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?

allana001

I think the vast majority agree with you. The GRA is doing what it was meant to do.

The motives and objectives for aggressively breaking down any distinction between male and female are not presented honestly.

I've found that moving the focus away from 'trans people' and purely focusing on the the fact that the government is considering changing the law so that anyone who says they are a woman can legally become one and therefore access any female only spaces usually gets people round to the anti self ID way of thinking fairly efficiently.

For anyone still unsure the words 'Ian Huntley' usually bring them round.

For me it's not really about the trans stuff it's about basic safeguarding and preventing shoddy lawmaking.

Resonant frequency will blow things even more open. I think reframing will evolve naturally around that.

We'll see how it goes, it could yet go either way. I don't necessarily share Lisa Muggeridge's optimistic view on it.

I am worried about how crazy this gets now tbh. Lisa has touched on it. I've seen some utterly crazy stuff with online gaming, and this all resembles that pattern in a very similar way. If what I've witnessed with that is anything to go by, we haven't seen anything yet. I'm going to try not to reflect too much on that right now.

It's scary. Like scary scary.

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.
This. Not our problem. We can sympathise, but we're not duty-bound to fix their issues.
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.
And that is a bloody good point.

For me it's not really about the trans stuff it's about basic safeguarding and preventing shoddy lawmaking.

This.

It's rule of law stuff.

The machinery of the system. Its already failed in one area. Thats why the times is involved in the way it is. They get its not simply about trans issues anymore at all.

Touching on the faith-based argument factor - if the state forces me to believe a man is a woman and vice versa, what is my legal recourse? Surely I should be able to ask that they at least prove it?

Depends on if we still have the HRA and or are still under the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

Both are targets for the far right.

I feel a need to respond to one or two points.To rivertam, thank you for your support and so eloquently put that I am delusional, a liar and deceitful. Needless to say, you won't be on my Xmas card list.
To pastabest, the law doesn't actually state that a man can now become a woman. Under the GRA it states that for all intents and purposes, a person becomes a member of the opposite sex. This is just legalese to give someone like me, legal protection. It doesn't make me a biological woman, that cannot happen, no matter how much I wish otherwise.
For those who gave their support, accept my thanks, and I would have liked to have apologised for all the trouble trans people have created, but I can't as these people enjoy the discord they are creating.

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 suspect that for certain demographics, that's a VERY effective and compelling way to start the discussion, although I haven't tried it yet on anyone (and I'm itching to!). My theory is that it forces "woke" liberals to notice they are prioritizing one competing interest group over another.

My next point would be to talk about how women are negatively impacted, obv. Because, liberals tend to process the subject in the same way that conservatives used to process colonialism -- they would always forget to ask how the victims felt about the colonizers.

As soon as we remember that we need to ask how the colonized feel about bio males in spaces where women are vulnerable and/or naked, AND that we need to deal with their concerns in a respectful manner, the whole thing falls apart. Or at least we get a major sea-change regarding how the debate is framed.

Liberals should be horrified that anyone "on their team" favors silencing debate, silencing dissent, silencing objections, silencing concerns. That is just not how healthy people operate -- and please remember, liberals PRIDE themselves on possessing an enlightened and altruistic rationalism. As such, they should be appalled by the persistent efforts to rely on thought terminating cliches and the repetitive brainwashing slogans instead of reasoned discussion.

My theory is that it forces "woke" liberals to notice they are prioritizing one competing interest group over another.
Your theory fails to account for interest group Top Trumps. Women are old hat. We are commonplace.

it's to force them to notice their implicit bias. most people wind up being embarrassed by two such oppositional choices. But maybe it's because I'm usually standing there glaring at them?

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.

hmmm, I'm just gonna plaster that everywhere if you don't mind Justice? with attribution obv. Excellent!

