Why are so many women ok with males taking their spaces?

[Throckmorton]

I don't get it. Why are so many women falling over themselves to be ok with males taking women's places in sport, in awards (working mum of the year FFS!), all over the shop? All over the NSPCC stuff for eg, it's women on twitter posting how transphobic every one is. I guess what I'm saying is what is making turkeys vote for Christmas? If I see one more TWAW/cis-women-are-transphobic meme on Facebook from otherwise intelligent women I'm going to bloody scream.

@LassOfFyvie you're right this is not an exclusively radical feminist space , but the general gist of the politics here leans toward radical feminism. It was radical feminist Janice Raymond who developed the theory that transactivism was dangerous to women and inherently misogynistic, for example. at the time of her publication She never envisioned the dystopian horror of transing children. She never thought they'd take it that far, but they have.
Quite a lot of mumsnetters agree with Janice Raymond's politics, to the extent I personally regard this place as a (rare) safe space for radfems to hang out

@LassOfFyvie the question wasn't "why don't you like radfems?"
The question was "why do women prioritize men over women?".

"why do women prioritize men over women?".

'Cos we're trained to. Female socialisation, innit ? Be nice, love. They don't like it when we're fucking angry.

LassOfFyvie, I am glad and happy that you have done alright for yourself! Well done you! You must be very clever!

twicemummy1

@LassOfFyviethe question wasn't "why don't you like radfems?"
The question was "why do women prioritize men over women?"

Indeed the question was not " why don't you like rad fems?" And that was not what I posted about. I posted why radical feminist arguments don't convince me. That is entirely different from saying "I don't like radical feminists".

OccasionalKite

LassOfFyvie, I am glad and happy that you have done alright for yourself! Well done you! You must be very clever!

What are you on about? I posted that in real life I have come across only a tiny number of trans women. What on earth has being very clever got to do with that?

This is a blog post be someone calling herself Angry Bird which, I think, explains the subject question very well. She compares the phenomenon of "not seeing" to those Magic Eye posters back in the day: and how her own eyes were opened to what was going on. It's a blind spot.

angrybirdroar.wordpress.com/2018/10/?fbclid=IwAR1xs1FBc-txanWo01G0K-Gc-AoAXbCgCrWg-fzzlqMKK4A_5qP-OoIWheo

You have to stare at the image in a certain way and an image will ‘miraculously’ appear before you. The first time I came across these was at a market and my partner saw them immediately. I stood there for ages to no avail, so we bought a poster and took it home for me to practice on. I looked at that picture for months until suddenly, one glorious day, The Statue of Liberty appeared in front of me. She was so clear and I couldn’t understand why I didn’t see her all along.

That’s how I feel about trans activism. As someone who was always very active in fighting for gay rights, I was initially horrified that there were people ‘hating’ on the trans community. I spent many a happy night dancing with the transsexuals, back in the day, and couldn’t work out what was going on.

But as you can read in my first blog (Watching the Terfs) I stood back and I observed. Because my instinct was that a group of left-leaning women, who I know fought the same battles as me, do not suddenly become a mob of snarling bigots overnight.

It's a blind spot that could unfortunately deliver a big win to Trump. The left really needs to open its eyes.

@Lamaha — I can’t tell if you are being serious. Do you really not see how patronizing that sounds? And meaningless? You could say that about literally ANY difference of opinion. “If you think and learn and wait patiently you will suddenly realise that a hard Brexit is the right option/you should stay in this marriage/Jesus died for your sins/all mums should SAH. And on and on.

The thing is, I fully understand why GC folks feel as they do, and I acknowledge that there are some problematic issues that need further consideration with regard to things like women’s sports. I see the magic eye shape. I just don’t feel that it should be hung on my wall. I may be pushing this metaphor too far... Perhaps if you made an effort to see my magic eye poster you would agree with me. (See how that works?)

I'm inclined to agree with LassOfFyvie that the trans issue isn't something you really encounter day to day in the real world. I think there are many feminist issues which probably warrant more focus, even if on paper self ID sounds like a big threat.

