Take heart - sensible self id discussion on BBC Politics

[Anlaf]

Very sensible - has Peter Tatchell and Matt Zarb Cousins promoting the meany feminist angle - everyone else on panel articulate and considerate of 'our' side. Starts at 25:30ish below

Keep making the arguments

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bl5gr6/politics-live-28092018

On the sensible side: presenter Jo Coburn, Rachel Johhnson, Con party vice chair Paul Scully, Sophia Gaston

Well done and we'll have a lovely time together in the feminist gulags

Yeah was surprising on the bbc of all places

The 2 guys though. Jeez

Just shut up women shut up
Transgender people have had the most awful life ever ever was what the guys were saying
But they got a bi5 of pushback but was a bit tentative like are we actually allowed to dissent now

Where has Matt Zarb Cousins been for the last 3 years, stating that sports are organised on sex not gender? This is a MASSIVE area of concern for women, and all right thinking men.

The way PT and MZC dismissed the concerns expressed by the women and the other male panelist was very telling. Nothing short of a patronising: 'Don't you worry your pretty little head about that, dear.'

Very depressing. But at least the women were aware, even if they stopped short of really nailing it.

Tatchell was being very disingenuous in bringing up Ireland as an example seeing as they still keep prisons sex segregated regardless of identity.

I very much got the feeling all three of the women and also the last man to speak (not sure of all the names) would have liked to have said a lot more on the matter.

I agree - I think all chose their words carefully and were fluent enough that they'd got it.

Enjoying Rachel J's face while that youngfella 'splained how the ladies were bigots

Yeah there was a feeling of them wanting to do a posie on the 2 guys

Ova I agree. I thought they looked as though they were biting their tongues somewhat.

Someone mentioned Brendan O'Neill's podcast with Lionel Shriver which I listened to today. Shriver talks about the monumental difficulty of speaking out on this issue. But I am cautiously optimistic (on a good day ) that things are changing.

The more people that express doubt, concern or opposition the more it enables others to find their voice.

"Shriver talks about the monumental difficulty of speaking out on this issue"

That's the thing. If I say that the relaxation of normal safeguarding is an invititation to paedophiles, the answer comes "so aren't you saying that all trans people are rapists."

It's very hard to step back back back until you can work out what the first thing you ought to say is. There are so many steps on the path that other people haven't taken yet.

Last week I said to a woke friend, 'You do realise that something like 86% of transwomen have had no surgery?'

She was shocked. I had a sense we'd made a small move towards another conversation - meeting her at the pub tonight so wish me luck!

Good luck!

I've started picking on my friends too... one at a time and asking them to fill in the consultation.
We are very unpolitical and chat is very light.... so plonking it in a discussion would have gone like a ton of bricks.

I send them all to fairplayforwomen and sit back for a while.

This was a really good discussion about the issue. I'd never heard of Sophia Gaston before but she spoke very well and was very insightful on this issue and all others on the show. Matt Zarb cousin was just ill-informed but unfortunately left unchallenged. With regards to Peter Tatchell, I have respect for him and I would like to see greater acceptance of trans people within society but not at the expense of sex based protections that women need. I really resented the point he kept making about there being "no issues". Women have been raped in prison. That is a big issue.

I watched about 3/4 of this and then stopped. I couldn't understand it. I don't agree that it was a sensible discussion - Tatchell talked crap about how self-ID hadn't caused any problems in Malta and Ireland and professed himself shocked that the nasty old feminists were making such a fuss. The usual. Rachael Johnson and the other female guest dissented in the mildest possible manner, with Johnson giving an inaccurate account of what happened with Posie's billboard. (Also: why does Johnson pronounce trans to rhyme with "barns" - what's wrong with her?) I switched off just as that twat started wittering on about sport. The only decent person was the woman chairing the discussion.

I do like Rachel Johnson. She's a good egg and has her head screwed on straight on this issue

I really think Peter T hasn't listened to what women are saying. I can see that on first look at the issue it will look like scare mongering and prejudice. That's how many people including me felt when they first looked at this board. But he must have been countering these arguments for ages - he's v pro free speech so is not a no debater. - but he's still acting like he's on that first response. What am I missing?

green shoots of hope hackmum - it's perhaps the first time I've seen that many people show that level of care over what they say.

So i think they get it.

It's not - yet - a full discussion. But more even handed than I've seen.

Thanks for sharing Anlaf a bit depressing how the speakers were more concerned with not being mean to trans people, than listening to womens very real worries.

I think Peter T knows the arguments and the realities. You only have to read his views on the age of consent to see that safeguarding is not one of his primary concerns.

He seems quite libertarian in outlook so whilst he might be a strong believer in free speech I feel he would accept a degree of collateral damage in return for people (and by people it's pretty much always men isn't it?) to do as they please.

Ova I don't know his views on the age of consent. Maybe I don't want to?! Maybe he just turns out to be looking at things from the point of view of a male - disappointingly same as it ever was.
I agree with those who are saying this was a positive step. It brakes the silence which the way things have been is a necessary step.

Women being raped in prison is no big deal to PT.

He isn't new to trans issues. He's had plenty of time to look at the issues. It's just that the damage to women and girls is of little concern to him.

He's had plenty of time to look at the issues. It's just that the damage to women and girls is of little concern to him.

I think that's right. And you don't really need a lot of time to think about the issues - a lot of us have had the experience of mentioning it to other people and them getting it straight away. It's not actually difficult to work out that letting men self-identify as women is an abuser's charter. You must have to undergo an awful lot of contorted thinking to persuade yourself that it isn't.

TBH I'm done with Peter T. What really pisses me off, is the framing of this as women being hysterical. I think he is being really duplicitous.
I'm also so sick of men telling women about their rights. Fuck right off !!

Peter T points to Ireland well one thing I have noticed is pro trans always point out Ireland, etc, but fail to point of USA and Canada where the results of this policy can be clearly seen as a cluster fuck:
Men entering women changing rooms, rape crisis, assaulting women in shelters, taking women places in sports etc etc. I have no doubt he is fully aware and I think he is dishonest and misleading. I've seen Paris L do it too. In fact I've never seen any pro trans point to selfID in Canada and USA, because its a fucking shambles.

He is deeply patronising and the old line that we are demonising trans. Women have a right in law to male free spaces, and to request female only HCP etc, we have that right under the Equality Act, Self ID will decimate that.

PT acknowledge in that piece that some male transpeople will be a danger to women and girls. He acknowledged that some women and girls will be in danger.

But to PT it's right that those women and girls pay the price for male transpeople to be in female spaces. I wonder how many girls and women need to feel uncomfortable,be harassed or attacked for it to become a problem for PT?

TBH I'm done with Peter T

He's spent his whole life fighting bigots. He will have dealt with scaremongering idiots for decades and it's understandable he looks at the GC concerns and only sees attacks on the genuine (and probably lovely) transsexuals he is familiar with. I wish he'd listen, but I see why he doesn't get it.

It's really interesting (being a bloke) watching how women instinctively see the issue, even if they don't fully agree, while most men seem to unable to grasp the argument.

But PT still defends our right to speak- that's something.

Next time someone should ask Tatchell how many women and girls should be sacrificed in order to make life easier for trans people. Is there a point at which he'd consider the price paid (not by him or any other men) too much? If so, how many women's lives is one male human worth?

Just on Peter Tatchell: I was surprised in a good way when he said he'd changed his mind on the " gay cake" issue. Due to acceoting the argument of the right to freedom of conscience. He is willing to move position.