Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Ruth Hunt interview

30 replies

BuzzPeakWankBobbly · 29/04/2019 09:04

I am at work now so haven't listened to this yet, but a sentence below the podcast link is interestingly worded:

"She also discusses why it was a mistake for Stonewall to only have taken on transgender rights in 2015, and why she wishes others would recognise that trans rights are human rights."

www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/apr/29/on-the-frontline-in-the-fight-for-lgbt-rights

OP posts:
AncientLights · 29/04/2019 09:12

Thanks will listen after school run.

OhHolyJesus · 29/04/2019 09:43

Had a listen, interesting. I agree with her on some things but not necessarily for the same reasons. If Stonewall had campaigned for T rights at the same time as LGB (let's say that it came into the mainstream in the 1980s) it would have brought about a different result, one possibly worse for women? I think it might have been better for women - I don't think T belongs with the LGB at all but had they joined them then I believe feminism and the woman's movement was viewed differently and at the very least we wouldn't have had the Social Media influence.

I cannot believe how she can confidently state that they encourage debate and that prisons and sports should be considered in a case by case basis. I believe her to be an intelligent woman just not with the same moral compass I would wish for, for someone who holds/held such a prominent, powerful position in the world we live in right now.

OldCrone · 29/04/2019 09:57

I just listened to it. She completely misrepresents the feminist view. She's either doing this deliberately, or she really hasn't listened enough to what we've been saying.

BuzzPeakWankBobbly · 29/04/2019 10:40

She completely misrepresents the feminist view. She's either doing this deliberately

Imagine my surprise.
Of course it's deliberate.

OP posts:
Popchyk · 29/04/2019 10:50

Funny how she's talking now that she's looking for a new job, eh? Before it was #nodebate.

"I cannot believe how she can confidently state that they encourage debate and that prisons and sports should be considered in a case by case basis".

That's transphobic, for starters. Transwomen are women and should always be accommodated within the female estate or female sports. Acceptance without exception, remember.

She is obviously trying to distance herself from Stonewall's current position. That she set up.

OldCrone · 29/04/2019 11:04

She's asked about whether there is any truth in the accusations that Stonewall has shut down debate around trans rights. She replies that they are constantly engaged in difficult discussions. She agrees that prisons and sports need to be discussed, but she then says there's a 'reluctance to concede that there is space for civility' and civil conversation is lacking. She says that some of the things that have been said to and about trans people, and have been said 'on all sides' haven't helped the discussion.

She thinks the prisons issue should be judged on a 'case by case' basis, and says that is the view of both Stonewall and the MoJ.

She says it's not 'legitimate' to say that 'all transwomen are men masquerading as women in order to exploit a system'. She says 'we' can't engage with a position that 'starts on the assumption that all transwomen are fundamentally deceptive and out to harm'.

She says that the discussion is not 'based in the facts of a situation'. She agrees that we should be able to discuss whether the Olympic Committee have made the right decision regarding participation of transwomen, but we shouldn't be framing this as 'should transwomen compete in sport?'.

So she either doesn't know what the gender critical position is (because she has refused to engage with anyone who disagrees with her), or she is deliberately misrepresenting it.

OldCrone · 29/04/2019 11:10

Of course it's deliberate.

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm constantly amazed by how much people simply believe, without question, what the people in their own circle are saying, because they never actually engage with, or even read/listen to the views of, people who hold another opinion.

It really wouldn't surprise me if she had no idea about the sort of things we discuss on here, because it's all "transphobic", so she wouldn't even look.

BuzzPeakWankBobbly · 29/04/2019 11:19

She says it's not 'legitimate' to say that 'all transwomen are men masquerading as women in order to exploit a system'.

Well then it is lucky that isn't what's happening, isn't it.

Welcome to the debate Ruth - let's talk about how predators will use the cover of transgenderism to gain access to their victims, because this harms everyone. We already have proof of it happening. Unfortunately these sexual criminals do call themselves transgender - any ideas how we deal with that?

OP posts:
BuzzPeakWankBobbly · 29/04/2019 11:21

we shouldn't be framing this as 'should transwomen compete in sport?'

Fine. We'll frame it as "let's discuss what criteria should apply/what people should be allowed to participate and compete in female sports?"

Happy now?

OP posts:
Popchyk · 29/04/2019 11:30

"She thinks the prisons issue should be judged on a 'case by case' basis, and says that is the view of both Stonewall and the MoJ".

I've never heard that before from Stonewall.

Google search shows a deleted link to an article "INTRODUCTION FROM STONEWALL'S TRANS ADVISORY GROUP ...... New guidance for the care and management of trans prisoners, in England and. Wales ..."