I can’t tell if you are being serious. Do you really not see how patronizing that sounds? And meaningless? You could say that about literally ANY difference of opinion

Of course it sounds patronising. But in this case it's more than a "difference of opinion". This is fundamental. It's about facts, science, not jut opinions.

Read the facts. Listen, truly listen, to the science. Take the Are You a Terf? test, also by AngryBird.

angrybirdroar.wordpress.com/2018/11/14/are-you-a-terf/

I think there are many feminist issues which probably warrant more focus

Difficult to address any of them if you can’t define ‘woman’, and academics are being attacked (literally) simply for trying to have a philosophical discussion about the meaning of words.

I think it’s important to discuss the pros and cons of unisex and single sex spaces, and I agree that they can sometimes unnecessarily exclude, (after all they have excluded women for centuries) but we can’t even begin to have that debate if we aren’t allowed to say that a space that contains males and females is unisex.

Personally I’m fairly laid back about toilets, but I will never accept that a word that I need to describe a simple medical fact describes my identity. Why would anyone?

Sorry for the typos in my last post.

This is why GC women speak of Peak Trans. Suddenly, a light goes on and you see, you really see, for the first time.

It's far beyond holding a contrary opinion. Opinions can change. Facts never do. Yet, according to TRAs they have.

Why is it that all over the world, since time began, humans have divided themselves into two groups, without question.
Male and female.
And suddenly (for many of us it is sudden, though apparently the change has been slowly creeping in over years, decades even!) a certain minority, mostly of educated white people living in the West and not having any serious practical problems to deal with such as drought, famine, war, earthquakes etc, decide it was all nonsense to begin with, that there are no two groups of people, that male and female are all in the head???

Think about that for a moment. All in the head. No facts, no science. Just ideas, feelings. More important than what we can see with the naked eye: men and women, very different anatomies, very different biological roles. But that's just an opinion.

If then your Magic Eye doesn't open, then I despair. (I despair anyway, but still...)

Difficult to address any of them if you can’t define ‘woman’, and academics are being attacked (literally) simply for trying to have a philosophical discussion about the meaning of words.

I get this argument in principle, but it's a bit like asking how we can discuss geography with people promoting the idea that the earth is flat. In reality, very few people pay any regard to TRA lunacy aside from on here.

Ironically I think self ID undermines trans rights as much as women's rights. If 'trans woman' is a completely subjective concept that can't be defined all statistical studies that attempt to show that they are more at risk of murder/less likely to commit violent crime than men/benefit from NHS treatment are meaningless.

It's an ideology that is focused on affirmation at the expense of rights.

And @indistinct, regarding that interesting word "patronising" which got your panties into a knot:

How is it not patronising when a 20-something-barely-out-of-uni-or-still-there woke trans-ally demands that I "educate myself" on trans issues?

A blue-haired trans-ally who possibly has never earned a living herself, never gestated or given birth to a child, never been anywhere except London or Brighton and a family holiday in Mallorca, or a hen party in Magaluf, among her own kind? TELLING me to accept her absolute faith that a woman can have a penis and that "gender" is more valid than biological reality?

I don't want to lay it on too think, but really. I'm a 68 year old black woman who was born and grew up in one of the poorest countries in the world, managed to get an education in spite of that, has lived (that is, more than six months, actually integrated in the society) in about five countries and cultures in four continents, speaks four languages, given birth to and raised two children to adulthood, worked for NGOs for the downtrodden on two continents, lived on the poverty line, raised herself up, listened to the laments of women who truly have problems beyond being "misgendered", and a lot more I won't speak of hear as I would then out myself. And I don't like to boast but you called for it.

How is it not patronising when, as has really happened, a trans-ally younger than my own children insists that SHE knows the truth and can teach me about oppression, and is on the right side of history and I am just a stupid old dinosaur who will become obsolete in the brave new gender-neutral world that is about to dawn, unless I accept without question her absolute faith that sex does not exist; that men can magically turn into women and vice versa; and that men who have turned into women know more about being a woman than I do?

