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?

kesstrell well, my post has been deleted. Which says it all, as far as I'm concerned. The truth cannot be spoken on MN on this issue (and this issue alone, as far as I can see). So that's probably it for me as I now have no idea what I can and can't post. Because individual's feelings are more important that looking at things more broadly, from s societal point of view.

But just think how we have got to this point. It's because of what we have allowed to be accepted as truth.

Deepwatersolo
I have already stated about my biology and my legal status. I am more than aware that I cannot menstruate, or bear children etc. If I could do that, I would have been female, and would not have had the issues and problems I faced in life. The issues and problems would have been those that women have. I guess I would have gladly swapped one set of issues for another. However, life isn't fair, and I live my life as female to the best of my ability. It isn't perfect, but it is better than contemplating if suicide is the better option than living as male. Btw, I didn't hate or detest my male genitals, which is now being put forward by haters against transsexuals as a cause or reason for gender dysphoria.
Gulagsmy*rse
I would like to clarify some of your helpful comments. Gender reassignment is part of the GRA and the Equality Act, however, the term transsexual, therefore the term gender reassignment, has been under erosion for a number of years by the trans/transgender cabal. I have numerous complaints to Westminster, the Scottish Government, the police and many other public organisations, being ignored because they have been convinced that trans / transgender is the more encompassing term. These organisations totally ignore my, and other TS's concerns, even when we submit proof that transsexuals are being eliminated.
What is being proposed now with the GRA is a culmination of years of work by these trans activists and their cult, and I have watched this emerging for quite some time. In many ways I am glad that the trans brigade have now shown their hand, and now women, and men, can see the damage that is being caused.
I know some people who are posting, do not like trans people, and perhaps they don't like transsexuals. I am ok with that as I don't need to engage with them after this consultation is finished. However, at this point in time, we have to concentrate our efforts on stopping the GRA proposals, and TS's have possibly got a stronger case than many as it is our legal rights which are being directly attacked, and this then reflects onto women's rights. With very rare exceptions, the current legal rights afforded under the GRA on TS's have had a detrimental effect on a woman's rights. It is imperative we maintain that balance.

allana I know that you know (biologywise...) my point was rather that you and transsexuals generally could use that (or any other arguments fit for the purpose) to make the explicit point to TRAs, that whatever their issues, they have nothing to do with you, transsexual is sth entirely different to their thing... what Muggeridge calls ‚not mirroring them‘, as she suggests women should act, too.
Now, some TS already do that, but I think the broader it gets, the sooner the lunacy will be over. Obviously making the point to government as you say is important, too, no doubt.

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.

This.

What is striking about the current law is how poor it is in how it was originally written - and how untested it is.

The conflict between the EA and the GRA has never been tested in a way that perhaps it needs to be which illustrates the point of balancing needs. Its a massive contributor to why guidance being all over the place. There are multiple interpretations from various different legal sources and non legal sources.

Now what we are seeing is moves to remove the EA and/or to make it completely irrelevant in practice in a way which was never intended when you look back at Hansard.

It isn't uncommon for law to end up being used in ways it was never intended. The law on terrorism is a particular area where its well known.

That precisely why its fundamental that there should be as much debate as possible when law is initially created to try and minimise any future unintented consequences.

You simply CAN NOT make good law in silence without a debate. It is impossible. It is authoritarian nonsense which has no place in a democracy. It does not matter what the subject is or how sensitive it is.

Rights in particular require broad public consensus when they are initally formed because the process of removing them retrospectively, endangers the existence of all rights. Forcing through something which goes against this, is always going to lead to problems.

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.
Agreed agreed agreed

Turph
Unfortunately whilst the debate is tending to circle around women, the implications of the proposed changes affects a much smaller community, i.e. transsexuals, and the GRA is to protect them.
Don't alienate TS's by insisting the issue is purely women's rights, because, even if the proposals are stopped, transsexuals still have to fight for their rights.
Support your allies.

allana001 no I don't think focussing on women's rights is wrong, it's much easier to defend than being seen to be anti anyone else. I have no issue with transsexuals and am happy to support them but my focus remains on my own rights while they are under threat.

Support your allies.

No offence, because you seem like a decent person, but avoid using the imperative on a feminist forum. It doesn't say good things about you.

www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/28/14088992/brain-study-change-minds
A new brain study sheds light on why it can be so hard to change someone's political beliefs
Why we react to inconvenient truths as if they were personal insults.

This is ultimately why TRAs always wanted no debate...

support your allies

I think I agree with this actually. It's not just women who are unhappy or affected. Gay men, transexuals and hetero men are critical too. I don't think the discussion is mainstream enough yet, although I do think it's getting there.