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

Absolutely the door needs to stay open for the women and girls who'll end up detransitioning. Doesn't mean we can't be frustrated with the things they're doing now!

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?

I'm not "supporting" the ideology as such, I have no particular insight into it. I'm supporting tolerating it, as far as can be accommodated. That's one of the principles I advocate, and I'm afraid I'm not one who sees the future of feminism as primarily protectionism. That's controversial round here I suppose, but in feminist circles elsewhere it really isn't outlandish to say that female emancipation is about more than merely protecting us from harm. Although of course that is important, it's not the only thing to fight for.

Where we differ is probably how far we think transgenderism can be tolerated without undue risk to women and girls, don't you think? And whether certain aspects of policy are better or worse for women in terms of safety vs. social integration. Women have been fighting for a long time to be fully active and integrated into society; that has to be balanced against safety, not swept away out of hand. I'm sure we just disagree about how far the seesaw should swing in either direction.That's all. We're probably not so very different, fundamentally.

Ok Rat, I'll bite.

One of my new rules is not to read posts that start with this line.

*That's ALL

Damn, I'm a shoddy typist today.

I live in Leeds. I've lived here nearly 30 years, it's my adopted home and I love it passionately. It's a wonderful place to bring up kids. The council put an amazing amount of thought and effort to provide opportunities and enriching experiences for children and young people. I am alway waxing lyrical on what a brilliant place our city it and how proud I am of it.

I still love my city. I am incredibly ashamed of and disgusted by the behaviour of its Council. Obviously I have no respect for WY Police, nor South Yorkshire, nor, well, an awful lot of the forces. (The miners strikes, Hillsborough, the Holbeck prostitution zones... )
It breaks my heart that the women of this city have been thrown under the bus by our political leaders and law-makers.

One of my new rules is not to read posts that start with this line.

That is of course your decision. But please do not complain about women refusing to engage when they have done but you don't like their phrasing. And thank you for wasting 20 minutes of my time writing a post that was ignored by the person it was intended for.

RatRolyPoly isn't drawing a line at 'risk to women and girls' really scraping the barrel though, when what we should really be focusing on is how we improve society for females, address safety and education and progression and so on.

Not talking about 'how do we reduce the amount of harm'. Women & girls need and deserve support, protection, celebration etc.
The reason I don't want my daughter to have to share spaces with men is not simply to protect her from assault (although that IS my greatest fear) - it's to provide a safe, dignified, welcoming space where she simply doesn't have to think about her safety, where she feels happy and can discuss & talk about her feelings & experiences and can grow as a person. I want so so much more for her than simply avoiding undue risk.

I think it's spectacularly rude to ask posters to engage with you and then refuse to even read the post when someone does.

I'm not "supporting" the ideology as such, I have no particular insight into it

Wait! You don't know the people listed, like Pips Bunce. You don't know about trans ideology and have no insight into it.

What are you asking about then?

You talk about accommodating as far as possible yet call us here unreasonable when we say we can accommodate no more.

You talk about feminism as protectionist - yet we can't even protect women locked up in prison from predatory male inmates. Isn't that enough for you to have a stronger reaction that "Yeah well!"

transgenderism can be tolerated without undue risk to women and girls, don't you think? I used to. But men attacking women in what were previously female spaces and various institutions considering that an acceptable price tag for women to pay changed my mind.

Women have been fighting for a long time to be fully active and integrated into society; that has to be balanced against safety, not swept away out of hand. So you do accept that women will be physically hurt and will just have to suffer that simply not to be second class citizens?

I am not sure we do have much common ground when it cones to 'acceptable risk'

What an amazing article, and how far we've come that it's even been published. The comments are also hugely heartening.

But please do not complain about women refusing to engage when they have done but you don't like their phrasing.

I don't complain about it. Loads of people won't talk to me, I'm well aware of it.

If you're telling me your post doesn't go on to be as goady and inflammatory as your opening line, I will happily read it. Is it?

Ihaventgottimeforthis
But he's still female.
I initially felt quite sorry for people like Stephen Whittle, butch lesbians who were so unhappy with their bodies that they felt the need to transition. But I think now that they are much more part of the problem. This is partly because we feel compassion towards them, but they are actively working against us having rejected womanhood completely. They must experience a lot of internalised misogyny, which comes over when you hear them suggest that transitioning has given them a superior status to the one they held as women. The implication is that women who have not transitioned are somehow inferior because we have 'chosen' to remain in the subordinate class.

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?

Totally agree with this.

Mip's post is entirely reasonable Rat.
I have also just read what you actually said on the sport thread. You are not coming out of this well at all.

You talk about accommodating as far as possible yet call us here unreasonable when we say we can accommodate no more.

That's not really what I'm saying, is it. I'm saying I often don't agree with the justifications of posters for limiting that accommodation, or I think they are otherwise bad for women, or bad for humanity. It's worth remembering I am one of the "we"; I have my own opinions on things; and I debate them here. I'm open to having my mind changed, but it hasn't been yet. I still think a lot of what is discussed here is unreasonable and disproportionate, and some of it unfeminist and even inhumane.

You talk about feminism as protectionist - yet we can't even protect women locked up in prison from predatory male inmates. Isn't that enough for you to have a stronger reaction that "Yeah well!"

I did have a stronger reaction than that about those instances. I was @mentioned on a thread to come and respond specifically on that subject, and I did. My response was not, "yeah, well!".

