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

Please read my original post - they are refusing to talk because they don’t believe you are willing to do anything other than the hive mind TWANW

But why would they believe that? It may be what some (not all) women on this board believe, but it's not what Fairplay for Women or WPUK have been saying, as far as I can see. It's not what a lot of the gay people and transsexual people who've joined in the argument on Twitter say either. If they believe that, it's either because they want to or because they haven't bothered to find out what the campaign groups are saying.

In contrast, the biggest trans voice in this debate by far is Stonewall: and they have been saying for a long time now: Transwomen are Women, acceptance without exception, no debate.

Why is the HCP such an issue?

According to statistics from Rape Crisis, Women's Aid and the NSPCC, at least 25% of women have experienced abuse. Most of the abusers are men. Many women therefore feel unsafe when in a vulnerable situation around men. Being a female patient with a male HCP involves considerable vulnerability, especially if the situation requires clothes to be removed. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Meanwhile, even women who have never been victimised often prefer a female HCP for reasons of dignity.

I don't think there's much compromise to be had here. If a woman asks for a female HCP, that's what she should get. In all but the most extreme situations it's perfectly possible to arrange this.

Also I would seriously question the motives of any trans woman HCP who resisted a woman's request for a female HCP.

engage with the moderates first

As I said above, that's not possible at the moment because the moderates have no voice: Stonewall is dominating everything. And they have the money and power and influence to drown out the moderate voices on their side. As indeed they have done, in their treatment of transsexuals.

Has it occurred that you can’t find the moderates because they are hiding from you too?
And Twitter is not the bastion of sensible debate!
Stonewall would have to debate if they could be shown to be behaving like arseholes but at the moment they can just point to the intransigent TWANW position and day see!

You only fight extremism with calm reason. This analogy is a good one ...... you can’t stop someone being an arsehole however if you treat that arsehole with respect; if you calmly give them the right to speak and show them sympathy, empathy, kindness and a willingness to listen ...... one of two things will happen. Either they’ll stop being such an arsehole (unlikely) or at least everyone else in the room will see exactly which one the arsehole is.

Noname-
It always seems to come back to the same point;
Women must agree to debate with men who want to infringe upon their rights, allowing them to have some of those rights.
Women must do this to prove they are inclusive, that they are rational and considerate and adult. Give men an inch.
No.
Men must stop infringing on women’s rights. Women do not agree that men have a right to infringe. Men should behave in a rational, adult, considerate and inclusive way and leave the women alone, and not have the ability to take the mile as a result.
I cannot rationalise this any other way, because it wouldn’t be the reality.
I don’t think liberal ideas get anybody anywhere in situations like this. This is a stipry of two sides, there is no middle ground, you either agree to erasure or you don’t.

Jo Brand is not stupid.
I think she’s gender critical but really scared and wants to keep in with the Guardian.
But frankly (unless to say that she’s too intimidated to say her real views), why even bother weighing in with a load of crap about if both sides would just calm down it will all be fine. FFS. Jo Brand of all people knows what narcissists are like.

Sorry- a story of two sides.

I'm the same as half the population because of my biology.
I'm different from the other half for the same reason.

I'm asserting my right to be treated as exactly as I am.

Not as I 'claim' I am.
As I am.
Same as all the people who share my biological characteristics, and different from the opposite sex.
I won't use words to describe myself and then I insist they have no meaning.
I won't claim similarity with a different group purely on the basis of a word with a hotly disputed meaning.

I am factual, truthful, objective and verifiable about how I describe (note, describe not identify or define) myself.

The only way I am an extremist is if fact, truth, objectivity and verifiability are extreme.

It tends to happen in America first, doesn't it? The beginning of the destruction of women's athletics:

newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/06/13/transgender-track-athletes-win-connecticut-state-championship-debate-ensues/

Noname I get the feeling you don't know much about the history of this issue and how it has developed. There has been almost no opposition to Transactivists' demands from anyone but a tiny number of feminists until very recently. Yet the tactic of calling opponents Terfs and referring to any objections as hate speech has been in place for sometime. There are a number of reasons why transactivists were and are not prepared to compromise, the most important one being why should they? They've already got just about everyone in power on their side.

Are you aware of the petition started by prominent gay people and transsexuals recently, asking Stonewall to be more open minded? Stonewall's immediate response was to refuse any discussion or compromise.

Even saying both sides are behaving badly is a step forward given the current climate. To even hint at the idea that what trans activists say might not be 100% reasonable has been enough to get some people written off by the 'woke', so I can accept a statement about some people on the GC side being too shouty or whatever - I'm just pleased to see JB standing up to say that debating this stuff should be allowed. Every voice that says that counts, they have been rare enough until recently. Some people will be made to think by another well known figure pointing out that suppressing debate is not OK.

carrots
No and your post is exactly my point. And the issue I have with what a small section of you have done to MN especially on the feminist board. You’ve forgotten the starting point ..... it is NOT women negotiating with men. It’s transpeople needing to negotiating with non transpeople to come up with a workable solution for the moderate majority because ‘women’ are not a hive mind/echo chamber of your thoughts. WE DONT ALL AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU DO!!! Something that seems increasingly difficult to grasp hence my original post of hive minds - so far have some wondered off from this fact that people are in here accusing Jo Brand of needing to protect her contract or something rather than accepting that just maybe the woman was speaking her mind!!

