Artistic Director of Queer Up North speaks out on trans activism, Stonewall and women's rights

[SanctimoniousMorph]

medium.com/@JonnnyBest/the-story-of-my-first-brush-with-trans-activism-and-what-i-learned-3ef13e31fd37

But the problem then is that trans people are correct in feeling their identities are threatened with erasure. If you are saying 'oh well you can't say some transwomen [who incidentally have been using women's spaces and living as women for years and have had surgery and hormones] are women and then some like Danielle Muscato aren't - they are all men' then I have a problem with that. Yes I know that gender stereotypes mean men who wish to present in a very feminine way feel, in so many patriarchal societies, that this must mean they are women. But this is the society they have to live in . Attacking transwomen and transmen who have led lives under the radar and who feel that living as women/men is the most healing and positive way for them to live is not something I want to do. I do however want to challenge impositions on natal women who are oppressed in so many ways in work/health/life by their actual sex, not how they identify.

what is the justification for saying that Jane Fae is genuine and Ibi-Pippi is not?

I agree that it's dodgy to set up a hierarchy of "genuine" transwomen - as women, we are subject to far too much of that sort of judgement ourselves, aren't we?

But I would like to be able to distinguish between and respect the lives & needs of men who transition from a deeply felt need to deal with a bodily dysphoria (I've read Debbie Hayton, and transwomen on MN about this, and work with a couple of TW). We need to respect these transwomen.

But I'm less certain of transwomen who don't make that commitment - to try to cast aside both maleness and masculinity in all its forms as much as they can. Who seem to want to take the privileges of femininity as well while retaining the mindset of masculine dominance - the "I must have what I want. The world must revolve around me."

As a friend of mine once said to me when we were gingerly sounding out each other's views "If they want to be women, they need to make a commitment to it. And that includes having their b cut off."

And notice my phrasing there? "gingerly sounding out each other's views" - we women are second guessing each other, trying to avoid giving offence, and scared of being labelled transphobic. Still.

Heresy perfectly put. Magdalen Berns called out Theryn Meyer's derision of Danielle Muscato. It smacks of hypocrisy. The more Ibi-Pippis we see, the more the TRAs will need to admit that they in fact see being a woman as nothing more than makeup, heels and long hair. If Theryn wants to be accepted, then Ibi-Pippi must be too. And Ian Huntley- because being a woman is not about being a virtuous person, so a rapist and murderer can surely have a female identity too. I mean, I have never questioned Myra Hindley's or Rose West's womanhood. I am certain they are/were biological females with female reproductive systems. That's as far as it goes. Being female says nothing about a person's personality.

And if Ibi-Pippi walks in, how do we know that she is "real trans" but someone who looks equally male in every single respect that walks in to the changing room just to look at naked women is "fake trans?"

This is why the whole thing does my head in.

Me too, @heresyandwitchcraft me too.

And I"m reasonably au fait with queer theory - I've taught it for heaven's sake - from a gender-critical feminist point of view - and I can attest to the fact that it is possible to teach gender-critical queer theory. It's the very gap between sex and gender, and the feminist rejection of gender which is so interesting in terms of "queer" - which is what @jonnybest also seems to be saying.

But I've been publicly accused of transphobia, for being a feminist.

The genius of Ibi-Pippi is that they push things as far as they can to make people to say "but you are not a woman". Once this is said then a sensible conversation can take place in which it can be agreed that self-ID cannot be an absolute and people are allowed, in some circumstances, to say "this person is not a woman". It gives agency back to people.

This would all be very straightforward except there are so many progressive people out there who just cannot bring themselves to say to anyone, however ridiculous, "you are not a woman". Which means that Ibi-Pippi can push this to such extremes that it looks like performance art more than anything.

Attacking transwomen and transmen who have led lives under the radar and who feel that living as women/men is the most healing and positive way for them to live is not something I want to do. I do however want to challenge impositions on natal women who are oppressed in so many ways in work/health/life by their actual sex, not how they identify

Yes, yes yes!

