Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

These questions for Liz Truss... How would you answer them?

143 replies

witchesaremysisters · 25/04/2020 17:32

So I fell down a rabbit hole after reading this tweet:
twitter.com/WhatTheTrans/status/1253750544763674629

(Image attached from that tweet. And. Wow. But it's FINE for women to feel uncomfortable in THEIR single sex spaces or have to restrict themselves/go on the urinary leash?!? Also, the number of times I've been told to stop worrying about toilets? Right back 'atcha pal.)

They link to someplace called the Kite Trust, which had a list of questions for Liz Truss taken from Gay Star News.

How would you answer them? I am going to pretend I'm Liz and have a go.

1 What protections are you planning for ‘single-sex spaces’? Will trans, intersex and non-binary people be able to use bathrooms, changing rooms and other facilities freely?

Single sex facilities are to be single sex. They are what it says on the sign, frankly. They really don't exist to validate someone's gender identity. If you were born male, you don't come into a female-only space. You know what sex you are and that you are transgressing by coming into the space of another. Nobody asked women about this initially, but we understand women are not happy about sharing single sex spaces with males so we're rectifying the situation. Policies that trans activists are pushing for today might actually be illegal as they discriminate against females. We'll make third spaces to accommodate those people who don't feel comfortable in the facilities of their own sex. This would seem the most progressive way forward: it keeps vital protections for women and girls, and also lets nonbinary folks not have their sense of identity hurt, and increases the number of available facilities.

We'll throw some of the money that we give to Stonewall at making new toilet facilities in public spaces. Maybe they could even help build them, instead of us paying them to re-explain to us why the difference between neutrois and agender matters. Oh, here's a thought: why don't we make the sign for these third space facilities the Trans Umbrella? Or would the Genderbread person be better?

2 What ‘checks and balances’ are you considering on trans adults’ lives? Will these represent additional restrictions on transgender people’s freedoms?

What freedoms do transgender people lack that everyone else has? Genuine question. Who else is allowed to fake their birth certificate? Why don't we instead make some kind of new gender identity piece of paper that can be changed as freely as you like. But given that sex is immutable, we're going to stop pretending people can "amend" it. Nobody has the "right" to document a lie about biological fact in a historical record. Some things can be gender identity based, but in important circumstances some are to be categorised by sex. Such as prisons. Or collection of data such as in the census. Same with women's refuges. These are only a couple of examples off the top of my head, but if you all want to come and actually talk respectfully with women, the adult female humans who are more than an indefinable nebulous essence in a male mind, I'm sure we could hash something out.

3 What restrictions will you apply to trans access to transition healthcare before the age of 18? Do you realise these medical interventions are often lifesaving for vulnerable teenagers? Will you stop trans teens accessing hormone blockers? Will trans teens be able to access transition healthcare provided they do not take so-called ‘irreversible steps’?

I don't realise anything as nobody is systematically collecting long term data on this unprecedented medical experiment. I'd prefer if we stopped this outright now, but if you want to continue doing any of this, you have to set up proper randomised controlled trials. The onus is on you to prove what you are claiming. Show me the data. Gather it like you would for other "treatments." Include all the stuff about looking for potentially harmful side effects. Properly follow up the children for many years down the line. Show me the actual evidence that any benefit massively outweighs the harms. Show me how you are only picking the "true trans" kids to give these drugs to. Develop an objective marker. Compare medication versus solid mental health support and see who does better over the long run. You'd also have to explain to the kids that this "treatment" may crystallise their gender identity (not "buy time") and that "medically transitioning" will leave them sterile and on hormones for life. And that there is no actual long-term evidence it will make them less depressed (in fact, data released in FOIs from the Tavistock found that puberty blockers might increase suicidal thoughts, but we can't know for sure because, again, they've not made a scientifically robust attempt at figuring out that sort of relevant information about this "treatment").

All you have right now are empty utterings from people who have far too much vested interest in the idea that what they are doing must be "good," probably because the true nature of these "treatments" which mean sterilising gender nonconforming, likely homosexual, children and young people, is frankly horrifying.

If kids are struggling with their mental health, including ideas around their sexed bodies or gendered behaviours, they should have access to excellent, quality counselling, social and mental health support for their developing sense of self.

Produce me the evidence for why only this specific mental health issue in children, gender dysphoria, must be treated with experimental, irreversible physical interventions rather than psychological input. Because according to a Professor in Evidence Based Medicine from Oxford, who looked into this issue thoroughly, we don't have any.

4 Has the government considered the mental health impact of this policy change? And if so, who managed and advised on that assessment? Did they consider the dangers of self-harm, suicide and long term mental health trauma this may cause?

