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

I thought a pension was something you worked hard for all your working life - badge of honour.

As a pensioner and (I hope) a feminist I can't say I feel offended by the word. However I do draw the line at OAP.

Hmmm; been away for a couple of days, came back, had a look.

Same old, same old really, isn't it? It does remind me of discussions one sits in with about religions. I have at least three versions of Christianity in my family, each version at loggerheads with the others at various times. I'd imagine that this is replicated in many families in the UK, with different combinations of religion, creeds, and political beliefs.

It is not just religions; any " world view" that is passionately held can produce conflict. The merits of Paget -Gorman v Makaton became a resigning matter in one school I worked in , and ditto Bobath Physio v Conductive Education.

Each of them seems to have a common strand,. the idea that if only others would see the superiority of " our " idea and reject all the others then the world would be a better place.

In the situation we find ourselves in over this really worrying " contagion" of trans matters ( and I gave away my own opinion there, sorry) the main point seems to get lost;

IE; since times unknown the place of women in (almost?) all societies has been that of the second class, in the possession of males, of lack of opportunity/ property/ political rights. Slowly slowly in SOME societies things have improved a bit. But not anything like enough.

But , the process of fighting for those rights which are not won, has involved "creed like" approaches... as happens in socialism.... neoliberalism..... and so perfectly reasonable and usually highly intelligent and well educated people end up taking stances that obscure the main aim they started with.

I should know . In my time I have been a fanatic for International Socialism., and Conductive Education. And the English Folk Song and Dance Society. That was almost the worst.

Can we not be a little kinder to each other? We cannot ever remove all the things we do not want to like or accept in our society and lives.

People like me, pretty old now, with a GRC and a birth certificate that says "F", are not going to stop using the ladies loos when we stop at Oxford Services. So when I am in there, as I was recently, and a harrassed mother of three kids under 5 asked me to stay with her oldest, who was @ 4, while she tried to deal with two younger, screaming children, one of whom had had a nappy disaster, was I supposed to say... " no, I cannot chat with this child, in generalised granny mode, as I once had a different name and birth certificate?

Because it is not going to happen is it? I am not going to go back to using the gents. We are breaking no law in the ladies, even if we have no GRC. Our GRC says we are female under the law " for all practical purposes". We are not going away. We have always been there., we will always been here. So, why not move forward in pragmatic, practical fashion, stepping outside " perfect world " scenarios ? So we van get useful things done, ands not waste time and energy tilting at windmills? .

Which includes stopping Self ID. Or at least, making the process suitably long. A few years AT LEAST.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion Kay

Bit rich lecturing others though, especially women this board.

The thread started based on a letter which you have said you signed, the key motivator apparently being the condemnation of attempts to control women (adult human females) by predominantely male trans-activists: to prevent them from discusssing important issues of women's rights, safeguarding & free speech.

"We seek to find common cause with women against male violence and we condemn the threats, harassment and intimidation of women who argue that sex-based protections are vital in a society still punctuated by sexism. Women are oppressed because of their sex, not some metaphysical gender identity. We are concerned that women are being dehumanised as “TERFs” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) in order for abusive males to unleash misogynistic rhetoric and violent abuse with impunity.

We call for respectful discussion and debate, and for transgender rights activists to distance themselves from physical violence and attacks on free speech carried out in their name."

Control can of course take different forms and many women are aware of this although it is important to continually raise awareness.

Current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

I don't care about self id. I don't care how the government decide who is transgender.

I hate the way transsexuals and transgender people force gender stereotypes into children and encourage children to take puberty blockers and wear binders.

I hate the way male transsexuals and male transgender people refuse allow women and girls spaces and words to describe themselves. I hate the way all male people seem to think they are doing us a favour by allowing us spaces they don't need, but are very quick to take it away from us when they see fit.

I wish more women could see the blatant lies male transsexuals and male transpeople say. Many are happy to appear in the media shouting about respecting women and identifying with women. But when it really matters, when they might have to change their life even a tiny little bit, they tell us to fuck off and that they will refuse to let us have space to ourselves.

Rowantrees; I'm glad you say that I am entitled to my opinion. because everyone is. And I know what is in the letter I signed, because I read it before I signed it. So quoting from it again is surprising, perhaps? Unless it was because it was such an excellent letter? :-)

Possibly we differ a bit, a little bit; on the meaning and implications inherent in some of the wording.

I was happy to sign because it dealt very much with the shitty way that some of what we conveniently call " the TRAs" have conducted themselves in words and deeds.

(Though it is a shame that you regarded me stating my opinion as " lecturing". I'm just doing what everyone else is doing, including you; stating beliefs and opinions. )

I was happy to sign because it dealt very much with the shitty way that some of what we conveniently call " the TRAs" have conducted themselves in words and deeds

It seems that (as MirandaYardley ) has commented earlier on the threads, some trans signatories are more intent on seeking 'common cause' from women (adult human females) than challenging male-pattern control used against them.

Sparticua etc.

I signed it because every word of it was something I sincerely believe is right. I believe in free speech, within the law. Simple as that.

If I write something that you do not agree with, or if I state an objective truth that some wish wasn't a truth ( eg that TS men and women will be in the loos of the acquired gender, whether anyone likes it much, or not,) that does not indicate that I don't want to "listen to women's concerns".

Your position has been made very clear Kay

mirandayardley (who wrote the letter, which was then edited by Debbie Hayton) Fri 14-Dec-18 12:33:25

"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."

Fascinating.

Women's consent as a limited concept. Interesting way to condemn the bullying and violence directed at women who do not consent.

Way to go, Kay, way to go.

I do find it fascinating that someone is actually openly saying "I refuse to respect your boundaries. My only interest is in you being kinder to me so I can decide which men are allowed to transgress your boundaries, and what length of time it will take for them to be allowed to do so"

Quite astonishing, tbh.

One might possibly begin to see why I become intemperate on other threads concerning junior members of the movement who also think they are exempt from women's consent.

Lang, the longer time goes on, the clearer it becomes to me that irritation is an entirely appropriate response to some things.

As always, saying 'no' is a good test.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322589-Saying-no-to-men

Well, thanks for letting us know exactly where you stand, Kay.

Most informative.

I'll be standing right by Miranda, thanks, and as far away as possible from you.

Miranda Yardely does not represent " the acceptable face of " transsexualism " in the eyes of many of us who see ourselves as anti self ID , and have lived long lives in the acquired gender role, and may have a GRC.

Or not. No matter.

So self-id then, just on your terms?

Its not really in the spirit of Mumsnet to launch such a personal character attack on a regular poster.

She does not represent us, or any significant sub group of us. This is not an attack. MY knows what I and many other think of the insults and invective. It is embarrassing to behold, andnot a thing anyone wants to be associated with.

Rather disingenous to say something isn't an attack when it clearly reads as such, and quite a personal one too.

As commented previously, your position has been made clear kay

Its not really in the spirit of Mumsnet to launch such a personal character attack on a regular poster.

I agree.

I was never under the illusion that TS were on the side of women, or that you were all rallying to Miranda's message. If any of us were under that illusion, then the various waves of 'reasonable TS' initiatives, from TSRainCrew onwards, have surely disabused us of that notion.

So I'm not particularly surprised or disappointed to read that you give no shits about women and girls' boundaries or our consent for you to be in our spaces. That was expected.

What I am disappointed and surprised about is that you have done it on this thread, which was about a letter, signed by you, simply and unambiguously condemning violence and intimidation of women by TRAs.

And the personal attack on Miranda was really shoddy.