Now I must get back to writing a very boring response to a policy document which is nothing to do with feminism sadly

But I would like to be able to distinguish between and respect the lives & needs of men who transition from a deeply felt need to deal with a bodily dysphoria (I've read Debbie Hayton, and transwomen on MN about this, and work with a couple of TW). We need to respect these transwomen.

Yes, you are right. I have immense sympathy for sufferers of gender dysphoria and I do respect them. However, on a logical and philosophical basis, I still cannot see them as female. I don't think that Ibi-Pppi is necessarily 'taking the piss' and nor do I think Alex Drummond is. I do think the latter two genuinely believe in their identity rather than that they are playing a huge joke on everyone. It becomes dangerous if we say that you are a woman if you have GD but not if you don't have surgery, because what about those who can't have surgery or don't have the money? Then we come back to the same old argument that being a woman is looking like a woman or having a deep feeling that you are female. I am happy for old-school transsexuals who have had surgery to use some facilities for women if they do not retain male features such as a penis. But I don't think it is possible to actually police that. It's a shame, because in the past, this did work and it was a minute number. It's only the post-Jenner explosion in activism and the fact that nearly 2% of the population now claims to be trans that means that this is no longer workable. The only way forward I can see is third spaces.

Sorry that was for SilverBuckles and her policy document writing!

PeakPants - I think my argument is that the current and v misogynist TRA movement is threatening 'genuine' transpeople and their way they wish to lead their lives, as well as natal women's sex-based rights. I mean so many organisations are now only protecting 'gender' not 'sex' [including Twitter]. I don't know if third spaces is the right way, and I want to protect the rights of trans people as well as natal women. However it is the TRA activism that is derailing any proper debate - and the [not so] closet misogyny of mainstream politics that is going along with it all. That is the main problem that I can see.

And I think this debate of 'well none of them are real women' is derailing the debate too, and just justifies the TRA argument that debate equals trans erasure.

Morning everyone. I am going to sit down with a coffee and try and respond to as many of the main points and questions that have arisen in this thread. I'm not sure how long it will take. Give me an hour or two to get it sorted. See you later. Jx

Hi JB! Do hope SarahAr comes back to clarify her challenge to your piece - perhaps they are busy right now.

SarahAr was simply trying to create an air of bad faith around the article by "calling out" an "error" and hoping to find that the article hadn't been changed as requested.

I am going to repeat what I have posted elsewhere: it is far easier to have clear rules, and then add exceptions. If Blaire White walked in to my bathroom or changing room, I would not bat an eyelid. I would only know who she is because of YouTube. But I would have a problem with Ibi-Pippi...

In these discussions, and in policy, I think it is useful to maintain clear categories of trans/male/female. So I will always say that trans women are trans women. They are not the same as natal women, and that's okay! For me, the distinction needs to be there conceptually, but in usual speech and to be polite I will not always keep referring to the "trans" part at all times (in other words, it can be "silent," except when the differences are actually relevant).

This is my analogy for why I find self-identification especially troublesome:

A legal identity, and the single-sex facilities it entitles access to, is like a home. What we have now feels like the newcomers to these legal identities are asked to take some time, build up trust, and prove their sincerity before they’re given a key and allowed to move in permanently. Could the process be streamlined? Probably, but having a system means we can try to make sure the people in the home will treat it with respect and get along with each other. But with simple self-ID I feel like we are being asked to leave the doors permanently unlocked. That anyone who says they belong in that home automatically has every right afforded to a long-term resident. That earning the keys to the front door means nothing anymore because anyone can walk in. I feel like I am being told I must not worry about what sorts of strangers might decide to take advantage of the very public knowledge that the doors are unlocked. And I should say that every newcomer who walks over the threshold to my home has actually always lived with me.