We considered that there may be a tantrum and threats from trans activists. Sure. But then we factored in the mental health of women, many of whom are incredibly depressed and frustrated over being forced to lie about reality. We thought about the feminists who are getting abused for not wanting to give up their hard-won gains to males. Then we considered what is happening to vulnerable young people, mainly female, with the rapid rise in referrals to the Tavistock with gender issues. We thought about these kids with autism, histories of abuse, trauma and eating disorders, who deserve much better than to be funneled into an unregulated medical experiment.

Yes. Mental health was at the forefront of our minds.

5 Is this policy a sign the government agrees with TERFs and the anti-trans LGB Alliance who represent fringe, transphobic views? Why has the government pursued this policy rather than one the vast majority of LGBT+ people would support?

We're listening to lesbians of the old-fashioned, female, cunty variety. Oh... and the common sense of the vast majority of the population.

Need I remind you that sex and sexual orientation are both protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010? Thanks ever-so for not using a misogynistic slur in any future correspondence and for refraining from slandering a brilliant organisation like the LGB Alliance.

6 The UN Human Rights Commissioner has instructed that states do not use the coronavirus period to roll back LGBT+ rights. She singled out Hungary which has attacked trans people’s rights to legal transition during the pandemic for criticism. Therefore is now the right time to proceed with this policy?

Yes better late than never!

Halloween Smile
These questions for Liz Truss... How would you answer them?
OP posts:
NonnyMouse1337 · 26/04/2020 09:39

A surprising proportion are sex offenders.

Thanks for confirming that, TedsFederationRep. This is another area where TRAs prove they actually don't give a shit about trans people in their cause.
They insist everyone has a gender identity/soul that cannot be altered, yet cannot be examined or detected by others. No one would ever lie about the type of invisible and wholly subjective gender soul they have.

A high proportion of male sex offenders in prison claim to have a woman gender soul. Therefore, compared to other demographics in society, the TRAs are actually implying there's something inherently deviant about transwomen as a whole because so many of them are sex offenders. That's actually a genuinely transphobic position IMO, but one which they seem determined to advocate for. So by the TRAs' own admission, if gender identity is real and innate then there's something innately awful about transwomen to explain why so many of them are sex offenders. And it actually strengthens the GC case that women are wholly justified to not want transwomen in single sex spaces. If I'm ever faced with sharing a space with a normal male or a transwoman, then based on the TRA position and the proportion of transwomen sex offenders, I'd rather take my chances with the average bloke! The image of trans people in society are being consistently undermined by the trans lobby and TRAs.

I'm not a transphobe, therefore I don't think transwomen as a whole are more unsavoury than other groups, certainly no more than any other male. I do think gender identity is a silly, unprovable concept, but I know that some people genuinely believe they have one, the way many religious people believe in a soul that is distinct from the human body. However, since it is a subjective, unprovable concept, it is ripe for exploitation and misuse, and that is why so many sex offenders are taking advantage of it to enable them to gain access to female prisons. It is evidence for why such a subjective and unprovable idea (gender identity) should never be used as a criteria instead of the objective and easily proven criteria of biological sex.

There should be a distinct prison service for trans people that is separate from male as well as female prisons. We will then see a more realistic and accurate proportion of trans prisoners as there is no longer any motivation for sex offenders to jump on the gender identity bandwagon for their own purposes. If TRAs genuinely cared about trans people, they would be advocating for this so as not to undermine the public perception of trans people.

happydappy2 · 26/04/2020 09:49

What happened to ones social/moral duty to respect the laws? Just like it is our own responsibility to observe the speed limit, to scan all items at self check outs, etc etc it is everyones personal responsibility to respect the fact that some spaces are for women only. Trans women know they are not meant to use them-if they do then they should expect a likely penalty. Just like if any law is broken. Liz needs to strengthen the law to uphold women only spaces.

Michelleoftheresistance · 26/04/2020 10:08

5 Is this policy a sign the government agrees with TERFs and the anti-trans LGB Alliance who represent fringe, transphobic views?

And that's right where it slips from 'we have real points to make' to showing the lunacy and distortions of thinking, and complete blindness to how this comes over to someone not part of the GroupThink. It's shows this is not about dealing with rational, adult thinking, or an ability to comprehend that anyone else has a different point of view or to empathise with anyone else's needs and experiences.

TERFS - We Hate Females. Nuff said.

Anti-Trans LGB Alliance - hurled rattles that LGB people dare identify and organise even in one single organisation and make it not all about us plus involve gay people saying homosexuality and biological sex is a thing, and making it wrong to be homosexual because this is an inconvenient boundary to trans people is a bloody appalling idea devoid of respect for others.

Fringe transphobic views - like reality, biology, current law, facts and that other people are equally human and not props to be used by trans people.

