Letter in the Times - Plea To The Trans Lobby from group of transsexuals

[PimmsnLemonade]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/times-letters-reasons-for-private-schools-oxbridge-success-sqjb6kkgt

MirandaYardley shared this article earlier in the thread when asked for how she thought things might best move forward:

'Transsexual Voices Matter'
POSTED ON 17TH AUGUST 2018 BY MIRANDA
"So, the @ TSVoices (Transsexual Voices Matter) Twitter and Facebook came and went and is back again. There’s plenty I could say about the group’s initial statement. The claim to be diagnosed with ‘rare acute forms of gender dysphoria’ is just silly because whatever gender dysphoria is, the justification for treatment is that the condition supposedly is chronic, and anyway what we know about male transsexualism points again to this being a chronic condition. There’s a lot of whining about how the identity of ‘transsexual’ is being swept aside by ‘transgender’, which is a fair argument and one I’ve used myself, but as usual it’s what the statement manages NOT to say that gives the game away, and add to that the continual claim to ‘woman’ throughout the statement lets us all see exactly what this is:

It remains to be seen whether this group stand for anything different. They could have specifically identified and condemned the use of ‘TERF’ and the attack on female homosexuality; if they’re that concerned about respecting female culture, spaces and the lives of women, I’d look for an explicit distancing from the use of ‘lesbian’, ‘mother’ and ‘woman’. Unfortunately many of ‘the good trans’ still can’t bring themselves to this more evolved point.

Remember TSRainCrew? Tried to sell themselves as the ‘good trans’ and made similar arguments about cultural distinction. Yet in reality their spokespeople ended up being just as big dicks as the gendersists they criticised.

If they’re going to be different, they actually have to be different. Else this is just another attempt to claim a higher spot on the validity hierarchy." (continues)

mirandayardley.com/en/transsexual-voices-matter/

Miranda Yardley also recently wrote for AfterEllen:

'Girl Dick, the Cotton Ceiling and the Cultural War on Lesbians, Girls and Women'
www.afterellen.com/general-news/567823-girl-dick-the-cotton-ceiling-and-the-cultural-war-on-lesbians-girls-and-women

both articles worth reading... as is the case, in my opinion, with all Miranda's writing

Lang,

Opposition to Self ID will happen for a number of reasons:

• women who worry about loss of their spaces, including prisons, refuges and sport
• lesbians and the apparent erasure
• the Christian right
• those concerned about free speech and the influence of small but powerful lobbies
• parents/professionals worried about children, perhaps with other abuse and MH issues, being groomed, and that a less than ethical medical approach is being used
• transexuals worried that acceptance earned over the years will be lost, and for some given the size of the decision and the scope for regret a belief that the process should not be too easy.
• white van man/Daily Mail reader, who is socially conservative and sees this as another example of the world going mad.

And more.

The more different voices the better. Each person speaking out honestly and with their own perspective, whether you agree with them or not, is making a contribution. And some (high profile; job vulnerable or transexual) face greater flack than others.

Even over the past few months it has become clear that there an increasing number of articulate GC voices. The recent Women's Hour series, where they did the best to balance academics, journalists and others, clearly illustrated that oppontents to Self-ID have good arguments. Whether this is enough to counter years of "equalities" infiltration of key organisaitons by Stonewall, remains to be seen. However I think, given this exeperience and that of Janice Turner, we can assume that the editors of both Mail and Times are pretty peak Trans'd. So to two brave women.

MirandaYardley concluded in article above (August 2018)

"Yes, transsexual voices matter, but again we are in the situation where these voices are elevated over and above the voices of women. No change there, then. In case I’m not making myself absolutely crystal clear, what I am saying to @ TSVoices is, hear this: in the words of Pink Floyd ‘you’re just the same as all the rest’. And yes, that feeling of discomfort you are having right now is déjà vu.

So, where do we go from here? Well, I get to say exactly the same damn thing I have been saying for years:

Disavow any claim to ‘woman’ and ‘female’, including all subsets, ‘lesbian’, ‘mother’, ‘sister’ etc., these are never yours to take;
Clearly and unambiguously denounce male violence against women without exception or qualification or any other way you lot keep trying to wriggle your way out of it;
Affirm that human beings are sexually dimorphic mammals and that what you presently call ‘trans women’ are biologically male;
Be honest about gender, this means recognising autogynephilia as a primary cause of male transsexualism and that the entire concept of ‘living as a woman’ when applied to trans males is just sexism;
Use your activism to support the rights of transsexuals, but not at the expense of women, and not as is so clear in this case to claim a higher step on the validation hierarchy;
Don’t ever use threatening language to women, and while your’re working on that, learn to apologise for being a dick when you’ve been a dick;
Don’t try to undermine women’s voices by using the term ‘radfem’ as a synonym for extreme, just like you actually did;
Fight against today’s fashion of coding sex role nonconformity in children as these children being ‘born in the wrong body’, this is dishonest and incredibly cruel and should be right at the top of your agenda;
Recognise that your own interests are best served by repositioning the trans movement, not the women’s movement; and
Listen to women.
End"

Each person speaking out honestly and with their own perspective, whether you agree with them or not, is making a contribution.

You've missed my point. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with a particular position. Everyone is welcome to advocate for their own positions.

I'm talking about conversations on topics about women being redirected to something else when male people are involved. That something else being, invariably, the male people themselves. And if a woman has the temerity to attempt to reorient the conversation back to women, she is met with very male hostility to the idea.