Thank you Floisme . I'm just going to stop giving Rat the benefit of doubt. I'm too well conditioned and have to learn the mumsnet thing of "when someone tells you what they're like, listen."

I think Whittle has actually done far more harm than most TRAs. I think there's a significant difference between someone like that and your average Tumblr or YouTube kid whose confused flailing is harmful to other women, but who has not very deliberately been working behind the scenes to undermine protections for women for many years.

(For a start, the kid may well grow out of it.)

More gaslighting floisme?

This is a selection of what I wrote:

Just to check, you folks filling in this questionnaire, you are representatives of the sports and recreation sector aren't you? Because that it what that organisation is. That is whose opinions and policies it is canvassing.... Just in case anyone's compelled by this post to fill it in who has no involvement with the sector.

Just so everyone's clear, this is not a consultation on GRA reform. This survey is specifically to canvas the current policies and the experiences of those in the sector of implementing those policies, and what hurdles they foresee.

Anyway, I don't for a second say someone shouldn't have a voice, even if it's well known I don't agree with them. I simply don't see the sense of people directing that voice at an organisation who will only be interested if you are from a certain demographic. If you are, great, I'm simply making the point. If you're not, you're both pissing into the wind and liable to piss people off. That's all I'm saying.

And just to round it off:

You lot spam the hell out of that link if you must, and if you are genuinely involved in the field please do crack on.

So yeah, me saying "you do what you like, respond if you want, I'm just telling you who this org is aimed at" is me saying people must not respond.

Gaslighting.

Mip's post is entirely reasonable Rat.

Oh, does it get reasonable after "Okay, I'll bite"? Sorry, didn't make it that far.

I think the ethical place for "the line" when debating something like this is to focus on the actions and outcomes one disagrees with, and not transfer that to any individual or community. That way dark periods of history lie.

Well I’m not the one tweeting that the gulag was all fun and games :( the TRA demonisation of ‘all feminists’ is fairly blanket. It’s not a courtesy that’s afforded to us.
However: I get what you’re saying - and I agree that demonisation of an entire community is not where we want to go. I also don’t think most people here do either. I certainly don’t.

At the same time, I don’t think focusing purely on individual outcomes is the way. For the following reasons (which i will try to express, bear with me I am bloody knackered today...)

1. There’s a danger of allowing a wedge approach with this. If you don’t counter the base ideology (all spaces should be unisex) then focusing on individual outcomes means you’re agreeing with that ideology. It’s a bit like complaining that the sandwiches in the gulag are not gluten free, rather than avoiding the gulag in the first place ;) There is a pretty fundamental issue behind all this which is to do with women’s rights in society, and how we protect women and girls (and maintain the privacy and dignity of men and boys as well.) if we focus on the minutiae we risk the main event. There are massive potential changes to women’s rights on the horizon, and we need to address that before it happens, not firefight individual concerns after. Deckchairs on the titanic and all that

1. Stuff like pronouns and how we are allowed to talk, describe, write and think about people doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s a part of how we relate to each other as a society and as such there has to be societal consensus.

I remember us having a fight on another thread about baskets on sanpro in toilets - your position (if I remember) was that we needed to find positive ways to manage a change and my position was that it was a retroactive action that shouldn’t be needed and that the change itself was wrong.

I think that’s probably a reflection of fundamental differences in our outlook. I appreciate your view and I think that in almost any other situation that positivity and solution seeking would be the way to go. However in this situation I remain firmly convinced that the very fundamental of this needs resisting.

I enjoy arguing with you ;)

Rat there is no need to select your own quotes. Everyone here can read the whole of your posts on the sport thread, which funnily enough is now near the top the list again. I commend it to anyone who hasn't already seen it.

Oh, does it get reasonable after "Okay, I'll bite"? Sorry, didn't make it that far.
I suggest you read it.

Oh Rat! That is so disingenuous... you disagree about the justifications for 'protectionism' then say you came out more strongly reminded about sexual assaults in prison. Your whole response is 'oh well' - it is nigh on dismissive! I'll ask more plainly: how many women being sexually assaulted as a direct result of men self id'ing as women before the law has even been passed is an acceptable risk? And then Why are women being unreasonable to shout "NO!!!" and to try to campaign against that law, that still has not yet been passed?

And yes, I am involved in sport! I have responded both as an individual and a small organisation

There are a zillion different reasons why men (and women) are transitioning. You can't hold every single one of them in your hand and your conversation at the same time.

I could say that of all the people who say they are trans, or support trans, only the ones who support access to women's spaces are the ones I disagree with. That's targeting the behaviour, not the person.

But it wouldn't be true. Because gender dysphoria itself appears to me to be a result of society's determination to assign gender. Therefore I would question the person who had it, how it came about, what they think of it, etc, (I wouldn't, because I don't really care, but for the sake of argument).

Only one person appears to have this right, and that's Miranda Yardley.

Miranda is suffering from gender dysphoria, but questions it, and the basis for it, relentlessly. I can refrain from (hypothetically) challenging Miranda, because his answers would fit my opinions about gender and how it plays into gender dysphoria.

But yes, great article. Because my main beef is with the men trying to dominate women and their spaces.

This includes any man who wants access to female spaces. Party because you can't tell who is a threat, but also because that's my preference.

LET'S MOVE ON AND TALK ABOUT LUCY BANNERMAN'S ARTICLE.

(Sorry not sorry for shouting.)

OldCrone I'm not familiar with the work of Stephen Whittle. I'm not sure I can bear looking it up!