Reframing the discussion

[NoodleEatingPoodle]

Disclaimer: I'm writing this in an explanatory way to help clarify my thoughts and not to preach to the choir.

I listened to Any Questions yesterday and was heartened by the contributions of the panel (there are other threads on the content). But the question posed was: whose rights should take precedence, women's or trans people?

And that's just a bullshit misrepresentation of the issue of contention. I don't know any woman who would argue that trans people should have fewer or less important rights than any other person. Despite the histrionic hyperbole of some transactivists, nobody is actually questioning whether people who identify as trans exist, or should exist, or should have rights . As long as we allow the discussion to be framed as 'should trans people have rights?' and 'trans rights v. women's rights', we are accepting the false premises that 1. We're somehow on the side of arguing against anybody's rights. 2. There are rights that other people have but trans people lack. 3. The ability to identify into a disadvantaged group and therefore acquire the protections and services in place for that group, is a 'right'. 4. The classes involved in the power dichotomy here are the privileged "cis" and the disadvantaged "trans", as opposed to the privileged "male" and the disadvantaged "female."

The questions that feminists are raising are not about 'trans rights', but are the same questions that feminists have always raised: what does it mean to be a woman, in society and in law? Do existing and proposed policies help or hinder progress toward a just society for women?

If newspaper headlines, hashtags, radio & TV political show questions, etc., were framed in terms of "what should the legal definition of 'woman' be?" instead of "what rights should transwomen have?" the knee-jerk reactions, particularly on the part of left leaning women, may be quite different. And how galling and misogynist it is that women are being treated as if they have no stake in the issue and no right to discuss it would be made all the more apparent.

But how do we reframe the discussion?

We can't control how it is framed in the media. What you have described is the discussion that women are having and the debate that women want.

That is precisely why the TRAs cry "no debate and threaten and shut down discussion but they know that if it were presented as you describe they couldn't win.

I believe Lisa Muggeridge is spot on when she says this is now a saveguarding discussion and furthermore that nobody gets to define women’s boundaries for us. So we support any rights transpeople aspire to except the ‚right‘ to define and colonize womanhood and subordinate women in the process. Transwomen‘s feelings do not transfer actual womanhood to them, and it is ludicrous women should subordinate their own existence and biological reality to those feelings.

You've got to define trans people first.

If anyone's woman who says they are, and a paedophile rapist says they are a woman and gets to go to a female prison then who the hell is actually standing up for that 'right'. Because my guess would be no one.

Define terms, otherwise the question is meaningless.

Like this;

''TRA's have reframed the discussion away from safeguarding women and children. The discussion women are trying to have about how erasing the class 'sex' in law will affect us is being derailed and reframed by trans activists.

Womens concerns about safeguarding, e.g. sharing a locked psychiatric ward with Karen white, or teachers keeping secrets from parents, is not the same as 'denying people the right to exist'.
Its not the discussion women need to have.

I think the poster campaign, adult human female is reframing the debate back to that basic point.

Its clear that allowing males to legally be female in any circumstances was a massive mistake.

DebbiefromBirmingham made a great point elsewhere that the furs key people that have been interviewed haven't been bothered to get a GRC. The "rights" that are assumed as a result of the Equality Act were meant to apply to people that were on the way to getting one, not any male in the country. We are now being told that it must be any male in the country. Any male, any male at all. at any time. Whatever he does to anyone whilst he is being female.

This should not be the law, nor should it be custom and practise or case law, this is not what the general population want or would even expect to be happening.

I am going to see my Labour MP next week to ask why he thinks he is entitled to force women to accept this, why he think he is empowered to give away the consent of every single female in his constituency without our agreement, why he believes he's right to do this. Why does he think he must force me against my wishes, in the way abusers do as this makes him an abuser too.

Any MP supporting this is an abuser.

Thanks for replying, Flowerpot. Yes I know that this is discussion we (women) are already having. That's why I included the disclaimer about preaching to the choir.

But I disagree that there's nothing we can do about how it's framed. Posie Parker has very effectively put a focus on the definition of 'woman'. Listening to Any Questions 'trans rights or women's rights?', I was willing someone to say, "I think that's a misrepresentation of the issue. For feminists, it's not about denying trans people any rights at all. It's about what ' woman' means in society and in law, and of course women have an enoemous stake in that discussion, yet they're being silenced."

