Julie Bindel on twitter

[Anonymouswasawoman]

Did her account get deleted?
twitter.com/bindelj/
Twitter is telling me it doesn't exist

I have just read Kathleen Stock’s reply to a letter from Helen Pluckrose. It would interesting to see a series of podcast interviews between them.

I was pleased to read Kathleen’s straight forward position. ‘In the UK, since 2016 there’s been a rapid shift in law and public policy towards trans activist organisations’ preferred versions of them. In hundreds of organisations, including government departments, schools, universities, mass media, local authorities, sporting bodies, the judiciary, the police and armed services (etc. etc.) there are now policies explicitly saying that an inner psychological sense of being female or male or neither - aka “gender identity” - should be the criterion for entry into woman-only spaces, services, and special resources. Facts about biological sex are now thought of as “assigned” relatively arbitrarily, and in any circumstance where it might conceivably matter to a trans person, sex shouldn’t be mentioned. Public language is being adjusted accordingly.’

letter.wiki/conversation/648#letter_2071

‘In the UK, since 2016 there’s been a rapid shift in law and public policy towards trans activist organisations’ preferred versions of them.

To understand this focus needs to go further back than 2016:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

DrEm twitter:

"The archives are really interesting on the subject of transgenderism/transsexualism. From May 1978, 'Independent Voices, Lesbian Connections'

links to intersting evidence from 1960's-90's archive:

"Women have been complaining to the Guardian for almost 40 years that they are being silenced on the trans issue, that acceptance of transgenderism was being forced on them. The archives blow holes in the narrative that before the modern TRAs we all just accepted it."

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1211654889228640257

That's fascinating R0, I will need to read properly when not on my phone.

Yes I find it quite ironic that a thread that started off complaining about women policing how other women speak has moved on to policing how women address their friends.

Yes.

I think it might be that for some people, they imagine that is somehow meant to be some revelation of an underlying philosophy. And that it involves some sort of cognitive dissonance, ignoring something they know.

I have a transwoman friend. Who I do think is in fact a man, and remains a man. I don't really think there should be real legal changes to the sex status of such people either (though it may be there are some instances where it might be relevant that I am ignorant of, but I don't think so on the face of it.) I'm always aware of this person not being a woman in the normal sense of the word.

However, I've known this individual since I was quite young, and in fact they transitioned, medically, when I was only a toddler. After what I think was in some ways a rather difficult life as a gay man with a childhood that didn't accept that at all, and an adulthood where it was a serious problem. And now they've been in a pretty quiet, stable life for 40 years, largely doing volunteer work for a variety of organisations.

Why in the world would I rock the boat of that person's life over pronouns, especially at an age when it's actually difficult to converse at all? It just seems unnecessary and useless. But that doesn't make it some kind of philosophical or even political statement, it's neither. Nor is it a "not my Nigel" that's completely beside the point.

After what I think was in some ways a rather difficult life as a gay man with a childhood that didn't accept that at all, and an adulthood where it was a serious problem. And now they've been in a pretty quiet, stable life for 40 years, largely doing volunteer work for a variety of organisations.

Why in the world would I rock the boat of that person's life over pronouns, especially at an age when it's actually difficult to converse at all? It just seems unnecessary and useless.

Widespread continued collusion with the homophobia of the past which offered a sexist medical 'solution' to feminine gay men rather than acceptance of their sexual orientation and gender non-conformity has serious implications today for women and girls who are victims of men's violence. It perpetuates a homophobic, sexist response with the most serious implications being for children today, who (like your friend), are gender non-conforming & homosexual.

UK Law Gazette
by Melanie Newman 24 February 2020
'Warning over transgender guidance to judges'
(extract)
"Feminist lawyers say the guidance, in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, fails to highlight conflicts between transgender and women’s rights.

The Bench Book advises that transgender defendants should be addressed by the pronouns of their choice and that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ (sic). At least one victim of violence by a transgender woman has been reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’.

Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, head of the Centre for Women’s Justice, has raised concerns about pronoun use in cases involving violence against women. ‘Here there is a conflict between the right of self-definition and the right of a victim, who may have been violated in the most horrendous way, to describe her material reality as she perceives it,’ she said. ‘Why is the victim’s right less important?’

The Bench Book also endorses the terms ‘cisgender’ or ‘cis’ as ‘often used to describe people whose gender identity corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth’. The book does not mention that some women find the term ‘cis’ offensive. The Gazette understands that the term was also introduced to judges at a training session last year without any kind of warning as to its use. (continues)

However, LGBT pressure group Stonewall said: ‘The language we use is hugely significant, especially when it comes to trans communities who face high levels of harassment and abuse in their daily lives. Using a trans person’s correct name and pronoun is as important as it is for anyone else. This helps ensure trans people are respected and accepted for who they are.’

