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.

any man becoming or transitioning to being a woman isnt real

Reality isn't a concept we struggle with here.

yes but not everyone who self identifies into a newt pond will be a crocodile.

Reality isn't a concept we struggle with here.

the juxtaposition!

Comprehension fail Sildarin. Firstly, many women here have husbands, partners, fathers, brothers and sons they respect and care about deeply but that doesn’t mean they want to share toilets, changing rooms or a prison cell with males.

Secondly, when a male (who may or may not present in a feminine fashion) enters a woman’s space like a toilet block, how are the women meant to know whether they are a decent sort or a predatory sort? We can’t tell, and if a predatory sort attacks we are at a great disadvantage when it comes to protecting ourselves due to lower physical strength.

Thirdly, there are quite a lot of cases reported in the media of self-identified transwomen sexually assaulting, raping and being violent towards women. Transwomen are marginalised in some respects, yes, but they are not at risk from women and unfortunately some are a risk to women. Not because they are transwomen but because they are male.

We need a good reason to change the status quo which has worked well for aeons and puts the lowest number of women at risk. There are ways of protecting transwomen which don’t put women at risk. Anyway, I’m not saying anything new so I’ll stop here.

allmywhat
yes but not everyone who self identifies into a newt pond will be a crocodile

I don't know what point you are making.

Dropping the crocodile metaphor, I think it is entirely possible to view that cartoon as saying that all trans women will be a threat. I'm not a trans woman and that is how I read it.

I don't know what point you are making.

I don't know how it could be any clearer tbh. There is no reason to read the crocodile as representing all trans women, or indeed any trans women. There are plenty of male predators who aren't trans in any sense other than the self-ID sense, trying to get into spaces where women are vulnerable.

But I'm repeating myself and I'm pretty sure you are too, what's the point?

allmywhat

This happens nearly every time Feminists talk about the predators that will march through the giant loopholes in the laws.
Transgender advocates claim it is directed not at predators, but at them. I do not think anyone has ever succeeded at convincing them that they are not the main character, or protagonist, in the story of everyone's lives.

Britney I don’t really get your comparison of the scenario you have outlined and the cartoon posted in the OP. Maybe my brain is working a little slow. Perhaps because the crocodile mentions transition you have come to the conclusion that the crocodile is a transwoman. But even on this thread people are saying they aren’t worried about transwomen, who are apparently all saints, but about males pretending to be transwomen to access vulnerable females. It is clear that the opposition to self-ID is about all males, however they identify.

Your scenario has identified a Muslim man. There is no ambiguity about his identity. To be a proper analogy to this cartoon I think there would have to be some ambiguity about the identity of the man carrying the bomb/alarm clock.

I don't know how it could be any clearer tbh. There is no reason to read the crocodile as representing all trans women, or indeedanytrans women

In your opinion there is no reason to interpret it that way. You seem to be struggling with the concept that someone might have a different opinion or a different interpretation of it.

The points made by Britney seem to me entirely valid- but carry on with your wide-eyed innocence.

Transgender advocates claim it is directed not at predators, but at them Well I am very far from being a transgender activist. That is exactly how I read it. I don't think it does your (general your) gender critical stance any favours that you are simply dismissing out of hand that it can be read that way.

Surely the crocodile isn't intended to portray a trans person so much as a predator using self-ID as a trojan horse?

Oops, should've read the above posts before commenting....

If this drawing was of white people in a shop instead of newts in a pool, and a Muslim man in a balaclava, instead of a crocodile, with the caption “What’s the problem? I’m only trying to protect my face from the sunlight” would you defend it in the same way? Because it wouldn’t obviously apply to all muslim men so it couldn’t be classed as offensive, right?

Uncomfortable as it is, I do somewhat agree with this point. Some minorities seem more protected thsn others.

It reminds me of a discussion ages ago where posters were dismissing claims of misandry and somebody pointed out that the same comments would be deemed unacceptable if one were to substitute the word 'black people' for 'men' - e.g. 'I'm starting to hate black people' / 'why are black people so violent?'

@charlestonchaplin
Would my analogy be clearer if the Muslim man carrying a bomb was identifying himself as a Christian?

It’s easy to be dismissive when it’s something you don’t agree with but I repeat: if people honestly can’t see why trans people would find that cartoon offensive, no matter where they stand personally on the issue, I think that’s absolutely ridiculous of them.

And like I said, I stand by the majority of the views expressed on this board. But being blind as to why trans people wouldn’t find that particular cartoon offensive is just naive and cherry-picking IMO. Not saying it shouldn’t have been drawn or published, because there are a lot of cartoons about politicians that are a whole lot worse that have been drawn and published, but I’m a little doubtful as to how this can be brushed over and tossed aside as a non-issue by people because it suits the side of the argument they are on.

I don't think it does your (general your) gender critical stance any favours that you are simply dismissing out of hand that it can be read that way.
You, general you, can misinterpret anything you wish in whatever way you wish.
Reasonable people inquire of the artist what was meant, and do not persist in their misunderstanding after it is explained to them.

