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

Yes, Spartacus, and UK law makes it clear that it is a false belief because the law acknowledges that it creates a Legal Fiction.

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.

I really (genuinely) puzzled:

-if males use female space and enjoy doing so then?
-if males are driven to transition due to AGP or because they seek to have relationships with 'straight' men? This is about their sexuality/sexual desires.
-if males gain advantages within work, platforms or opportunities by dint of their being a transwoman? What when those platforms might be afforded to women with greater relevent experience or knowledge?

if a male wholeheartedly believes he is a woman then this could only be described as a delusion.

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.

A belief that they hold which they determine as a right to overpower my belief that they are not a woman and therefore do not have the right to access women's spaces, jobs or scholarships designed for women.

To be fair RoyalCorgi, I do understand why people make a distinction. A man transitioning to deliberately predate, or get a sexual kick is, of course, different to men with gender dysphoria.

But in terms of women's rights, it's not. The generator for women's rights is what women need, not what men need.

Neither is gender dysphoria any guarantee that a man will not predate, or be violent, or dominate. There have been several men convicted of violent crime whose defence actually was that they had gender dysphoria.

So when people say they are exactly the same, it means, certainly to me, that in terms of women's rights, it makes no difference.

Women aren't just some dumping ground for men who other men consider wrong. Nor are we a human shield for men who need protection; disabled men, old men, effeminate man, gay men, or men who identify as women.

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

And again, how do we know who is and who isn't genuine?

What difference doe#it make how genuine a male is?

Are women to be allowed NO space, except in the home, where we can be of the omnipresent male gaze? NO gathering we can have not penetrated by male voices?

The brightest, clearest line is sex differentiation. It’s certainly the line males used for millennia to maintain women as property.

I don’t see why women should use any other line now that some males have decided that line keeps THEM from what they want.

The brightest, clearest line is sex differentiation. It’s certainly the line males used for millennia to maintain women as property.

I don’t see why women should use any other line now that some males have decided that line keeps THEM from what they want.

Perfectly put BickerinBrattle.

It is all about what men want and how women can facilitate their wants.

And men are perfectly happy to revert to the sex differentiation line as and when it suits them.

But in terms of women's rights, it's not. The generator for women's rights is what women need, not what men need.

I think that's true. I'm just putting forward what I imagine Sarah Ditum or Helen Lewis would say if they were here and answering questions.

I do think there's a distinction. I think there is now a huge number of men calling themselves "trans women" who are doing so purely because they want either to sexually predate on women, or get a kick out of being in women's spaces, or want to take advantage of opportunities designed for women (e.g. women's sports, women's scholarships etc). I think most of us feel the same way about them.

And then there is a smaller number - the ones who have surgery - who have gender dysphoria. I think if you go to the extent of having your genitals removed you are really serious. You are not doing it just because you want the opportunity to be on an all-women's shortlist or you get a sexual kick out of being in women's changing rooms.

But that doesn't mean women have to accommodate that. Women still have the right to their own spaces, their women-only shortlists etc.

I think there is a difficult question of what happens to those men who surgically transition, though. I have a lot of sympathy for the situation those men find themselves in. I don't put them in the same category as, say, Lily Madigan or Jess Bradley.

I still don't understand why anyone thinks there is anything compelling about the argument that some men genuinely believe they should be in women's spaces and mean them no harm.

"This man honestly believes something that isn't true. It's only fair to let him override your misgivings."

WTF.

I thought I had read in reporting of violent or sexual crime, that those men were waiting for surgery. I don’t think surgery is any guarantee that someone is a stable, non violent person. The lack of testosterone would have an impact on sex drive, I’d have thought, but the castrati allegedly had illicit sexual relationships.
The Swedish study showed no difference in rates of offending post surgery.
Also agree with above, that sex is the only clear line that be can used to differentiate. Any other line is totally subjective.

I also don’t put someone like Miranda in the same category as someone like LM. Chalk and cheese.
But that difference is impossible to police.

Sarah Ditum:
And I agree with her that gender critical feminism needs to absolutely exile the tiny minority that is hostile to trans people.

Hostile to transpeople? Does that mean any of us who don't want to share single sex spaces with transwomen, no matter how nice they are or think they pass, or how much surgery they've had or hormones they've take?

Then count me in as a hostile cunt and ship me off to exile in Badley Fuckit with the rest of the TERFS. I Have boundaries. They're there for a reason. No woman should have to tolerate men in places where they are vulnerable and possibly undressed.

Getting your cock and balls surgically turns a man into a eunuch, not a woman.

