Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Motion against Liverpool ReSisters by Liverpool City Council

340 replies

LiverpoolReSisters · 13/09/2018 11:59

Council motion can be found here: councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=305&MId=16817&Ver=4

Our reply:

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to you on behalf of a group of local women who have grave concerns about the government’s proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The government have recently launched a consultation on changes to this law which will effectively render women’s sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010 redundant. Under the proposals for ‘self identification’ or ‘self ID’ of gender, any person can legally change their sex by simply signing a form, with no checks or balances. This has many consequences for our community, and we feel some of our Council representatives have not considered the full implications of this issue and have made hasty public comments as a result. The motion put forward by these council members is well-meaning, but has clearly not been assessed for the wider impact it will have on the community they represent.

We would like to comment on item 14 in the City Council Meeting Agenda, dated Wednesday 19 September, 2018.

“Hate crime can be devastating for victims and their families and has the potential to divide and damage communities and neighbourhoods.”

We, as members of the group Liverpool ReSisters, agree that hate crime has the potential to divide and damage individuals and communities.

As defined on gov.uk, a hate crime is a crime committed against someone because of their disability, gender-identity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.

Is Liverpool City Council accusing Liverpool ReSisters of a hate crime? Naming our group in the Agenda item directly below this commentary is a clear effort to tie our name with criminal activity.

“A hateful campaign has been set up by Liverpool ReSisters that has seen stickers regarding Trans women and gender recognition defacing public art works and buildings across Merseyside.”

We would like to point out the following facts:

  1. We have not “set up” a “hateful campaign”. On August 17 2018, Liverpool ReSisters tweeted a picture of a packet of unused stickers that stated the biological truth, “Women don’t have penises”. At this point, media attention came our way, and we were reported to the Merseyside Police for a hate crime. Apparently this is still under investigation, with the professed assistance of Mayor Joe Anderson .
  1. On August 18 2018, Liverpool ReSisters tweeted 4 pictures of one sticker on one Antony Gormley statue on Crosby beach, and one sticker on one information placard about the statues. There is no evidence of these objects being defaced by stickers which – by their very nature – are easily removed by anyone with the wherewithal to do so. Crosby beach is within the boundaries of Sefton, and to our knowledge, no other stickers have been reported to be found in areas “across Merseyside”.
  1. Liverpool ReSisters does not feel these stickers condone hatred towards anyone, but have served to raise awareness about the problems inherent in “self ID” and the fact that the government’s consultation on the proposed change to law is open to the public until 19 October 2018. (see consult.education.gov.uk/government-equalities-office/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/consultation/intro/ for more information)
  1. In our press release, which can be found on the homepage of our blog, we state the sincerely held belief that legislation must be drafted that benefits trans people, protects children, and upholds women’s rights. We refute the claim that any of these views are hateful in any way.

“The campaign has created a platform for some people to share offensive comments about the trans community particularly on social media”

Liverpool ReSisters do not own, run or moderate the content on social media platforms. We are not liable or responsible for any views other than our own, which we state clearly in our twitter and blog, and invite Liverpool City Councillors to view for themselves: @LiverpoolResis1 and www.liverpoolresisters.wordpress.com

We do remain anonymous on our twitter and blog accounts, because women have been attacked for expressing the view that women don’t have penises. Our group has been on the receiving end of many disturbingly hateful and violent messages. Please see the following blog post that shows clear examples of such behaviour:

liverpoolresisters.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/why-are-we-anonymous/

“Liverpool ReSisters do not recognise Transgender women as women”

Women don’t have penises. This is not hate speech, it is not transphobia, it is a simple statement of biological fact.

Many people are under the impression that the term ‘transgender’ is interchangeable with ‘transsexual’ – i.e. referring to people who have lived with severe gender dysphoria their entire lives, and embark on a social, medical, and surgical transition to live life as if they were the opposite sex. It is this tiny minority of people who the original Gender Recognition Act was there to help, and the reason why most people have always been supportive of trans rights, accepting of preferred pronouns and so on.

Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a registered charity that lobbies UK government for changes in equality laws for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people. Stonewall defines trans as:

“Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.”

Over 80% of males who now identify as ‘trans’ never intend to make any bodily changes, so remain fully intact males, despite claiming a female identity.

To clarify, we share with Liverpool City Council the following dictionary definitions:

Male: of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes

We repeat: Women don’t have penises. This is not hate speech, it is not transphobia, it is a simple statement of biological fact.

“There is no place in our city for hatred and bigotry”

Again, we require urgent clarification from Liverpool City Council – are Liverpool ReSisters being accused of a hate crime? Is the Council united in accusing us of hatred and bigotry, and on what grounds and evidence is being used for such an accusation?

“Liverpool is a haven for inclusivity, acceptance and tolerance and we are proud to stand with our LGBT+ community in their endeavour to strengthen their rights both here and around the world”

The goals and aims of Liverpool ReSisters is to raise awareness of the potential threat to sex based rights and women’s rights from current proposed changes to law. We live in a democratic society wherein we have the privilege to debate and discuss changes to law that will affect members of our society. Our main focus is on women’s rights. We are a women’s group.

