Piers Morgan with Lisa Nandy on Good Morning Britain

[musicposy]

He’s trying to push Lisa Nandy as to whether any man can self identify and compete in woman’s sports. He’s actually trying to talk some sense and saying it’s unfair to woman’s rights. Making really good points about trans rights overriding woman’s rights.
She will not give a straight answer to anything.

The big issue is that many are not aware of the distinction of transexual and transgender. They do not realise that 80% of MtF transgender people undertake no medical treatment at all. (I think that is the right figure.) If PM can draw people's attention to some of the craziness of self-ID, and if he can call out our unthinking politicians and get the debate going, he will have made a useful contribution.

The 'big issue/s' are the sexism/misogyny & undermining of Women's sex based rights, Safeguarding & male violence against women.

It underlies this. Morgan isnt simply expressing sympathy for males who have had surgical interventions, he states that he regards Willoughby & Jenner as women. Morgan promotes & supports both Jenner & Wiloughby.
Why is Jenny Murray publically sanctioned by the BBC & her comments mostly ignored whilst Piers Morgan not sanctioned
& celebrated?

GMB interview with Karen Ingala Smith & India Willoughby
Feminist Current "India Willoughby may identify as a women, but does not identify with women."

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 by PRIS CORBETT

(extract)
"It’s not uncommon for feminists to point out the parallels between men’s rights activism and trans rights activism. But rarely are those parallels laid out quite so plainly as they were last week when India Willoughby, a UK trans rights advocate, appeared on Good Morning Britain alongside women’s activist and lifetime domestic abuse worker Karen Ingala Smith." (continues)

At several points [Willoughby] appears to suggest that violent crimes committed by women are just as much of an issue as those of men. In challenging Ingala Smith as to why a woman who has suffered abuse in a lesbian relationship should be welcomed into a women’s refuge while a transgender woman may not, Willoughby not only ignores the nature of domestic abuse but promotes an unfair stereotype of homosexual women as more likely to be violent than heterosexual women. By pointing out that women can be perpetrators as well as victims, [Willoughby's] intention is to deny that domestic abuse is gendered. Shelters are therefore “discriminating” in being run by and for women. This is nothing short of a mirror image of MRA arguments.

Not content with denying the reality and nature of male violence towards women, around half way through the debate Willoughby turns again to the question of transgender women in shelters, directly challenging Ingala Smith on whether [they] would personally be welcome in one of her refuges. In making the question personal, Willoughby attempts to undermine Ingala Smith by implying that she is participating in unreasonable discrimination. Before Ingala Smith is able to properly respond, Willoughby moves on to attack Counting Dead Women, a project that records women killed every year in the UK by men, of which there were 138 in 2017 in England and Wales alone. “With the greatest respect,” Willoughby says, “I visited your website, and you have a list of crimes committed by men, and there is a great demonization. I feel really sorry for guys this year — I think they’ve had it really tough.” (continues)
www.feministcurrent.com/2018/02/13/india-willoughbys-not-men-response-feminist-activist-demonstrates-misogyny/

**extract edited for FWR guidelines

MN recent webchat with Karen Ingala Smith:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/3838243-Webchat-with-Femicide-Census-co-founder-Karen-Ingala-Smith-Wednesday-March-4-at-1pm

R0,

The short term or the long term?

Short term - roll back self-id, Stonewall capture, medicalisation of children, men in women's sport, prisons and shelters, queer theory education in schools, recognition of the importance of safeguarding, etc

Long term. Overturn the patriarchy.

Piers and many more can be useful, albeit surprising or uncomfortable, allies on the first.

He has very good political/populist instincts. I have a FB feed that is full of people moaning about Trump. No one ever asks why people vote for Trump. Or Brexit, where it was easier to denounce leavers as racist, rather than drill down and ask why over half the electorate did not vote the way they were supposed to.

Yes PM is a self important prat. But on this one I think he sits fair and square in line with public opinion. This causes others to say "he should be sacked" etc. To me, it is essential that we turn the tide, limit some of the damage, and achieve the important short term goals, and then we can keep pushing.

Piers and many more can be useful, albeit surprising or uncomfortable, allies on the first.

IMO women should be more cautious about the 'ally' dynamic with regards recognising men's/males' agendas.

No one is an ally to anyone else in my opinion.

I agree.

Actress Frances Barber is no longer voting for LN...

twitter.com/francesbarber13/status/1237877402920865793

I wish PM would stop going on about penguins and ask Lisa Nandy and her ridiculous ilk how they would feel about a white person Self-ID'ing as a person of colour. That would be a far more pertinent comparison.

The reason PM does the penguin thing is because that's the bit of the ideology that has caught his attention - the ridiculous labels that gave no connection to material reality, and the attendant claim that everyone respect what is clearly arrant nonsense. He can see a fairness issue because he likes various sports. He's noticed the blokes in female prisons thing because he has an eye for a front page headline grabber, and Karen White's bald and bewigged pictures side by side are perfect red top fare.

But we do need to keep it in perspective - that's where he will support us. He is, however, very much true trans in perspective, and I would imagine holds the line that the good, committed, cock-off type trans who look like ladies should have access to most female provision despite any female objections.

I'm not blaming him for having this perspective, because there's no reason for him to get it from a feminist viewpoint, and I am happy he is being useful right now. I just don't want lots of crestfallen women when he reaches the limits of his interest here and rounds on the nasty unreasonable feminists, as he will do eventually.