And then there is a smaller number - the ones who have surgery - who have gender dysphoria. I think if you go to the extent of having your genitals removed you are really serious.

There are two types of adult male transitioners: homosexual transsexuals [HSTS] and autogynephiles [AGP] [heterosexual males].

In the case of AGP heterosexual males it is the autogynephilia that drives the claim to feeling gender dysphoria".

The paragraphs here under the heading "Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria (Adolescent Boys and Men)" explains it well:

4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

There are two types of adult male transitioners: homosexual transsexuals [HSTS] and autogynephiles [AGP] [heterosexual males].

There are males who have had surgery who are in relationships with women, therefore aren't homosexual. Are these peopleAGP?

Reporter for Buzzfeed News - says it all really.

I have a lot of sympathy for the situation those men find themselves in. I don't put them in the same category as, say, Lily Madigan or Jess Bradley.

I have more sympathy for young girls. And the reason these men are in this position is because of the Lily Madigans and Jess Bradleys, not because of women and girls so why should we give away our rights?

There are males who have had surgery who are in relationships with women, therefore aren't homosexual. Are these people AGP?

Yes, they are autogynephiles. This is why some refer to themselves and / or their partners as being a lesbian.

Getting your cock and balls surgically turns a man into a eunuch, not a woman.

Exactly so .. and women who think that a castrated man is a woman need to seriously re-evaluate what they think is a woman, because what they are saying is that a woman is a castrated man!

I disagree!

I agree

I mean I agree with Barracker

She is leaving the New Statesman anyway, and has published several pieces on this issue, as have Sarah Ditum and Glosswitch.

She has been receiving abuse on this subject for years and long ago passed the point of acceptability for people who are offended by the concept of sex based rights.

Absolutely fine to disagree with her opinion, but I think it’s just wrong to assume that she is trying to create clickbait or isn’t expressing her real, considered thoughts.

Well it would be absolutely wrong if that's what I'd argued, but what I actually said was this was Helen Lewis going so far and no further in order to appeases her employer (current or future). It's her employers who make the decision about what to publish on trans and are obviously motivated by the controversial nature of the subject which brings in readers. Being paid for your feminism by a male led, male owned organisation almost invariably leads to timidity in women and a refusal to name the truth about men and what they do to women. In this case the fact that men can't become women, however "nice" we want to be to them. I'm sure she's quite sincere in her wishy washiness though.

Helen Lewis might be getting abuse on this subject but radical feminists who made the original arguments on trans, of which Helen Lewis's et al's are but a weak version, have been getting the abuse far longer and much more seriously. Yet it's radical feminists she wants to cast out of feminism. She even has the cheek to say that this is a rebirth of feminism based in female physicality as if the material existence of women hasn't been at the heart of radical feminism since it began. The radical feminism resurgence has been going on for years, we were here first and we're staying. Sorry Helen (well I'm not really).

As much as I liked seeing gender critical views in a major mainstream publication, I think the journalistic reference to exile or 'exclusion' of the so-called 'hostile' or transphobic 'minority', who think there are no exceptions, was just a totally unneccessary swipe.

Did it work? Not that I can see? If the hostility that Helen Lewis is getting is any indicator, the translobbyists dont see a difference, and are not going to be appeased or placated by such swipes.

Like many other women, back in 2004, I didnt care so much. It was only a small minority of post-ops and I didnt feel it was such a big deal to have a "polite" courtesy legal fiction to change the sex on their drivers licences etc.

In all those years they have proven they cannot be trusted. They say nobody would "abuse" the Self-ID legislation - Ha! How many have already done this, and even without it being "officially" legalised?

While I also appreciate the help and assistance of trans-sexuals like Debbie and Miranda, they are supportive "allies" - along with a number of other men. But allies are not "women", and like other men who do support women's rights, we need to take care that we dont promote them to "special" or "exception" status.

And- it may sound mean and nasty, but its much harder to trust such "allies" for the long haul now - when they may well have their own self-interested agenda.

I was there, I saw how Julia Long was hugely angry when Debbie Hayton was applauded for getting that article into the Times Educational Supplement.

I can not understand why Debbie gets knocked. That article was hugely important to this cause. If it's been in the TES it means its legitimate, that it's acceptable to discuss. That's such a step forward. Why would anyone knock it?

Oh that's right, toilets. I don't think the public are with you on toilets actually. I think they are with you on almost all the other issues.

I'm not convinced some people aren't just transphobic actually. That word has been overused to become almost meaningless, yet I think there are occasions where it still applies.