Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Let's go back to 2007

166 replies

Anlaf · 30/12/2018 00:36

I was having a footle - back in 2007-2008 there were a number of submissions to Parliamentary committee on laws relating to hate crimes, and on extreme pornography.

They are pretty interesting. Shall we have a rummage?

Here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/cmpbcriminal.htm

And here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/cmpbcriminal.htm

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
PencilsInSpace · 30/12/2018 13:23

The 88 year old woman needing a female carer was given as an example of the press 'fanning the flames' of transphobia by the way they reported the incident.

However the following two paragraphs don't focus on the press reporting at all, but rather on the daughter's 'transphobia' and 'irrational hatred and intolerance'.

WeRiseUp · 30/12/2018 13:24

Yes talking you are right. When I think of all the razzmatazz of New Labour it was a perfect cover for all this stuff.

I concur that pencils you are amazing.

Why didnt women get consulted about the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act? Women fought for that fucking Act. Maybe Whittle and Burns were able to head fuck polititicans into thinking that they both represented women's interests or something because with all of those women in Parliament you would have thought it would occur to them.

Ereshkigal · 30/12/2018 13:26

It’s quite devastating reading that account of the elderly woman being presented with a male carer, the way it’s framed. It’s chillingly clear that it’s transactivists like this who don’t regard women/girls as human, not the other way round.

It really is.

WeRiseUp · 30/12/2018 13:30

It reminds me of Whittle thinking it was an appropriate time to start joyfully reminiscing about getting rogered at girl scouts on a thread full of concerned parents worried about teenage boys sharing their daughters tents at Girl Guides.
Zero empathy.

Ereshkigal · 30/12/2018 13:30

This was in 2007 and so pre-dates the EA. The relevant legislation would be the <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1102/regulation/4/made" target="_blank">Sex Discrimination Act (1999 amendments))^

Pencils, I assumed by the line "had been a female legally for more than a year." that "Sue" had a newly minted GRC.

WeRiseUp · 30/12/2018 13:32

Fake it until you make it?

PencilsInSpace · 30/12/2018 13:49

Souncloud interview - Christine Burns interviewing Alice Purnell, co-founder of the Beaumont Society. (I might transcribe this if people are interested - there's a lot of eyebrow raising stuff in there, beneath Alice's charming 'little old me' persona).

These two go way back. One of the earliest heartwarming anecdotes in CB's book is of these two crashing a lesbian group even though they knew tw were not welcome. They believe they weren't spotted because nobody said anything.

They don't come across as arseholes, just completely oblivious to women's interests. Throughout CB's book, there's a smattering of incidents where it's clear that feminists, and particularly lesbians, are objecting to tw's presence or agenda, and each time this is brushed off with a 'don't know what their problem is' type of attitude.

womanformallyknownaswoman · 30/12/2018 13:52

Ereshkigal

Very illuminating and yes the strategic deception and coercion is shocking

GeorgeFayne · 30/12/2018 13:53

Excellent thread and all comments so insightful (and damn right frightening!).

LangCleg You've touched on something that has been troubling me for awhile, and I'm not sure where to go with it. I see sentiment discussed that suggests the "old school" transsexuals meant no harm to women, and were quietly just trying to go about their lives under the radar. Along comes the new generation of trans-people under a wide umbrella, and these individuals are felt to be more militant, aggressive, and seeking to erode women's rights.

Something doesn't sit well with me as I consider that narrative. If the early transsexuals meant no harm, how did we get here? The above information suggests a very broad and clear agenda, not so innocent in its goals.

Further, this seems to underpin the idea of "true trans," which I don't support. (I do, however, believe in the unpopular subtypes, including AGP.)

I don't want to acknowledge ANY male as woman, kind and unassuming as he might be. When we open the door to include any biologic male, we open the door to them all--predators, perverts, fetishists... The door must stay firmly shut. The definition of woman must only be adult females. Period.

And, yes, I do very much like Miranda Yardley, though I suspect MY would agree with much of what I've said here.

Anlaf · 30/12/2018 14:14

What is also interesting, is that I can see lots of religious groups in that list of submissions, and trans orgs, (and bdsm and pornographers for the extreme porn / restrictions on bodily harm in sex).

But no women's orgs.

