Gaby Hinsliff article in Guardian on Maya Forstater case

[merrymouse]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/22/maya-forstater-case-about-protected-beliefs-not-trans-rights

Gaby Hinsliff writes:

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”

How would one do that if one can't talk about sex? What language would one use?

How do you talk about the need for sex segregated sports if you can't talk about the sex?

The law currently gives specific examples of situations where it would be legal to exclude all trans women (e.g. from a counselling service for women who have been raped ), and the reason is their biological sex.

I can only conclude that nether Gaby Hinsliff nor the judge are familiar with UK legislation and that both are reading 'Stonelaw' - specifically the bit that pretends that sex based exemptions don't exist.

But the judge said we can still have those discussions where necessary in a way that doesn’t mean calling every TW a M.

We should also be able to have them without being forced to call them women. Transwomen are transwomen.

But the judge said we can still have those discussions where necessary in a way that doesn’t mean calling every TW a M.

How?

What language are we supposed to use instead?

How can you talk about sex if the concept of sex is regarded as offensive?

How do you talk about sexism and the nature of sexism if you can't talk about sex?

But they are, as a matter of fact, men. Biologically male. They may very sincerely wish they weren't, believe they ought to have been born women, believe they have a female brain (many of my religious friends sincerely believe they have an immortal soul, after all). But they are still male.

What's required of me in a free, open and tolerant society, is that I be respectful of other people's beliefs. I shouldn't refuse them a job or housing because they are trans or religious. I shouldn't harrass them (repeatedly saying "you're a man" when someone quite understandably doesn't want to be reminded of this fact, or saying "you believe in the great sky fairy".)

But being respectful doesn't mean being compelled to share other people's beliefs.

Maya Forstater doesn’t believe that people can change sex.

Maya Forstater does not believe that people can't change sex.

Maya Forstater knows this.

As does Gaby Hinsliff and every other sane person on the planet, whatever they might feel obliged to say in public.

It really is odd how emotionally invested some people are in preventing women from speaking the truth that even they know is in fact true. Odd hobby, that.

And you’re perfectly entitled to that belief.

Thank you. Since that belief is based on science it would be a worrying development if we weren't allowed to hold such a belief.

That doesn’t mean you’re then entitled to act in a way that is “causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men”.

And Maya didn't do this. She explicitly stated that in interactions with trans people she would address them using their preferred names, pronouns etc.

You really sound as though you've got all your information about this case from TRAs on twitter. Why don't you go off and read Maya's statement and come back when you're familiar with what she actually said and believes?

And you’re perfectly entitled to that belief.

I can't change sex. I can't decide that I'm going to side step menopause, become a man, and have a few more children.

I couldn't tell my daughter that she could decide not to have periods. (Yes, you can use contraception to stop periods, but if you need access to contraception to prevent periods, you are by definition female).

If we pretend that the reality of sex is just a belief or that sex is optional, we cannot protect women and ensure their ability to participate equally in society.

How old is Gaby Hinsliff? She comes across as one of those very young 'cool girls' who are all about how they don't need feminism because men are so fab and women are so 'bitchy' - only to change their minds 10 or 15 years later when the reality of being a woman really kicks in. But Gaby doesn't look that young, so chances are she's just obtuse and uber woke.

She wrote an awful article which got totally eviserated in the comment section abou 4 months ago, saying that ageing is great for women because they 'lose their looks' and don't get hassled anymore. Essentially saying that once a woman hits the grand old age of about 40 or 50 or whatever, she enters old crone territory:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/10/women-ageing-loss-looks-liberate-society-shame

Odd hobby, that.

Right ok. I’ll take that as my cue to leave before you start with personal comments. Well done anyway.

Actually you know what sod it. Tbh I’m going to ask MN to take a look at that. It’s verging on bullying.

@Fieldofgreycorn

We can still say that a sex offender with a penis shouldn’t be housed with vulnerable female prisoners no matter how that person identifies.

I think that the word you're grasping for there is "man".

Reporting people for making jokes is bullying. As is trying to use the legal system to prevent women from stating biological facts.

She comes across as one of those very young 'cool girls' who are all about how they don't need feminism because men are so fab and women are so 'bitchy' - only to change their minds 10 or 15 years later when the reality of being a woman really kicks in.

From subject matter in her columns (age of children) I would guess she is in her early 40's.

I think she is genuinely trying to be nice to everyone, but intentionally or unintentionally has limited knowledge on this topic, which is very frustrating.

I used to be on twitter and she was the kind of journalist who took the time to politely respond to randoms like me (not on this issue which she doesn't usually discuss).

It's the 'case-by-case' bollocks again isn't it.

It's nowhere in the EA. It's in EHRC statutory code of practice which can't be changed without putting it before parliament.

EHRC issued some sort of memo to say they meant setting-by-setting, not person-by-person but I don't think that has any legal weight, certainly not compared to the stat code.

EHRC were recently asked to write new stat code on this and they said no.

If tw were actually w we could all go home.

I might think that if I hadn't read her article on Cologne, merrymouse. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze that article but there was a lot more going on there than trying to be nice.

Yer it’s just banter innit. Whatever.

We can still say that a sex offender with a penis shouldn’t be housed with vulnerable female prisoners no matter how that person identifies.

But there are situations where somebody who wasn't a sex offender and didn't have a penis could still be excluded e.g. sport and the reason would be their sex.

The problem is that in the few situations where it is necessary to discriminate between men and women, the reason is sex, not gender.

Actually you know what sod it. Tbh I’m going to ask MN to take a look at that. It’s verging on bullying.

Well, at least you said it out loud.

I hope you enjoy the coming backlash. Because it's your responsibility. One day, you'll wish you had listened to feminists.

I hope Field realizes that they're proving my point. For some reason there are a group of people who are willing to dedicate a great deal of time to preventing women from saying things that even they admit on some level are true. This is an odd thing to do. The fact that they're willing to weaponize Mumsnet's talk rules, and the legal system, and and other thing that they can find that they can use to punish women for saying things they don't like? Again, that is strange behavior. Maybe having how strange it is pointed out stings because the people in question don't want to admit that it's a strange thing to dedicate a considerable chunk of your time to doing, but it is.

The problem is that in the few situations where it is necessary to discriminate between men and women, the reason is sex, not gender.

Exactly. Why would we want to exclude anyone from a space the basis of their gender, which is an internal feeling not necessarily detectable to anyone else? There's no reason to. Sex otoh is relevant in a great many ways and almost always clear to everyone.

I think it's very telling that in the few situations where a trans man might gain privilege by accessing male space, the law has created barriers - Male private members clubs can still choose who to exclude on an individual basis, exceptions for religions, laws on inheritance.

However, if a woman talks about the realities of sex, it is treated as blasphemy.

You can’t segregate by gender. It’s hard enough to find room for a third space, let alone 60 for all the neutrois, Demi boys, bigenders etc etc.

Ferngender, frostgender, etc. Buildings don't have an infinite number of rooms!

The judgement made it clear that its fine to discuss the GRA self ID consultation but we can do so respectfully

Try that on Twitter and see how far you get without being sent abusive memes about T**fs.

It sounds great in theory but the wider context is that any moderate and respectful discussion is shut down as transphobic. The position among TRAs seems to be that even wanting to discuss this at all is bigoted.

You can't discuss things respectfully with people to whom respect means obedience.