Most of the key serious issues with this movement in a nutshell.

witchesaremysisters · 26/04/2020 10:21

Oooh, I like these answers!

Yes to the manipulation inherent in the questions, and how disturbing it is to threaten politicians they may be responsible for suicides if they wish to uphold safeguarding principles and women's rights.

If I'm ever faced with sharing a space with a normal male or a transwoman, then based on the TRA position and the proportion of transwomen sex offenders, I'd rather take my chances with the average bloke!

In a thought experiment:
You have to let one male in to a women-only space. (Not sure why, but you are obliged to choose one.)
Do you pick the male who insists he has every right to be in your space and acts aggressively if you say this makes you uncomfortable?
Or do you take your chances with a random male who just happens to walk past?

I'd probably pick the second option, even if the first male said they identified with femininity.

OP posts:
truthisarevolutionaryact · 26/04/2020 10:45

Great points all.
And what a contrast with the thoughtful and measured responses from FP4W et al, Transgender Trend & WPUK.
So often this movement demonstrates a lack of empathy, understanding and social responsibility, using instead bullying, vitriol and narcissistic entitlement - even when talking about children.

OldCrone · 26/04/2020 10:49

I'd probably pick the second option, even if the first male said they identified with femininity.

I'd definitely pick the second option, especially if the first male said they identified with femininity.

A man who says he 'identifies with femininity' sounds like an extremely creepy individual to me. It sounds so weird I'd be wondering why on earth he would say such a thing.

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 10:53

So often this movement demonstrates a lack of empathy, understanding and social responsibility, using instead bullying, vitriol and narcissistic entitlement - even when talking about children.

Some responses to LIz Truss by transactivists:

Owl
"it would push the UK back decades and put the UK on a list with some of the most oppressive and anti-human right countries in this world. The consequences for trans people (and others) would be devestating. It will increase inequality exponationally.
These recent moves are little but a trojan horse; a new Section 28"
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1253676089764990976.html

Pink News by Vic Parsons:
Thousands protest against Liz Truss’ ‘deadly’ plan to take away healthcare for trans kids: ‘It will kill trans people’

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/04/24/liz-truss-healthcare-trans-youth-women-equalities-gender-recognition-act-protest-backlash/

Edward Lord
(using his dodgy City of London consultation as evidence)
"Contrary to the loud voices of a small number of anti-trans advocates in the media and on social media, there is no public outcry for trans people to be prevented from using single-sex facilities, indeed quite the reverse. It appears to me that most people are happy for trans people to go about their lives and utilise the services which most adequately match their gender identity."

edwardlord.org/2020/04/24/trans-rights-should-be-supported-not-reversed-a-cautionary-note-to-the-minister-for-women-equalities-liz-truss-trussliz-geogovuk/

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 11:01

In a thought experiment:
You have to let one male in to a women-only space. (Not sure why, but you are obliged to choose one.)
Do you pick the male who insists he has every right to be in your space and acts aggressively if you say this makes you uncomfortable?
Or do you take your chances with a random male who just happens to walk past?

The majority of males respect Safeguarding boundaries.

It is a logical decision to choose a random man who of whom its unknown if he respects women's boundaries or potential to behave agressively than a man demonstrating agression & disregard for female safety, dignity & privacy.

#NAMALT

witchesaremysisters · 26/04/2020 11:26

Edward Lord... using that horrible consultation (didn't they throw out something like half the responses because they didn't like what women had to say?)

Thanks for those links R0wantrees

He's very hyperbolic in that post:

To the distress of many in LGBTQ communities, the Minister seemed to throw into reverse the Government’s previous commitment to reforming the Gender Recognition Act to make it easier for trans people to obtain full legal recognition and a new birth certificate in their correct gender. Moreover, the Minister’s statement contained a number of other sinister references about trans people.

Then he quotes Liz Truss's statement directly.

Hmm

Sinister references?

Also, despite the consultation being rigged extremely poorly worded, difficult to follow and IIRC got rid of much important data at the analysis stage because uppity women displeased them, they still only got to this figure:
67% agreed that ‘where access to facilities is restricted (to a particular gender/sex) this should relate to the gender with which the service user consistently identifies now’.

So that's still 1 in 3 people who said no, despite the all the linguistic gymnastics and obfuscation?

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 11:30

Do you pick the male who insists he has every right to be in your space and acts aggressively if you say this makes you uncomfortable?

It would be irresponsible to bring a male behaving agressively & with disregard to female safety, dignity & privacy into single sex space space. Other girls & women in such a space have not given their consent.

witchesaremysisters · 26/04/2020 11:31

(Apologies for the accidental inclusion of the "he" pronoun there. Edward identifies as nonbinary and would prefer us to use they/them.)