The Judicial College declined to identify the external experts and organisations that assist in training and formulation of policy. ‘It is not necessary or in the public interest to make public the names of all those involved in this work,’ it said."
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges/5103196.article

Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, head of the Centre for Women’s Justice, has raised concerns about pronoun use in cases involving violence against women. ‘Here there is a conflict between the right of self-definition and the right of a victim, who may have been violated in the most horrendous way, to describe her material reality as she perceives it,’ she said. ‘Why is the victim’s right less important?’

Current thread, OP EmpressLangClegInChair wrote,

"These Are Not Our Crimes

TheUterati, who was one of the first FWR women to be banned under the New Rules, has made a video listing over 70 male prisoners who claim to be women and their crimes. It's not an easy watch but it's a very important one."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NpIy-0_esU

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3896235-These-Are-Not-Our-Crimes

Widespread continued collusion with the homophobia of the past which offered a sexist medical 'solution' to feminine gay men rather than acceptance of their sexual orientation and gender non-conformity has serious implications today for women and girls who are victims of men's violence. It perpetuates a homophobic, sexist response with the most serious implications being for children today, who (like your friend), are gender non-conforming & homosexual.

Here is the thing, I cannot change the homophobia of the past, nor what led someone many years ago to take such significant steps. It's not my business to delve into someone's private psychological issues, or to upset the life of an elderly person who has been living in a particular identity since before I, a middle aged woman, was out of diapers.

It would be inappropriate and gain nothing for anyone to insist on making this person a political object, in a discussion they'd no longer be able to really even take part in.

It is possible, when the world hasn't gone crazy, to use some discernment. It's possible to understand what sex is and that it's immutable, and also take people as they are with all their complicated problems and histories. It's possible to believe the law shouldn't compel speech but also to have control over how we express ourselves in a way that takes account of the situation. It's possible to say, no, in a courtroom or a hospital or a records office the considerations are different than they are when I am talking to a waiter.

Many of us make these kinds of distinctions every day, meeting people who we know aren't quite who they say or are not being quite truthful, or who we know are themselves confused, or their behaviour doesn't quite meet the normal social rules. And we negotiate making allowances on a case by care basis.

That doesn't mean we don't realise what the real situation is or are somehow compromising our commitment to reality, as the post in question claimed.

For me I think it is most helpful to come at this from the angle of consent: Is there anything a man can feel, say, wear, do to his body, do by legal or administrative process that should allow him access to womens bodies against their consent?

Perfectly put. The key question in all this is that. I find consent arguments sometimes tricky with some of the factors around consent being so contextual (I cant quite articulate this but it’s something around structural or socialised effects on individual consent and what freedom of anyone’s choice really looks like in practice) but this helpfully to me seems to highlight the lack of collective consent to policies which create a collective effect, usually a burden specifically on women (including same-sex attracted women) and children, which is a very powerful point.

Also the collective consent lack Maya points to, of course includes potential harms caused by other aspects (beyond potential bodily safety, dignity and privacy) that male ingress into women-only spaces, opportunities, prisons, education, sports, single-sex healthcare provision and much more has had: on women’s ability to socialise, organise, support each other, live in their own sexuality without pressure, freely form bonds of friendship, love, sexual and romantic relationships, start up new families etc -all impacted and impacted without women’s consent.

The lack of collective consent point also applies to the medical, surgical, hormonal ‘transition’ interventions with permanent effects that are given to children or young people. It seems clear that neither the child or young person nor their parents can meaningfully consent to what will actually happen to the child/young person, by the normal standards that we expect to be reached by a valid individual consent.

Also it applies to the lack of collective consent to the widespread regulatory or institutional capture which has happened by countless organisations deliberately or unwittingly conflating ‘sex’ with ‘gender’- for example bringing in legally-unsound or legally permitted new policies that put (particularly) women and children at risk, or obscuring sex-based data collection of many kinds (which can affect both sexes). By the fact we have the GRA with all its inherent problems and anachronisms still in place. All these seem to have happened without public scrutiny, informed debate, research, and to continue to happen in the absence of collective democratic consent (because of the regulatory/institutional capture in the context of patriarchy) and specifically which continue to happen against the voiced concerns of women.

I've taken a lot of time away from this issue, because it was driving me mad.

Glad to have missed all the interpersonal drama.

Idk. People can really get their knickers in a twist over nothing.

