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'd say that would be an argument in favor of mandatory third space/unisex provision not as a replacement for but in addition to women's and men's spaces.

Dunno. I saw some heartbreaking tweets about detransition, as in, going back is as impossible as transition was. The changes to the body are permanent. The only change is that they just don’t believe In gender identity anymore.

Some of them are turning out to be pretty gender conforming too, at leat in presentation. Perhaps that will turn out to be temporary for some, part of the reidentifying process?

They are apostates of genderIsm, they used to believe and now they are renouncing those beliefs, but their gender history remains the same.

I think feminists (gender atheists) and transitioned/detransitioned apostates can work together if they want because no one is trying to transgress anyone’s boundaries. No one believes anyone has the right to enter the spaces designated for the opposite sex. Not even special people.

Harrison is still a gender believer. The reaction to the crocodile makes that clear.

I would agree but would also highlight that the vulnerable females who identify as 'non-binary' would be at risk in such mixed sex spaces.

Detransition is going to be harder for female people too, because testosterone has a much more profound visual impact and it happens a lot more quickly. So once again the whole thing ends up hurting mostly women and girls.

Yes. The NB are still believers so we can’t work with them. Third spaces are the best option for people who are rejecting their birth sex (unless we are talking prisons, where sex must be the decider).
No circumstances justify using the opposite sexes speared and services.

Yes, incredibly important to remember that it doesn't matter how a girl or woman identifies, she will still be at risk in mixed sex spaces.

Hence why my feminism is trans-inclusionary: I will defend the right of anyone female-bodied to have access to female-only spaces, regardless of their gender identity and regardless of whether they think I'm some kind of hideous bigot. Transmen should be held in women's jails as they are at risk of rape and pregnancy, hence I include them in my feminism.

Feminism means fighting for the rights of all women, even those who reject you.

The truly GC transgender males

As common as unicorns who shit glitter on rainbows.

Considering the rape and death threats that transactivists make: the “punch a terf” and “kill terfs” t-shirts, the pink and blue baseball bats — none of which are cartoons but exist in three-dimensional space, I frankly don’t give a damn if any TW is offended by the crocodile image.

The fact is that there are TW who DO rape and assault girls and women.

Why are we not permitted to say that? Are we seriously obligated to genuflect with a NATALT in every instance?

The truly GC transgender males As common as unicorns who shit glitter on rainbows.
There are several GC transsexuals: Kristina Harrison gave evidence in court in support of Maya Forstater, the tax expert who was sacked for gender-critical tweets, Miranda Yardley (excellent blog) freely admits that he is male and is also gc and Debbie Hayton, the physics teacher has written a number of gc articles in major magazines and newspapers.

It is the lobbyists who are dangerous, for example "Stephanie" Hayden, "Helen" Belcher, and Dr Adrian Harrop (doctor who is vociferous Trans campaigner and mysogynist)

There are several GC transsexuals:

The people you named are all contraversial and have on more than one occasion shown that they are not allies with their actions and words.

Remember when hayden was an ally with sevenhex et all? Fox and henhouse are 2 words that jump to mind

November 2018
'The invention of gender dysphoria' - Sheila Jeffreys hosted by We Need To Talk

Sheila Jeffries described being worried by the growing tendency amongst women/some feminists to split into the 'good, nice, trans, old fashioned, friend of feminist' male transpeople and 'the imposters, the ones who threaten women, bad ones' :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQtyGU766I

The more I think about this the angrier I am.

Am also pissed off with MNHQ for gagging us on this topic. I don't want to speak about individuals but am not allowed to 'generalise'.
So am going to have to speak about individuals

Am pissed off with KH DH , JCJ. KT, RS etc etc what a bunch of selfish wankers.

Next time anyone meets with Woman's Place UK (I want nothing to do with them anymore) you tell them from me.... anyone who wants to censor the topic of newt safeguarding and tadpole protection because some crocodiles might get hurt feelings is not the person to centre in your movement.

Woman's Place UK have just pissed all over their support and recent positive media over this.

And as for the Morning Star? It really shows however reasonable and balanced you try to be, it's never enough. That an accusation of 'transphobia' will stop discussion of child rapists in women's prison. There is only one type of person who benefits from that.

Now THAT is an amazing post @WanderinWomb

I cheered

There will be some issues where male GC trans people's concerns align with women, but others where they don't. It's entirely understandable if their primary focus is their own concerns about the negative impacts of trans activism on themselves - why wouldn't it be? Just we need to be aware of where the commonalities and differences are.

An example of GC trans males trying to do something that would be good for trans people but also good for women (inc 'Nonbinaries' as in discussion upthread) would be Yardley and Olander campaigning for 3rd space facilities. They both know it's not ok for them to use women's facilities and so they don't, but know that other TW may be fearful or reluctant.
There's a link to their petition languishing on the Petitions and activism board btw , posted by Hamster00 on Nov 25th - an occasional GC trans MN poster, afaik below the radar IRL.

Why are we not permitted to say that? Are we seriously obligated to genuflect with a NATALT in every instance?

I must admit that it is beyond irritating that every statement has to be prefixed by how concerned everyone is about trans people having no rights and being the most persecuted etc without any actual evidence/quantification. They just jump into that purity spiral of vague lack of definitions that the TRAs use before they start anything.

