Writing an account of a WPUK meeting now makes you a hateful T**F

[InionEile]

Helen Lewis wrote an article in the New Statesman that summarises the WPUK meeting that took place in London recently. I read it. It's fine. Summarises key points, notes the main speakers, ends with this phenomenal rallying cry for the kind of feminism I can get behind:

'The packed hall felt like the birth, or rebirth, of something. A feminism unafraid to talk about the female body. A rejection of the extremes of identity politics. And – just as radically – a movement that happens in the real world rather than purely online.'
New Statesman link

But no: apparently it's a 'bad faith, hateful' article by a T**F that is very upsetting and should never have been published, according to the woke beards on Twitter They're all frantically virtue signaling to show how awful it is to allow gender critical views the light of day. It seems it's now it's !!literal violence!! to write an account of a meeting of people who think differently to others
Twitter outrage

Great post Erythronium

Germaine Greer has already been exiled by the establishment, why would we collude in exiling her again?

Yes, I admire Helen Lewis (I popped up on most of those threads R0 posted saying so!) and think she's brave. I'm pretty pissed off with SD at the moment over the finger wagging but I'll get over that and I still think she's awesome.

But the attempts to cast out women to purify the cause really, really need to stop. We endured it all bloody Jan/Feb after the heritage foundation thing, it was boring, pointless and divisive then and it's boring pointless and divisive now.

I think here at FWR we're ahead of the women who consider themselves to be feminist leaders, with Lang's motto 'no GC woman under a bus'

disagree, debate, do things your own way, but stop trying to cast women out FFS.

"Women should be able to say no."

This x 1,000

Why can't we? Why does it bother people so much? Because they start to imagine what would happen if the women in their lives began to exercise their right to say 'No' more often...

If one accepts that gender identity is the basis of social organisation, it is simply not possible to take a view on who are the genuine trans people (presumably those with gender dysmorphia?) and who are the chancers with ulterior motives, until such a time as the chancers make themselves known by violating boundaries in some way.

I think the argument that Sarah Ditum and others would make is that if a man has gone to the trouble of having his genitalia removed and taking hormones then he is genuine. He's not going to be a chancer. You could say that those men aren't really women but perhaps we should be sympathetic and treat them as such. (Personally I think that wouldn't work in cases such as the Hampstead Ladies' Pool because there are groups such as the orthodox Jewish women who wouldn't accept those men as women.)

a man has gone to the trouble of having his genitalia removed and taking hormones then he is genuine. He's not going to be a chancer. You could say that those men aren't really women but perhaps we should be sympathetic and treat them as such.

To which the most obvious answer is - is there any other specific course of action men could take that would mean we would disregard their being men because it means they are much more likely to be genuine?

Agree with Bernard and I was just thinking about how in the immediate aftermath of the meeting, most of FWR chat was about how “extreme” meant casting out women for not being left enough.

It made me realise that extreme means very different things at the moment depending on what circles you move in.

I think the argument that Sarah Ditum and others would make is that if a man has gone to the trouble of having his genitalia removed and taking hormones then he is genuine. He's not going to be a chancer.

And how would I know if the man in front of me has had his genitalia removed and is taking hormones?

And how would I know if the man in front of me has had his genitalia removed and is taking hormones?

Well, you wouldn't. I suppose you could have some kind of system in place by which a GRC was issued only to people who had had surgery. But personally I don't want to encourage either men or women to have mutilating surgery, so I don't think that's a good idea.

I think we'd have to ask Sarah - and she's not come back so it will have to remain unanswered.

It's cruel, it's ungracious to transwomen like Debbie Hayton who've stuck their necks out for women and GNC young people, and it allows people to instantly dismiss our arguments.

Recent thread discussing Debbie Hayton's TES article which was referred to at WPUK London.
Its not 'ungracious' to discuss & where relevent critique this. It would be patronising of Debbie not to:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3582158-debbie-hayton-in-the-tes

I think the argument that Sarah Ditum and others would make is that if a man has gone to the trouble of having his genitalia removed and taking hormones then he is genuine. He's not going to be a chancer.

It probably means he's not deliberating leveraging transgenderism to perv. So yes, not a chancer.

It doesn't mean he's a woman. And it doesn't mean he hasn't been socialised as male. It doesn't stop him being dominant. It doesn't stop him being threatening. And it doesn't stop him being a sex offender.

In the Swedish study, which showed the subjects statistically conformed to male pattern criminality, the subjects had all been diagnosed with genuine gender dysphoria.

I completely understand that non-AGP men do not want to be mixed up with AGPs.

Well they're not. Fine.

They are still reinforcing gender stereotypes tho. And suggesting that being a woman is a state of mind. It never stops being sexist.

I think the argument that Sarah Ditum and others would make is that if a man has gone to the trouble of having his genitalia removed and taking hormones then he is genuine. He's not going to be a chancer.

Sarah is also asking me to trust a man I don't know. I have to take it on trust that what he is saying is true. I know transexuals like to believe that everyone can tell the difference between a male transsexual, a male transgender person and a man. But I don't think that's true.

Agree Zutt

I know transexuals like to believe that everyone can tell the difference between a male transsexual, a male transgender person and a man. But I don't think that's true.

