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

[witchesaremysisters]

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!

The no is enough, of course.

Women's spaces are for females.

My point re:bluff is that if you're a government minister who is also tasked with considering gender reassignment (and men, I guess?), then I'd be saying, look IF some people really cannot use the spaces for their own sex due to safety, why don't we examine other options.

In other words: you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

The answer from abusive males is going to be rage - it's already happening.

We know this.

It would be demonstrated in bright neon for all of those equivocating and still trotting out the "but it's just about having a place to pee".

I think the religious analogy is interesting to return to, because what you're dealing with is like a belief structure that directly relates to clothing, appearance, what signs are on the spaces you demand access to. The language is about "alignment," "matching," "corresponding," etc. The spaces themselves are almost part of the practice of gender ideology adherents. I don't believe in this faith, nor will I be forced to pretend I do. But it is a protected characteristic in law. I'm mindful that there are females who are "gender identity believers", alongside the males. If I were arguing the transactivist position from a religious freedom point of view, I'd say that not being in one's own single sex spaces is a fundamental principle of living according to one's gendered faith, which potentially means de facto exclusion from public life if there is not either a change in their own beliefs (which they might say goes against their conscience) or alternative accommodation. In this circumstance, I care about the females who can't call themselves women, for whatever reason. These females are currently so disconnected from womanhood that some have surgical procedures and hormones. Transactivists would want open access to facilities of the opposite sex - that's the actual tenet of the faith. However, that's unreasonable, an imposition that massively disadvantages women and enforces a very strange faith-based position onto everyone else. Most importantly, as you say R0wantrees, they don't have consent.

But the institutional capture is very deep. If you're in the position of the minister, you don't have to go along with everyone being converted against their will, but you might say, "fine, we hear you. We'll add some multi-purpose faith rooms into the mix."

Ultimately it's the ideology that needs to be challenged, but pragmatically I am not sure how to do that from the sociopolitical position we are in at the moment.

Thinking as an individual trying to be woman-centred I'm still concerned about the welfare of females who identify as other and I think the "what about transmen" question is going to be on my mind for a while.

I don't much care how the males organise themselves, as long as they stay out of female only spaces.

Thanks R0!

And this is what Maria Miller and Prof Neil Chakrabarti said first about female spaces, that Belcher was responding to. Interesting framing I think:

Just before we go on to the final round of questioning, another thing that come out some of the evidence I read on the legal side and I am taking the opportunity to pose it to you, is access to single-sex spaces. I think a number of us on the Committee have worked to try and develop an approach where you might be able to have a space which is simply for a woman to be in. How does that fit within this context of transgender people, people who choose not to define themselves by gender? How do you think we tackle that? Do we need to do something within the law to be able to cope with that? I am not sure if I articulated that very clearly, but do you get where I am going?
Professor Chakraborti: Yes I do. It might be one for Helen because within the context of hate crime I am not so sure it is directly relevant.

I've watched the oral submissions to Maria Miller's trans inquiry in 2015 and I seem to remember the question of single sex female spaces came up in the one Belcher was in

Liz Truss needs to order a thorough review of Maria Miller's 2015 trans inquiry.

Professor Kathleen Stock's speech fom WPUK House of Lords meeting on Oct 10th 2018 about its failings is a good starting point:

(extract)
I take it that the selection of advisors on a particular issue should follow four basic and commonsensical principles:

· All groups affected should be represented

· Advisors should have relevant expertise, and should advise only on areas where they have expertise.

· Advisors shouldn’t have backgrounds which undermine their credibility.

· Advisors should, where possible, appeal to independently verified evidence to back up their views." (continues)

medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3391330-Prof-Kathleen-Stock-WPUK-speech-at-House-of-Lords-Important-disection-of-the-key-issues-for-MPs-policy-makers-etc-with-ref-to-The-Trans-Equality-Report

See also Janice Turner's interview with Maria Miller MP in July 2017 in which she raised many of the issues some MPs such as Liz Truss are starting to consider important:

(extract)
"The heart of the controversy is the view, espoused by Ms Miller’s report, that switching gender should instead merely be a matter of “self-definition”. A man need only “declare” that he is a woman. Your gender is what you feel it to be: there would be no requirement even to take female hormones or have surgery — about 70 per cent of trans women still have intact male genitals — or even “present” as a woman to be legally female. (Some older trans people are troubled by this, believing that it trivialises and delegitimises their struggles to live in their non-birth gender.)

Furthermore, if the law changes, “gender identity” is likely to become a protected characteristic under equalities legislation: ie if you deny a person is a woman or a man when they claim to be, you are guilty of discrimination or hate crime.

When Ms Miller, 53, released her report in January last year she was surprised that criticism came not from conservatives but, as she put it, “women who purport to be feminists”. This may be because feminists, well versed in sexual politics and long-time supporters of gay rights, are among the few people who can penetrate the arcane, confusing terminology.

Many see potential loopholes and conflicts of rights that put women at risk, giving men access to rare female-only spaces such as single-sex wards, changing rooms and domestic violence refuges, designed to keep them safe and private. It is these concerns I put to Ms Miller in her Basingstoke constituency." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2993425-Maria-Miller-interviewed-by-Janice-Turner-full-text

And this is what Maria Miller and Prof Neil Chakrabarti said first about female spaces, that Belcher was responding to. Interesting framing I think

Is this Maria Miller MP (former chair of Women & Equaities Committee trying (& failing)to articulate clearly that some spaces should be single sex for women & girls' safety dignity & privacy?

transgender people, people who choose not to define themselves by gender? How do you think we tackle that?

