Jo Brand on transgender debate in the Guardian

[kesstrel]

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/women-avoid-transgender-debate-fear-reaction-jo-brand-germaine-greer-feminism

The violent threats are coming from a tiny minority of vocal ‘celebrity-wannabe’ trans people - they are not coming from the vast majority of trans people and you know it!! MN are choosing to highlight over and over again these few fringe horrors as somehow representative of a much larger group. Does ISIS represent the Muslim population. Of course not!
And having frightened away all of us who can see the shades of grey in this debate about trans rights and self ID, you’ve turn FWR into an echo chamber visited only by yourselves and those who want to “check out the extremists” - it’s such a shame you can’t and won’t see the damage you are doing.

Why do you think Jo Brand has a lucrative contract with the BBC? She's just moved to channel 4!!!

@thatdamnwoman

SarahJ.Connor, I get it about the career/bills to pay. And of course no woman is required to speak out.
It’s the ‘both sides shouting at each other’ that I object to.

And Destinysdaughter, exactly!

Thank goodness for women like Julie Bindel who are not afraid to risk the wrath of the trans lobby. If this link works, listen to her interview with Jon Gaunt last week. Whatever your views on Gaunt it's a good interview and she makes some brilliant points...…. sputniknews.com/radio-shooting-from-the-lip/201809281068430233-gender-does-not-exist/

MIgbebabe everyone has given up! In about three posts someone will post “so what is your definition of a women then?” As if that is somehow the defining moment of what should be a debate about how to balance human rights. And then a load of vitriol will follow with the predictable trolls, handmaiden etc stuff.
But you are causing such damage with your intransigence (fortunately on a limited scale) and your utter refusal to see that it chilling quite frankly. And it’s not because the rest of us are handmaiden or socially confined by the patriarchy to be accommodating or any of the rest of the fish that will no doubt be trotted out now.
Such a shame that you can’t be part of the solution rather than the other extreme of the problem

Fish = tosh

And the rest of us include Jo Brand do have the right to our opinion you know. It’s your arrogance that immediately consigns everyone who is not part of the echo chamber to the “handmaiden/stupid/troll” side

As regards damage...........putting a convicted rapist in a female prison. Says it all really. That's the 'damage', and one is more than enough. The fact that this could happen once shows there is something fundamentally flawed going on here.

Versus a bunch of us stroppy types who won't swallow the 'it's complicated and a bit murky so be nice line'.

Safeguarding as regards women and girls, not wittering on about definitions, that's the issue that everyone can quite easily get a grip on and desperately needs to get a grip on, not the 'what exactly is a non-binary transman' that some would far more prefer people spent their time on................

I like kippers BTW, and pickled herring (but not the red ones........). More fish, less tosh!

Noname99, I totally agree with you that the violent threats are coming from a tiny minority. Wouldn’t you therefore say that it’s this tiny minority who are doing the damage?

I am absolutely not anti-trans. But I do fear (literally fear) that unchecked self-ID will not be good for women or trans people.

What would be, in your opinion, a way forward?

In about three posts someone will post “so what is your definition of a women then?” As if that is somehow the defining moment of what should be a debate about how to balance human rights.

If a definition isn’t defining, what is?

Noname but if you are discussing the extension of the sex class "woman" (formerly known as adult human female) to include individuals who did not previously legally get classed as that group then you need to be able to define that class.

It is the basis of our laws. Go and look at any piece of legislation and it will have definitions.

The reason the question is asked is because the word "woman" no longer means adult human female according to gender ideology. I have yet to see an answer which is non circular which tells me what woman now means.

Nobody ever comes on here and says 'your opinion is wrong because [critical appraisal of opinion]'

They come on and say 'your opinion is wrong because you are horrible and unfeminine'

This is not an argument we can be expected to take seriously.

noname99 I disagree. You are doing it again. Refusing to state an alternative opinion and just being rude.

And incomprehensible. Intransigence over what exactly? Make your case strong enough and I certainly am open to different viewpoints.

”The violent threats are coming from a tiny minority of vocal ‘celebrity-wannabe’ trans people”

And the same group are successfully insisting that the legal definition of woman must be changed to include a group of men. So much so that the entire U.K. parliament are supporting them.

When the voices of reasonable trans people come to the fore and influence policy in a rational way, the discussion here might stop focusing on those who are doing the damage. It isn’t women who are causing the problem.

