Ending this madness but 'saving face'

[pombear]

I'm not good at starting threads so forgive me for the following clunkiness:

Given that the discussion is growing, thanks to the unswerving voices over the last few years, amplified by Mumsnet and other sources.

The sunlight is starting to be shone on disquieting practices, disturbing narratives, biased lobbying.

There are so many organisations who have been coerced into adopting policies, practices, changing their procedures and behaviours following 'training' and worrying that they are 'behind history' and wanting to avoid 'transphobia'.

More and more, the discussion here and in other places is shining a light on this coercion to highlight concerns and risks to women and children's safety, dignity, privacy and ability to define themselves.

Many contributors here, and the lurkers, are part of many of these types of organisations, and more and more are stating their concerns.

It seems there is a crossroads for organisations. With a couple of options:

1. wait until the inevitable scandal, once many individuals have already been harmed (though I suspect that the harm is already being done) and say 'we didn't realise'.

2. do something now, but risk, as an organisation, the wrath of the activist and 'scared-to-be-phobic' movement.

But no organisation wants to look stupid. No organisation wants to be the one 'to go first'. Most want so 'save face' and appear that they weren't part of a scandal.

How do we avoid getting to a moment, as we have over other issues, where everyone looks back on institutional errors and says 'how did this happen'?

So how do we support and enable these organisations, NHS England, schools, workplaces, etc, etc, to roll back whilst still 'saving face' before the inevitable scandal?

I don't have the answer. I expect some people to tell me 'the organisations just have to do the right thing, regardless of saving face'.

But often people need help to roll back from the cliff they're standing on, whilst still saving face.

I don't have an answer. Which is why I've started this thread.

Forgive me if I'm just repeating silly arguments or anything here - I'm really not trying to stir s**t up! But doesn't this:

In the rush to avoid 'transphobia', organisations seem to have forgotten the established, learned by experience, need to protect women and children, separately from trans needs.

imply that trans people are separate to children or women? My concern with the swing back against self-ID (which I can totally see the points for, it's totally valid although sometimes it seems a bit misinformed) is that strengthening same-sex spaces is going to hurt a lot of trans children (who can't get a GRA until they're 18) or passing trans people (like me, I'm 21 and stealth, very lucky - or my boyfriend who is too - we both just look like a normal man and woman) who would be forced to use the wrong places or facilities, which would inevitably sweep up women who aren't trans, like my mum who's super tall, built like a rugby player and has PCOS which gives her some facial hair (she's been called he/sir/etc way more than I have!).

Personally, I think the self-id (by which I mean not having to prove 2 years of self-id and self-id'ing to a doctor who signs a letter to agree with you, just the statutory declaration same as passport documentation) with the proviso that you can still refuse people anyway (which is afaik what the EA 2010 says) would probably be a sensible middle ground and then nobody has to save face.

Or am I just a naive hopeless optimist?

The only way to stop this train wreck would be for high ups in the government to have the guts to speak out and take action.

As much as I dislike him, Trump is about the only politician I can think of who would have the guts to speak out and say
''I'm putting a stop to this madness and I don't give a damn what you all think about me''

Trouble is, he only seems to care about the wrong things!
Still, a stopped clock is always right twice a day

like my mum who's super tall, built like a rugby player and has PCOS which gives her some facial hair (she's been called he/sir/etc way more than I have!).

I find that very insulting towards your mother and women who have PCOS.

This is what lies at the crux of the problem. Trans people thinking that being a woman is all to do with how you look.
Being a woman isn't something you 'wear'. It's just who you are.
It just IS.
I spend most of my life in trousers and t shirts, but I'm a woman.
My friend wears dresses and makeup, she's a woman.
We're both women.
Despite you mum haveing pcos and being tall, she's also a woman. She has xx and you have xy.
So don't flatter yourself that you're more of a woman than your mother. With all due respect,youre not and never will be.

So no offense, but no matter how much makeup and jewellery you wear or how high you train your voice to be, your mother will always be more of a woman than you are.
Yes, it's harsh, but it's fact.

@mrnohips: oh I totally know and agree! They're her words, not mine. She's a fantastic woman and I love her very much. I am no more of a woman than my mum! I don't know where you got that from and I'd never say that. I'd love to be half the woman she is.

I wear tshirts and trousers all the time too and can't be arsed with makeup. I'm under no impression whatsoever it's anything whatsoever to do with what I wear or how I present, just that with trans stuff being hypervisible, she's more likely to have been "clocked" than I am. Nothing on the validity of either of us but I totally apologise for wording it badly! Not good for an English Lit graduate

(Also I was born with XX male syndrome so I don't have XY chromosomes but that's derailing)

Anyway, apologies for

What you want puppies benefits you, but will actively harm 51% of the population. Their NEED for safety cannot outweigh your WANT for validation.

I’m sure you and your partner are decent and non violent people, but self ID will turn every single sex space unisex and when that happens women and children will be harmed. It will reduce the safeguarding frameworks that have been put in place after awful crimes against children - and children (of all genders) will be harmed.

What you want is validation.
What I want is safety

@bowl Thanks for calling me a decent person :) I'm worried about safety too, I just think blanket banning people who are already accessing these spaces (I've never needed to show my birth certificate - or any ID for that matter - to go to any womens-only spaces, not that I've been to many tbf), largely without any problems isn't the best way to address the problem. Although honestly the GRA is probably not even needed any more - just allow marriage certificates to be issued against a deed poll or another form of ID rather than birth certificates and make it tougher to require using birth certificates for ID anywhere and there's no real need for it. Most trans people don't want to be on a register of trans people anyway, that's pretty terrifying in itself, what with living in the Trump and Brexit era

Goodness. How regularly we do women's rights wrong and how regularly someone has an exact life story to prove it.

If you are at all worried about safety you would be opposing any move to remove single sex spaces and damage child safeguarding.

No one is suggesting a register of transpeople are they? That’s not something anyone here is advocating for and something you’ve brought up in this post.

Hear hear materialist - fantastic post.

And this...

I don’t even need to list the lengths we will go to in order to protect our children

Nothing has ever made me engage politically like this because while the erosion of women’s rights is bad enough, the potential consequences for children are horrific.

Hear hear materialist - fantastic post.

Seconded.

women will not accept men as women. We simply will not

This

Their victories will be Pyrrhic

yes. These are not happy people. they cannot accept themselves as they are.

• if you use my pronouns i'll be happy
• if you let me use the ladies loo i'll be happy
• if you pretend that i'm the same as you i'll be happy

and each escalating demand doesn't make them happy, so on they go, never realising that it's not our responsibility to make them happy.

Holy shit Materialist - that's what I would say, were I able to articulate it. Thank you for summing up all the threads in my head.

👏 Materialist. You should record that on a crackly radio.

Brilliant, Materialist.

Materialist
(cos I'm off to bed, but I tip my hat to you!) Great post.

This thread makes such a good point: things won't change until we can find a way of saving face. This is what has made so many organizations and businesses double down. Nobody wants to admit that they've been scammed.