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

Endless ad hominems and appeals to female socialisation but not one word of substance. What a low value set of disruptors we have hereabouts. So dull.

I long for the day someone actually comes on here with a substantive argument.

Let me be clear - male bodied person decides they would be more comfortable presenting "as a woman". 99% of the time I have no problem with this. I would not want them to lose their job as, say, an accountant as a result. I would not want their landlord to evict them as a result. I most certainly would not want them to be subject to abuse on the street as a result. I would politely call them by their chosen name and even pronouns (though I draw the line at legally enforced pronouns - I am not prepared, ever, to refer to Lisa Hauxwell, Davina Ayrton, Karen White, etc. as "she").

However, 1% of the time...

No to male-bodied rapists (indeed any male bodied prisoner, even if it's only for, say, embezzlement) in women's prisons. I'll join in a campaign for specialist trans wings, no problem there.

No to male-bodied patients on closed psychiatric wards with vulnerable women.

No to male-bodied individuals in women's competitive sports. I'll join in a campaign for men's sport to be more inclusive of gender-non-conforming individuals.

Individual women to have the right of veto on male-bodied HCPs providing them with smears or breast exams.

Women to have the right to set up women-only services if they want to. (So, by all means set up a trans inclusive rape crisis centre - but do not set up a legal framework which makes it illegal for a group of women to set up a women-only rape crisis centre if they identify a need for one).

somedyke we make laws in our country to suit the majority. There will ALWAYS be someone who is trying to manipulate them to suit their own revolting agenda. That is not a reason to not do something that is right and I would argue the debate is so becoming so toxic with neither extreme side willing to give an inch that the Karen White(?) story has become inevitable rather than what should be happening which is thinking about how we enhance impartial risk assessment. Not possible at the moment because of the black and white/no compromise of both sides
No one is suggesting that anyone ‘be nice’ but TWAW; not they are not, yes they are is getting us nowhere.
And ...... Safeguarding rules can CHANGE! They can be adapted to ‘new norms’ if needed.
Do you not find it interesting that on other posts where a mum asks if it’s ok that her daughters are going for a sleep over and only the husband will be there and in charge the VAST majority of posts will be incredulous at the suggestion that that is a problem, will exclaimthat the husband should be trusted and “not everyone is a paedophile etc”
We absolutely can’t have self id with existing rules and safeguards but can we have it with new adapted ones? Can we even think about it???? Rather than just continuing the debarcle of TWAW; no they aren’t:; yes they are adfintum

lipstick and powder
Yes they started it!! Does that make a difference..... does that begin to find a solution. A tiny minority of wannabe celebrity trans women started the nastiness ..... so???
I have some ideas for solutions and as a gender I’m sure there are many many much more intelligent women who could think of some too but at the moment - no one is interested.
Just TWAW; no they aren’t; yes they are etc

But the law has to come down on one side or the other of the TWAW debate.

Either TWAW is to be taken literally, no exceptions, or it is to be accepted as a legal fiction, applicable in some circumstances but not others.

Bit like abortion. Either you agree with the pro-life position that foetuses are persons, in which case you should do as El Salvador has done, and make abortion illegal in all circumstances, or you do not accept that they are persons, in which case abortion can be made legal.

Likewise the death penalty. A country has to decide whether it's okay with the death penalty or not okay with the death penalty. There is no "half-way house" position.

However much you might want there to be a wonderful middle-of-the-road compromise position, there are some legal questions whichonly admit of a yes/no answer. There is no "all things to all people" wishy-washy compromise.

Yes, but Noname. It wasn't us screaming "TWAW! say it or you are guilty of a hatecrime and you are an evil terf, we'll lose you your job and dox you and your family and you should die in a fire".

Was it?

It wasn't GC people doing the thought policing here. Loads of women - like me -were perfectly happy coexisting with transwomen until all this shit started. It hasn't come out of nowhere.

And ...... Safeguarding rules can CHANGE! They can be adapted to ‘new norms’ if needed.

Safeguarding does change. Every time a loophole is found - and that usually comes to light when a child is killed- the framework is updated.

To close loopholes. To strengthen the framework. To make children safer.

What groups like mermaids are pushing for (confidential disclosure, no multi agency working, circumventing parental rights) weakens the framework. In effect it places children questioning their gender outside the safeguarding framework.

I don’t think that’s ok. Do you?

If people are threatening me and family with violence over me saying a "wrong" word then, no, it isn't "both sides are just as bad". It's still going on and you know it.

If you allow me to speak despite us disagreeing, then of course we can talk. But if you scream transphobe at me and try to lose me my job - no, not really, sorry.

To go back to jo brand, her latest sitcom (which is brilliant) has a couple of GC comments; I can't believe she isn't.

Safeguarding can change but it’s generakly in the direction of making things more safe, not less.

