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.

You would think a communist paper might have learned something about show trials and totalitarianism over the years.

No need to PM me Chriscam, I'd rather keep the discussion on this thread. You won't find the 'It will never happen' stories in the Guardian, because the Guardian treats people like Yaniv as 'women with male genitalia'. If you're also in that camp, then I really can't help you.

Ooh some of you broke the guidelines last night. Hope you're not being threatened with banning.

Shame about the capitulation, as others have said, it will never be enough. It's one reason why I will forgive The Guardian if they ever get themselves sorted and remember that only women are women, as I can't really tell them that's why they are not getting my money if I carry on sulking after they sort themselves out. Not holding my breath.

This jumped out at me - how are trans people not already able to participate equally in workplaces, communities and the labour movement?

I would suggest that many of the vocal transgender lobbyists and activists involved have a far more than equal access.

C.f.: dear old Pips Bunce with their women's awards, J(?) Pritzker with the multi billion dollar interest in transgender activism, the erstwhile Doctors Harrop and Webberley who directly and/or indirectly profit from people want trans a related drugs...

the erstwhile Doctors Harrop...

Sorry if I mis-titled Adrian Harrop btw. I understand they are currently subject to a formal GMC investigation and I don't know if his medical title has been stripped yet or not.

So, please consider the above to refer to Dr Harrop or Mr/Ms/Xe/Other Harrop as appropriate.

Great piece by Wild Woman Writing Club:

wildwomanwritingclub.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/on-the-no-true-trans-newt-cartoon/

snippets:

"The judge in the Fair Cop judicial review recently reminded us that there is no general right not to be offended, a principle which would seem to extend to political cartoons, a direct, shorthand medium not noted for subtlety and sensitivity. Political cartoons are meant to unveil power politics in action, slicing through diversions, disavowals and obfuscation. It seems that some Labour-adjacent parts of the Left weren’t paying attention to the case."

"I’m fed up of having to talk about the men, and their problems, which should not be our problems. Let them take their problems to other men to work on them. Once men decide to solve a problem, they can be quite impressive, but first they have to properly identify what it is (this is where they fail time and again because they don’t consult women to gain depth of vision). For feminist to prioritise the tantrums of such men is to reveal a serious weak spot, for men cannot be part of feminism: their interests in carving out exceptions for themselves, so they will be actively enabled to continue coping with life in a dysfunctional and fruitlessly socially disruptive manner, and avoid the hard work of looking closely at the source of their cross-sex desires, are antithetical to women’s interests. We can’t have it both ways, and compromising at this point would be to fail women completely."

"If there is an element of virtue signalling to all this – tokenising trans-identifying individuals as a pre-emptive defence against accusations of transphobia (why bother? it’s enough to be female and express a mildly heterodox opinion to be tarred with that brush) – then it needs to stop. Feminist women need to realise that it doesn’t matter what you do or say – the moment you step away from being a useful idiot to TRAs – including the ones who claim to be gender critical (an impossibility, as trans identity relies on the existence of gender stereotypes and sex-segregation to ‘play’ with by transgressing boundaries) – you cross beyond the pale, from a male perspective."

ThePurported
Agree entirely with this. Very disappointed with WPUK and Morning Star. The newts are entitled to their perspective.

May I ask an awkward question - sorry if this has already been discussed at length.

Isn't all of transgender, at the very root, predicated on an initial act of self-identification?

To my mind, the difference between assertions of "true" and "fake" trans is the degree to which medical input is sought and how much doctors agree with that person's claim to have an inner identity that actually belongs to the opposite sex instead of their own. What are the other nuances I am missing?

You're missing no other nuances ReinstateLangCleg.

Men validate other men into 'women' legally via a rubberstamping certification exercise, or by a surgical or medical exercise on male genitalia or male chests, and presto! True womanhood.

Womanhood is to them a status, a legality, a label to be earned by men and granted by other men. It's a role you can play, for a period of time determined by men, to prove the strength of your belief that womanhood is surely just a role, and you can and will play it well.

True vs fake?

It's all a false, offensive rendering of what we women actually are. We're female humans. Not identities. Not roles to be played for two years. Not solemn oaths to be sworn about living life the womanny way forever. Not modified male people with parts removed or added.

It all begins with self-ID. Some seek to be validated by the law. Others seek to be validated by society. But women aren't created through living a role, or changing markers, or operating on organs, or swallowing pills.

That's what men may think we are.
It is not what we actually are.

I need to be careful, I've tried to stay within guidelines, but I suspect I'm being targeted for a banning right now.

A very similar post of mine was deleted upthread for apparently breaking talk guidelines, and I honestly don't know in what possible way it did.

I find it so hateful that men or women see females as an identity that anyone can claim. We are living, breathing female humans, people who all belong to the same sex class, and we deserve the right to differentiate ourselves unapologetically from the opposite sex class. Even if they demand we do not. I'm allowed to protest when the word for my sex is contorted into something it is not, and when I am punished for demanding my sex be recognised as the opposite to someone else's.

Thank you, Barracker

I always appreciate your insightful posts.

It seems to me that the statement at its core really boils down to "I am who I say I am because I say I am." To what degree we are supposed to accept its "truth" depends on how many "official steps" are taken to convince us of the sincerity of the utterer. It doesn't matter that all the claims are equally factually baseless, if they can be enforced by those in power.

Just to check I've understood: Newts aren't newts as a species in their own right. (Is there even such a thing as a newt, apart from as an ineffable newt-essence?) Newts are whatever those in charge of the pond says they are. And it's never the newts themselves.

Thanks ThePurported, that piece deserves sharing widely.

It seems to me that the statement at its core really boils down to "I am who I say I am because I say I am." To what degree we are supposed to accept its "truth" depends on how many "official steps" are taken to convince us of the sincerity of the utterer. It doesn't matter that all the claims are equally factually baseless, if they can be enforced by those in power

ReinstateLangCleg, you've encapsulated the issue perfectly. When you listen to the useful idiots like Nandy discussing it, the most common refrain after the TWAW chant is 'Only you can define what your identity is'.

Which sounds lovely and liberal and open minded. But it's hitched to a (mostly) unspoken determination to somehow codify a person right to 'define themselves' in law, with all the attendant penalties for others breaking that law, so what you end up with is law that is useless for any practical purposes except enforcing compliance from whomever those at the top of the pyramid deem it owing.

Because physical reality remains, and women's oppression is rooted in our physical realities, we will bear the brunt of this, so it's just another manifestation of what we used to call Patriarchy. Couple it with the serious authoritarian overtones and you have a recipe for something very ugly indeed.

I want to repeat parts of your posts together, Barracker and FloralBunting, because I think they're incredibly important points you each make:

It's all a false, offensive rendering of what we women actually are. We're female humans. Not identities. Not roles to be played for two years. Not solemn oaths to be sworn about living life the womanny way forever. Not modified male people with parts removed or added.

It all begins with self-ID. Some seek to be validated by the law. Others seek to be validated by society. But women aren't created through living a role, or changing markers, or operating on organs, or swallowing pills.

That's what men may think we are.
It is not what we actually are.

&

it's hitched to a (mostly) unspoken determination to somehow codify a person right to 'define themselves' in law, with all the attendant penalties for others breaking that law, so what you end up with is law that is useless for any practical purposes except enforcing compliance from whomever those at the top of the pyramid deem it owing.

Because physical reality remains, and women's oppression is rooted in our physical realities, we will bear the brunt of this, so it's just another manifestation of what we used to call Patriarchy. Couple it with the serious authoritarian overtones and you have a recipe for something very ugly indeed.