Article in The Critic

[Eggotchi]

Not sure how linls work on mumsnet, but I just read this article and thought I'd share.

'Has trench warfare on trans issues come to an end?'

thecritic.co.uk/has-trench-warfare-on-trans-issues-come-to-an-end/?fbclid=IwAR1wLTUR0DUZO5u-10V9z7p2fm7FYJkkN-J1qLvyty8J408hqkSwjeB__Jk

That was meant to say links

Very interesting thoughtful article.

The Critic is a really good new magazine and a breath of fresh air - recommend checking them out. (No, I'm not working for them.)

That's a really good article. Sadly I suspect we won't see the sensible, moderate policy discussion it asks for any time soon.

It's not a bad article in that it recognises the problems.

But why does nobody challenge the idea that extra civil rights should be awarded for people dressing as/impersonating/wanting to be the opposite sex, in the first place?

Why don't they ask what is gender dysphoria trying to solve?

And following on from that, why the hell don't they question why cross dressers, under the stonewall definition, are included in those extra civil rights?

Why is a sexual fetish being granted any kind of legal recognition?

Yes. Why?

I can't decide if I like this article or not.

thecritic.co.uk/j-k-rowling-is-not-transphobic-people-who-menstruate-are-women/ here is another one

The most interesting and surprising thing for me about that article is that it is written by Sarah Ditum. From what I know of her, she has been a doughty advocate and warrior for women's rights and protections for several years both on air and in print and has taken a hell of a lot of abuse - I'm sure I don't know the half of it. Perhaps that's why in the wake of the government's intention to drop the Miller nonsense, she is now putting forward a liberal proposal for reform that seems at odds with what I would have expected from her. War weary and worn down? Wanting to bind wounds and offer the olive branch? I don't know.
It seems like a lifetime ago I saw a so-called discussion programme on (I think) Channel 4 in which she was subjected to a barrage by a combination of a hopeless and partisan moderator, activist 'audience' and hecklers. Despite such maulings, she continued making the case and taking the flak, like other women who've kept on raising their voices in public.

Her comments about the politics that brought about the Miller debacle are interesting - Cameron and May wanting to be seen to be liberal and not the nasty party, takes us right back to the campaign for same-sex marriage. Both of them were against it but felt obliged to come out for it, eventually. The way she refers to 'anti-intellectualism' is a diplomatic way of saying - well, what I'd say! - that certain key people involved were simply too thick for the job. And add to that the political pressure from May or Cameron to give way to the same determined and emboldened lobby. It's still shameful how that parliamentary select committee for women and equality could conduct such a shoddy and shallow exercise.

"What there can be consensus around – once the ruinous extreme of self-identification has been dispensed with – is that the process of obtaining a GRC should be made as humane and accessible (and cheap) as possible."

Meaning what, another consultation? Or some 'minor' changes behind the scenes?

It's very easy to get the ball rolling on the GRC process. Hormones and surgery are not compulsory.

Datun is right. We are still stuck on the wrong questions.

@Datun

It's not a bad article in that it recognises the problems.

But why does nobody challenge the idea that extra civil rights should be awarded for people dressing as/impersonating/wanting to be the opposite sex, in the first place?

Why don't they ask what is gender dysphoria trying to solve?

And following on from that, why the hell don't they question why cross dressers, under the stonewall definition, are included in those extra civil rights?

Why is a sexual fetish being granted any kind of legal recognition?

She did talk about more scientific investigation into the cause of dysphoria. I thought that would address these points, or does it not?

She did talk about more scientific investigation into the cause of dysphoria. I thought that would address these points, or does it not?

But it doesn't challenge the idea that this group needs extra civil rights.
Sarah Ditum seems to suggest that the current GRC process is too demanding.

Interesting.

On this, I'm just going to state

Whatever Datun says.

She did talk about more scientific investigation into the cause of dysphoria. I thought that would address these points, or does it not?

Yes it would be great to address the causes of gender dysphoria. I suspect it would uncover all manner of homophobia, lesphobia, sexism, etc. Quite apart from helping the individual, I suspect it would be a bit of an eye-opener for society in general.

But that is separate to awarding extra civil rights to someone who suffers from it. They should have the same rights as everyone else. And they do.

If, for instance, an effeminate man transitions, because he is rejecting the toxic masculinity that is expected from him and finds that his softer nature fits better with his idea of a woman, why should anyone legitimise or endorse that? It's just sexism.

And that's the best case scenario.

What if you are an autogynephile and the idea of being sexually degraded as a woman, is arousing, because that's how you view women? We should give you extra civil rights? Instead of rejecting the concept as the rank misogyny it is?

@Datun

It's not a bad article in that it recognises the problems.

But why does nobody challenge the idea that extra civil rights should be awarded for people dressing as/impersonating/wanting to be the opposite sex, in the first place?

Why don't they ask what is gender dysphoria trying to solve?

And following on from that, why the hell don't they question why cross dressers, under the stonewall definition, are included in those extra civil rights?

Why is a sexual fetish being granted any kind of legal recognition?

All these questions should be asked. And I'll add another one.

At the moment the GRC process includes a requirement to 'live as the opposite sex'. How does a man 'live as a woman'? How is this different from living as a man?

that seems at odds with what I would have expected from her. War weary and worn down? Wanting to bind wounds and offer the olive branch?
No, I think it's just that - despite what you read on here sometimes - GC feminists are not of a single mind. We've mostly pulled together for the last few years to fight off self ID becoming law. Now I think we'll start to see more disagreement.
It was happening on these boards too, until JK Rowling brought everyone together again.

I don't think it's a bad thing in itself - disagreement is inevitable and healthy - but I hope we don't take our eye off the ball before the game's even over.

many people just don’t understand the bigger picture. Sometimes that because the

Oh sorry I didn’t mean to post that.

She needs to talk to some transwidows. Her suggestion for the spousal exit clause is way off the mark.

I've contacted Sarah about this and we're going to have a conversation about it, shortly. I'm in the horrors about it becoming something that Feminists suggest, going forward.

Ditum has been trying to strike some kind of Both Sides, Some TWAW type position for years, so nothing new there.

@ThePurported

She did talk about more scientific investigation into the cause of dysphoria. I thought that would address these points, or does it not?

But it doesn't challenge the idea that this group needs extra civil rights.
Sarah Ditum seems to suggest that the current GRC process is too demanding.

Yeah you're right. I think she's not given up on finding some kind of middle ground, which I find a strange stance to take after this much time.