Debbie Hayton in the Times today

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-trans-women-should-compete-only-against-men-h0wj77f7x?shareToken=f73fdd7518558995018c6d0f180638f3

Can't see it shared yet but might be in one of the sports threads already.

That isn't what I said. I said I suspect that if you asked people at random if they were "gender critical" you'd get blank stares. It's jargon.

Yes, it's jargon, and perhaps most people wouldn't understand it. But it's what it means that's important. I was making the point that I think many, or even most people would agree that we should be working against rigid and outdated gender stereotypes, which is what 'gender critical' means. So many people actually are 'gender critical' without putting it in those terms.

A transgender person, for whom 'gender' is the most important thing in their life, cannot possibly be 'gender critical'.

Hayton isn't anti 'genderist' though. You can't believe in 'transgenderism' and not believe at the same time!

I'm using Genderist to mean the disciples of the teachings of Judith Butler who believe that being male or female is a Performance and that objective facts are social constructs which can be changed by willing it to be so. You might equally call them extreme TRAs.

Hayton has argued consistently against this position and it's implementation in teaching and public policy. She may not align perfectly with everyone's views, but she's certainly anti-Genderist.

If the argument against commenting on her article is that she's transsexual then I disagree.

Thanks for the comments - all of them. However I would like to pick up on piece itself and talk a bit about it. Those pieces are only 425 words so explanation within the text is challenging.

It is true that I'm not saying anything that women such as Janice Turner have not already said, or at least alluded to: it's unfair and even unsafe for transwomen to compete with women. But being trans myself I can suggest the only practical alternative - we compete with men.

I then made two positive suggestions. (1) separate facilities and (2) separate record keeping. They are worthy campaign goals that improve the lives of trans people without impacting on women.

This is the direction trans campaigning needs to go in, in my opinion. Others may differ - fine - but let's debate these things so we can understand them.

What does your wife think? Just out of interest?

I'm using Genderist to mean the disciples of the teachings of Judith Butler who believe that being male or female is a Performance

Surely a male person who transitions because they want to 'live as a woman' has to be a genderist by this definition. Because they can only 'live as a woman' if living as a woman is to do with performance.

The non genderist definition of living as a woman is living as a human being who happens to have a female body. No male person can do this.

The problem with the idea that lots of people are against rigid stereotypes is twofold imo:

Firstly, that even though most people are, they don't necessarily apply it to the way they live. Most people still continue to buy rigidly delineated kids toys and clothes because it is part of a circular loop - they are there, so we buy them. Because we buy them, they continue to be there etc.

Secondly, most people don't link rigid gender stereotypes with transgender ideology, because they simply don't give it much thought at all.

Most people don't even pretend to understand why people may or may not be trans, let alone the differences between transsexualism and transgenderism. They just don't think about it because it doesn't impact on their lives very much. And I hate to say it, but the vast majority don't care yet.

That may change going forward, but when (apparently) only 6% of women polled, actively call themselves Feminists, people are not yet queuing up to listen to our arguments.

Most people care about what they care about; which is largely the stuff that impacts them the most. Which for most people at the moment, isn't this.

Yes, it would be lovely if women's voices were sufficiently respected to not need male people writing too, but if our voices were powerful enough or taken seriously enough for us not to need that, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

It feels like, in not wanting men to write about this, but insist on only women's voices being heard, we're putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Because if we lose the fight against self ID, we're fucked. Utterly fucked.

We need to win that ahead of anything else, at least as far as this is concerned, to make damn sure we retain our sex based rights. The rest can follow when we have that sorted.

I understand that some women don't want to see Debbie given a platform over women, or included in feminist spaces. I get it, I do. But the Times isn't a Feminist space or platform. It's a national newspaper. Read by a lot of people. Who won't be on here. Or FB or possibly Twitter.

Who may not give a crap about Feminism, but who might well give a crap about their daughter, who is on her way to becoming a promising or possibly professional athlete or sportswoman. And don't want her chances or her health threatened by men playing with or opposite her.

It's a decent article on the subject that couldn't have been written by a woman, so I'm glad Debbie wrote it.

Debbie - you said you think that trans organising should be focusing on separate facilities and separate sports. This seems to go against everything I've seen from the TRA lobby, who have no intention of not being validated at women's expense. How do you think they could be persuaded, or, how do you think those in the trans community who share your view might reach critical mass (as they must outnumber the virulent TRA faction).

Nb: I'm asking, because this isn't something women can/should do; this has to come from within the trans community.

I can't remember who said it a while ago but I make a conscious effort to use surnames when referring to men who identify as female. Using female (and sometimes childish versions) names tricks your brain into thinking you are actually describing a woman's views.