(Apologies for the oxymoronic 'GC trans' description but I can't work out what else to use instead)

Thank you. 😍

What's frustrating is there is a place for a reasonable and pragmatic approach. To showcase a variety of opinions.. To be polite and politically savvy etc. To be for women's rights without diminishing trans rights but WPUK have showed they are not strong nor capable enough to stick to that line if they are going to censor concerns about the abuse of women and children and smear anyone that raises them as transphobic.

Some crocodiles are crocodiles. Get over it.

An important thread from last year:

06-Feb-19 OP Hamster00 wrote:
'Can transsexuals truly be allies to women?'

"Last night in bed, between my brain deciding to torment me with "what are baby llama called?" and, "what time is your dentist appointment next week?", I ended up regurgitating "that thread" from yesterday. That thread in which I was called an ally a couple of times by other members.

As I stared at the ceiling, I started indulging in a bit of mental self-flagellation which raised more questions than I had answers for such as:

Transsexuals have no real "movement" insofar as creating our own spaces. Are we as "allies" just piggybacking the larger feminist movement to achieve our mutually but not exclusive goals? Surely that's just another way of exploiting women? Aren't we just really just joining another group to protect our own rights? Is our relationship parasitic rather than symbiotic?

MtF transsexuals are still biologically male, have male socialisation and thus the innate potential propensity towards violence. Surely we still a threat to women even after a surgical/medical outcome?

Can we truly empathise with women having never been one? We have no shared experience of women's lived experience/trauma.

Whilst we can be GC, can we truly call ourselves feminists? Can men be feminists? Is a man calling themself a feminist appropriation too?

I'm not trying to be contentious but inviting perspectives so I can try and organise some of this in my head a little bit better. I think many people know my feelings all to well in relation to self-ID, single sex spaces and TRA appropriation etc - but is that actually being an "ally" - or just someone who shares the same set of ideas...."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3500657-Can-transsexuals-truly-be-allies-to-women

Hamster makes a lot of sense.

I don't even think need to consider anyone as an ally, just acknowledge we agree on certain points.

The "you're with us or against us" attitude is toxic. It leads to Kelsey Coalition, Posie etc being called racists Nazis for being hosted once by HF.

I'm old enough to have had this crap in anti-paedophilia and anti-porn campaigns when the National Front and Mary Whitehouse agreed.

I don't think 'ally' talk is helpful most of the time.

It's entirely understandable if their primary focus is their own concerns about the negative impacts of trans activism on themselves - why wouldn't it be?

I agree, and its understandable when women are concerned that males with primary focus on male rights are welcomed and very vocal within a woman's movement.

Yes it's entirely reasonable that the gender critical transexuals (I think I'd fight to the death over my belief that that is an oxymoron) are prioritising their own interests, I just wish they were honest enough to

A) admit it
B) not use feminism as a smokescreen for their own interests
C) exclude their wives from feminism

There must be so many feminists who feel like they owe certain transexuals a favour. These favours are going to be being called in for a long time.

I think WPUK's condemnation of the cartoon was one of the first examples of that.

Not exclude their wives from feminism!!

There must be so many feminists who feel like they owe certain transexuals a favour. These favours are going to be being called in for a long time.

Agree.
This is where there is such a blind spot for some.

When Posie and Julia talked to the right wing, found common ground on one single issue whilst disagreeing on many others, no deal was struck, no obligation conferred, no debt incurred.
Both parties able to agree on one issue, and walk away from each other on all others. There was no "we owe you concessions now".

Would WoLF et al somehow broker a compromise on other women's issues in repayment for the 'favour' of the agreement on trans issues? Never.

And yet their loudest critics seem to be more culpable in brokering and bargaining away women's rights by pacts with certain men. If you say this for us, we'll compromise on the rights of other women to say no to you. The moderate approach.

Which approach confers an outstanding debt to men, claimable from women's rights, then?

As I see it, there is no man alive that will persuade me to owe him a favour paid for from the bank of women's rights to say no to him or any of his sex.

Any man is welcome to speak up against the assault on women's right to distinguish themselves from his own sex. I may feel I owe him some gratitude.
I'll never feel I owe him any speck of women's rights.
I'll never feel I owe it to him to ameliorate my criticism of gender, and identity in all its many insidious forms, even if that criticism comes in the form of a satirical cartoon mocking the concept of impossibly 'identifying' into a class.

All 'transitioning' and 'identifying' is deserving of criticism. Especially where it pertains to my sex, which is neither an identity, nor a state one can transition to.

I'm going to keep highlighting the preposterous insult to women made by any man who claims to have 'transitioned' to a variation of woman. And that includes ANY man who prefixes the word woman with any modifier, and then uses it for himself.

If the price of a man being included as an 'ally' to women's rights is that I give up women's right to criticise the concept of 'transitioning' to or 'identifying' as my sex?
Sorry, no sale.

It amazes me that the collective of socialist newts has managed to miss the point so spectacularly.
I really, really dislike the idea that there are 'allies' who should get preferential treatment and access to women's spaces. Women who don't follow this debate wouldn't know any of these allies from Adam.