@charlestonchaplin

“Perhaps because the crocodile mentions transition you have come to the conclusion that the crocodile is a transwoman”

What is this entire thread about then exactly, if not that?

I mean, I can’t be the only one that came up with that conclusion, otherwise the thread wouldn’t be so long as it is...

But being blind as to why trans people wouldn’t find that particular cartoon offensive is just naive and cherry-picking IMO.

I do not think anyone is blind to the fact that transgender advocates manufacture outrage at every opportunity.
They are still having the rage over Jo Rowling's tweet, so this was to be expected. I hope the artist was prepared in advance for the death threats.

TheBewildernessisWeetabix
I do not think anyone is blind to the fact that transgender advocates manufacture outrage at every opportunity.

But that’s not what I said! I agree with you on your comment. What I’m saying is it’s completely disingenuous to look at a cartoon like that and state that trans people shouldn’t be offended by it when, I would argue, it was drawn to be purposely offensive, like all political drawings are.

Reasonable people inquire of the artist what was meant, and do not persist in their misunderstanding after it is explained to them.

I'm not sure this is always the case.

If a drag artist claimed he was celebrating women I'm not convinced the majority on here would sit down and desist.

@charlestonchaplin
Would my analogy be clearer if the Muslim man carrying a bomb was identifying himself as a Christian? Your analogy doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work. The closest your analogy could get to this scenario is a man wearing the traditional clothes of a country, say a part of Africa, where people are both Muslim and Christian. We wouldn’t be able to to tell just from his appearance whether he is Muslim or Christian, just as we can’t tell here, purely from the depiction, whether the crocodile is a transwoman or a non-trans male. Of course most British people have no idea of the variety of traditional clothes worn in Africa or which people follow which religions so they wouldn’t even get that far. You’re just flogging a dead horse with that analogy.

It’s easy to be dismissive when it’s something you don’t agree with but I repeat: if people honestly can’t see why trans people would find that cartoon offensive, no matter where they stand personally on the issue, I think that’s absolutely ridiculous of them.

I can’t believe all transwomen are lacking in intelligence. It’s not possible that they can’t understand the arguments women make for keeping single-sex spaces. The bottom line is that they feel their ‘need’ to use those spaces is more important. The logical end point of transwomen in women’s spaces is an increase in women being attacked, quite apart from any issues of privacy and dignity. We can argue about whether the increase in the number of women hurt would be small or large, but there will certainly be an increase due to much greater access to vulnerable women. These women are considered collateral damage for the validation of transwomen. So I’m not surprised that they would look at this cartoon and continue to refuse to acknowledge the problems of males (including transwomen) accessing women’s spaces. The crocodile is clearly any predatory male who seeks to use self-ID to access women’s spaces. Some women are at great pains to point out they aren’t concerned about transwomen but I say the statistics and the continual stream of media reports tell us it’s not only non-trans males we need to be concerned about.

Some people don’t have very logical minds, some people don’t like to try and stretch their minds and some people cannot or will not face the truth when it is contrary to their desires. Transgenderism in particular involves suspending logic and reality to some extent.

I can’t say any more on this subject Britney. You need to consider that just because someone is upset doesn’t mean they have good reason to be upset. Most men would understand us not wanting men in our spaces because of the deplorable actions of a few, why is it different with transwomen?

I understand why a particular TW might be upset by the uncomfortable point being made in the cartoon. That is not a point of confusion.

But in response to the complaint that the cartoon presents 'all transwomen as a threat' I will say, no, it presents all TW as a potential threat, because all TW are male, and all males are a potential threat.

If a TW ally doesn't understand that already, or that Ally thinks they are one of the good ones who can be allowed to slip past the boundary, then I'm afraid that, whatever we may think of the benefits of having TW allies, we are building a whacking great loophole into our case.

I'm offended that women are having our existence redefined in law and policy and are having to fight tooth and nail to retain rights we've barely had for 50 years.

Would be nice if being offended over a satirical cartoon was the only thing to worry about.

As Floral says it doesn't benefit our case to afford loopholes to males we deem to be nice enough. There are plenty of nice men and men who identify as TW in the world but that's not the point if we want to retain sex based rights.

Thankyou for more really interesting discussion overnight even if me seeking to understand was called ‘disingenuous’ and ‘ridiculous’! (No worries personally, you’re entitled to your opinion - but these are ad feminem arguments and haven’t helped further understanding).

To clarify, I am not denying that some people clearly think this is a comment on ‘all trans people’ - I am seeking to understand why! The analogy someone gave with a man walking into a shop with something that looks like a bomb and saying ‘don’t worry it’s an alarm clock’ - I don’t think I’ve understood what you were getting at, because to me if anyone is carrying something that looks like a bomb then it’s not wrong to be concerned! This seems to be again about not understanding safeguarding, perhaps. It’s not about individuals, it’s about relative risk, and requires . That has been the theme of some of the responses on Twitter to TW expressing personal offence, tbh - it’s not all about you.

Not sure where the ‘requires’ bit was going sorry!

It’s a cartoon. Cartoons have a long history of being offensive, that’s their point. As it’s caused offence, arguably it’s succeeded in its aim.