If I see it, I challenge it. Won't be stopping any time soon.

On the subject of Rosa, does anyone know if any action will be taken re death threats and intimidation?

I just listened to Glinner and Derrick, and towards the end they spoke about importance of standing up for truth.
It's amazing that women are being vilified, shut down, attacked and threatened for simply speaking the truth. And for simply believing in the absolute necessity of current laws protecting our spaces.
In a rational atmosphere, nothing controversial about the definition of man and woman and a binary view of sex, or stating that women have a right to privacy, safety, dignity.
What the hell happened and how is it that so many of our politicians are either asleep to it or actively ignoring women's concerns?
It's not wrong to question the intentions of men who are basically saying that women's spaces aren't important and we should be allowed to do so without fear.

For clarity, what The Times letter was about:

to highlight the intimidation and promotion of rhetorical and physical violence against women, which is being justified by and in the name of transgender activism; and
to act as an invitation for transgender activists to recognise this and so denounce and distance themselves from the violence and violent rhetoric being acted in their name.

What The Times letter was not about:

Individuals;
Self-ID;
Validation;
The TS v TG faux debate;
Me.

.
Have read the links. Helpful that they were posted, thank you.
More helpful perhaps to have posted them earlier.
Personally, I would not have gone into "you are not the boss of me" mode ( versus accusations of "male hostility")

Ok, I understand what is being said now. I get it.

The letter is about women. The thread is not

It's an object lesson in why women (as a class) need our own space. Our socialisation simply prevents us from centring our own perspectives and feelings in any other circumstances.

Personally, I would not have gone into "you are not the boss of me" mode confused ( versus accusations of "male hostility")

Ok, I understand what is being said now. I get it.

If your response is to tone police pointing out the dynamic for not being soothing enough to males, I'm afraid I don't think you do get it.

Miranda,

Why is TS v TG a faux debate ?

For me this is very much a debate and a massive issue in todays society that we need to clearly identify how we define TS and TG.

Very interesting thread. It's completely different from talking to transactivists.

Much easier.

My question to all the transsexuals on this thread is do you use any women's spaces, at all?

On the subject of Rosa, does anyone know if any action will be taken re death threats and intimidation?

Im not aware of anything since the University made their statement.

Prof Freedman, said at that point she would not be commenting further (as appropriate for circumstances)

Worth noting the escalation of harrassment towards David Linehan since the interview & which media sources are involved.

If your response is to tone police pointing out the dynamic for not being soothing enough to males, I'm afraid I don't think you do get it.

I don't recall saying anything about soothing males, or "tone police" as you call it?
I did stop and reflect as you suggested up thread.
I read the links.
But if you want to flame me. Fill your boots.
A bit sad, as we don't know each other at all, and you have made an assumption, but I'll live.

Im not aware of anything since the University made their statement

Let's add it to the list of investigations to keep an eye on.

NUS investigation of JB
Green Party investigation of AC
Reading Uni investigation of harassment of Rosa

Are there any more I'm forgetting?

Nevertheless, and curiously enough, very little of this thread is about TRA behaviour towards women - purportedly the point of this letter

But there are loads of threads on here about TRA behaviour to women! And interesting (and infuriating) though that subject is, I don't think all the women who've posted on this thread should be disparaged for taking an interest in what transexual voices - male or female - have to say.

And clearly quite a few of us are interested. I don't think the encouragement and questions posted by quite a number of women here - at least a dozen - are just down to "female socialisation" - frankly that's a bit insulting to women who probably have a number of motivations for their interest, including purely intellectual curiosity.

Unless you're a separatist, "centring women" inevitably is going to involve some discussion around the interaction of male people's thinking and behaviour with women's issues. And arguably, an insight into the motivations and thinking of trans people could also be useful to campaigns to preserve women's spaces.

Whether or not the TG vs TS debate is faux or not, it clearly wasn't the purpose of the letter, or anything to do with condemning rhetorical and actual violence and intimidation of women.

Lang and Miranda are entirely right. I'm sure a specific thread to encourage Transsexuals to stand with women would be a good place to do lots of flower emojis and affirmation if that's anyone's bag, but does it have to happen on every single thread where transsexuals acknowledge that violence and intimidation should always be condemned? That's just basic decency, isn't it? I've never pushed a pensioner out of the way in a bus queue. No one's ever given me flowers for not doing it.

Datun - My question to all the transsexuals on this thread is do you use any women's spaces, at all?

No - not one (and that includes loos)

Let's add it to the list of investigations to keep an eye on.

NUS investigation of JB
Green Party investigation of AC
Reading Uni investigation of harassment of Rosa

Are there any more I'm forgetting?

There's a certain GP...

Thank you Hamster00.

Both for answering the question, and respecting women's consent.

"I've never pushed a pensioner out of the way in a bus queue. No one's ever given me flowers for not doing it."
FloralBunting
I'd rather be pushed than have a radical feminist calling me after a fucking benefit.

There's a certain GP...

Good point. I'll start a thread so we can keep them all in one place

I'd rather be pushed than have a radical feminist calling me after a fucking benefit.

A pensioner is someone who receives the old age pension. Indicating an age.

... and yes, I know it's not called that officially. But I hadn't realised it was an insult?

Nope, not in the least intended as an insult - common parlance for elderly person, someone I wouldn't even consider mistreating, because of basic decency, and therefore I wouldn't expect plaudits for treating them well.

Has something occurred in the language which now means the word pensioner is offensive? I was totally unaware of that.