Red Lisa Muggeridge is spot on that the TRA agenda is the expression of narcissism and it is pointless to engage and what is needed is a clear no and a refusal to mirror them (‚your identity has nothing to do with me/women‘). That will induce their narcissistic ic rage, which demonstrates, why the ,no‘ was necessary. Of course, it means things will go crazier for a while. Might have been the same with online gaming. Yeah, Lisa thinks it is all done and dusted, judging from her videos.

allana if you are still reading, this might be a good strategy for transsexuals, too. Saying ‚ you guys with your delusions that biology isn‘t a thing and you menstruate, not sure what your issues are but your condition has nothing to do with me. That you appropriated ‚trans‘ doesn‘t change that.‘
I believe transsexual Miranda Yardley‘s evolution on the issue (which other transsexuals may find extreme) also reflects a radical refusal to serve TRAs as a mirror. There may not be agreement on all aspects among transsexuals, but a concerted effort to just say ,no, you have nothing to do with me/my identity‘ to the TRAs (in analogy to women saying no to them) might be helpful.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from this issue, it’s that there are people out there who do not give a shit about women and girls and genuinely don’t believe anyone else does either.

So with that logic, why would you ever question the demands of activists? If you can’t believe women and children matter to anyone you’ll never understand why feminists are fighting back.

It’s misrepresenting from the off.

What worries me with what Lisa says is the ommision of how cult like its all become.

The worry lies in how the next part of this unfolds for that reason. You have a group of very vulnerable individuals who are surrounded by a bunch of people who are increasingly getting more and more wound up, with a siege mentality that the whole world is against them. Its important to define it almost as leaders and followers in this context too. They will behave slightly differently.

There is plenty of historical precedent on this too, which isn't pretty. I'm not going to elaborate further but the dynamics are extremely toxic and I'm very, very concerned. I do not think the toxicity of the dynamics is a reason to stop talking though, because a failure to confront problems isn't going to stop things unravelling anyway. It has to at some point. If it comes to a head suddenly it could be very serious.

Janice's piece the other day was very good and important. I'm worry it might not be strong enough though there's risks with it anyway you cut it. The bubble that's been created from reality will run out of oxygen eventually, if it doesn't burst. If it does burst, will it be set up to poison the well with fallout.

Political parties need to start being aware in the background that 'being nice' may have been very counter productive in allowing the development of this bubble and perhaps some sensitive, proper expert outside advice might be advisable to help manage a potential crisis is a wise move.

I don't know. I'm worried.

I do know how crackers online war gaming can send people. Addiction and a disconnect from reality are terrifying forces to witness.

It’s interesting to see it as a cult mentality, I remember Heaven’s Gate and Waco and I can see why you’re not wishing to elaborate. (Apologise if I’ve referred to more than you are comfortable with. )

The difference I think is cults like that were isolated and easily controlled by the leaders. These are linked via the internet rather than physically. I would be worried if there were actual compounds or communes encouraging vulnerable people to get together.

Clearly the cut off ties from family and friends is being promoted, but hopefully the physical distance between people will prevent anything too bad.

Sorry for rambles my daughter is making me watch funny dog videos as I type.

I wonder if the rights thing is a red herring?
TS have the protected characteristic in the EA and good protections I think.? I’m not transsexual so clearly I have no idea how this plays out day to day.
The argument of piting one groups rights against another I think is toxic.
Ive been thinking about this because of a conversation I had yesterday where some said TS needed rights.
Probably most people don’t know GR is protected in the EA.

allana001 I meant to tag you in my post above. What do you think?

Gulags that is my impression, too. The demand that the GRA is now to be easily accessible to anyone who feels like it (including demands to be able to change multiple times as far as I understand) seems to actually undermine TS protections.
That is also Lisa Muggeridge‘s point that TRAs have set back TS protections and make the GRC meaningless with their agenda and antics.

We can't have safeguarding if we can't define the people involved. We all know Lisa is right. This blurring of boundaries around what is a woman etc will blur the boundaries of safeguarding too. Discussions around individual risk ie when told by TRAs we are bigots for assuming all trans people are abusers is a distraction. Noone is talking about individual risks. The stats we have are at population level. Thats where our argument is.

We need clear definitions of woman, man, child, transwoman and transmen to allow safeguarding.

I include child following the recent post about the mtg where CB argued that in our culture, we baby children. Unequivocally, we do not!!!!!!!!! CB should be referred to the UN convention on the rights of the child.

deepwatersolo yes exactly, there are so many lies, it makes it confusing.