Women and girls need spaces of their own for a variety of reasons, but principally because we continue to face male violence and harassment in public and in private spaces. The World Health Organisation calls violence against women and girls a “major public health problem and a violation of women’s human rights”, and estimates that one in three women will endure violence from a partner or ex-partner, or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. This violence is perpetrated by males. Until this despicable violence ends, women need safe female-only spaces.

As city councillors, we would expect you to have an understanding of the need for safeguarding for women and girls, and to oversee the statutory duties of the Council to provide for the specific needs of this sex class.

Given the recent news story about Merseyside Police being unable to monitor the thousands of sex offenders on Liverpool’s streets, as well as the endemic problem of male violence, we should be prioritising the safety and safeguarding of vulnerable women and children.

Recent statistics show that 90% of all sexual incidents in public changing rooms (voyeurism, harassment, assault and rape) occur in mixed sex facilities (despite the vast majority of facilities remaining single sex). If self-id becomes law, all spaces will become mixed sex by default, and women and children will be put at much greater risk.

“TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN”

We encourage Liverpool City Councillors to refer to the above dictionary definitions of Male and Female.

A recent poll by Pink News/YouGov showed that only 18% of the public is in favour of self-identification. Most of the public are under the impression that transgender is the same as transsexual, completely unaware that the majority of (what is now defined as) transgender women do not undergo any treatment, continue to retain their penises and are heterosexual. Once explained, the overwhelming majority of people can see the dangers and problems with self-id. We have already seen horrendous events come to light; there will be more and the public will be unforgiving to those elected representatives who allowed this to happen.

Liverpool ReSisters fully intend to continue raising awareness about this issue.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Carrrotsandcauliflower · 21/09/2018 11:07

Toe-I kept trying to have this as a complex issue in my mind. I don’t know why because it’s so bloody obvious. We need to dig these people out and hold them up to the light of public scruitany and prosecution. Somone knows up there exactly what’s going on. I don’t think it’s going to be too long before we all find out either.

R0wantrees · 21/09/2018 11:18

Anyone denying discussion of safeguarding and child protection concerns must either

a) have no or insufficient knowledge of why the child protection and safeguarding frameworks exist and how they operate,

b) have an interest in the frameworks being disrupted

c)or have been manipulated / groomed by those with this interest (which means they must by definition also be part of group a).

I can only see that there are three options.

Carrrotsandcauliflower · 21/09/2018 11:30

R0wantrees I think you can get rid of point a.) they know. I’ve lost any room for doubt. If you subvert safeguarding. I’m drawing the conclusion you know. That is now my new “safe side”

R0wantrees · 21/09/2018 11:35

Carrrotsandcauliflower

This applies in all situations.

The three options have to be considered.

In specific circumstances, one can and should ask questions in order to make a clearer assessment.

Carrrotsandcauliflower · 21/09/2018 11:44

Yes I see what you are saying R0wantrees.
Sorry I am just getting very annoyed at all this stuff it’s never ending. I feel like I read these things about people like Anderson, think -hmm well maybe they just don’t realise.. but then as the stories unravel you find time and time again they did know. They were the rot.
I know there are tons of people out there merrily thinking that they are doing the right thing, trying to be inclusive and just not actually having the knowledge. They probably present just as much potential for harm. I would say though that in the case of people who have attained considerable public power and are actively dismanteling. I will find it very hard to view that they may not know anymore, it won’t be my first reaction anyway.

arranfan · 21/09/2018 11:47

I read R0wantrees and had a different thought:

a) have no or insufficient knowledge of why the child protection and safeguarding frameworks exist and how they operate

It is, theoretically, possible that they do have knowledge of the safeguarding frameworks but disagree - for whatever reason. If they can explain their reasoning, that's a different matter if I end up disagreeing with them.

DH and I volunteer for several organisations and the implementation and understanding of safeguarding varies enormously. Some organisations want adults to have a DBS for going onto grounds where children might be present (or camping in an adjacent field). In some cases, this is making it impossible to run adults sports courses in some outdoor centres. And adult courses tend to be price-structured in a way that subsidises the children's courses so this can be a substantial loss of revenue.

In other places, it's not possible to meet all the intersecting needs of different populations when several groups are there at the same time. And I know a number of outdoor centres who've run into problems with this quite recently.

R0wantrees · 21/09/2018 11:55

There is a difference arranfan between child protection/safeguarding frameworks and individual organisation's policies or their application.

Carrrotsandcauliflower · 21/09/2018 11:57

Arranfan maybe the whole safeguarding system needs to be made more robust and straightforward. So there are clearly defined pathways for any organisation to stick to.

R0wantrees · 21/09/2018 12:03

Carrrotsandcauliflower

No need to apologise at all, I understand what you're saying.

