Debbie Hayton in the Times

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-are-right-to-have-concerns-over-trans-reforms-5kj5k28sd?shareToken=aa090ad90f6f886db629247a0d6ca19b

Thanks for that important link BeUpstanding. This is how they passed an Act in Parliament without consulting women or anyone who might be affected. This is how they gamed democracy. This is how they made sure they got what they want and everyone else can go fuck themselves, and this is how they continue to erode other's rights to get what they want. Lily Madigan bringing a school to its knees with legal action twice, first uniforms, then changing rooms. This was a test case. What are all these quiet closed meetings with schools, Girl Guides, etc, by Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence?

They are still plugging away, gaming democracy, bypassing public consent getting what they want at everyone else's expense. They are doing it now. So many misleading 'consultations' to pretend the public is in agreement with their lobbying behind closed doors - as someone said elsewhere - all these consultations are just rubber stamping exercises to give the impression of democracy. Really it has already been decided behind closed doors.

If it wasn't for pesky women and pesky Mumsnet eh?

The only people who should be debating access to women and girls spaces are women and girls.

Absolutely. It needs saying again.

The only people who should be debating access to women and girls spaces are women and girls.

And if not all girls and women are happy with males in our spaces, then none should be happy. The few that don't mind/care/don't see the point, do not get the casting vote (they can fuck off to the gents themselves if they are so unfussed) but the women who do care do.

I will debate it in the sense of I will put forward my perspective in conversation with someone who disagrees and argue back and forth over the various points involved. In the sense that there's any chance of me coming out of that conversation going "oh, you're right, women don't actually deserve female only spaces, and if a male sincerely believes that they ought to be able to access those spaces we should allow them to do so"? Nope

And yes. In the past I was of the opinion that maybe it was OK to have some men in women's spaces because I knew those men and was comfortable with them. I'm glad that I never shouted down women who objected, because if I had done I'd be very ashamed of myself now. In reality though most women don't object, they just curl up into a protective ball and remove themselves from the situation, and then avoid similar situations in the future. And my "sure, as long as it's this one who I think is nice" does not ever trump another woman's "no".

The thing is Debbie in the past you've always said you use female spaces with women's permission, not that it's up for debate.

We're asking how do you know you have permission that has been freely given?

FWIW I've shared facilities with TW colleagues and said nothing because I was pretty sure the men would side with the TW and there weren't many women but I have been really uncomfortable by them using the ladies so no vocalised lack of consent but no explicit consent as I was not asked.

So we're going further and saying very clearly we do not give that permission, furthermore that no one can give that permission on behalf of all women and girls.

Sadly we are at the point where the shoulds and the rights and wrongs have been chucked down the toilet, so we find ourselves in the position of our rights being up for debate with males again. This is because males hold the societal power and get to decide what can be debated.

I'm not going to sit out of this debate, but just want it chalked up that I am royally fucked off that I am in the humiliating position of having to plead with males that being female actually means something and plead all over again that we need specific rights and protections.

I think we should be honest about any 'debate'. We are not debating who should be in female space, we are debating whether female spaces are to be allowed. Once any male is entitled to be in a female space, it's no longer a female space.

And yes. In the past I was of the opinion that maybe it was OK to have some men in women's spaces because I knew those men and was comfortable with them. I'm glad that I never shouted down women who objected, because if I had done I'd be very ashamed of myself now. In reality though most women don't object, they just curl up into a protective ball and remove themselves from the situation, and then avoid similar situations in the future. And my "sure, as long as it's this one who I think is nice" does not ever trump another woman's "no".

This.

Because of how I socialised when I was younger - and with whom I socialised - I've always been comfortable around old school transsexuals. Also, I am that fortunate woman who is not a survivor of sexual or domestic violence or any kind of domestic abuse.

I have learned a great deal from this forum so I would like to thank everyone - including the women on this thread - who have helped me to see that what I might find acceptable is a terrifying prospect for many, many women.

I hope I have never shouted down anyone who objected.

I agree with all that Barrack wrote about Annie v John.

I also sympathise with the argument that women and girls and FWR do not have to solve the issues that John experiences. I can see why there is often resistance to exploring them.

I accept that disadvantaged groups need to focus on ensuring their own needs are met, and to not be manipulated in to capitulation through appeals for kindness etc. I do not think that this means no thought can be given to other groups, especially those whose rights/wants may/can encroach on those of women and girls. I certainly don't think we should be forced to, or have to, address them but it isn't 'unfemanistic' to do so.

For example, using Barracks frame to ensure we are clear what we are talking about:

John has a condition of gender dysphoria.
The distress he experienced through having a male body was intolerable for him, to the extent that he underwent major surgery to remove/adapt parts of his body.
John finds comfort in going about his day to day life free of reminders that he is male. This will always be a battle because he is male.
Whilst John would like to 'be treated' as a women, treating people as human beings rather than sexed human beings in all instances where sex isn't significant would reduce some of John's distress of being treated like a male. It would also promote greater equality amongst the sexes.
Although John wants to use facilities and services for females, provision of stand alone/single spaces for both sexes in addition to single sex facilities will mean that John does not have to experience distress as a result of using facilities for males. The existence of these facilities would reduce the pressure on women to accept males in female spaces.

I don't care that TRAs find these solutions invalidating, I do care that they may go some way towards helping people with GD in a manner that doesn't undermine women and girls.

I object to women and girls being collateral damage by used to help treat someone's gender dysphoria.

"I object to women and girls being collateral damage by used to help treat someone's gender dysphoria."

Me too. How dare any male think access to female spaces is up for debate. It's so male. Debate just means "I'm going to keep arguing until you give in" in this instance. Because the battle has already been lost with the GRA. It happened in Ireland too in 2015 and we were asleep at the wheel. The people who lobbied for it don't give a shit about women and children.