When I first heard about it as an “ admin” change I thought what’s the big deal. I supported it.
After a couple of google searches i did a complete 180. I came across Danielle Moscato ( a one .... peaking machine) peak !

Everything trans is about lying and deceit I've read enough intelligent, nuanced posts from transsexuals to believe this is an unhelpful generalisation. A number of transsexual transwomen have posted on here to say they are aware they are biologically male, and that their trans presentation is about helping them cope with gender dysphoria.

If we aspire to be rational, in contrast to TRA irrationality, then we need to acknowledge nuance, not succumb to black-and-white thinking, IMO. I also don't think such generalisations are helpful to our cause.

A deeply confusing factor of this whole debate is the way desires, facts, formation of laws, implementation of laws, and interpretation of facts have been conflated. People are now taking strong stands without a particularly clear view on where things are now, how they are changing with the GRA and what problems the GRA is meant to solve, let alone what the unlooked-for consequences of GRA reform could be. It's like Universal Credit (and dare I say, Brexit) all fucking over again.

When I talk to my fellow lefty types, I tend to start off trying to understand what they think the GRA is going to do. So for people who think it's about equal rights for trans, we get into the current state of "rights" and what we mean by "equal". (This is where we can quickly separate the informed from the hopelessly clueless - I have had a very young student-y type try arguing for the rights of trans & "non-binary" folks to marry, which is easily shot down with a quick good of current UK marriage and civil partnership laws.)

As far as I can work out, in terms of law trans people are not currently unduly oppressed. For example, there aren't glaring unjustices possible such as being legal to rape trans people, stop them from marrying, bar them from gainful employment, throw them out of restaurants, etc.

Now, just because the current laws don't specifically allow discrimination doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (Many woman in the UK can personally attest to that!)

And it may also be that, although the law is generally protective against discrimination, it may be that gender non-conformity needs a particular shout-out in in some areas - maybe, say, employment law. (I'm not saying it does as I haven't looked into it, but I would be open to hearing cases for that, just as I am for making upskirting a specific criminal offense.)

Another area for tackling discrimination would be looking at implementation of law. Women have known for decades that policing has a big impact on how seriously law is implemented, with sexual violence being a significant area where laws have existed but perps have got away with crimes due to police apathy and/or lack of resources and funding. So I would also be entirely open to arguments about how anti-trans discrimination is policed, just as I am open to arguments about the police clamping down on street harassment.

What I DON'T understand is why it's necessary in law to make transwomen women. As so many people on this thread have already said, if you take away the bio-markers (XX, womb, ovaries, biomechanics of having a broader pelvis, etc) defining "woman" to please trans people, then take away the stereotypes (make up, skirts, passive, bitchy) to please women, what exactly do you have left?

Feel free ohello

Even on this forum, where there is no question but that people understand what this issue is really about, the language used is often about 'trans issues.'

"Half of female MPs are afraid to say honestly what their view is of the trans issue" ; "trans rights being discussed on R4" ; "women have been intimidated, disciplined at work, even assaulted for wanting to discuss the dangers of trans ideology."

By framing it as an issue about trans (-rights; - people; - ideology), we are allowing our views to be interpreted within the context of someone else's (false) assumptions.

Female MPs afraid to voice their views on trans issues? Well, they're probably transphobic and it's good that racist, homophobic, transphobic views aren't socially acceptable.

Female MPs afraid to voice their views on the legal definition of "female"?...

Female academics no-platformed and feminist groups threatened for speaking against trans ideology? Trans people are a minority! No hate speech here!

Female academics no-platformed and feminist groups threatened for wanting to discuss changes to the social understanding and legal definition of womanhood?...

Transphobes told there can be "no debate" on trans rights, or women told they have no right to hold a view or ask questions on changes to the legal definition of "woman".

I just think we all need to stop centring (to use a favourite wokeword) trans-anything in these discussions, because it positions us as people outside of a group debating the rights of that group. We need to present our own views in way that makes it clear that we're women discussing womanhood, this is our issue, and we are the protected group in question. And it needs to be challenged every time it's framed otherwise.