No matter how much you like smoking on the garage forecourt, it ain’t happening.

I think the argument that it's unfair to expect her to speak up and risk her career would be a reasonable one had she not called her latest book:
Born Lippy - How to do Female
and were she not currently touring the country to promote it.

”Rather than just continuing the debarcle of TWAW; no they aren’t:; yes they are”

This is given as a throwaway, as if each side is being equally unreasonable. Yet we have moved, in a very short time from absolute consensus that TW are people who are of the male sex, but wish to live as women, to a position where TWAW is thrust at us from many different sources, including members of the U.K. parliament who are influencing proposed changes to the law. TWAW is also a position that directly contradicts well established science.

Imagine, if you will that the Flat Earth Society has somehow gained so much influence that they were influencing the U.K. legal system to change laws, and you were faced with a consultation that started from the premise that “The Earth is Flat”.

Well that’s how I feel when faced with a government consultation that starts from the position that TWAW. Faced with something you considered so ludicrous, would you keep silent?

I think the argument that it's unfair to expect her to speak up and risk her career would be a reasonable one had she not called her latest book:
Born Lippy - How to do Female
and were she not currently touring the country to promote it.

Here’s a thought .... may be she’s not saying what she said because she’s afraid of losing her job, her contract or whatever excuse you can think of ...... maybe she saying what she said because it’s what she actually thinks!!

Bit like abortion. Either you agree with the pro-life position that foetuses are persons, in which case you should do as El Salvador has done, and make abortion illegal in all circumstances, or you do not accept that they are persons, in which case abortion can be made legal.
Likewise the death penalty. A country has to decide whether it's okay with the death penalty or not okay with the death penalty. There is no "half-way house" position.

IMO these example are directly contradictory to your argument if you don’t mind me saying. Most countries do not have black and white abortion laws ....... we don’t. There are is a time bound limit. Nothing miraculous happens between the day before that limit and the day after but we invoke a “legal fiction” to make a best fit solution. It doesn’t keep the pro-life’s foetus is a baby from conception extremes happy nor the it’s a foetus not a baby till it’s born side happy but it’s a law made to suit the majority view.
We don’t have the death penalty however we do whole life terms. Not quite death but not really life (if you believe that a definition of life includes liberty/freedoms) - a law to suit the majority

Safeguarding does change. Every time a loophole is found - and that usually comes to light when a child is killed- the framework is updated. To close loopholes. To strengthen the framework. To make children safer. What groups like mermaids are pushing for (confidential disclosure, no multi agency working, circumventing parental rights) weakens the framework. In effect it places children questioning their gender outside the safeguarding framework.

The moment anyone starts apparently arguing that 'safeguarding needs to change' but they mean it should be weakened it sets off very loud klaxons with me.

ALL I see from the TWAW/TRA campaign is 'advice' to organisations that centre children and/or provide services to women which weakens safeguarding.

Which - as I said - sets off the klaxons with me.

bardyblair
I’d try to work out why the current norm wasn’t working for them anymore and try to seek a solution? Rather than just shouting no back again?

There was a facinating thread on MN about disability self id. It was the ‘norm’ that anyone with a disability had to tell their bosses & hr dept their full medical history; had to provide proof and evidence of the disability and how it affected them basically tell people their most initiate things in order to have reasonable adjustments made. Quite rightly people were outraged and the majority believe that is no longer appropriate. Yes there will still be people who manipulate the system - claim disability rights/allowances and adjustments when they aren’t eligible but for the good of the vast majority, it was a consensus that this invasive policy had to stop and disability self id should be allowed.

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!!

That argument no longer washes. These people do represent trans people: in the traditional media, on social media, to the Government, to companies, and to charities. We had a who's-who thread on this a while ago where we discussed some of this, but MNHQ deleted it. [annoyed]

Take Jess Bradley:

• Bigwig at Manchester branch of Action for Trans Health, tweeted from their Twitter in support of Tara Wood saying that trans people need to be "radically and transformatively violent". This is a clear threat and promise of more violence if we do not capitulate Elected first-ever full-time national trans officer for the NUS, from which JB is currently suspended pending investigations into JB's "exhibitionizm" tumblr account, which photodocumented acts of flashing on JB's part, including flashing at work. This NUS position is the definition* of "representing trans people", as an elected officer.
• Gave evidence to Maria Miller and the Women and Equalities Committee, evidence which fed that Committee's report that recommended removing all single-sex exemptions. This status as a witness to a Parliamentary Committee is representing trans people to Parliament.

And that's just Jess Bradley. I could talk about GP registrar Adrian Harrop doxxing Dj Lippy and blackmailing her (to the tune of "leave twitter completely and I'll delete the data I published"). I could talk about Lily Madigan organising to get Labour women expelled in breach of Data Protection laws. I could talk about Helen Webberly publishing a list of names and workplaces of all the people who have raised safeguarding concerns about her illegal online gender clinic. But I'm already late heading out.

