Lucy Bannerman in the Times "Trans movement has been hijacked by bullies and trolls"

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-movement-has-been-hijacked-by-bullies-and-trolls-lwl3s73vj?shareToken=fb77f832e38958413ff393fd4832a87f

But it is impossible to discuss an individual's actions if they are rooted in their activism rat And that has to include the community they dwell in.

Remember most posters continually make the definition between TRAs and trans individuals, continually, repeatedly, honestly.

Yet here you are asking us not to do something that we, for the most part, do not do! Like that old not so joke "When did you stop beating your wife"

So when a specific trans individual physically attacks specific women we don't discuss it as a real life happening, just as a potentially awful thing that would never happen?

I know they do, I acknowledged that upthread. Knowing that is actually what promted me to ask, as a couple of the prior comments (already quoted in a previous post) seemed to imply a frustration with that distinction.

In fact I'm quite sure that's exactly what was being expressed. I was just looking for someone to clarify, be that the original posters or anyone who feels the same, because frankly that is a position I would be interested to know how they can justify. Ethically speaking.

*prompted

Oh, okay, sure. I think there is a line to be drawn between TRAs and the trans community, and that any dislike with the aims and means of the former shouldn't really be visited on the latter.

So you agree that somewhere between Adrian Harrop and Jan Morris there is a line to be drawn. Progress, I suppose, but where do you draw this line?

Who is part of this 'trans community' in your view? Where does Miranda Yardley fit in? Debbie Hayton? Shon Faye? Jane Fae? Paris Lees? Pippa Bunce? Alex Drummond? Karen White? Which of these do you accept as women, if any? And if you accept some but not others, why them and not the others? If you're going to draw lines, you must have a reason for drawing them in a certain place.

Remember most posters continually make the definition between TRAs and trans individuals, continually, repeatedly, honestly.

Ahh shit, THIS was the quote I was meant to put in bold to respond to!

That individual would not have been able to commit that crime without directly using the access and exemptions of that community.

No one is blaming the community for that individual, or saying all members of that community hold these views - the issue is that the access and exemptions make anyone using them a potential risk. And therefore anyone using those access and exemptions is automatically a potential risk whatever their intentions. Because of the total lack of gatekeeping and the fact that women are not yet psychic.

Quite a lot of the 'ocean' of people calling themselves trans are in fact women & girls though; so many of the comments on here seem to generalise that trans means trans women.
Now and in the future women who are trans men will be needing support and protection, for health reasons and otherwise.

Very few trans rights activists are trans men, it seems; neither are they talking about rights for trans men so loudly. So this polarisation is doubly harmful to women (of all genders).

Whatever your opinions are on transsexuals and whether or not they should be able to access women's spaces, they are a tiny drop in what has now become an ocean of people calling themselves trans. The passing of the original GRA only happened because lawmakers were told that it would only apply to that tiny number of people. If it had stayed that way maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

We wouldn't. And while I have no wish to throw this small number of highly vulnerable people under the bus, I don't see how we can't because the rest will always push and push at any line drawn.

To be honest OldCrone I don't know who all of those individuals are, or enough about them to say if they could be called "TRAs", in most cases. Obviously I know one is a dangerous criminal and one is a cross dresser, correct?

The bottom line is though that I personally won't be speculating on the sex or gender of people I don't know and that is not pertinent to the precise discussion in hand. Sorry, I know you think that's important, but for me what I think is important is knowing what behaviour, policies, and outcomes are right/wrong/acceptable - and why - and seeking to apply those evenly to all people, regardless of their personal beliefs and what I think of them.

No one is blaming the community for that individual, or saying all members of that community hold these views - the issue is that the access and exemptions make anyone using them a potential risk. And therefore anyone using those access and exemptions is automatically a potential risk whatever their intentions. Because of the total lack of gatekeeping and the fact that women are not yet psychic.

Indeed, and the end result - as we now see - is that risk assessments and safeguarding frameworks are trashed because they are deemed transphobic.

Fuck that.

Ah! The second quote makes more sense.

Yes, frustrations are running high after the last week and many women will be wondering why more trans individuals are not standing up and saying 'not in my name' ? Why does the job of refuting activist actions fall to women? Why can't trans individual be asked to stand up and be counted?

I hope Lucy's next article will be on the BBC and the Challenors.

The debate is very focussed on the needs of trans-people, rather than on different communities of women.

Women will not know whether the male bodied person in their changing room or Girl Guide tent, is genuinely dysmorphic, or simply mad, sad or bad. They, depending on circumstance or background, may feel very uncomfortable, possibly sufficiently so to choose not to use that facillity again. Which has huge implications for women's health, community integration, child protection and so on. There is a huge debate to be had. And no right or wrong answers.

what I think is important is knowing what behaviour, policies, and outcomes are right/wrong/acceptable - and why - and seeking to apply those evenly to all people, regardless of their personal beliefs and what I think of them.