I'm not pleading, I'm demanding. Which is what I was trying to get at yesterday - there is no "debate" to be had if Debbie has already decided that people like Debbie have a right to be in women's spaces, and the part of the article that suggested that to be the point from which a conversation begins is unacceptable to many women. So, maybe the transsexual position is "other male people shouldn't have access to those spaces, but we should". My position is "no, you should not, and the fact that you have in the past assumed that that decision can be made without women agreeing to it is a problem".

Even if only a small number of women say no, the answer is no. But I don't think it is a small number at all.

Interestingly, I came across a reference in my teenage diary to observing a man dressed in woman's clothes sitting next to me at Mass in the 1980s. He was a middle aged man in full make-up, sort of permed hair, dress, tights, quite conservative dress. Visible Adam's apple, five o'clock shadow. I wrote that I thought it was really brave of him to go around like that and that it must be hard for "transvestites".

Would I have been scared if he walked into the ladies loo when I was there? God yeah. I'd already suffered a violent sexual assault by a stranger at that age. I would have been terrified. I don't think he would have done it though. Nowadays, he probably would.

I'm not pleading, I'm demanding

I demand. But at the moment it seems we still rely on males to condescend to engage with us. Engagement the likes of John Bercow, with an unaccountable stroke of his pen, can deny us on a whim.

The suffragettes chained themselves to railings and went on hunger strikes, and although there are those who think the Suffragists were the ones really making all the impact with their lobbying, I doubt they had any teeth. Demands can always be brushed off and ignored unless you make sure they can't be.

That's the trick, isn't it? I just don't think that anything productive will come of starting from a point of view of appeasement, and the sight of so many women being grateful for any little crumb of "well maybe some transsexuals might consider discussing this with you as long as you're nice" alternately depresses and enrages me.

I want to high five you kittens.

I think some transwomen have made a very good show of appearing to be on the GC side, but how can they be? The trans ideology relies entirely on gender stereotypes. The two things are oxymorons. In the same way that some people think men can't be feminists.

The trans ideology relies entirely on gender stereotypes.

And trans in practise relies entirely on disrepecting women as a distinct group, disregarding women's boundaries and specific needs, also male entitlement and assumed consent and female submission and self-abnegation.

It isn't compatible with women's rights.

But I do care about the rights of women and girls (I may not be female but my partner and daughter are).

How many people who were part of the decision making process to allow rapists into female prisons have wives and daughters, how many were women?

Just liking some women or being a women doesn't mean that all the decisions made are in the best interests of women and girls.

ZuttZeVootEeVro wrote: Just liking some women or being a women doesn't mean that all the decisions made are in the best interests of women and girls.

^^ After all, most misogynists are married/in relationships and they have children. It's not unusual for the misogyny to be practised in plain sight with their female family and friends. And those female family are described as high maintenance, low self-esteem, over-dramatic if they call this out etc. etc. It's no picnic for any boys brought up in that environment that supports misogyny.

But, overall there are few consequences for misogyny.

This is one of the most interesting, well argued and enlightening threads I’ve read on mumsnet. It’s so true that men decide if we are allowed to have own our spaces and then assume that they should decide who gets to enter into those spaces and even what a woman or a lesbian is. I had never read it framed so well and of course we don’t get to be part of the discussion, we are not asked, we should just expect “to be told”. I haven’t read the link but I can just imagine how the previous law was slipped through by stealth. Especially because just in the last few weeks I read quotes on here from trans activists who talked about having conversations “over quiet cups of tea”, in other words, the Old Boys Club “no need to mention it to the ladies” wink, wink, elbow, elbow - a very bad Monty Python sketch.

I do think direct non-violent action (and soon) is the way to go because women and men in this country and around the western world are just not aware how quickly this ideology is moving, powered by wealthy men for various overt and covert reasons. We first just have to get certain facts before the public, such as that the vast majority of male trans have an intact penis that they plan on keeping. We need to be very loud and clear on the difference between sex and gender which the trans lobby use to confuse people.

The complete shut down of all discussions of female anatomy is the most outrageous though because it must be threatening. The “new” woman is supposed to be male in origin and fact, female anatomy needs to move to the side and preferably ignored.

We are the majority of human beings and we have immense social influence and power and we have to really continue all the wonderful activism that has been done but step it up.

I am not in the UK and I currently have bone cancer but I have been using my bed rest to read up on all of this insanity and to think about what I am going to do when I am well. I seem to be making a recovery and all of this crazinesss is highly motivating!

Movablefeast I wish you well in your recovery

Wishing you well MoveableFeast.

I think the time for more uncompromising direct action is upon us too.

The lesbian protesters at London Pride set a great example.

Moveablefeast I'm sorry to hear about your health, and glad to hear of your recovery. I find this all takes a heavy toll on me so please prioritise your health and make sure you know when to switch off the insanity before it weighs too heavily.

And trans in practise relies entirely on disrepecting women as a distinct group,

Because if they're a distinct group it excludes men who want to be in it,

disregarding women's boundaries

Because they exclude and limit men

and specific needs

Because those specific biology based needs exclude men who want to be that group so need rid of criteria they can't have - periods, pregnancy etc

Also male entitlement (All of the above - the interests of women aren't considered once in that list which is openly stated over and over) and assumed consent and female submission and self-abnegation.

It isn't compatible with women's rights.

Very well encapsulated. I believe it was Lily Madigan who quite openly stated that women's rights are transphobic. Just think about that for a moment: Women having rights is transphobic.

If you wanted proof of how subhuman and inferior women are viewed by the political TRA lobby - who are freely driving the law and the law makers - there it is. Right there in plain sight.