Cartoon in the Morning Star

[Cwenthryth]

Kristina Harrison (prominent gender. critical transwoman, WPUK supporter) just posted this on Twitter - apparently it was published in the Morning Star.

KH wrote “This cartoon appeared in The Morning Star earlier this week @MStarOnline It is a horrific, generalised demonisation of trans people which does not belong in a civilised society, let alone a socialist newspaper. I condemn it utterly. Trans people & progressive opponents of identity politics are owed an unequivocal apology, an explanation & reassurance about what action is being taken to ensure that the line between fierce but legitimate argument and bigotry is never crossed again. Totally unacceptable. (not posting a direct link as I don’t want to facilitate any pile on against Kristina, clearly this is a sensitive personal issue for a transwoman).

Comments are supportive of KH so far. I thought it’d be a good topic for discussion here - does this ‘demonise trans people’ or does it baldly illustrate safeguarding concerns with self-ID? Is it different from the popular/accepted(?) ‘Fox identifying into the henhouse’ analogy? Hopefully we can keep things civil and respectful with no personal criticisms of Kristina.

I repeat - using relatively isolated incidents to generalise about all transgendered people is wrong . And we will all repeat 2 things:

Such incidents are NOT relatively isolated, even if you only look at the UK!

How many women being hurt will be enough to make you re-think that?

And when you have pondered that second point ask yourself why you are OK with any woman being raped, beaten etc?

I repeat - using relatively isolated incidents

ChrisCam
You are missing the point. Whether this is deliberate because you are incapable of engaging with the argument or whether it's because you are genuinely incapable of comprehending the central problem? I don't know. But let me make it crystal clear so there is no misunderstanding. Self ID allows any male to identify as a woman and gain access to sex segregated spaces. The problem with that scenario should not require laborious explanation. It is blatantly obvious.

It's the difference between "it's fine for a man to wear a dress or a skirt" and "wanting to wear a dress or a skirt means you're a woman and should have access to all spaces designated for the use of women only". The former is progressive, the latter is regressive.

It always amuses me how many hardcore genderists are completely unable to wrap their heads around the concept of genuinely GNC people. They just can't process it as anything other than "this person has to be trans because no man/woman would want to do that/look like that/have those interests". Meanwhile most of the evil TERF witches grew up with people like that, or were/are people like that, and have been happily not blinking an eye at men in skirts and makeup and women who want to wear overalls and work on cars since childhood.

I've seen it in multiple fandoms I'm peripherally involved with, young genderist people attempting to impose a trans identity on people, particularly male people, who're just, you know, goths, or flamboyant gay men, or performers, despite those people themselves having given not the slightest indication that they see themselves that way. It's one of those "when all you have is a hammer everything you see is a nail" things.

I don’t feel my rights as woman are threatened by giving trans gendered women rights

Aaaand in things no-one is arguing about....

Transwomen have rights. The same rights as the rest of us. Trans rights are human rights. We all have human rights.

But this isn't about the right for transwomen to be treated equally in society. Transwomen are arguing for the right to be treated as if they are women, in all situations. All the time. Acceptance without exception.

Perhaps you really mean that you don't feel that your rights are affected by giving transwomen womens rights? If not, then I'm not sure who you are arguing against, because nobody here thinks that trans people are undeserving of human rights. We just believe that sex matters.

Yes!! Our tranny mate has been Transed. He thinks it's funny. But he has always been open about it being his fetish.

We have a rather gorgoeous young male goth here, not remotely effeminate or gay. He too has been transed. He's not so amused, feels it is an affront to his manhood. His indignation does make me laugh (he's a friend/fellow networker) but at least he is listening to the GC discourse... he doesn't claim to be a feminist or ally or anything other than Goth!

I watched the unsolicited transing done to Famous Person Who I Won't Name a few years back and he was utterly bemused. And too polite to actually say "have you been huffing glue?", but the sentiment came across nonetheless.

The overwhelming violence against women is by heterosexual men.

Adult human males?