Step one should surely be working out the difference between sex and gender, and realising that transgender people are choosing to define themselves by gender?

A useful further step could involve reassessing this whole equality lark and how it's implemented and why.

Privacy and dignity is a red herring, because both sexes deserve it, and before you know it we're handwringing over the impossibility of accommodating this need for everyone in the limited space available.

Physical safety from the opposite sex is the key. It's an issue in toilets for females in a way it isn't for males. It deserves our focus. You can't just wave it away as subsidiary to the what about the menz' feelings issue. We can deal with everyone's feelings once we've got the physical safety issue covered.

Furthermore, if the law changes, “gender identity” is likely to become a protected characteristic under equalities legislation: ie if you deny a person is a woman or a man when they claim to be, you are guilty of discrimination or hate crime.

Argh. We need to go back to step one again. Or maybe just make it crystal clear in law that the toilets colloquially known as the ladies' are for females only. Not women, not ladies, not ultra-feminine sparkly people, but females, of any appearance.

I've said it before and I'll doubtless have to say it again: woman and man are not genders.

Is this Maria Miller MP (former chair of Women & Equaities Committee trying (& failing)to articulate clearly that some spaces should be single sex for women & girls' safety dignity & privacy?

I know! As I said, I had previously perceived that the tone was slightly different then (this predates the government guidance to employers and service providers by Gendered Intelligence). It's almost as if it wasn't fully on the table for males to access female spaces then.

Liz Truss needs to order a thorough review of Maria Miller's 2015 trans inquiry.

And yes, completely agree.

Argh. We need to go back to step one again. Or maybe just make it crystal clear in law that the toilets colloquially known as the ladies' are for females only. Not women, not ladies, not ultra-feminine sparkly people, but females, of any appearance.

I've said it before and I'll doubtless have to say it again: woman and man are not genders.

This ^^

I hope that Liz Truss & other MPs speaking up for women's sex based rights &Safeguarding find clarity of thought & expression.

How does that fit within this context of transgender people, people who choose not to define themselves by gender?

In that case I, and most of the gender-critical posters here on MNFWR, are transgender. We choose not to define ourselves by gender.

How do you think we tackle that? Do we need to do something within the law to be able to cope with that?

Yes, we do. The following suggestions would cope with that: recognising in law that sex and gender are two separate things, that single sex spaces remain single sex, and that a man must be given the same rights and protections as any other man, regardless of whether he wears a dress, called himself Mary, or has his penis removed and hormones disordered.

a man must be given the same rights and protections as any other man, regardless of whether he wears a dress, called himself Mary, or has his penis removed and hormones disordered.

Hear, hear. And same for women, whether we choose to remove our breasts or not.

Honestly, it's just so horribly homophobic, that ultra-effeminate men should be somehow disqualified from manhood. I honestly don't get how liberal feminism has failed to spot this. But I'll never forget the look on the face of the first transwoman - an HSTS - I ever knew when I said that.

"How does that fit within this context of transgender people, people who choose not to define themselves by gender?"

It says something that we have to hope that that's just simply ignorance on the subject (!!) rather than a deliberate attempt of misinformation and doublethink.

For those who believe in genderism, gender is everything.

Honestly, it's just so horribly homophobic, that ultra-effeminate men should be somehow disqualified from manhood. I honestly don't get how liberal feminism has failed to spot this.

It's kind of funny how the radical feminist perspective that blokes can wear dresses too seems much more liberal than saying that a bloke who wants to wear a dress must really be a woman.

Sometimes I wonder if there are any useful words they haven't inverted yet.

Google gives it as: willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

Ha! The many and varied slurs for anyone who isn't young, woke, and genderspecial tell a different story.

Yet another example of the doublethink.

Excellent witches! Please send to Liz Truss!

Schoolboys are embarrassed when girls use their changing rooms and toilets too and have just lost a case in the USA to keep their facilities single-sex.

So the boys are no threat to an actual female (trans boy) who wants to use boy's toilets and changing rooms and feel embarrassed by their presence. How then are they any threat to a male who is a trans girl?

Meanwhile, the girl's don't want boys in their changing rooms and toilets either and feel threatened and/or embarrassed by the presence of a male who is a trans girl.

"Court Dismisses Boys’ Lawsuit Seeking Privacy From Female Student Who Uses Boys’ School Locker Room"

www.womenarehuman.com/court-dismisses-boys-lawsuit-seeking-privacy-from-female-student-who-uses-boys-school-locker-room/

This is looking very unlike an "oppressed, vulnerable" minority and more like an oppressive, entitled minority.

Why are legislatures enforcing cultural change on 99% of the population using:

• social engineering,
• re-education,
• ostracising of those who are uncomfortable / embarrassed / threatened
• suggesting that they will criminalise children if they express a preference for single-sex facilities
• or if they even have "personal thoughts" about a preference??

This sounds like Maoist China or Stalinist Russia, not a western democracy.

Anyone can assert that they have a gender identity that is opposite to their sex but it is entirely subjective so no proof is possible. The next week they can assert that they have "desisted".

The only way around this nonsense is for all the children, in that school in the USA where they are unhappy with the decision of the court, to claim that they identify as the opposite sex and swap changing rooms.

(Not sure if I have posted this in the best thread - there seem to be several covering the same or similar ground at the moment.)

ps. I'm blocked from seeing those tweets by "WhatTheTrans" but there is an archive here:

archive.is/gOZiE