Maybe it's good to be just an anon woman who knows that:

sexism exists
homophobia exists
both are on display frequently and furiously from people who believe in gender
men are not women
women are not men
women have a right to say no to a man at any time for any reason
kids shouldn't make permanent decisions about their bodies till their brains mature

All this blue-tickery nonsense is just dispiriting.

It's just politics.

It would be inappropriate and gain nothing for anyone to insist on making this person a political object, in a discussion they'd no longer be able to really even take part in.

Agreed.
It was you who brought your friend & his history into the discussion.

For me I think it is most helpful to come at this from the angle of consent: Is there anything a man can feel, say, wear, do to his body, do by legal or administrative process that should allow him access to womens bodies against their consent?

No man however kind, wronged or loved by a woman can do anything to his body or by administrative process which justifies the removal of other women & girls' right to refuse him consent to access their bodies.

Also it applies to the lack of collective consent to the widespread regulatory or institutional capture which has happened by countless organisations deliberately or unwittingly conflating ‘sex’ with ‘gender’- for example bringing in legally-unsound or legally permitted new policies that put (particularly) women and children at risk, or obscuring sex-based data collection of many kinds (which can affect both sexes). By the fact we have the GRA with all its inherent problems and anachronisms still in place. All these seem to have happened without public scrutiny, informed debate, research, and to continue to happen in the absence of collective democratic consent (because of the regulatory/institutional capture in the context of patriarchy) and specifically which continue to happen against the voiced concerns of women.

The roll back has started & as the policies made without scrutiny do not stand up to sunlight (& Safeguarding) they are being withdrawn. This is starting with school policies & girls right to say 'no':

Times today
'Council ditches trans guidance on lavatories after girl’s victory'
(extract)
"A council has become the first in Britain to scrap guidance urging schools to allow transgender pupils to choose which lavatories they use after a 13-year-old girl challenged it at the High Court.

Oxfordshire county council backed down as it prepared to fight a judicial review over the lawfulness of its “trans toolkit”, which the girl said infringed on her right to privacy.

The council had vowed to contest the case, saying that it “utterly refuted” parents’ objections that it put children at risk. A judge found that the lawfulness of the guidance was “sufficiently arguable” and it could go to a full hearing.

The girl said that the guidance gave her “no right to privacy from the opposite sex”, adding that she was “worried about girls in other schools around the country who have these guidelines”. (continues)

Tracy Shaw, 46, an Oxfordshire parent, said: “I think other parents will look at what’s been achieved in this case and realise there’s a legal route for them also to challenge guidance in their counties and schools.”

Victoria Edwards, who raised more than £22,000 for the case through crowdfunding, added: “I’m pleased that OCC have withdrawn the toolkit. I’m disappointed, however, that it has taken a 13-year-old girl, a crowdfunding campaign and a High Court judge granting a judicial review to uphold the privacy, dignity and safety of Oxfordshire’s schoolchildren.”

Tanya Carter, of Safe Schools Alliance UK, which backed the challenge, welcomed the withdrawal, but added: “We remain deeply concerned at the widespread undermining of child safeguarding and misrepresentation of the Equality Act that this case has revealed.” (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/520de44a-9162-11ea-866d-11e3826964c3?shareToken=4d545ded080978910965782ba2ec7510&wgu=270525_54264_15889808398443_a49eee3b3b&wgexpiry=1596756839&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=22278

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3902606-Oxfordshire-CC-withdraws-transgender-toolkit-after-girls-legal-challenge

30/4/2020
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3895832-CPS-has-withdrawn-Hate-Crime-guidance-for-schools-this-afternoon

Times
2/5/2020
'Girl forces U‑turn on advice to schools over trans bullying'

The Crown Prosecution Service has been forced to withdraw guidance to schools on transphobic bullying after a teenage girl threatened legal action.

The anonymous girl, who turns 15 in July, brought a challenge saying that under the guidance she could be arrested for a hate crime if she asked a boy who identified as a girl to leave a lavatory designated for female pupils.

The embarrassing climbdown comes days after parents forced council leaders in Warwickshire to shelve guidance that allowed transgender pupils to use girls’ lavatories, changing rooms and dormitories.

In the latest case, the girl claimed that the wide-ranging CPS guidance issued to schools at the beginning of the year meant that she could be prosecuted for a hate crime if she told friends that she would not date a trans girl.

The lawyer threatened to apply for a judicial review of the guidance unless it was withdrawn. The CPS, which is overseen by Max Hill, the director of public prosecutions, withdrew the guidance on Thursday afternoon.