The thing is Noname99
When you refer to people who don’t see your point of view as fuckwits
I think you’ve gone a step too far

kesstrel
That’s rather patronizing and I assure you that I have a very good grasp of this issue and it’s roots. And they they haven’t got “everyone in power on their side” What A VERY SMALL MINORITY have done is carefully manoeuvre themselves into the position where to ask a question is seen as predudicial and garnered some victim status. The battle hasn’t even started. Check out the thread about the west minister meeting - two posters who both clearly work for MP have both said it’s barely on their MP’s radar! They have more emails about a footpath. This is true! If and when a move is made towards changing this law, we are already in the back foot because thecwring people have been allowed to have this debate and that’s the damage I was referring to.

But then non transpeople are not a hive mind either so how does reframing it that way change anything? A key issue here is women's boundaries and the people who are trying to ignore them are transwomen, that is to say people who were for a significant part of their lives men, even if you say they aren't any more (which many would not agree with).

We as a country went to extraordinary lengths to allow the law to lie to please men.

Some men wanted to distinguish themselves from other men so badly that the law literally agreed to lie to honour their desires to be seen as NOT the same as other men. Despite the fact that every observable fact belies that claim. Chromosomes, gonads, genitalia - everything entirely similar to other men.
A lie, to honour men's desires, despite the evidence before us.

And yet, how does our society react when women present the EXACT SAME DEMAND, to be recognised as different from men? And with a thousandfold evidence of how this is so, and patently obvious to every observer?

We are 'extreme' and must compromise.

I won't compromise the truth. And I won't compromise who I am. I am fundamentally different from every man by virtue of my sex. Every man without exception. And that's that. No words can change it. It just is. The law can recognise reality, or deny it, but reality will go on unaltered either way.

I'm never, ever going to lie about myself to appease men. There is no common ground and there never will be. There's truth and there's the lie. That's all there is.

Not convinced by the case by case assessment of risk proposal

How would it work in practsise . Would we have to prove someone guilty of a crime first...notoriously difficult for sex offenses...

Most men, like ( probably) most transpeople are not abusers, although upnto 20% may well be, but far fewer will ever be charged never mind convicted.

All men and transwomen are likely to be triggering for many women in the wrong circumstance whether or not they are abusers

As a result sex segregation is permitted because the disadvantage it brings to the excluded group is less than the disadvantage that would be suffered by the other group without exclusion. Note that in all cases I can think’ of the excluded group is permitted to have their own sex segregated facilities..they are not denied the facility.

I Could understand a case that says the current sex segregation is insufficinet if for example transwomen get abuse or embarrressed in a male changing room, and certainly would be happy to work with the trans community to examine such problems

( btw i am using the terms like male to refer to the physical biology of someone without regard to how they see themselves or would like others to see them because that does my head in)

preston
If you read from the start you will see I’m referring to the very small minority of trans celebrity-wannabes that MN continue to present as the voice of the trans community. They aren’t and I reserve the right to call these awful troublemaking arseholes who encourage people to physically attack, doxx and harass others - fuckwits.

If you read from the start you will see I’m referring to the very small minority of trans celebrity-wannabes that MN continue to present as the voice of the trans community. They aren’t and I reserve the right to call these awful troublemaking arseholes who encourage people to physically attack, doxx and harass others - fuckwits.

Do you mean the ones that the Labour party, the government, the Libdems, the Green party, etc have used as 'consultants' on policy issues? As have organisations like Girl Guides, the YHA?

You can call them a "small minority", but their influence has been massive.

barrack
Fair enough but I disagree. And you need to accept that others disagree. And that’s not because we are stupid and not because we are handmaidens or conditioned by the patriarchy.
BTW - the laws you are referring to work the other way too? You do know this ..... that their atecwimen fighting for the right to be identied as men. In fact, there are more young girls transitioning than boys? It’s the same laws for both sexes

*there are

noname99
I have RTFT
Vicky like many others cannot engage with the very small minority, their starting point is #nodebate

I took your comment to mean the people here
Find the moderate people to engage with. I wish you luck.

What Barracker said.

Vicky
No they are the second wave .... caused by the fact that we didn’t find the moderates and engage in meaningful debate but instead retreated behind the barracades and refused to discuss any element whatsoever of their concerns thus entrenching everyone in their position.
Anyway, enough MN for me. I’m grateful that at no point has anyone called me an idiot or a handmaiden...maybe there is hope yet x
And I’ve spoken with my MP directly, he is as concerned as I am that the meeting at west minister will just be a list of reasons why there can be absolutely no compromise on self id but he’s a decent bloke and has said he’ll go ..... a moderate I believe!

Barracker - yes, that post nails it.

I am a nice person. As with religious tolerance, I see no problem with allowing people to pretend so long as it doesn't have adverse consequences for others.

But a pretence that results in men in women's prisons, men in women's sports, men allowed to dictate to women that women should no longer have freedom of assembly and freedom of speech - no. A thousand times, no.