saying what many here have pointed out.

handsacrosstheaislewomen.com/about/

No there isn't. This is just the latest in a long line of smears against WPUK. They have nothing to do with the US far right, their founders are left wing, trade union women seeking to discuss UK legislation.

I expect they may well instigate legal action against those people like Dr Harrop et al who continually try to perpetuate this lie. Jennifer James managed to raise nearly 30k for legal action and I expect WPUK with all their supporters could probably do just as well if not better. Hiding behind a twitter handle won't protect anyone from a defamation suit.

It is important to read things carefully before deciding if you endorse the POV, I agree with that much

I think thats all I am saying

But both embrey and o neil may be of the left but are socially conservative and probexit positioning themselves against the liberal elite (sic) - thus if they post stuff on the GRA it may include things that we are unhappy with and may be used against us

I really think we should wait for an answer to the last question garam was asked before moving on to a new topic with them. More logical and efficient that way, no?

As may the title of your thread.

I don't really subscribe to the idea that someone has to hold 100% of the same political opinions as me for their comment to be deemed worthy. I feel that sort of thing is half of why we are in a bit of a mess currently in all sorts of areas as it leads to political tribalism

Absolutely this. We don't need to be aligned on everything, agreeing with people on one matter doesn't mean you endorse every view they have. The suggestion that it does is pretty infantile to be honest and when it's levelled as an accusation it shows up the accuser rather than the accused.

This issue affects every single woman on the planet, regardless of politics or whatever else divides us. And each woman will have a different view on how to tackle it. Does that matter? No. Every voice matters, and every voice will appeal to different groups of people. Let's celebrate our diversity rather than try to create a single voice. We are not the borg.

The title of the thread is a bit misleading. Lots of people across the political spectrum i.e. The vast majority of humans can see that there are issues with self-Id that need discussed.

we don't have to agree on everything but if someone says they oppose the GRA because "men should be men and women should be women" (i.e. keep traditional gender roles) I am unhappy with giving them a platform

if someone says they oppose the GRA because "men should be men and women should be women" (i.e. keep traditional gender roles) I am unhappy with giving them a platform

You might be unhappy with it but others might not. Others might be unhappy platforming gender critical transsexuals. Some might not care as long as the message is being shouted as loud as possible.

If you want the same result for different reasons sometimes it's sensible to work together. With the consultation out and the government being pressured to change legislation in a bad way is it not sensible to have their core voters mobilised to oppose this? Which means appealing to the conservative mindset too.

I understand you point OP, but it is possible to agree with some of the opinions of your 'opponents' yet disagree on others. Political tribalism is one of the reasons for this fucking mess, and I refuse to add to it.

Garam

There is a clear and proud connection from anti-trans womens groups to the far right, this is no secret 'Hands across the aisle' exists.

Anyone can step a link from one website to another, permission isn't needed. Please supply evidence for your claim of a connection.

I'd also like to know the answer to 2d+69=L, by the way.