James Kirkup: What MPs are still getting wrong about the trans debate

[TimeLady]

Thank you, James, for still holding MPs to account

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/what-mps-are-still-getting-wrong-about-the-trans-debate/

The APPG, having assembled two sets of evidence about the differing behaviour of two groups of people, has decided to say they are basically the same: inciting violence against women is put on a par with making some trans people feel “unwelcome.” That, I suggest, is not a reasonable conclusion to reach: threatening violence is a crime; making someone feel unwelcome is not.

(or a if you prefer)

He's brilliant isn't he? I have a Spectator subscription just because of him. I guess I should take out a Times one too...

Wonderful as always. I found the below paragraph particularly illuminating:

Another flaw in that paragraph centres on reporting of threats. The APPG found that some women are subject to real threats of violence from some people who advocate trans rights. The APPG found that some trans people are distressed at “being…viewed as a threat”. The APPG does not dwell on the possible relationship between those two things. It should.

An excellent piece. Thank god for James.

Oh, and yes, I agree with StarSpangled about that paragraph. It would be funny if it wasn't so scary. TRAs threaten women with rape, violence and murder. Groups of them wear masks outside meetings to shout at and intimidate women.

And then they get really really angry at the suggestion that some women see trans people as a threat. Well, duh.

Thank you, James Kirkup. This article should be sent to every member of the committee.

Big for JK

Excellent piece

Way to go, James.

How can you arrive at a both sides conclusion when on one side you have bomb threats and assault convictions and on the other, you have the pointing out of bomb threats and assault convictions?

Could the answer be, oh, I don't know, misogyny?

He is, again, utterly brilliant. Very clear article and I wish it could be read by every MP and all those organisations, including Humberside Police and their ilk, who think they can lay blame at the door of women and their allies.

Excellent article, a particularly good one to send onto our MPs, I reckon.

Another one who took out a subscription to the Spectator on the back of James's excellent columns. I've read some fantastic articles (although below the line is best avoided )

What I don't understand is that his articles are so clear and say exactly what I would want to say. It all seems so obvious. Why aren't people (MPs?) hearing?

Useful too. I keep questioning myself. All of this is so awful, especially the drugging children, the silencing of so many, women's sport, and the safeguarding implications for the vulnerable. Is the world mad, or am I? So thank you James for being a sane voice and helping reassure me about my own sanity.

Great from James as always. There’s a good analogy to the ‘I’m a trans woman but I’m not a threat to women in their private spaces’ argument. I am not a child abuser. I never have and never would harm a child. I am also a Brownie leader and as such need to have a full police check which must be kept up to date. This is because paedophiles target posts such as mine and there have been some terrible incidents of child abuse committed. We have to do all we can to prevent that happening again. Undergoing a full police check does not mean I am in any way a threat to children - but a simple recognition that their rights to safety and protection are greater than mine. In the same way given that men commit most sexual and violent crime and most victims of violent crime are women it is not making a trans woman ‘unwelcome’ by saying they are not unconditionally welcome in women’s spaces - it is accepting the reality of sexual assault and seeking to make spaces safe for women.

This is a really really useful article and should be linked to, everytime the trope "well both sides are as bad as each other" gets trotted out.

Thank you AlwaysTawnyOwl I've had the same thought for some time. I used to need a DBS check for my job and never felt it implied I couldn't be trusted with vulnerable adults. I simply accepted it as a necessity because a minority of people seek positions of trust with the intention of abusing that trust to meet there own needs.

I'm grateful that James persists in highlighting the problems with the discourse around self ID. It's disappointing that the report apportions equal blame for the toxicity of the #notadebate to both sides. It looks to me as if the false equivalence is necessary to avoid our law makers having to acknowledge that they are accomodating a group that is using terror tactics to gets their own way.

The 'both sides' argument is often condescending and the result of wishful thinking not careful analysis.

Oh I'm glad he's laid it out so comprehensively.

They threaten and hit women, and then say oh my God, I can't believe women won't welcome us. Even when we insist on entry to their spaces where they're disrobing/vulnerable/incarcerated.

Although I'd be interested to know how many true transsexuals he thinks there are, as opposed to misogynistic men who can't wait to stick it to women.

I agree there is a difference. But the former are rare.

And then there's the knotty problem that, in my opinion, any man, irrespective of his motivations, who demands entry in the teeth of women's opposition, should be excluded purely on that basis.

oh my God, I can't believe women won't welcome us. Even when we insist on entry to their spaces where they're disrobing/vulnerable/incarcerated.

Exactly. Oh what a give away.

Zero interest in women's reasons, their feelings on this, the issues specific to women as to why this is a problem for many, or care for the women who will be excluded from women's spaces and are already when a TW is present. And refusal to extend any equal right of privacy or dignity or care for feelings to women in turn, while expecting that their privacy, dignity and feelings will be centred at all times by women.

And then bafflement at being feared and not welcomed. The lack of empathy and basic social awareness is staggering. And extremely telling.

There was a comment on a discussion months back that has stuck with me, where a TS person was considering at what point they should be allowed to use a female changing room or toilet, and asked if 75% of women agreeing was the tipping point where the answer should be yes. However this disregards that the 25% saying no are the ones who are the most uncomfortable and distressed, and will likely be the ones who have to stop using the facilities if that person uses them. Those 25% are the quarter most affected, and the quarter which should be least disregarded.

I agree this article is v good. James kirkup has been excellent on this whole issue.

It was the silencing tactics that first alerted me to the fact something was up, and this article makes really important points about that.

'be allowed' is a very poor choice of words: drat the lack of an edit button. 'Feel welcomed to use' would be a better way to put it.

James Kirkup and Jonny Best have both cut right through things in recent days. Best's piece on where Stonewall went wrong, identifying the calculated change of language aimed at controlling thoughts, was masterful. I forwarded it to a couple of people who immediately got what was happening in a way they hadn't previously. And James Kirkup has stated very clearly what I have struggled to say succinctly at times — that women, with their history of being oppressed, saying a firm no to something they experience as a direct threat is not equivalent to someone having their feelings hurt because people aren't prepared to lie about the evidence of their eyes.

The issue of felling unwelcome that TW complain about applies to all men. So we are back at the question of why we have sex segregated spaces in the first place.

It makes men feel excluded from womens’ spaces, so should we justget rid of all sex segregation?

It comes down to men feeling excluded vs women feeling and also sometimes being unsafe. Why is the former more important? Why does the government push for sex segregation in refugee camps / developing countries but here we're told there's no problem (despite the very clear evidence from the Karen Whites, Jess Bradleys, david challenors and Jacinta brooks)?

Even if tw (with their bigger bodies and greater muscle mass) were more at risk than other males in mens spaces they are at most 1%, the government is suggesting we just get rid of all safeguarding for the 50% just to make things better for the 1%. Doesn't add up. Third spaces would make more sense, unless your whole object is really to get rid of safety for the 50%.

I am another recent Spectator subscriber thanks to their stance and James in particular.
Reading the Spectator makes me realise how shoddy the Graun (my paper of choice for 30+ years!) had become. I have happily abandoned it.

.

Fantastic, and his summing up is spot on too.