One of the panelists was absolutely brilliant in her answer. I'm not criticising those who are courageous enough to put the GC position forward in public. But I rarely hear anyone say " actually that's not the issue for feminists, this is." The debate of it happens at all just happens on the terms of the false premises I outlined. I think the framing of the discussion should be challenged every time, and people might start to get it.

Cross posted with a few. Yes I agree that Posie on definitions and Lisa M on safeguarding are making a difference in this regard.

But I rarely hear anyone say " actually that's not the issue for feminists, this is."

Well they're motivated by fear or money.

Yeah but that needs to be done. Women need to calmly state, over and over, that a male belief in being a woman does not make them one and has nothing to do with us. Doesn‘t mean we do not support transsexuals‘ and gendernonconforming people‘s rights to be treated as equal to other humans (as opposed to demands that reflect nothing but the right to subordinate women).

My way of thinking about it is this:

Women are protected in the Equality Act and their is clear provision for single sex spaces when changing, sleeping, DM shelters etc.

So the Law understands and accepts single sex provision is vital for women otherwise there would be no law.

What has changed? Only one thing, men now want to have access to those spaces. That's it. Have any of the reasons that we have single sex provision changed. NO!

Its simply other people demanding access.

Certain people for too long have been able to shout that saying a transwoman is not a woman, is hate speech. Clearly in the real world that is nothing like hate speech. Of course the word woman cannot include men who feel like women, so the only way forward is for transwomen to be legally recognised as transwomen, and for women to have the right to exclude them from sex segregated spaces. It is so frustrating when certain transwomen claim, they've been using the ladies loos for years & no one bats an eyelid....they know they are not a woman yet are abusing the system of trust, that ladies use the ladies & men use the mens.

*Datun

You've got to define trans people first.

If anyone's woman who says they are, and a paedophile rapist says they are a woman and gets to go to a female prison then who the hell is actually standing up for that 'right'. Because my guess would be no one.

Define terms, otherwise the question is meaningless.*

I agree. I heard someone say similar to that yesterday on R4 and I think this should definitively stated.

Sorry, bolding was beyond me. I did try!

This isn't about trans rights. It's about men's demands. They are hiding it behind "trans rights" but that's just a lie

SwearyG said this on another thread and I think it perfectly encapsulates what's going on here. It also partly explains why TRAs can't provide an answer to the question What rights do trans people not have?

When TRA's frame their demands as rights it seems almost impossible to argue against (what kind of monster argues against other people's rights?) but framed as demands it becomes much clearer as to what is really going on (men making demands of women - how unusual).

The possibility of saying a clear guilt-free no to a demand is increased because not all demands are legitimate, and much of what TRAs demand is not legitimate imo.

I agree to a large extent, on what is being posted, but, there is a section of the population whose "rights" are being challenged and eroded, as much as the rights of women.
Transsexuals are being treated with total contempt, and disregarded in these, and the earlier discussions. The laws under attack, were designed to help transsexuals in a number of ways, as they have been able to demonstrate to an acceptable degree that they were born with a medical condition.
All of this need for proof, and obtaining legal recognition of a change in sex, is being eliminated, as are transsexuals.
Transsexuals accept the fact that they have a male or female body, and only wish to have a positive integration into society, as a member of what had been the opposite sex.
Women are undoubtedly under attack, but I urge and ask that transsexuals be supported as they are also being attacked and discriminated against.