I’ve heard the common counter arguments to such fears: "That's not what's going on. You already let some guests into your home. In any case, nobody would ever try to exploit an official no-lock policy, and besides we pretty much seem to be operating using an unofficial policy of sharing keys and sometimes keeping the door open for a while now. Nothing bad will happen. Those locks aren't that robust anyways. Why would you discriminate between those who have currently have the key, and those who don't but want to get in and stay in your home because it makes them more safe and comfortable? In fact, how do you even know whether someone belongs in your house? Criminals would find their way in anyway. Also, if any laws were broken they'd be punished. There's no reason to worry. Besides, why do you want to keep the locks on your front door anyway? Other people are fine with leaving the door unlocked. Are you saying all your neighbours could be criminals? Why are you demonising your fellow citizens like this? Isn’t it terribly unfair to keep out people who really want to live in your house?”

I am sorry. I’ve really thought about this and I’ve tried to reconsider my position. But I cannot. I think the lock was put there for a reason. I think we should keep a system that tries to determine who will be responsible with the key. I don’t want to leave my front door wide open to anyone. I think the gate-keeping of the Gender Recognition Act still serves a necessary function, both for members of each sex, and the transsexuals who take meaningful steps to transition on genuine medical grounds. I want a lock on the door.

“Because I say so” or “because I feel like it,” have never worked as arguments for me in this debate. You’re going to have to do better.

If trans activists insist on pushing ahead with legal self-identification, essentially allowing free access to female identities and spaces, then at the very least the current residents in the homes of particular identities should be consulted, before any actions are taken without their consent. I would suggest that transgender activists could attempt perhaps to show the constructive, practical ways in which they plan to make sure the people will keep their privacy, dignity and safety. How we will talk about biological sex. Or explain what we should do in the hardest cases of competing interests. I resent being told not to worry about it. It really feels just like when people kept saying Donald Trump would never get elected, or Brexit was impossible, or that no priest could ever be an abuser. We live in a world where male rapists are being transferred to women's prisons. Please can we at least talk about this?

To follow from heresyandwitchcraft's post, one thing that is continually glossed over is that even when you put aside risk, the effects of self-ID are that women feel less comfortable enforcing their boundaries and so will feel that in some senses women-only spaces are less safe. As a result women will either have to put up with feeling less safe and less able to assert themselves or will have to withdraw from those spaces.

No amount of being told that if there's an assault "the legal system will see you right" will help with this. It will be a profound cultural change.

Great post, Heresy. Analogies often don't stack up, I'm sure someone will pick holes in yours at 11.19 today but I think it works well. Even when I'm in my (literal) house, I often lock the bathroom door even though I know the other people in the house well. Why do I do that? Dignity & privacy. So if I require that in my own home, why would I expect less outside it?

Very good to see Jonny on here too and I look forward to reading your comments, Jonny.

Flo do an advanced search for SarahAr. You'll find they put up the exact same post repeatedly. You'll also see they don't agree with self ID and really haven't got their heads around the implications, yet for some reason keep on sticking that same bit of info up no matter how many times its debunked.

Heresy

Exactly. That's it, exactly.

I decide who I invite into my home. I don't just sit there, with the door wide open, allowing all and sundry in. Why? Because to do so would be foolish. I've no idea who these people who have just walked in are. I've no idea if their intentions are good, bad or even just benign. I have no idea if they will harm me. I've no idea if they will leave if I ask them to. I've no idea if they'll leave if I tell them to. Why would they? Their interpretation of the open door is that they were invited in. Why would I leave it open if I didn't want them all in my home?

Boundaries are there so EVERYONE understands the rules. The burglar knows they're not invited in - they're forcing their way in, breaching the boundaries. The rapist KNOWS they're not invited in. They're forcing their way in. They know, they don't care, but the rest of the world also knows that they've ignored the boundaries set, and will therefore judge and punish accordingly.

They're telling us we HAVE to remove our boundaries. If we don't, we're "mean girls". We're being "violent" by not opening the door wide and letting all and sundry in. We're called names, we're assaulted, we're doxxed, we're abused verbally and physically and we're trodden on.

But it's okay. Calm down, dear. We can just phone the police after it's happened.

JonnyBest

Thank you for writing this. I think it's the first piece that I feel explains the issues in a way that is sensitive and clear and I could potentially share via my fb page (effectively coming out as GC) safe in the knowledge that it is a very well reasoned piece, with the main point that any discussion around transgender cannot avoid oppressive gender / sex stereotypes. Which is the point of feminism.