I think PM has got it right in terms of his audience, and that the majority of men and probably many women would draw similar distinctions.

I think there are a fair number of people who would be willing to treat people who have actually completely transitioned surgically, and been carefully vetted by doctors and therapists, differently to some degree, in terms of treating them more like women. I imagine that there would be some disagreement as to what that would include but I think many people would be ok with that discussion. Both because they think those things would lessen risk, and also keep the numbers quite low.

I think there are a fair number of people who would be willing to treat people who have actually completely transitioned surgically, and been carefully vetted by doctors and therapists, differently to some degree, in terms of treating them more like women.

What does 'treating them more like women' mean?

Funnily enough Goose I was just re-watching a BBC documentary from the 1970s showing a panel of all males come to similar decision as you propose.

There are a number of male TS (some have had more surgery than others) a psychiatrist & a MP.

Its fascinating
Worth watching all the way to the end when as a postscript they realise they've failed to consider women. They laugh.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4/player

What does 'treating them more like women' mean?

As I said, I expect people would have different ideas about that. But I think it would effectively look like a third class, not easy to get included in, who could access some things designated for women but perhaps not others.

What would be significant I think is that this would clearly not be from the prspective of TWAW or TMAM. So discussion about what it meant would proceed on a different basis.

And actually I think that is probably an approach many women would consider acceptable. Maybe most.

As I said, I expect people would have different ideas about that. But I think it would effectively look like a third class, not easy to get included in, who could access some things designated for women but perhaps not others.

Such as what 'things designated for women'?

Who is doing the designating?

Both because they think those things would lessen risk, and also keep the numbers quite low.

If a female single-sex space or service admits some males, it is no longer a single sex space or service.

How many women whose safety dignity and/or privacy being compromised is low enough to be acceptable?

Any man, however much anatomy he has changed, however benign he is, is still the focus and being deemed more important than all women, if he is given access to things designated for women.

It's fairly obvious that there are an extraordinary number of people, not just men, who find it almost impossible to centre women.

Any man, however much anatomy he has changed, however benign he is, is still the focus and being deemed more important than all women, if he is given access to things designated for women.

I'm yet to hear a reason why men shouldn't be asked if they were happy to include males who have had certain surgeries and who present as feminine. That men's spaces & services should be inclusive & designed to accommodate the needs of all males.
Actually I think that is probably an approach many men would consider acceptable. Maybe most.

Look, you can't claim you are centering women and then ignore when some of them disagree with you about how to do that. It's just talking out of your ass. Women are as likely as anyone else to have opinions about which things are important for women to maintain as woman only, and which are not, and also it is totally legitimate for women to think that there are other issues where it is important to be fair to people who are not women.

Telling women who have even slightly different opinions than you that they are not being properly woman-centered is one of the things that has turned a lot of women off from listening to feminist voices, and it has not helped in making them heard in this discussion where there is something important to be said. There is really very little as maddening as having a bunch of people tell you to shut up and them appropriate your perspective as a woman. There are times when I think TRAs learned that shit from watching women.

All I have suggested is that I think a fair number of real women, even when they are aware of the issues, would consider that not all supposedly trans people are equivalent, and that they might e amenable to thinking about what things really should be female only, and which things need to be less strict, or not strict at all.

I may be wrong, but if I'm not, they are allowed to take that view, and you can take yours. If your view isn't in the majority though it doesn't make you better at womaning.

Look, you can't claim you are centering women and then ignore when some of them disagree with you about how to do that. It's just talking out of your ass.

Ive asked you for clarification about your assertions & proposals.
Im typing so using my fingers to communicate.

All I have suggested is that I think a fair number of real women, even when they are aware of the issues, would consider that not all supposedly trans people are equivalent, and that they might e amenable to thinking about what things really should be female only, and which things need to be less strict, or not strict at all.

Equivalent to what ??

I can't vouch for anyone else, but I'm not grading men on anything. Focusing on the women means exactly that.

And I have no intention on telling anyone to shut up. 😄

Telling women who have even slightly different opinions than you that they are not being properly woman-centered is one of the things that has turned a lot of women off from listening to feminist voices, and it has not helped in making them heard in this discussion where there is something important to be said. There is really very little as maddening as having a bunch of people tell you to shut up and them appropriate your perspective as a woman. There are times when I think TRAs learned that shit from watching women.

Ive asked you for clarification about your assertions & proposals.
Im typing so using my fingers to communicate.

I don't have assertions and proposals, you are not reading what I am saying.

I have said I think that quite a few women, who have no sympathy with the idea of self-id or "trans" people who have made no significant medical changes, think differently about people who have been vetted through significant psychoanalysis, and who have had sex reassignment surgery.

I also said that I think they would not all agree on how to manage that or just what lines to draw.

Why do you think that has anything to do with what I think?

And I have no intention on telling anyone to shut up.

If you decide that some women aren't properly womanly in their opinions, that comes to the same thing. Maybe worse really.

Ive read very carefully Goose & sought clarifications on your propsals:

As I said, I expect people would have different ideas about that. But I think it would effectively look like a third class, not easy to get included in, who could access some things designated for women but perhaps not others.

Such as what 'things designated for women'?

Who is doing the designating?

Both because they think those things would lessen risk, and also keep the numbers quite low.

If a female single-sex space or service admits some males, it is no longer a single sex space or service.

How many women whose safety dignity and/or privacy being compromised is low enough to be acceptable?