But the article is not there on Stonewall's site. Seems to have been deleted.

I searched the Stonewall site for references to prisons, but it doesn't mention their position on prisons with respect to trans people.

Needmoresleep · 29/04/2019 11:51

I winder if David Challenor might, at some point, consider himself trans. In which case the Stonewall trabs-advisory would have an interesting perspective from which to advise

Needmoresleep · 29/04/2019 11:52

Soory.

Trans-advisory committee.

DrSusan · 29/04/2019 11:52

She completely misrepresents feminist positions, plays the 'incivility on both sides' card and I think is deeply dishonest about Stonewall's participation in the debate. Look at Bex Stinson's refusal to debate Helen Lewis (who publicly says she believes TWAW) in person on woman's hour. Also, maybe this is just me, but I find it hard to believe she and her partner were challenged in a women's toilet . . .

AnyOldPrion · 29/04/2019 11:58

”She says it's not 'legitimate' to say that 'all transwomen are men masquerading as women in order to exploit a system'. She says 'we' can't engage with a position that 'starts on the assumption that all transwomen are fundamentally deceptive and out to harm'.”

This is so fucked up.

Nope, we are arguing that we should start from a position of recognising biological sex and that we feel any exceptions made to current segregation should be only made based on sound evidence that they are necessary and safe for women.

Unfortunately we are being forced to start from a position of trying to get back to that logical place because the powers that be failed to do any assessment before they jumped in with both feet.

AnyOldPrion · 29/04/2019 12:04

”She thinks the prisons issue should be judged on a 'case by case' basis, and says that is the view of both Stonewall and the MoJ".”

Wonder if they’ve rowed back from their original stance in light of the obvious evidence it caused harm when it was barely underway.

Even if we were to consider case-by-case (I personally don’t think we should, but don’t agree with no debate) then there’s a massive difference between the standard model being that each individual has to argue their case before being moved to the estate of the opposite sex, rather than the standard being “gender” segregation, with TW only excluded if they are provably a risk.

LizzieSiddal · 29/04/2019 12:05

She obviously doesn't understand the GC feminist position at all.

I'd love for her to sit down and actually listen and talk with a some GC women.

LizzieSiddal · 29/04/2019 12:06

*talk with some

JackyHolyoake · 29/04/2019 13:14

We've got to deter any "case-by-case" thinking here. There must be a blanket ban on men being placed with women in prison so that we can give women prisoners the best chance of being safe.

As soon as "case-by-case" thinking enters into it, safe single-sex spaces for women disappear immediately because the thinking has changed in that moment to mixed-sex and these men are then being prioritised over the women.

Floisme · 29/04/2019 13:39

I think case by thinking blows a bloody great hole in their own ideology.
Whatever happened to 'acceptance without exception'?
The more they try and use it the better as far as I'm concerned. It makes them look fools.

AlwaysTawnyOwl · 29/04/2019 16:00

‘Case by case’ - a tiny admission that there is a problem here.......it’s a start

TirisfalPumpkin · 29/04/2019 16:16

Stonewall: But we never said we wanted to reform the EA or remove sex as a protected characteristic!
Women: yes you did, and we’ve got the screen caps.

I’m seeing a repeat of this MO.

They have no integrity or principles.

BettyDuMonde · 29/04/2019 16:32

Case by case leaves way to much room for individual and institutional failure (Karen White happened under a case by case policy).

Popchyk · 29/04/2019 16:44

Case by case is the opposite of law.

Case by case puts women in danger.

And the first time a man is turned away from a women's refuge for example, he will sue. No question. We'll have the Canadian system where scammers target female-only services in order to sue them, no doubt with Stonewall's backing.

And the organisation will then have to describe the criteria that they use in order to assess men who claim to identify as women. That criteria (no matter what it is) will no doubt be unlawful.

The end result is that no service provider will turn away any man who claims to be a woman from female-only spaces.

BuzzPeakWankBobbly · 30/04/2019 08:29

Case by case is the opposite of law.

My mother reads the Mail. She will sometimes tell me a ludicrous story from there, say from where a prison sentence hasn't been long enough in her view and "if only the judge had used a bit of common sense".

Each time I have to point out that if they went case by case then the entire system would break down because one rule for one and one for the others does not work. And that if the judge had summarily imposed the "deserved" sentence of life with stale bread and water, the prisoner would probably be able to sue (as is his legal right) for a mistrial/misconviction/whatever, and get off scott-free.

Yet Ruth thinks we should look at everyone case by case. yeah, that seems really sensible. Thank goodness all the crims will be easily identifiable so it'll only be the "nice" men imposing their will on women.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread