Julie Bindel in the Telegraph on the Firefighters union supporting self ID

[miri1985]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/21/transgender-activists-fanning-flames-misogyny/

Don't think I'm allowed to post the whole text so heres my fave quote from it

"Self-appointed “feminist allies” such as the Leftist poster boy, Owen Jones seem to get a thrill out of screaming “transphobe” at those of us who make it clear we do not believe men can be women simply because they say they are. When the world finally wakes up from this Orwellian madness, and the cowards who have so far been silent on the issue finally dare to speak out, it will become as clear as day that – as so clearly illustrated by the case of the FBU – transgender ideology is nothing more than gross misogyny dressed up as progress."

Thanks for sharing, great article. Julie Bindel , no wonder they made a special trigger warning for her.

the comments - again - are so depressing

"Feminists, you brought this upon yourselves with your moaning about oppression and stuff"

Fab, off to read it. Sadly I don't think she's right about it becoming clear as day that it's misogyny. Women will get the blame for it, women will suffer the health consequences, and women will be caring for the damaged kids caught up in it, 20 years down the line.

So women who waltz into male toilets because they don’t want to queue should have their genitals re assigned first, and female cleaners who do the same in their thousands every day should undergo genital surgery before entering this male private space where men’s genitals are exposed. Oh, of course, that’s just everyday male degradation

Men complaining they are oppressed by the females who clean up after them

You couldn't make it up

Yes, women going into men's bogs to clean up their piss is exactly the same as self-id.

Why are Telegraph commenters so thick? Why do they think feminists have brought this on themselves? What exactly do they imagine feminists have been doing that has led to men wearing frocks and demanding to be recognised as women?

Why are Telegraph commenters so thick?

I think the logic goes like this:

You women went and spoiled everything by wanting into men's 'domain' like 'the workplace', 'public life', 'the right to vote', etc, so it serves you right that men want into women's domain eg 'your bodies', 'your refuges', 'your private spaces'.

It is extreme regressive misogyny.

The glee in those comments from people claiming feminists have 'brought it on themselves' makes me want to punch something.

It's not always helpful for writers like JB to name the problem.

It would be far, far better to insist that the FBU be transparent and give the reasons for their decision.

We have seen how decision makers walk away (the NSPCC) or remain silent on Twitter (the FT, Credit Suisse, the Lyric Theatre) or don't have to face public scrutiny (the prisons minister, Stonewall). They just keep schtum.

Julie Bindel has interpreted the decisions as misogyny. Others call it Wokeness and virtue signalling: they says it's the "Right thing to do". Even more people call it fear of being on the wrong side of the rich and powerful LBG lobby history.

When are we going to hear the reasons for going backwards?

We could wait an age for that answer, it will never come and we can't force them to give it.
Don't expect aggressive people to act assertively, they will just play with you.

it will never come and we can't force them to give it

Precisely.

Gender critics have been asking for respectful, intelligent dialogue and discussion all along. Gender supporters can come along to meetings. Beatrix Campbell offers to debate with Owen Jones.

I think gender critics have been very successful at exposing the TRA tactics of intimidation, hostility and violence. The public get that. They see it when its drawn to their attention.

We need to throw a spotlight on the ones who have actually made the decisions that have harmed us already with their presumptuous actions - and prefer not to explain why. James Kirkup does this all the time.

Let's keep pointing out the silences and the failures to back up policies rooted in the belief that TWAW.

And yes, I do expect people in the government, in political parties, in councils, in unions, in businesses........etc... to be transparent and engage.

Yes I think that the orgs that are remaining silent about how and why and when decisions were made, who was consulted etc etc need answering.

There is also some very worrying silence from groups that david challenor was involved with -scouts, gymnastics & others i'm sure. Have young greens made a statement that he didn't have access to young people and stuff?

NUS & the bus stop wanker - what happened with that?

GG refusing to confirm or deny that they are taking advice from someone whose primary interest and professional expertise is around legalising extreme porn.

and so on

these questions need answerign. this trump "ignore and hope goes away" stuff is rubbish. where's teh accountability? these are charities, public sector orgs and so on. the prison service ffs. surely they shuold have to respond?

I wonder whether it would be worth trying to start a campaign to get the Freedom of Information Act extended to cover not just public authorities but any charitable organisation that is in receipt of tax payers' money?

Because I would like to be able to force these fuckers to answer questions.

I wonder whether it would be worth trying to start a campaign to get the Freedom of Information Act extended to cover not just public authorities but any charitable organisation that is in receipt of tax payers' money?

I would support this. Some organisations are so small this might be deemed an imposition but good governance is essential.

Decisions should be taken with transparency and with an audit trail.

I'd support that too re extending the FoI

There is already provision to refuse to answer vexatious requests and to charge for the (reasonable) costs of answering requests, which should help limit the impact on small charities to some degree (I'm thinking about the small DV refuge that gets a few hundred quid from a council one year being deluged with requests from TRAs because the refuge insists on being a penis free zone)

If more organisations followed procedural justice for all of their decisions, the information would be readily available. Now, it wouldn't always be hugely enjoyable having decisions up for challenge but at least the evidential grounds for them would be clear.

For example of an organisation that remains below the radar:

Children in Need has made substantial grants to Trandgender projects.

With the growing unease about the safeguarding and the untested experiments on children's psyches - how did it arrive at the decision to support? What were the expected outcomes? What will "success" look like? What harms might arise in the context of a social contagion affecting (mostly) girls?

CIN garners considerable goodwill and support, not to mention oodles of cash, but who is able to probe their motivations NOW, before it's too late?

I doubt that their motivations can be put down to misogyny, pure and simple, and will have much more to do with their relationship with the vocal LBG organisations and the need to demonstrate 'diversity'. Whatever it is, they should be able to explain it openly.

It is amazing that feminists have made so much headway against this pernicious movement, deeply entwined as it is in the powerful world of politics and the third sector.