Column in Guardian on JY

[merrymouse]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/27/male-genitalia-week-in-patriarchy-women

I think this piece goes half way to understanding the problem, (women should not have to touch male genitalia), but then is too fearful of causing offence to confront the issue properly (women should have to wax male legs).

If you run a business from your home, you should be able to refuse any client on the grounds of personal safety. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust advises lone workers who travel to client's premises:

"Conduct your own risk assessment on the door step before you enter. If you feel at all uncomfortable or unsure, make an excuse and leave. Trust your instincts."

Clearly there would be many reasons for JY to set off alarm bells, but the fairest and clearest solution seems to be for women to be able to say that they don't accept clients with male bodies, as these women did.

Why should they have to allow any male bodied person to enter their homes?

I don't think it will ever be possible to protect either trans rights or women's rights while it's impossible to disagree with the mantra 'trans women are women'.

That guardian piece is a bit shit frankly. But I agree, a principle which seems to be getting lost in the arguments about male genitalia and TWAW is a straightforward issue of personal safety. We all know one should be careful about making arrangements to meet people off the Internet. This means that lone workers such as these women, working from their homes or travelling to clients' hones have to make careful risk assessments. They should absolutely be entitled to decline service to anyone who raises a red flag. That applies whatever their line of work. They could be cleaners or computer specialists. My local shop has a wall of adverts from self employed lone workers offering a range of services. I'm pretty sure they all feel entitled to pick and choose to accept work or not as they please.

The article is shit, it starts from the premise that women can have male genitalia. But I suppose at least the Guardian are mentioning it (still won’t make me support them financially tho).

I agree OP and had the same reaction to the column. Disappointing.

The article is absolute trash. It still says that women can have male genitals. Just ten years ago you wouldn't have been able to print that in a supposedly serious newspaper for fear of being laughed out of a job.

It also says that women operating a business from home can restrict themselves to a female-only clientele only if they include transwomen in that definition.

Let's not get too carried away with crumbs of gratitude that The Guardian is finally printing something about this that we don't see it for the utter handmaid shite that it is.

I read the article and then looked at the column title, week in patriarchy, and concluded it was about documenting men's successes in oppressing women.

Another thread discussing this piece -

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3649438-About-time-Guardian-waking-up