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 11:38

(Apologies for the accidental inclusion of the "he" pronoun there. Edward identifies as nonbinary and would prefer us to use they/them.)

You are fine witches, he "accepts" people referring to him as he/him.

From Edward Lord's blog:

"Edward’s pronouns are the singular ‘they/them/their’, but also accepts he/him/his."
edwardlord.org/about/

witchesaremysisters · 26/04/2020 11:57

It would be irresponsible to bring a male behaving agressively & with disregard to female safety, dignity & privacy into single sex space space. Other girls & women in such a space have not given their consent.

So is what we are seeing from the likes of the transactivists, this collective rage at a female politician maybe pointing out a bit of a boundary...
Further signs that actually they shouldn't be anywhere near policymaking about women's spaces?

And very good to know about Edward "accepting" sex-based pronouns.

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 12:30

So is what we are seeing from the likes of the transactivists, this collective rage at a female politician maybe pointing out a bit of a boundary...

Liz Truss MP made a statement of three principles:

(extract)
"We’ve been doing a lot of work internally, making sure we’re in a position to respond to that consultation and launch what we propose to do on the future of the Gender Recognition Act. We will be in a position to do that by the summer, and there are three very important principles that I will be putting place.

First of all, the protection of single-sex spaces, which is extremely important.

Secondly making sure that transgender adults are free to live their lives as they wish without fear of persecution, whilst maintaining the proper checks and balances in the system.

Finally... making sure that the under 18s are protected from decisions that they could make, that are irreversible in the future.... I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions." (continues)
This is Children's Safeguarding

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/minister-for-women-and-equalities-liz-truss-sets-out-priorities-to-women-and-equalities-select-committee

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 12:31

apologies for rogue apostrophe.

merrymouse · 26/04/2020 12:35

It appears to me that most people are happy for trans people to go about their lives and utilise the services which most adequately match their gender identity

What is a gender identity? How do you design a public service to match one? If only Edward could answer these questions.

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 12:50

What is a gender identity?

The idea of the possible existence of a 'gender identity' was proposed by John Money.
People should be aware of Money's abuse of people (especially children) & disregard of ethics/Safeguarding:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3884596-award-winning-article-from-1997-on-david-reimer

JellySlice · 26/04/2020 12:50

It's not our job as women to look after men. Absolutely. But I maintain that we should do as we would be done by. Which is why I do not advocate at all for any single-sex facilities to be made unisex, not women's facilities and not men's facilities. But neither do I advocate that the provision of unisex 3rd spaces should be obligatory. The 3rd spaces that are currently available are for disabled users, people with genuine medical needs, not a narcissistic desire for validation.

Florabritannica · 26/04/2020 12:52

What is gender?

OldCrone · 26/04/2020 13:18

I maintain that we should do as we would be done by. Which is why I do not advocate at all for any single-sex facilities to be made unisex, not women's facilities and not men's facilities.

I agree, but there have been a number of instances of organisations converting the women's to unisex and leaving the men's alone. I was just suggesting that instead they could try converting the men's and see if they were bothered. Maybe they wouldn't care that much and it would solve the problem. Has anyone actually done this experiment?

If they did this experiment and the men were unhappy with this situation, it might make them more sympathetic to our arguments and bring them on board to find a better solution. So I really do think a few places should try it.

TedsFederationRep · 26/04/2020 13:25

So what would be your suggestion, JellySlice? I have never taken the term "third spaces" to refer to facilities set aside for those with disabilities. They have a separately protected characteristic with quite different provisions and adjustments and were never intended, as far as I understood, to be part of any solution.

Fourth spaces perhaps? I'd settle for that.

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 13:38

Is there a problem with working to ensure that single sex spaces be safe for all people of that sex including of course those who are gender non-conforming, identify as transgender, transexual or non-binary ?

Isn't this inclusivity?

TedsFederationRep · 26/04/2020 13:54

Not from my point of view, of course. I don't actually mind what solution is found as long as single sex facilities remain single sex.

R0wantrees · 26/04/2020 14:00

Single sex spaces which do not discriminate against people of that sex regardless of their

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief

JellySlice · 26/04/2020 14:09

My suggestion is that people use the facilities for their sex.

There are two issues. One is male violence. That is not women's problem to solve. If men did not discriminate against and behave aggressively towards feminine men, there would be no issue for dysmorphic transwomen using the facilities appropriate to their sex. The other is misogynistic narcissism. That is also not women's problem to solve. The law must establish that males have no right of access to female spaces. To do that, the law must also establish that woman = adult human female, and that it is impossible to change sex.

If any organisation wishes to provide a fourth, unisex provision, that's up to them. Maybe it would be a good business decision for them.