I'm sorry but those of the trans-faith are far more patronising than anything I could ever say on this forum.

That is your faith. That is your religion. I do not accept it.

I don't think telling people they are misguided or being gaslighted etc is helpful in any way. It is patronising.

Lamaha, of course the trans-allies can be patronising too. It's not a race to the bottom.

I think there are many reasons why some women don't see men taking women's spaces as an issue.
Female socialisation and the desire to be nice is quite a large part of it. I also think that many, many people have not yet grasped that the only thing bigger than the trans umbrella is the ozone layer. The current GRA has worked fairly well for 15 years but now we are told that a diagnosis of GD to qualify for a GRC is an unreasonable level of gatekeeping.

There is almost certainly a lack of critical thinking. In many areas of life we forgo the presumption of innocence because we think the scrutiny we are subjected to is a worthwhile sacrifice for safety and safe guarding reasons. I'm thinking of things such as DBS checks, airport security, money laundering laws etc and yet when it comes to self ID we think that an individual's reporting of feelings is sufficient to disregard the reasons that women's spaces exist.

The discussion is certainly worth having but I wonder how people think we can make good law if we base our decisions on something as individual and unverifiable as feelings.

Lamaha, of course the trans-allies can be patronising too. It's not a race to the bottom.

I reject your too. I described the phenomenon of waking up to the facts from a religion. This is how it happens.
I wasn't speaking to transpeople or their allies, but to GCs who will recognise that moment. I was sharing the experience, which many who come from the left as I do will recognise.

I get this argument in principle, but it's a bit like asking how we can discuss geography with people promoting the idea that the earth is flat. In reality, very few people pay any regard to TRA lunacy aside from on here.

That's not true though. Governments, orgs, companies have all bought into the idea you can change sex because you say so. Laws are being changed because of it.

When the government make a pronouncement that the starting point for all debate about things geographical is that the earth IS flat and all opposition to this is bigotry I think most people will be rightly horrified.

That is what is currently happening here. It's not a few fringe activists it's complete institutional and regulatory capture.

In reality, very few people pay any regard to TRA lunacy aside from on here.

Apart from:

• the NSPCC - advise that girls and boys should have separate bedrooms after 10, but refuse to explain how this policy interacts with their policy on self ID - here I'm particularly concerned about their unwillingness to talk about a safeguarding policy for fear of causing offence.

• local councils who use 'Allsorts' literature that teaches schools that a girl asserting her right to single sex facilities per legislation needs to be educated about her transphobia.

-the Police who receive training telling them that being female has something to do with Barbie and who don't seem to be able to distinguish between discussion of belief and hate speech.

-Twitter who ban women for talking about biology while ignoring violent threats to women.

-the City of London Corporation - carried out a consultation on single sex facilities but binned the responses they didn't like. Result - no more single sex facilities in City of London. Person responsible for consultation still mysteriously happy to enjoy all the benefits of freemasonry.

• any MP who won't discuss this subject because actually talking about female biology is too controversial.

Yes very few people pay any attention to this issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't having an impact on public policy.

When the government make a pronouncement that the starting point for all debate about things geographical is that the earth IS flat and all opposition to this is bigotry I think most people will be rightly horrified.

Exactly

I appreciate that big orgs are making policies (in order to appear 'progressive') but it doesn't change the fact that there are very few trans people out there speaking relatively. Violent men are still a much bigger threat to the average women.

but it doesn't change the fact that there are very few trans people out there speaking relatively.

What is a trans person though if it's something anyone can identify as based on nothing more than saying it's so? What is stopping violent men getting in on the act? Going by social media behaviour there are a lot of violent sounding men who insist on she/her pronouns to describe themselves.

but it doesn't change the fact that there are very few trans people out there speaking relatively.

Using Stonewall definitions I can't think of anyone I know who isn't trans - and Stonewall are the people influencing policy and practice.