"Rachel should be excluded from women's races." Seems unreasonable.

"McKinnon should be excluded from women's races", much more neutral.

Hi Debbie and thank you I enjoy reading your contributions to the debate.

Anyone that insists children call a biological Male Miss and involves his family and wife in a film to validate and confirm his new identity is no ally to Women

I lean this way too.

I agree with most of what you've written, MrsToddsShortcut but not this:

this isn't something women can/should do; this has to come from within the trans community.

When the issue is trans inclusion in sport, why should the decision come from trans people and not from women, who are also being affected by the decision? Ulitmately there should be an impartial decision on the grounds of fairness and safety.

I don't think it's about 'persuading' the trans lobby. It's possible they just have to be told 'no'.

It's possible they just have to be told 'no'.

It's imperative that they are told no.

I think mrsTodd meant the 'this has to come from the trans lobby' in reference to 'trans organising should be focusing on separate facilities and separate sports.'

The prerequisite is that the sporting bodies tell them no, they aren't eligible to compete in women's sports. Having been told no, then it's up to them - certainly not women - to work out what to do either within or outside of men's sports.

The way I see it is:

Organisations ask society a question about 'gender' and 'inclusion'

If women all say option A
Transsexuals say option B
And men say option B

Organisations will probably go with option B because B will be seen as the majority vote even though it wouldn't be fair on women.

If women say option A
Transsexuals say option A
and men say option A or B

Organisations are much more likely to go with option A because not only will A be seen as the majority vote, but organisations see these issues as affecting both women and transsexuals so will want to know what both groups think.

I also think the same would happen if:
Women say option A
Transsexuals say option B
and men say option A

'A' would win on the majority vote.

We keep seeing organisations and the govt saying they will 'consult with trans groups and women's groups on this issue.'

As much as we'd like to decide what happens, a lot of people (especially those unaware of what has been going on, the threats etc) will see it like this. So the more balanced fair trans people who speak up in favour of protecting women's rights the better.

I don't understand women obsessed with shutting down every single male and male transsexual gender critical voice who agree with us. They are not 'speaking for us,' they are agreeing with us and are suggesting the same solutions. I don't think it help to attack them at all if the end goal is protecting women's rights.

testing it's like Barracker's Rohypnal pronouns.

Errol Thank you, that is exactly what I meant! Apols if it read as the other way.

Sorry for misunderstanding MrsTodd, wasn't reading carefully enough.

Yes neirotrash, it was most likely Barracker. I know some people use she/her out of politeness but I agree with Barracker that when we are talking about the opinions of a man we shouldn't use lan

My argument - essentially - is that it is unfair and possibly unsafe for transwomen to compete with women, so we should campaign for specific provision within men's sport.

A woman could have written that but it would be more difficult for them to defend it.

Gah, hit post by accident.

Meant to say: when writing about the opinions of a man we shouldn't use language which implies they are a woman.

A woman could have written that but it would be more difficult for them to defend it

What about if your wife wrote it? She would be able to clearly state the obvious differences in strength and entitlement of men.

Unfortunately the audience would say, let a real trans person say this with women.

Iirc Errol said (?) it's a small part of the bigger argument made by women.

Sorry errol I don't want to miss quote you and can't find what you said.

Because, patriarchy, misogyny and woke-fullness of the audience.

My argument - essentially - is that it is unfair and possibly unsafe for transwomen to compete with women, so we should campaign for specific provision within men's sport.
*
A woman could have written that but it would be more difficult for them to defend it.*

Actually, a woman couldn't have written that. We could write that they should campaign for specific provision within men's sport. We do need transwomen putting the case for what they should do.

This is it, Errol. Everyone here can argue the toss about who should or shouldn't be writing what, or appearing where.

However, none of that negates the fact that there is a sizeable chunk of society, which includes lots of policy makers, who couldn't give two hoots what women think/write/care about or whether or not women either are or feel, safe, recognised or included fairly in society, any meaningful way.

If they did, our judicial and political system as well as our education and employment systems - oh, all our systems would look different.

They don't.

For a reason.

So to try and circumvent that with what should happen with regard to the blatantly obvious overwriting of women's rights with trans rights, when it comes to who is listened to, is folly.

Unless any of us are women who identify as trans, we can't write from a trans perspective.

Debbie can't write from a woman's perspective, but can write from a transexual perspective.

So long as we are all writing with the aim of separating women's rights and trans rights and protecting them as entirely separate entities, and that our sex based protections are left alone, and not weakened, then it feels like cutting off our noses to spite our faces in terms of protecting women only structures and holding back self ID.