Using women as human shields

[UglyCathKidstonBag]

My workplace is having an interesting week. A woman on the day shift (who I only meet at handover) seems to be an ardent GC-er and is peak transing people left right and centre.

It seems yesterday she mentioned women being used as “human shields” which drew a few raised eyebrows and it couldn’t be discussed further due to a work situation.
We picked up some of the discussion on our shift, including demands for cis allies to create barriers at protests or events and even the fact that forcing spaces to become unisex uses women as a human shield.

I thought it would be useful to have a thread documenting when this happens because it is quite extraordinary to ask an adult human female to protect a trans woman from a adult human male.

If anyone has any links to articles/social media posts/threads about this specifically happening then please share them here as this seems to be a cause for concern for many outside or new to the debate.

While trying to find that Bristol tweet I just found this which I think is relevant:

twitter.com/siberianpine/status/994134379185213441?s=20

Gotcha

twitter.com/JayHulmePoet/status/986564252331888641?s=20

With replies from some familiar TRAs and TRA allies.

Thanks.

I found the thread on Twitter - mobile.twitter.com/jayhulmepoet/status/986564252331888641

It went out before the stairwell protests. Although the author of the thread is born female and possibly concerned for other people who are born female it looks as though women walking male born people home to ensure their safety included in the concern. Bit tricky to tell though..

You know they mean "unsafe" in a way most people wouldn't use it though.

You know they mean "unsafe" in a way most people wouldn't use it though.

Oh is that what it means - like the Emperor doesn't feel safe with kids around making observations about his new clothes.

Absolutely this.

Like the "Epistemic Violence" Laurier University LGBT soc said they experienced from Lindsay Shepherd's comments and the support she received on social media.

Even Katelyn Burns admitted it wasn't about physical threat, despite trying pathetically to claim radical feminists were a threat to trans people based on an incident that happened 40 years ago.

Thank you for digging out those tweets re Bristol. I think this could be quite a useful thread if we have all of these demands upon women gathered in one place.

Their ideas of “unsafe” are rather curious aren’t they? Women meeting to discuss their rights in law or disagreeing with your viewpoint is unsafe?

But battering a 60yo woman/bomb threats against women/forcing women into overcrowded staircases with masked people is perfectly safe?

Forcing women to be your human shield by shaming them into “being nice” on your terms is despicable and cowardly.

Epistemic Violence

Wow. Not heard this.

There seemed to be a predominance of young women activists outside the Brighton venue when I arrived for the WPUK. They were also the ones handing out leaflets.

It's mind boggling that they would actively support men that seek the erasure of their spaces and even the language they use to describe themselves. The sheer level of the gas lighting involved is astounding.

I think this the protest outside a meeting of feminists on a freezing night which only had female born trans allies turn up to scream at attendees. Male born people are too delicate and need the females to protect then from extreme weather. i2.wp.com/peaktrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Miranda-with-protesters.jpg

I'll find a link to the Epistemic Violence statement.

The poor trans women were obviously concerned that their 'lady dicks' would shrivel up in the cold.

Again while looking for something else. Some wise words from the awesome Kathleen Stock:

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1002522440684261376?s=20

I started a thread on this issue a little while back - it might have been after Bristol

I'll see if I can find it (unless R0wantrees beats me to it )

Here you go

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228481-Cis-allies-being-asked-to-provide-protection

I love Miranda - that's a great picture!

Here's an article about the Wilfrid Laurier University saga as I mentioned earlier. "Epistemic violence" is here constituted by merely expressing gender critical or questioning views:

nationalpost.com/news/canada/campus-lgbt-group-wilfrid-laurier-isnt-going-far-enough-to-silence-climate-of-transphobia

After Bristol the transgenders who were intimidating women on the stairs claimed (falsely) that none of them were mentally strong enough to confront women so everyone there were allies and not transgenders.
More than one were recognized, by the women they were blocking and threatening, despite the masks.

Their ideas of “unsafe” are rather curious aren’t they? Women meeting to discuss their rights in law or disagreeing with your viewpoint is unsafe?

It's the language of trauma therapy and psychology, where 'unsafe' means it causes trauma responses, hence the frequent use of the word 'triggered'. The problem is that while there certainly are trans people who have been very traumatised and distressed by their dysphoria and experiences because of it, and because many experience autism and MH and other additional needs:

a) like the self identifying way of using other clinical language like identifying as Autistic, or being a 'spoonie' (having a chronic illness) when it becomes a common self identified and so freely used term it's questionable in that it dilutes and changes meaning from the original intended language, appropriates experience and removes the significance and extremity of it from others. It's becoming just a fashionable words for offensive, upsetting or 'I don't like that'. People with trauma lose out by that, you can't self ID removing criteria without diluting and removing protection from those who have met a specific and objective testable criteria. The condition that can be self IDd into blurs into losing all meaning, whether that's Autism, trauma, Trans or Woman.

b) I can't see that it's healthy or even practically reasonable for someone with trauma to expect others (apart from parents if it's a child) to manage their triggers for them and to expect all places to be a safe space where they can expect never to be triggered. Not least because no two people's triggers are the same, and a state of mental healthiness is based on the ability to cope with reality. Recovery from trauma is about ownership and responsibility for learning to manage your triggers and to maintain your own state of stress. Personal responsibility is missing here, it's not an empowering or healthy thing to expect care from others, and this is again a big question with self ID. To what extent do people have responsibility to put the needs and wishes of total strangers in all situations above their own by manipulating their language, accepting deep discomfort and loss of safety by accepting mixed sex spaces, etc etc? Why do they have this responsibility to this one specific group when it's not expected for any other vulnerable group in society?

To what extent do people have responsibility to put the needs and wishes of total strangers in all situations above their own by manipulating their language, accepting deep discomfort and loss of safety by accepting mixed sex spaces, etc etc?

And what about the mental distress this controlling and domineering sense of entitlement causes victims of actual violence and coercive control? Why don't their feelings matter?

And c) it's becoming a validated reason to avoid discussion, speaking of facts or presenting of information and view points. You mustn't repeat that news story, or say that word, it makes someone feel unsafe, triggers their trauma. This is really not healthy or even morally ok. However sorry you are for someone's suffering, it cannot be a reason to suppress truth, free speech and facts, particularly when it's heading into being legislation.

Yes that brings us back to the postmodernist critical theory concept of "epistemic violence" and similar terms. The idea is that you should not be allowed to express those views. Sanctions, punishment and physical violence can be justified in return, as Kathleen Stock alludes to.

V. good point Eresh . Likewise severely traumatised women in refuges who cannot cope with male bodied people in their spaces, or the many women who have been traumatised by sexual abuse, assault, violence etc and don't feel comfortable in mixed sex changing spaces or accepting medical care from someone with an opposite sexed body.

The logic falls down, doesn't it? The respect only ever goes one way. And the only answer I can ever find is 'privilege'.