OP posts:
Anlaf · 30/12/2018 14:37

At the risk of overloading the thread - here is Backlash, protesting at the proposal to ban extreme porn.

porn even so-called extreme or violent porn is not one thing to all people and, in most cases, is a social good which leads to self acceptance by sexual minorities and in modern, developed societies leads to a reduction in the rates of violence and of rape.

there is much research that shows that access to pornography

i) alleviates mental anguish amongst sexual minorities

and

ii) reduces the rates of violence against women

This law change on extreme porn was sought by Jane Longhurst's mum and sister following Jane's murder by a man who had watched much strangulation "porn" as well as subscribed to sites featuring necrophila.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 30/12/2018 14:53

GeorgeFayne - I see it fairly simply. We have sex segregation to protect women against red flag males. We know that not all males wave those red flags but enough of them do to render women-only spaces and services necessary. Once you start digging into the history of transactivism, you can see that it doesn't really make any difference whether the subset of males is your standard bloke, your cross dresser, or your transsexual. Some of them mean ill to women in all groups. And that's why sex segregation is necessary.

I know some lovely men and I'd not mind sharing spaces with them, likewise some lovely cross dressers and some lovely transsexuals. I'd not mind sharing spaces with them either. None of them cancel out the ones waving the red flags and, since those cannot be recognised until it is too late, women's spaces should remain women only. Men will just have to learn to become welcoming and accepting of their non-conforming brethren.

WeRiseUp · 30/12/2018 15:00

Anlaf this is a great thread.

R0wantrees · 30/12/2018 15:05

Guardian 2013 article about formation of Press For Change includes interviews with Stephen Whittle, Christine Burns, Paris Lees, Sarah Brown, James Barrett

(extract
"Whittle, who "transitioned" nearly 40 years ago, was one of three trans men and three trans women who did an unusual thing in 1992: they went to meet Liberal Democrat MP Alex Carlile in Westminster. The unusual element was not the meeting but the fact that they travelled together – at the time, trans people never dared to because it increased the likelihood that they would be spotted and abused. These six wanted to start a campaign group; Carlile advised them to avoid the word "transsexual". So, in Grandma Lee's teashop opposite Big Ben, an anodyne name, Press for Change, was chosen."

The 80s, remembers Whittle, had been "dreadful years". As soon as his trans status was discovered he would be sacked; it was the same for every trans person. At the job centre, the adviser would call out, "Miss Stephen Whittle". At his teacher-training medical, the doctor told him they couldn't have "his sort" in teaching. "It was very, very hard, not just on us but on the people we fell in love with and lived with. We felt like we could never, ever win this battle. All these years on, we have sort of won the battle."

For decades, Ashley's life itself was a source of some of these battles, as one of the few widely known transsexuals in Britain alongside Jan Morris, who completed her transition in 1974. The annulment of Ashley's marriage to the Hon Arthur Corbett (in court he was judged "deviant"; she "a man") in 1970 was a humiliation for Ashley and a great setback for trans people because it was established that a person must remain their birth gender in law. Before that, trans people were furtively altering their birth certificates, or passports, and accessing medical treatment.

Christine Burns is one of a generation who vividly remembers reading about Ashley in the papers when she was a young child. (Ashley appeared in a six-week special in the News of the World: "They were one of the very few who paid me and they behaved impeccably. I was very sad when the News of the World closed," says Ashley.) The existence of someone like her in the public eye was a great comfort for Burns. In the 90s, when she was chair of the Women's Supper Club of the local Conservative party association in Cheshire, she quietly joined Press for Change. Even then, the new activists dared not be openly trans. "The thing that held us back in the 1990s campaigning was that fear of being out," admits Burns. Eventually, she came out in 1995; she jokes that she realised she was more embarrassed to be a member of the Conservative party than openly transsexual.

Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

R0wantrees · 30/12/2018 15:09

I see sentiment discussed that suggests the "old school" transsexuals meant no harm to women, and were quietly just trying to go about their lives under the radar. Along comes the new generation of trans-people under a wide umbrella, and these individuals are felt to be more militant, aggressive, and seeking to erode women's rights.

Something doesn't sit well with me as I consider that narrative. If the early transsexuals meant no harm, how did we get here? The above information suggests a very broad and clear agenda, not so innocent in its goals.

See second half of recent thread which highlighted the difficulties in claiming clear delinations between transsexuals/transgender/trans rights' activists etc

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3445694-Letter-in-the-Times-Plea-To-The-Trans-Lobby-from-group-of-transsexuals?pg=16

Anlaf · 30/12/2018 15:13

Now without much further comment, Backlash -the "porn is a social good and reduces rape" extreme porn advocates- are a group made up of:

Backlash consists of Feminists Against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, The Spanner Trust, the Libertarian Alliance, the Campaign Against Censorship, the Sexual Freedom Coalition, the Society for Individual Freedom, SM Dykes and the International Union of Sex Workers

Feminists against censorship we know well, I think. And Jane Fae may be associated with Backlash, somehow: mobile.twitter.com/pankhurstem/status/1043841978675449857?lang=en

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 30/12/2018 15:15

Christine Burns recent opinion piece for Pink News:
'How 2018 became the year of trans persecution'

(extract)
"As part of PinkNews’ year-end review of 2018, activist Christine Burns MBE reflects on the unprecedented hostility towards trans people in the last 12 months. (continues)

Less obvious to us in Britain, that same month, the US right wing’s Values Voter Summit — an annual strategic planning jamboree for anti-LGBT interests — was discussing the need to switch focus onto splitting the LGBT alliance, by targeting all their guns on trans people. Attacking trans people was to be the way of regrouping and rallying the troops after losing their war on equal marriage.