From the Private Eye article linked previously it seems that as the Mayor worked as a learning mentor in schools he absolutely should have a working knowledge of safeguarding frameworks and have been working within them at all times.

His reported actions also seem to clearly demonstrate that he failed to do this.

arranfan · 21/09/2018 12:07

R0wantrees wrote: There is a difference arranfan between child protection/safeguarding frameworks and individual organisation's policies or their application.

This might be an interesting example of your a) ? As going by what I wrote, you seem to have picked up the impression that I am not aware of this and possibly deemed to have "no or insufficient knowledge"?

R0wantrees · 21/09/2018 12:24

No not at all. I was just clarifying my point which was made specifically about 'anyone denying discussion of safeguarding and child protection concerns'

LangCleg · 21/09/2018 13:04

It is, theoretically, possible that they do have knowledge of the safeguarding frameworks but disagree - for whatever reason.

They would make a case for this regarding feminist arguments on the privacy and dignity of girls - they believe minor boys identifying as girls are girls, so safeguarding the privacy and dignity of girls does not apply because everyone being discussed is a girl. (Even this fails on the basis of, for example, safeguarding against consensual sexual activity leading to pregnancy, however).

They can't "disagree" or make a case for the other safeguarding issues, however - confidential disclosures and the other things I always mention.

LangCleg · 21/09/2018 13:06

I can only see that there are three options.

Is there a fourth? Do they think that some increased risk involving some victims as collateral damage is worth it in service of the overall mission of getting the ideology irretrievably embedded in institutions?

This is the view I am currently finding myself more and more convinced of.

Carrrotsandcauliflower · 21/09/2018 13:14

Lang, I’d say yes to your 4th. Because there is no way they can’t know that there will be victims in this.
I’d also say that where they have sinister intentions then having victims is an integral part of their plan.

LangCleg · 21/09/2018 13:24

Because there is no way they can’t know that there will be victims in this.

With the schools guidance they put out, I could understand that ignorance allowed all those safeguarding holes in initially. They were single issue pressure groups and not safeguarding professionals. But now these obvious safeguarding holes have been pointed out - and holes that put the very group of children for whom they advocate at increased risk of abuser infiltration - so many times and they show no signs of correcting the flaws, what other conclusion can one draw?

They are either prepared to accept collateral damage in service of the ideology or it's R0wan's (b) option.

R0wantrees · 21/09/2018 13:39

Lang yes to fourth option, thanks for the addition.

DereksSexyPyjamas · 21/09/2018 13:53

But now these obvious safeguarding holes have been pointed out - and holes that put the very group of children for whom they advocate at increased risk of abuser infiltration - so many times and they show no signs of correcting the flaws, what other conclusion can one draw?

Not just no signs of not correcting them; they’re not even acknowledging that there might be a safeguarding issue. And the same organisations coming up over and over again, too: the BBC, for example, whose track record with sexual abusers is... not great, are very obviously biased in this issue.

WarmWishes · 21/09/2018 13:59

To be honest I just think he is a lazy get, with zero interest in any of this. It's easier to go for woke points and get standing ovations than stretch his mind and consider the implications. It's a side issue. He's a man who's frequently been on the wrong side of public opinion but will not capitulate if it doesn't suit his personal interests. He rides things out and doesn't give a shit. He'll be out meeting with developers etc and not giving any of this stuff a second thought.

IrmaFayLear · 21/09/2018 14:12

I think the trouble with safeguarding policy is that it has - at least in some people's perception - swung so far into the ludicrous that it is in danger of being disregarded or thought of as irrelevant entirely. Which of course leaves it vulnerable to groups with a vested interest in there being no safeguarding at all.

For example, my local parish hall committee was discussing - and some people were advocating - that every parent who had a child attending an activity - including a birthday party - should have a current DBS, if the parent were to enter the hall and encounter other children.

I remember a number of years ago dd invited a child for tea and the mother sent a note via bookbag to ask if we were police checked!!! Actually we all were, working in schools, but really ! (I remember thinking I must post on AIBU but never got round to it...)

So, what started out as a very necessary policy to give protection to children in the care of adults in authority (teachers/scouts/clergy/youth leaders etc etc) has been diluted to the point that it all seems a bit ott. And in step those with a dubious agenda...

LangCleg · 21/09/2018 14:14

Safeguarding is about a lot more than who should have a DBS.

Ereshkigal · 21/09/2018 14:24

And focusing on DBS to the exclusion of all else is clearly a bad idea because obviously it only flags up past convictions. Abusers have to start somewhere, and may not be known or have got caught.

LiverpoolReSisters · 22/09/2018 13:04

Check out @LiverpoolReSis1’s Tweet: twitter.com/LiverpoolReSis1/status/1043461602882859008?s=09

OP posts:
LangCleg · 22/09/2018 13:15

Queens!

Ereshkigal · 22/09/2018 13:19

That is so brilliant! You wonderful women! Thanks

Barracker · 22/09/2018 14:07

That's amazing! Brava, sisters!