Yes its true
Adult human males are overwhelmingly responsible for violence against women, children & other males.
The majority of adult human males are heterosexual.
Males who identify as women/girls have the same offending patterns as males not females
(one always has to say #NAMALT of course. Not all males are like that)

I love how the little conversation we had about heterosexual males earlier went whoosh right over our new friend's head. The assumption that all transwomen are attracted exclusively to men seems to be common in people who know very little about the issues we're discussing but are keen to splain them to us anyway.

I'm still waiting for one of them to come back and at least say they have read the posts we took time to type for them!

So very few seem to do that these days. I know how valuable it can be, to swallow your pride and have a re-think!

Angry posts, Curious, much too angry for anyone delicate to read. Gently laughing at how silly people are being is very hostile and scary when the people doing it have vaginas.

Well, this angry poster is off to take the dog to a dog park. Maybe I'll run off all my aggression!!

I love how the little conversation we had about heterosexual males earlier went whoosh right over our new friend's head. The assumption that all transwomen are attracted exclusively to men seems to be common in people who know very little about the issues we're discussing but are keen to splain them to us anyway.

Funny, that.
On the other hand, the idea of male lesbians with ladydicks is so ridiculous and offensive that a lot of people just can't comprehend it.
Cotton ceiling. Google it, people.

I'llk admit to being bemused by KH's complaint. I thought it was very clearly about the danger of a self-ID policy, allowing any predtor to enter with out any checks or restrictions.

I didn't think it was about transwomen or transsexuals at all, just the logical conclusion of Self ID.

Its an emotional reaction.
Not so difficult to understand in the context of more & more people recently becoming aware following Lisa Nandy's response that child rapists should have their identity as women respected & protected.

I find it harder to understand some of the responses which followed from people & organisations who have been campaigning about the dangers of sex self-id for girls & women.

Why do you talk about people with a different opinion or viewpoint in such a way as "our new friend's head?!"
Your new friend? You mean a poster, just like everyone else?
It's totally worded to patronise and sow doubt about a poster's intentions just because they disagree with group think.

Group think?

People, the majority of whom are women, posting on the Feminism chat board of a parenting site & concerned for protecting child Safeguarding & women's sex based rights?

OK Wilis

Way to skim over what I actually said though about how people word things to sow doubt, patronise etc.
That's some point missing, not sure if intentionally or on purpose.

unintentionally or on purpose

Way to skim over what I actually said though about how people word things to sow doubt, patronise etc.
That's some point missing, not sure if intentionally or on purpose.

False allegations are often projections.

Thing is, Willis, most feminist posters on a feminist talk board are going to uphold women's right to say no to men*. Call it group think if you like, but actually, it's more of a basic, universal, human rights kind of thing?

I understand you think women should NOT be permitted to say no to men, and you would like to position that as 'disagreeing with group think'.
Which is OK, there are a lot of people who think women should be subordinated to men, and I believe you are entitled to hold that opinion, despite my being astonished that you would think it.

But I'm not sure you'll find a great deal of company for your opinion on a feminist talk board. Your position is diametrically opposed to female rights. You'd likely find yourself in mutual company on an MRA forum, where they also tend to also believe women should never be allowed to deny a man something he wants at her own expense.

But you are welcome on this board as any of us are. MNHQ has a very broad brush of tolerance for posters who think women should not be allowed to continue to assert their legal, human, sex based rights.

*men: all adult human males. Really. All.

It's totally worded to patronise and sow doubt about a poster's intentions just because they disagree with group think. Tends to happen as a sarcastic response to posts that read "wide eyed and innocent".

It's quite irritating when talking about changes in law being sought/made that aid violent and predatory men to be met with posts that basically tell women that there is no issue... nothing to see!

FWR is part of the forum where women are often called upon to think, deeply, widely and not to dismiss the issues under discussion so tritely!

I find it harder to understand some of the responses which followed from people & organisations who have been campaigning about the dangers of sex self-id for girls & women.

Me too. It's the same blind spot which created this mess in the first place. Arbitrary exceptions and favours for mates and 'nice' people.

False allegations?
About what?
What I said? You did seem to ignore what I actually put, there's no false allegations there.

As you are ignoring all the points made and focussing on a distraction...?