So, why are you supporting the ideology that mean women should be forced to give up policies that were created to protect them from physical harm?

Very few trans rights activists are trans men, it seems; neither are they talking about rights for trans men so loudly. So this polarisation is doubly harmful to women (of all genders).

Some are - Stephen Whittle was part of the group Press for Change which helped to get the original GRA passed. Whittle is still an active TRA.

Obviously I know one is a dangerous criminal and one is a cross dresser, correct?
One dangerous criminal and two crossdressers. I'm surprised you haven't heard of the others considering the amount of time you spend here.

Do you think people can change sex?

Yeah, sorry about that Curious, copy and paste fail.

I appreciate it's frustration that leads people to lump communities together. The more terrorist attacks a community endures, the more among them say "I can't take this any more, frustration means I can only now be angry at your whole community!"; I appreciate that, but I think everyone should be wary of going down that path.

I think it's one thing to think less of someone for not saying "not in my name", and another to treat them as accomplices or complicit; or to attach some blame to them for the actions of other in their community. I think the former is understandable, and the second is too far. That's where I put my line. How about you?

Whittle has played a key role in many legal and organizational changes, and had some rather alarming things to say last time they waded into the discussion about the GG. Much of the pressure to remove any references to women from organizations focusing on women's health is also coming from female TRAs.

Most definitely less likely to turn up at a demo and thump a woman, but not harmless politically at all.

Does anyone here do that though? Attach blame?

I have never read anything that even comes close to that here.

And you know my answer already! I have posted it often enough!

But he's still female.
And if ROGD is a phenomenon, or not, we need to be thinking about how we support women who are transitioning (and de-transitioning) don't we, rather that writing them off as part of the trans cult ocean?

I think this boils down to 'women, be nice'. All you're really arguing for is where to put the line on 'nice'. It's still topic specific, group specific strict policing of what is socially acceptable for women to think and say regardless of the effect on them. And no reciprocal expectations.

Not ok.

Ok Rat, I'll bite.

But first of all I too read your comments on the sports consultation as telling people who didn't run sports directly that they shouldn't comment. May not have been what you meant but it's certainly how it came across.

So for my very own, with no attempt to speak for others, opinion.

I like some trans people. I don't like others. Same as with all people, there's good and bad. Previously I would have accepted them in female's spaces, I'd have given them a by. And I would like to do the same now, for the genuine ones. But I can't.

For a start how do you tell who is genuine? I don't mean when self ID comes in, I mean now. There are already rapists in prision who claim to be women, some have a GRC having convinced doctors etc. As far as I'm concerned anyone who isn't repulsed by their penis and uses it is not genuine- a few trans people in here feel the same.

Then we move on to who they are attracted to. I have always thought men and yes, that makes a difference. I have no problem someone looking at me admiringly (I hope!) but if I'm in a state of undress I don't want them to be physically much stronger than me. Not saying they would attack but I may feel they will. Lesbians (the cunty kind) staring might make me uncomfortable but it wouldn't make me afraid. And in my experience women don't stare in the same way that men do. I don't want to stereotype but that has been my experience.

Now the situation has changed. We know about AGP, we know that people's fetishes are being displayed in public. I don't want to be a part of anyone's sexual thrills. They are including me unwillingly. We can see that the trans umbrella has turned into s marquee. We can see the evidence of people like Jess Bradley and Karen White. And we can't tell them apart.

I have a voice. I am not in prision or a violent relationship. I have not been a victim of sexual violence. Many women are not so lucky, I am very privileged. And I am honour bound to use that voice.

With the old school transsexuals I have always been willing to let them in. Knowing more, as I do now, I can see a lot of arguments for not doing so as to protect survivors. I would not have been massivly comfortable in certain situations but I would have managed. Others would not. I would have assumed the trans woman would also be uncomfortable so I'd have gone along with it. Now we know their making us uncomfortable up some's enjoyment.

But now we can't tell who is genuine (we could before but we thought we could). I have a great deal of sympathy for some one with BD. But I don't know who that is. And even if I did I don't know what other women have been through, if the presence of transwomen is causing them pain.

With the massive increase in numbers we are now far more likely to meet a trans person without BD than with. So while I have sympathy I must assume that all transwomen have the potential to be a danger to me or those around me, that they enjoy making me uncomfortable and that being in a female space gives them a thrill.

I have a great deal of sympathy for transwomen. But I won't let them in.

Obviously I know one is a dangerous criminal.
Does being a dangerous criminal change this individual's transgender status?

I think everyone should be wary of going down that path.

You're just full of advice and warnings, aren't you?

And no thanks, my personal lines - which are actually my personal boundaries - aren't up for inspection, negotiation or critique by others. No one's boundaries should be.