Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
scepticalwoman · 22/09/2018 14:09

Yay!! Well done.

arranfan · 22/09/2018 15:13

Ahh - Snowdrop ferry makes me nostalgic for the Daffodil.

HandsOffMyRights · 22/09/2018 15:19

Brilliant Sisters! Thank you. You're made of incredible stuff XX

ArmchairAnnie · 22/09/2018 16:43

Delighted to see the mayor standing up against rampant transphobia. Well done! www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-mayor-joe-andersons-passionate-15177422

Cascade220 · 22/09/2018 16:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Charliethefeminist · 22/09/2018 16:46

Rampant tho

Barracker · 22/09/2018 16:47

Is that the mayor who tipped off a paedophile associate so that he could delete his child abuse images in time to thwart the police investigation, ArmchairAnnie*? He sounds exactly like the sort of man I probably wouldn't endorse as having excellent moral principles. You may feel differently.

Or am I mixing up my Liverpool Mayors?

Charliethefeminist · 22/09/2018 16:52

Do you know Barracker I think it is. Somehow he let slip that his mate was under investigation and the very next day his mate deleted 207 computer files that were never recovered. Isn't that the most extraordinary coincidence?

Charliethefeminist · 22/09/2018 16:53

Annie, is this the Mayor you so admire?

Sarahconnor1 · 22/09/2018 17:21

One-time Clubmoor councillor Benjamin Williams, 35, admitted he had removed 207 files from his computer's memory the day after speaking to Liverpool Labour leader Cllr Joe Anderson in December 2007.

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-teacher-acccused-downloading-child-3445705.amp

vaginafetishist · 22/09/2018 17:35

My memories of living in Princes Rd Toxteth- walking through Princes Park where someone had graffiti-ed across a 30 foot area 'I LOVE SCHOOLGIRLS TITS' .
It was there for years without rousing the council to action.
So these stickers. .....

Carrrotsandcauliflower · 22/09/2018 18:01

Now that is brilliant!

Carrrotsandcauliflower · 22/09/2018 18:07

I mean the ferry- I love it-

arranfan · 22/09/2018 18:08

My memories of living in Princes Rd Toxteth- walking through Princes Park where someone had graffiti-ed across a 30 foot area 'I LOVE SCHOOLGIRLS TITS'

Now, in that location (Princes Park) would that have been in proximity to Belvedere/and or a number of other girls' schools?

Floisme · 22/09/2018 18:14

Thank you ReSisters - fabulous.

vaginafetishist · 22/09/2018 18:14

Yes Belvedere, Archbishop Blanch (my school) and St Hilda's. Never thought to be outraged at the time, but when I heard about the magnificent inclusive city, it popped into my head.

arranfan · 22/09/2018 18:22

vaginafetishist Yes it is so fabulously inclusive. Liverpool is renowned for being one of the safest university cities for women such that the Council's resolute firmness in wanting to allow the transgression of women's safe spaces won't have any consequences.

What's that, Daphne? Liverpool is The Worst university town in the UK for sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape of Women By Men?

thetab.com/uk/2017/09/02/map-shows-uni-towns-highest-number-violent-sexual-crimes-46526

Juells · 22/09/2018 18:26

Yuck I keep getting a horrible picture in my head of him in a nappy, for some reason Sad I need brain bleach.

womanformallyknownaswoman · 22/09/2018 18:48

Brilliant direct action - yep the limited thinking boys' brigade seem to have got a hold in Liverpool again - any surprise it's one of the worse university towns for male violence? After all women are objects not humans in their eyes...thus unimportant - didn't they say the same about black slaves?....:

Slavery is fundamentally an economic phenomenon. Throughout history, slavery has existed where it has been economically worthwhile to those in power. The principal example in modern times is the U.S. South. Nearly 4 million slaves with a market value estimated to be between $3.1 and $3.6 billion lived in the U.S. just before the Civil War. Masters enjoyed rates of return on slaves comparable to those on other assets; cotton consumers, insurance companies, and industrial enterprises benefited from slavery as well. Such valuable property required rules to protect it, and the institutional practices surrounding slavery display a sophistication that rivals modern-day law and business.
...
Central to the success of slavery are political and legal institutions that validate the ownership of other persons. A Kentucky court acknowledged the dual character of slaves in Turner v. Johnson (1838): “[S]laves are property and must, under our present institutions, be treated as such. But they are human beings, with like passions, sympathies, and affections with ourselves.” To construct slave law, lawmakers borrowed from laws concerning personal property and animals, as well as from rules regarding servants, employees, and free persons. The outcome was a set of doctrines that supported the Southern way of life.

The English common law of property formed a foundation for U.S. slave law.

Carrrotsandcauliflower · 22/09/2018 19:20

Vaginafetishist;
“Never thought to be outraged at the time, but when I heard about the magnificent inclusive city, it popped into my head.”

Thats the key to all of this I think. The TRA want all of their reconstructions of our space, norms and women’s boundaries to become the norm until non of us are outraged. Until we just don’t see it anymore.
Once we’ve seen it we can’t forget it though.

arranfan · 22/09/2018 20:36

womanformallyknownaswoman - Yes. They're so busy virtue signalling for the Most Oppressed of All Minorities at no personal inconvenience to themselves that what is happening to a substantial demographic is, unaccountably, not appearing on their radar of interest.

Martin Luther King Jr - yet again.

King rejected the distinctions made by many Northerners that separated Southern segregation from their own. In April 1965, in a speech to the Massachusetts legislature, King pointedly explained that “segregation, whether it is the de jure segregation of certain sections of the South or de facto segregation of the North is a new form of slavery covered up with certain niceties.”

And so, two months after the Watts uprising, King took to the pages of the weekly magazine The Saturday Review to call out the feint of Northern innocence and the stubborn resistance to change there. King wrote of his growing disillusionment with Northern officials who “welcome me to their cities and showered praise on the heroism of Southern Negroes. Yet when the issues were joined concerning local conditions only the language was polite; the rejection was firm and unequivocal.”

www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/04/we-remember-how-martin-luther-king-jr-revolutionized-the-south-but-we-cant-forget-his-struggles-in-the-north/?utm_term=.21f1c350721d

MnerXX · 22/09/2018 23:06

Liverpool resisters - you are awesome

FloralBunting · 22/09/2018 23:11

Rampant tho

GrinGrinGrin

womanformallyknownaswoman · 23/09/2018 04:34

King increasingly zeroed in on the limits of Northern liberalism. “Negroes have proceeded from a premise that equality means what it says, and they have taken white America at their word when they talked of it as an objective. But most whites in America, including many of goodwill, proceed from a premise that equality is a loose expression for improvement. White America is not even psychologically organized to close the gap — essentially, it seeks only to make it less painful and less obvious but in most respects retain it.”

So true- substitute the word women and men as appropriate as there we have it - equality for women = "improvement". I bet the Black and White Minstrels were still on the go then as well, with their pretend blacked-up whities masquerading as "black fellows". It's all there....

Great article arran

ILuvBirdsEye · 23/09/2018 08:31

It's a treat your pet well type of thought as opposed to genuinely thinking someone is an equal.