The 184-page guidance was produced in co-operation with [the NASUWT] a teachers’ union, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and campaigning groups including [NSPCC] Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence to guide teachers on issues around trans bulling as well as bullying relating to lesbians and gays.

Paul Conrathe, from Sinclairslaw, representing the teenager, argued that the guidance was legally flawed. In one scenario it said that gender identity, which includes self-identification, was a protected characteristic, rather than gender reassignment.

Mr Conrathe claimed that there were other errors. For example, regarding cases of alleged harassment when transgender pupils used single-sex lavatories in schools, the lawyer said it would be the girl’s fault for expressing legitimate discomfort when someone she understood to be male came into the ladies’ lavatory.

“The guidance completely fails to consider the feelings of women who may feel genuinely threatened,” he wrote.

In a short statement after the CPS withdrew its guidance, the girl said: “I’m happy that I’ve been able to have helped girls all over the country keep their right to say no and not get accused of bullying.” (continues)
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/73b14124-8bc6-11ea-8030-261bf7d8ac38?shareToken=d0f1b79461622bc4560ac347cee25f8d&wgu=270525_54264_15890092859139_b21e5564c3&wgexpiry=1596785285&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=22278

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3897095-Times-article-on-the-CPS-guidance-withdrawl

As far as I know, JB has that one friend Claudia, who was basically butchered decades ago and the poor bugger knows he’s not a woman but has been irrevocably damaged? JB refers to him as she as he’s a close friend who she has caring responsibilities for. I don’t think she’s demanded that anyone else does so, but I may be wrong?

Claudia in interviews with Julie Bindel has been describing the harms perpetrated by men & 'Gender doctors', for a long time.

May 2007 Guardian

'Mistaken identity'
On Monday, psychiatrist Russell Reid was censured for improperly authorising five sex changes. Claudia, whom Reid approved for gender reassignment 20 years ago, tells Julie Bindel how she was rushed into the operation - and quickly came to regret it

There was a moment when Claudia, as a young gay man living with the person she describes as the love of her life, was "blissfully happy". Now, approaching 50 and medically retired from her successful career as an opera singer and performer, she is full of regrets. "I feel I was railroaded into having a sex change," she says, "when I should have been enabled to live happily in my own skin."

Claudia, who does not wish to reveal her surname, is one of a growing number of male-to-female transsexuals who regret undergoing gender-reassignment surgery. In 1985, after a consultation with psychiatrist Russell Reid that she says lasted only 45 minutes, she was diagnosed as transsexual and referred for surgery. Reid, until his retirement last year, was the UK's best-known expert in gender identity disorders (GIDs). During more than 20 years of practice, Reid was responsible for assessing whether those wishing to change sex fitted the criteria for treatment. On Monday, after a case lasting three years, the General Medical Council's disciplinary committee ruled that Reid had prescribed hormones to five of his patients too soon, and referred them for genital surgery without properly assessing their mental and physical suitability.

The complaints were made by four doctors at the gender clinic at Charing Cross hospital based on the cases of five male-to-female transsexuals. Claudia was keen to be a complainant, but the GMC ruled that due to minor inconsistencies in her recollection of the consultation with Reid 20 years previously, and because they had sufficient witnesses with similar complaints, she would not be included in the disciplinary case against Reid. She is, however, currently pursuing a civil claim for damages against him.(continues)

From primary school onwards, Claudia was bullied for being effeminate, and called a "he/she". "I grew up believing I could never live my life as a 'real' man. I never for one moment thought I was a little girl trapped in a boy's body; I just did not want to be the sort of boy I was expected to be." (continues)

Having been prescribed hormones by a psychiatrist in Glasgow, Claudia began to live as a woman, just before moving to London with Martin in 1985. Hearing from friends in the close-knit transsexual community that one of the only surgeons who carried out gender-reassignment surgery was about to retire, she made an appointment with a psychiatrist to whom many of her friends referred as "Uncle Russell" - Reid - who was then based at Charing Cross.

Claudia says that during the 45-minute consultation, Reid asked her how she was earning her living; how long she had been taking hormones; and whether she had played with dolls as a child. Claudia explained that her life was bound up with her boyfriend, who was also her manager. She told him she wanted to change sex because she was living with a man who was not gay and that he was having affairs with women.

"Warning bells should have been ringing for him there and then," says Claudia. "Even I was aware at the time that those reasons weren't good enough." However, Claudia was convinced her troubles - with bullying, and her relationship with Martin - would be over if she changed sex.

"Martin slept with women the whole time I was with him," says Claudia, "and would say, 'If you were a girl, this wouldn't be happening,' and of course I believed him." A year after the surgery, Martin left Claudia.