Maybe we could get Layla Moran to do a MN masterclass on how to see into people's souls.

They are still reinforcing gender stereotypes tho. And suggesting that being a woman is a state of mind. It never stops being sexist.

This is the problem I have with transgenderism in general. Even Debbie Hayton said in a radio interview that she couldn't live the way she wanted to live as a man, so she had to transition. Why? I've never felt that any way of life was impossible as a woman - why shouldn't it be the same for men? If society won't accept a degree of femininity in males, it's society that we should be trying to change, not the individual men.

Even Debbie Hayton said in a radio interview that she couldn't live the way she wanted to live as a man, so she had to transition. Why? I've never felt that any way of life was impossible as a woman - why shouldn't it be the same for men? If society won't accept a degree of femininity in males, it's society that we should be trying to change, not the individual men.

The requirement is then for others/society to "treat" a male TS person 'as if they are a woman' .
It is a demand and is often very reductionary (& sometimes sexist) in what this means to individuals' expectations.

The 'living in role' requirement stemmed from the early gender doctors who not only acted as gatekeeper to surgery/hormones but granted access to women's spaces by requiring that some males use them.

Many of those doctors demonstrated both sexist and homophobic atitudes.

Yeas rowan.

If we can’t say what a woman is how can guys be expected to live like one 🙃

LBD
This is a great article recently written by a group of radfem/GC philosophers: Sophie Allen, Jane Clare Jones, Holly Lawford-Smith, Mary Leng, Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, and Kathleen Stock.

(extract)
"Rather, we wish to highlight various fallacies and misrepresentations that we’ve noticed frequently occurring in discussions of our views. While there have been a number of comment pieces in national media by philosophers challenging gender-critical and radical feminism, we have yet to see in these a compelling argument against our position. Rather than respond to these pieces individually, we would like to highlight some of the common misunderstandings and fallacious arguments that we take to be problematic in these responses. We hope that this will be helpful in laying the ground for more fruitful discussion from now on" (continues)

medium.com/@kathleenstock/doing-better-in-arguments-about-sex-and-gender-3bec3fc4bdb6

Its worth a read & definitely worth bookmarking!

You could say that those men aren't really women but perhaps we should be sympathetic and treat them as such.

That has been the approach since the first GRA. It hasn't worked. The door being opened a chink for those for whom women should be sympathetic and go along with treating them as something they have not has led to the door being forced wide and women demanded to pretend for any male that wants, regardless of transition status or motives. Fully including men with fetishes wanting access to women's spaces to enjoy their fetish better while using the women present to do so. It's also led to next step demands around ladydick, my vagina is an 'outie', abandon safeguarding if a boy self identifies as a girl, and women having to fight for the right to name themselves, their anatomy and to have any single sex spaces at all. Even the most articulate and GC of the TS speakers such as Debbie, still hold as a bottom line that their choice and perceived need to use women's spaces is more important than how women are affected by this. The sexism and belief that those born male are of greater importance is right there.

As a policy, it hasn't worked out well for women in any way. And has proved that any trust based system is impossible. Women's involvement in this should end here. This is a male issue that needs to be owned and dealt with by males, including TW, and women need to hand it back to them. The obvious answer is third spaces.

I think the argument that Sarah Ditum and others would make is that if a man has gone to the trouble of having his genitalia removed and taking hormones then he is genuine. He's not going to be a chancer.

I have an issue with the term genuine - genuine what? A surgically and hormonally altered man is NOT a woman, it implies that women are just a weaker, less worthy version of men.

If society won't accept a degree of femininity in males, it's society that we should be trying to change, not the individual men.

Men have held all the levers of power for centuries, privilege, financial, political, judicial. They have had more than enough time to address male violence and attitudes they simply have neither the will nor desire to do so, they've washed their hands of it and, as ever, sacrificed women on the altar of their indifference.

I have an issue with the term genuine - genuine what? A surgically and hormonally altered man is NOT a woman, it implies that women are just a weaker, less worthy version of men.

YY
Boobs and the absence of penis do not a woman make.

Ta rowan

I have an issue with the term genuine - genuine what? A surgically and hormonally altered man is NOT a woman, it implies that women are just a weaker, less worthy version of men.

Not a genuine woman, but genuine in the sense that he's not doing it just to gain access to women's spaces and predate on them, or get a sexual kick out of being in a women's space, or take a job or scholarship that is designed for women. Genuine, I suppose, in the sense that he genuinely believes himself to be a woman.

Genuine, I suppose, in the sense that he genuinely believes himself to be a woman.

And how is this to be measured? On the word of an autogynephilic male?

Anyone who has not yet done so should read the two threads here on Mumsnet written by the Trans Widows:

[1] www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3101834-trans-widows-escape-committee

[2] www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3471122-trans-widows-escape-committee-2-the-trans-widows-strike-back

That word, “genuine” is often used as a moral market to distinguish between men who want to be seen as women and will be nice to us, and men who want to be seen as women and will hurt us. We are also supposed to welcome these “genuine” men, feel sorry for them, protect them.

As this might vary through a person’s life, and as we can only tell which category these men fall into retrospectively, this is no help in keeping women safe. Nor is it any help to women who have been victims if male violence, or women from some religious groups.