Correlation isn’t causation — a smoking gun (if it exists) is yet to be uncovered — but it was shortly after these two seemingly disconnected events that the current controversy about trans people and our rights became really unpleasant in Britain. And that became the backdrop for the whole of 2018.

Groups that nobody had ever heard of before suddenly emerged, with glossy websites registered in the US, claiming to represent mainstream women’s interests. Questions have been raised about some of their funding. The ‘Feminist’ section of Mumsnet became the unofficial base for radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them.

And those leaders found a ready ear in some of Britain’s right-leaning press — so much so that there was barely a Sunday in 2018 when the Sunday Times (and sometimes the Mail) was not running story after story hostile to trans people, with no effective right of reply. “We’re being silenced,” cried the people silencing trans people. This peaked as first Scotland and then Westminster conducted public consultations on how to improve the GRA.

Everything else is just detail. 2018 has been defined by a campaign against trans people and anyone identified as a possible ally. Everyone agrees it is unprecedentedly toxic but, just as Donald Trump pretended after Charlottesville, this is not an issue where ‘both sides’ can be considered equivalent.

How will it end? At the moment I don’t know. I pray that some of the blatant stirring by anti-trans campaigners doesn’t lead to physical violence. 2019 will be horrible, set against a political and economic landscape that may be nothing short of apocalyptic. At such times it is easy to make scapegoats. My prayer for the year ahead is that we — trans people — are not ‘it.’"

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/12/21/trans-persecution-2018-christine-burns/

R0wantrees · 30/12/2018 15:19

Backlash consists of Feminists Against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, The Spanner Trust, the Libertarian Alliance, the Campaign Against Censorship, the Sexual Freedom Coalition, the Society for Individual Freedom, SM Dykes and the International Union of Sex Workers

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers

Roz Kaveney
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300327-Feminists-Against-Censorship-Spearheaded-by-British-activists-Linda-Semple-and-Roz-Kaveney

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3383565-A-transwomans-penis-is-not-a-male-penis

TalkingintheDark · 30/12/2018 15:21

Anlaf this is a great thread. Seconded. Hats off for this work.

Anlaf · 30/12/2018 15:24

The ‘Feminist’ section of Mumsnet became the unofficial base for radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them.

Oooh dear now R0 that has made me angry

Silly chattering nitwit ladies easily led again, innit.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 30/12/2018 15:30

radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them

Is that a slip?! Whose leading figures?!

Women! You may know only what our leading figures tell you! Feminist consciousness raising is not on! You got that?

LiverpoolReSisters · 30/12/2018 15:36

Groups that nobody had ever heard of before suddenly emerged, with glossy websites registered in the US

Lovely bit of twisting the truth there - considering how easy it is to set up a professional looking wordpress blog. WordPress is owned by a company in San Francisco, so yes... Grassroots women's groups have been springing up all over the UK and used a free website platform owned by an American company. Really not as shady as it is made out to be!

userschmoozer · 30/12/2018 15:42

So this has been organised, systematic, deliberate.
Women have been excluded from creating policies that will adversely affect women.
High profile women's organisations and services have been colonised.

R0wantrees · 30/12/2018 15:45

The ‘Feminist’ section of Mumsnet became the unofficial base for radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them.

Edward Lord listed the as one of the 'problematic' articles by Andrew Gilligan his interview with Justine Roberts who disclosed TRA attempts to close down discussion on MN.
April 2018
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mumsnet-founder-justine-roberts-transgender-activists-try-to-curb-free-speech-on-site-z3sr3nf6q?shareToken=b2eb62822dd26aecc0f88653978ed23a

AIBU thread supporting Justine Roberts & Mumsnet stance:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3222471-AIBU-to-be-extremely-proud-of-Justine-Roberts-Mumsnet-right-now

Edward Lord: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3459026-Edward-Lord-asking-the-Sunday-Times-to-censor-Andrew-Gilligan

Let's go back to 2007
BlytheSpiritsSpirit · 30/12/2018 15:46

So this has been organised, systematic, deliberate. Yes.
Women have been excluded from creating policies that will adversely affect women. Yes.
High profile women's organisations and services have been colonised. Yes.

And third wave feminism is part of it, imo.

Swipe left for the next trending thread