We are always on the backfoot.
It's the insanity that was revealed as soon as most of women's time was spent constantly having to defend the obvious - that females exist and women are real. Women much more patient, and much smarter than me have spent forever debating with trans activists just to build themselves the intellectual framework and gravitas to prove the blatantly obvious. We've been too kind. We've literally had to prove that females exist as something unique from males.
What's stupid is that from the feminist point of view, this has always been about WOMEN'S rights. That's why it's the definition of WOMAN which is so problematic. Feminists don't say you cannot be trans or that you don't deserve spaces. Feminists say that people who are born as men are not allowed to come and re-define what a woman is, and demand access to women-only spaces without our consent.
And women are NOT giving our consent!
The other issue is that we really need to re-frame this as a faith-based argument. Gender identity can't really be proven or disproven. Some people will just not believe transgender ideology (raises hand!). And, most importantly, you cannot reasonably expect the whole of society to pretend biological sex doesn't matter. It's lunacy.
The whole problem is that this movement has capitalized on both the gay rights and women's rights narratives, when it really is about a completely different thing (and one that conflicts with both sex-based and sexuality-based definitions).
Really we could nip this in the bud by saying that transgenderism is a SEPARATE protected category (already done under gender reassignment), but for God's sake leave SEX alone, STOP pretending females and males who way they feel like women are the same, and create reasonable third-space provisions for trans people in the contentious regions of the debate. Then trans people can sort out their own umbrella and specialist provisions. It's really not a women's issue. BUT males cannot just demand to take over women's services because they want them, too. Women have worked too hard to just give this up and go back to being solely defined by how males see them, and always prioritizing male needs.
I stand with transsexuals, too. My heart breaks for many of them. I do make distinctions within the umbrella. But right now, my priority is women keeping their own identity, dignity and autonomy.
Trans people are trans, not the opposite sex. Let's all get over it, and work together.

allana there are transsexuals who explicitly say they do not want to be a subset of women and want to fight for their own spaces (Hamster on here and Miranda Yardley). This may not be a majority position among transsexuals, but maybe it could evolve and we can ally on that. It would be a hopeful way forward. I am weary to throw women under the bus on the issue, and legal sex change is frought with problems (counting female in crime statistics, being stronger in sports, scarce data suggest male pattern criminality). Obviously, the numbers of transsexuals are so small that these factors won‘t significantly impact women‘s life (at least that is how I see it), but the problem is entering a slippery slope regarding TRA demands. I hope transsexuals would understand this (some vocally do) and we can find ways where transsexuals are protected without going down the ‚woman is a feeling‘ route.

It is really refreshing to read the responses. I suppose I should be upfront with everyone and declare my interest. Whilst I am covered under the Gender Recognition Act and do not have to reveal anything, I am a person who has a transsexual history. If anyone wishes to see me as a person who is not biologically female, then I have to support that, as I am only legally female.
There are quite a few, probably the majority, of others like me, who support the view of women on the subject of the GRA. In all honesty, we support a lot of other issues which are not currently being discussed, such as men objectifying women by wearing fetish clothing, or saying that they have periods etc.
However, the matter in hand has to be the main item of concern, and we have to confront the current proposals. I just feel so limited in not being able to do more, to get this trans cult stopped. I am looking into compiling a complaint against Westminster on the grounds of discrimination, under the Equality Act as transsexuals are currently protected, but the replacement by transgender who do not recognise or accept transsexuals in their label, is therefore discrimination.

•I am looking into compiling a complaint against Westminster on the grounds of discrimination, under the Equality Act as transsexuals are currently protected, but the replacement by transgender who do not recognise or accept transsexuals in their label, is therefore discrimination•

this is true and I do think transexuals are getting screwed by TRA and I do make a distinction between TRA and TS. If you are not recognised in the law, there can be no law for you and no protection.

My hope would be going forward that protections for women and TS are strengthened.

I think there's another massive strand that we are missing: this is actually a civil liberties issue.

If the state can declare that a man is a woman, without any scientific evidence that a woman can have a penis, then it can say anything. It can say that the Earth is flat, or that it's 6,000 years old, or that there is a god and we all have to worship him.

It is actually dangerous to give the state the power to redefine reality.

Justice that is an excellent point that needs to be made in the mainstream public, and repeatedly.

I think that what is fundamental to this debate (and also what makes me angry) is that men are - once again - trying to tell women what it is to be a woman.

No-one but women get to define that.

I don’t care that much about bathrooms, or trans people generally. They should be free of discrimination —and should get the help they obviously need for mental illness— but I do care very much about women, and the position of women here and now.

Woman is a state of fact

Trans is a state of fiction

Let’s start there.

Thanks alanna for such a sane and rational post. I hope the current ructions are not too jangling for you. I think that you and other normal ordinary transwomen who just want to get on with life, are being put into a terrible position by ignorant and clearly unbalanced trans activists.