Noname99
the thing is, I don't want to get undressed beside a mild-mannered transfemale any more than I do a shouty one!!
i don't want a transfemale doctor inserting my mirena coil (3rd attempt- super painful)- even if said doctor is not of the aggressive, activist type.
please, please leave women's spaces alone...why is that so much to ask?

Let's see - one side has: assaulted a woman in a public place; sent bomb threats to a venue; intimidated (to the point where she had to be escorted to safety by the police) a woman on a completely unrelated picket line because she held gender critical views; physically and dangerously blocked a staircase on the way into a meeting venue. They've also been responsible for tweets beyond measure saying charming things like TERFS [sic] should "die in a fire", "choke on my lady dick", "be raped", "be fucked up".

The other side has... handed out leaflets and put up a poster.

We're way into Charlottesville false equivalence territory here.

Even if the threats are coming from a ‘tiny minority’ how come that ‘tiny minority’ is all on one side?

Why is it that no gender critical ‘extremist’ thinks that kind of behaviour would be acceptable?

Why do they agonise over whether putting a sticker saying ‘women don’t have a penis’ on their pencil case is going a bit too far?

the thing is, I don't want to get undressed beside a mild-mannered transfemale any more than I do a shouty one!!

Most women would feel uncomfortable getting naked in front of their own brother or father, no matter how much they loved or trusted them, let alone a male-bodied stranger.

The violent threats are coming from a tiny minority of vocal ‘celebrity-wannabe’ trans people - they are not coming from the vast majority of trans people and you know it!!

No threats are coming from the GC side. Just saying...

That tiny minority (really? Really tiny?) is having a hugely damaging and disproportionate effect. They are being allowed to advise government with no due diligence being done on who they are and what they’ve also shown a desire to advocate for in the past.

When someone like Jane Fae who has openly advocated for extreme porn and younger actors in it is advising the girl guides on safeguarding we have an issue.

When David Challenor was allowed to stand as an election agent for the Green Party despite being charged with the rape and torture of a child we have a problem.

When convicted male rapists are in women’s jails - problem.

When convicted rapists are invited to advise government instead of a law abiding transperson, we have a problem.

That ‘tiny’ proportion are having a direct and damaging effect on the laws and safeguarding frameworks of this country, and are pushing for the standard of care for minors to be altered to allow life changing drug and surgery regimes.

So whatever the size of that minority, they are having a very negative, and very damaging effect on women’s right and on child safety.

So I will continue shouting. Well not shouting, because I’m on the side that doesn’t. And not bomb threats, punching people or threatening their kids because I’m on the side that doesn’t. But I’m not going to shut up about it.

I don’t understand the criticism of Jo Brand. She is saying that women don’t enter the debate because they are afraid of the reaction. She knows that this article could get her criticised and called a terf, and she speaks if her admiration of feminists like Germaine Greer. I’m anonymous on here, and anonymous on Twitter as I don’t want to risk my job or friends. Why should she risk her career? She is a TV presenter and comedian, not a spokesperson for women or a politician. I think it wasn’t that bad an article for the Guardian, I’m sure it was heavily edited.

Let's see - one side has: assaulted a woman in a public place; sent bomb threats to a venue; intimidated (to the point where she had to be escorted to safety by the police) a woman on a completely unrelated picket line because she held gender critical views; physically and dangerously blocked a staircase on the way into a meeting venue. They've also been responsible for tweets beyond measure saying charming things like TERFS [sic] should "die in a fire", "choke on my lady dick", "be raped", "be fucked up".

The other side has... handed out leaflets and put up a poster. We're way into Charlottesville false equivalence territory here.

This. Moreover, we're not the ones saying #nodebate and refusing - utterly refusing - to talk about the issues. Our only alternative is to speak up and one of the few places we can speak up - is here.

It seems a perfectly reasonable comment given the context that Nothing has provided above.

It's disappointing that she didn't call out the extent of the abuse and threats from TRAs but she is right. This is going to have to be discussed and negotiated as there are competing wishes and rights and we live in a democratic society. Most of us post on here with pesudonyms as we are frightened of the threats regularly made to women speaking out. I don't blame Jo Brand at all for being 'diplomatic'. She spoke openly of the need to openly debate which is a lot more than many allow.

it does amuse me when people come on here, accuse us of having a 'hive mind', tell us we're doing damage - and then have no suggestions whatsoever to offer other than (apparently) 'put up with it, accept it, shut up.'

Why should she risk her career?

Because she used to, frequently - that’s how she became a ‘National Treasure’. She never shied away from controversy before.

She was never the loveable Victoria Wood type everyone adored, she was comedy marmite