I get what you are saying RE abortion noname-it's true, there is a time limit in most cases, and it does aim to be the best thing for the majority. Obviously some advocates on both sides of the abortion issue will not be happy with any kind of compromise, but it's a pragmatic solution that works in general.
The thing is, with a change of law that starts with the premise of TWAW, if laws are to be made that take for granted that women and male bodied people are the exact same, then it isn't the flawed-but- best for- everybody- in- general compromise, it's a law that favours a small minority at the expense of half the population.
I wish the debate on the GRA hadn't become so all or nothing either. To my mind the act of 2010 was the flawed but workable solution, but that's not enough for the TRA activists. The fact that women and men who have tried to outline the dangers to women and girls if the self id thing comes about have been relentlessly hounded and abused, just for bringing up their concerns, is the very thing that has led me to sadly conclude that there can be no compromise.
That's not me being dogmatic (I'm no idealist), that's pure pragmatism.

bowlofbable
No I don’t think mermaid I right - they are part of the problem. But you don’t fight fire with fire. Two sets of extreme views shouting solve nothing.
What we need is the moderates to start tackling this ...... times have changed; humanity moves in and now we have a group of people who believe they are the opposite sex to the one observed/assigned at birth (for m not getting into that semantic and utterly pointless argument) and wish to be known and treated as such. Current laws aren’t working for them (& it’s no good saying they are because they don’t think so and that’s what counts) so we need to figure out what does AND in doing that what works for the women who believe that they want or need spaces that exclude trans women. Then we can work a solution

So, let's shift the debate to practical consequences...

Should Karen White, Davina Ayrton, Lisa Hauxwell etc. be placed in women's prisons? Yes or no?

A group of women points out that some rape victims are so triggered by male bodies that regardless of how nice the owner of the male body is (be that owner trans identifying, the pope, Mahatma Ghandi...) they need a female-only space in which to heal. Should that group of women be legally allowed to set up a rape crisis centre which advertises itself as for women-born-women rape survivors, staffed by women-born-women volunteers. Should they be allowed to set up such a centre? Yes or no?

A woman goes to the doctor for a smear and is confronted by a male-bodied, trans-identifying HCP. She rejects treatment. Should she be allowed to reschedule the appointment with a female HCP, or is this an act of bigotry on the part of the patient so severe that she should be removed from the GP's list? So, do women get to request a female HCP for intimate exams? Yes or no?

A women's rugby team reports that their opponents fielded a transwoman, several stone heavier and male-bodied. As a direct result, several women came off the field with career-threatening injuries. (Someone on another thread on here detailed a match in which five - yes, five - women were injured in this sort of situation). Should those women legally be able to lobby the RFU to make rugby single sex or not? Yes or no?

I'm not really sure what you're punting for here, noname. It is coming across as a requirement for women to compromise and be nice, but you do say you have some ideas about a workable future for the debate in the unlikely scenario that AWAs allow it to happen.

I'm a bit tired with the argybargy and accusations of hive mind and echo chamber, so please, throw me a bone and give me an idea about workable solutions. I am honestly interested, although your seeming suggestion that safeguarding needs to be weakened hasn't really helped your case.

bd67th
All you’ve done is list 3/4 extremists??? They don’t represent all trans women? I can list you half a dozen others who oppose them? And they probably do represent more trans people! However what does that do to solve this issue?
It’s not the play ground rules - they started it doesn’t cut it.

Seconding Floral's comment: all I'm seeing here is yet another variation on "compromise, by which I mean 'women be nice and move over.'"

The answer is still "no".

may be she’s not saying what she said because she’s afraid of losing her job, her contract or whatever excuse you can think of ...... maybe she saying what she said because it’s what she actually thinks!!

Thank you for the patronising, 'Here's a thought.' Here' my thought. Again.

I expect someone who's trying to sell a book called 'How to Do Female' to have formulated some thoughts about what being female means. And to be prepared to voice their thoughts - whatever they are.

'Both sides are being horrid' - even if it were true - is pure hedging. It tells me nothing about what she thinks the word 'female' means.

If she doesn't want to say then don't write a book about it.

Practical consequences.

Do male-bodied rapists go in women's prisons if they identify as women?

Do women retain a legal right to organise and advertise spaces for born women only?

Do women retain a legal right to ask for an HCP of the same sex, not gender, for intimate exams?

Do women have a right to object to playing competitive contact sports against transwomen, where they might sustain life-changing injuries (especially spinal injuries) as a result?

Simple yes/no questions. You should have an answer to these. Otherwise I'm going to suspect you're not here in good faith.