The question of who is authentic and who isn't is becoming more prevalent.

The peaceful, honorary code of accepting transsexuals is a ship that has sailed.

Time can't go backwards. And there is now no way of making a distinction. Unless you increase the criteria for a GRC and make a GRC the benchmark. And then make it acceptable for people to ask to see it.

Which is never going to happen. It's outing for a start. And horribly exploitable.

The only solution that accommodates the greatest number of people is a third space.

The rarer, but more significant issues like prisons, sport, refuges, etc, should be segregated by sex.

This article needs to go on the break it down for me thread.

Tom Turner, a transman on twitter who has since protected his tweets, called out Jess Bradley for her 'predatory behaviour' but insisted this did not mean there was an issue with transwomen and predatory behaviour in general [fair enough but this doesn't quell the actual worry women have about transwomen and the very small number of male-bodied transwomen who may be predatory towards women] he said that the reason there is no issue with transwomen in women's spaces is because he was subject to predatory behaviour from lesbians in female changing rooms etc when he was younger and still a natal woman. I don't want to say this sounds suspect at all because his experiences are his experiences. But I can't think of a single woman I know who has ever experienced predatory behaviour from a lesbian. Obviously another worry about the transwomen are women debate is the way rapes and sexual violence stats will now become skewed - male born offenders recorded as female will now skew the stats and rapes by women will now suddenly appear - which is 1984 double speak if ever there was one.

Heresy great post.

But you know, for me, the bathroom/home analogy and so on isn't actually what's fundamentally at stake.

For me what is absolutely fundamental is the definition of what it is to be female, and to be a woman. And it's not even the content of the definition of "What is a woman?", but about who has the right to make this determination

And biological men do not have that right.

This is a political matter: it's of the same order as the right for women to choose what they do with their own bodies - our rights not to be raped, not to carry unwanted pregnancies, not to earn less through the work of our bodies and minds than men, and so on.

Absolutely political fundamental.

Although if we want a definition, then I think the citation of Kathleen Stock's two-part definition which @jonnyBest quotes in his article is one of the most succinct & comprehensive.

And I am actually fucking angry about the imperialising, arrogant attitude of transactivists - who were formerly MEN - who are telling me that my identity through my body, and the history within which my body & identity were formed - are not for me to determine.

For me what is absolutely fundamental is the definition of what it is to be female, and to be a woman. And it's not even the content of the definition of "What is a woman?", but about who has the right to make this determination

And biological men do not have that right.

Glaringly clear and radical. Thank you.

Feminist Current article:

'Penises don’t kill people, people with penises do
Everyone — including trans activists and allies — should demonstrate zero tolerance for perpetrators of violence and sexual misconduct, regardless of how they identify.'
AUGUST 16, 2018 by HOLLY LAWFORD-SMITH & EMILY VICENDESE

Discusses the current allegations against Jess Bradley which are being investigated by NUS and a response by CursedE

concludes:
"We are interested in this information if it does indeed exist, but until we are presented with evidence, we think there is sufficient reason to keep certain spaces off limits to males. The burden of proof is on those who would like to make exceptions for some males, and not on us. Cases like Bradley’s are striking not because they represent transwomen, but because they show misconduct that is characteristically male, but not characteristic of females.

In the wake of #MeToo, writers like “Cursed E” should consider cases like Bradley’s as an opportunity to take a stand against male violence and sexual misconduct. Instead of going into damage control and using minimization tactics for political reasons, everyone — including trans activists and allies — should demonstrate zero tolerance for perpetrators of violence and sexual misconduct, regardless of how they identify or their political affiliation. The short term imperatives of securing the privacy, rights, and safety of those who identify as transgender — without jeopardizing the privacy, rights, and safety of females — should be something we can all agree on. And in the long run, males especially should work toward making male violence and sexual misconduct a thing of past, if they wish to obviate the need for sex-segregated spaces."

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/08/16/penises-dont-kill-people-people-penises/