"If I had been properly assessed, it would have been obvious that sex-change surgery was inappropriate for me," says Claudia. "I was desperately unhappy and was going for a sex change because I felt under pressure from my boyfriend." No searching questions were asked about her background and no warning or preparation were given as to the impact of such life-changing surgery. That surgery took place just three months after her consultation with Reid." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/may/23/healthandwellbeing.health

Amazing. From the days when the Guardian was truthful.

On a separate note we recently did Rudyard Kipling’s Kim for our book group. All approached it with trepidation because of his reputation. But it’s rather lovely and his passion for India is what comes through the most. There’s a wide range of Indian characters from all religions and walks of life and even Kim himself, although he is a white boy, is closer to the Indians than the Sahibs. There are a few problematic parts but nothing exceptional for the era and certainly not worse than you’d find in Dickens. I found a lovely write up of it in the Guardian, also from a few years ago - someone describing it as their comfort read and giving all the reasons why it’s worth reading. The Guardian would never ever print that now. They have closed their minds to everything. Even now that they are printing the odd GC view, the narrowness of the Guardian’s outlook makes it unreadable for me now. They are missing so much of the world. Claudia’s story, beautiful but unfashionable books, truthful women . Bet they’ve not covered the brave teenage girl vs Oxfordshire either.

Agreed. It was you who brought your friend & his history into the discussion.

You are completely missing the point and I'm increasingly wondering if you are being disingenuous on purpose.

Several posters seemed to think that referring to such a person as if they were in fact a woman was some sort of sign of cogitive dissonance, or that really they think TWAW, or have some sort of "not my Nigel" justification.

The fact is that none of those things are necessarily the case, it's possible to see a systemic problem or scientific problem or legal problem, and also determine that the best course of action with a real person in certain instances is not to try and make some kind of political point by insisting on calling them "he" or whatever else you think your politics entails.

Not sure I understand your point above Goosefoot.

And when you say It's possible to say, no, in a courtroom or a hospital or a records office the considerations are different than they are when I am talking to a waiter in fact it seems that it is not possible to say this. Compelled speech is now a feature of the court room. Likewise in a medical setting as the Zoe app using the untruthful phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’ reveals.

This is why I am holding fast to the truth. Everywhere.

I understand Goosefoot's point and (from what I've read on here - I don't know her circumstances) I would understand if Julie Bindel called her friend 'she'. Friendships and relationships are complicated and messy.

There is an authoritarianism about this thread which reminds me of why I no longer consider myself part of the left.

I’m definitely not part of the left. Homeless now in fact.

I'm not following all this as I used to as I'm a mother and have young very active children. There is definitely a gender divide in the pandemic.

This thread and all the associated arguments; of which I do see all sides, has weighed on my mind. But I've been feeling exactly as Floisme has succinctly put it.

Compelled speech goes both ways.

Many perspectives and many voices in this are needed or it becomes as authoritarian as the TRA movement.

I make a specific distinction around children; this comes down to safeguarding and I won't lie to, with or around children.

I have no idea what prompted this letter. Part of the ongoing discussion I imagine.

letter.wiki/conversation/648#letter_2081

I won’t lie to or around children either. I would have thought not lying in court would be key too but we are being made to lie in court. Being pushed like this does clarify boundaries somewhat.

Mine are drawn pretty high, I confess, in lots of areas of my life. I actually wouldn’t have a friend who needed lying to. That’s just how I like to live. Maybe that’s what underlies the disagreement - where our own personal boundaries are.

I do also agree that lying in court is where it falls apart.

I personally go round it in circles. I appreciate all perspectives.

Not sure I understand your point above Goosefoot.

And when you say It's possible to say, no, in a courtroom or a hospital or a records office the considerations are different than they are when I am talking to a waiter in fact it seems that it is not possible to say this. Compelled speech is now a feature of the court room. Likewise in a medical setting as the Zoe app using the untruthful phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’ reveals.

This is why I am holding fast to the truth. Everywhere.

No, I mean possible within an individual, or it should be possible, as a society, to understand that their are different circumstances. The courts should be clear and truthful, and I would say medical stuff at the level where you are talking about objective things, public discourse about things that people disagree on in general needs to be conducted in a clear way with clear language. I don't believe in legally compelling speech and I think there needs to be a lot of care around socially compelled speech too.

I think it's quite possible to do that and at the same time deal with individual situations in a different way. In fact I'd say that most of us do that a lot in all kinds of areas.

There is an authoritarianism about this thread which reminds me of why I no longer consider myself part of the left

In hindsight I think this was in the background even years ago.