India Willoughby

[PhoebeSnow]

Did anyone hear India Willoughby just now on This Morning ?

India was talking about a list of that makes a modern man, based on a newspaper feature, India asked “ Is there a vagina on that list? “ The hosts were perplexed and Christine Hamilton, another guest laughed, and asked when would that be on the list, India then said “ oh its a trans thing”

A pp suggested that we look 'unhinged' if we don't include some dysphoric males just when people are becoming aware of the erasure of women's rights.
How do you think it all started?

Academic Dr Em provides important history of how the women's liberation movement was impacted by those women who prioritised the demands of male TS in the 1970's.

George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Uncommon Ground Media by Dr Em:
'What Was Happening Before ‘Just Be Nice Feminism’? Part I: Early Rumblings, 1970 – 1971'
July 12, 2020

"Dr Em charts the history of the development of ‘just be nice’ feminism and the inclusion of trans-identified males in the women’s movement.
uncommongroundmedia.com/just-be-nice-feminism-part-i/

'What Was Happening Before ‘Just Be Nice Feminism’? Part II: Beth Elliot, 1972'
July 21, 2020

(extract)
Like today, the inclusion of males claiming to be female based on sexist stereotypes split the Women’s Movement from within. This large split really began in 1972 when two lesbian feminists decided to prioritise the feelings and desires of males over females. The co-founders of Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), a lesbian civil rights group, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons, argued for a compromise position and the inclusion of transsexuals as allies to women. This was ultimately rejected by the members, however, an exception was made for the transsexual Beth Elliott in light of his long-standing involvement. Beth was deemed a special ally to women. Jeanne Cordova reported in The Lesbian Tide in December 1972 how ‘on Tuesday, Nov. 17th, the membership of San Francisco’s Chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis voted against admitting transsexual persons into their organization. Ending a several month long “very heavy issue”.1 This description indicates the length and strength of feeling surrounding the issue of whether males with penises could be lesbians and should be permitted into lesbian activism." (continues)

It was the infiltration and inclusion of the male Beth Elliott in a lesbian feminist group which arguably birthed liberal ‘feminism’. It was reported in The Gay Liberator that ‘Commenting on the vote, Del Martin, co-founder of DOB and member of the San Francisco group, said, “DOB has always been set up as a woman’s organization. A person before having the (transsexual) operation is not legally a woman.” But a sizeable minority disagreed. “En masse and in something akin to cold fury,” the entire staff of Sisters magazine, the monthly publication of SF DOB, resigned their positions and their membership in DOB’. Women, supposedly lesbian feminists, sided with a man over women and women’s interests." (continues)

concludes:
Still, feminist pushback to males in female spaces and the Women’s Movement and Lesbian Movement and the ‘just-be-nice’ women who enabled this was on the increase. They lost the vote and male transsexuals were not to be included in the lesbian activist group, apart from one special transsexual ally – Beth Elliot. Only a few months later in 1972 Beth Elliott was expelled from the lesbian feminist group DOB over allegations that he had sexually harassed and assaulted the lesbian Bev Jo Von Dohre. Similar to the current sexual assault allegations against the trans rights activists Eli Erlik, allegations against Lilly Madigan, allegations of indecent exposure in the workplace against Jess Bradley, the rape allegations against Kami Sid, the sexual assault allegations against Andi Dier who heckled Rose McGowan, and the paedophilia allegations against trans activist Jessica Yaniv, to name just a few, the allegations against Elliott were dismissed as transphobia One of the clearest signs that people don’t really believe that these transsexuals/transgenderists have changed sex is that their behaviour will be excused and a woman disbelieved and slandered if she speaks up. Indeed, some women on the editorial board of supposedly feminist Sisters magazine with Elliott walked out over the decision to remove him because of sexual assault allegations. Some women will always support males over females. The vote of ‘No’ to include males was not taken as a complete sentence and ‘It was decided to have a National Lesbian Conference in L.A. in the spring of ’73’ because ‘D.O.B. in San Francisco [was]split over the trans-sexual issue’, part organised by the transsexual accused of sexual assault – Beth Elliot"

uncommongroundmedia.com/what-was-happening-before-just-be-nice-feminism-part-ii-beth-elliot-1972/

Also, I know it’s been mentioned here before, but you can’t make criteria based on how well tw ‘pass’ as that in itself that would be discrimination, might push tw towards more and more invasive surgery, and would potentially exclude based on how much surgery someone could afford.

I’ve been persuaded on these boards that although nothing is going to feel ‘fair’ for someone who feels desperately that they are or should be exactly the same as the opposite sex, the only objective dividing line which is fair to women, is bio sex based, which is currently protected in law for appropriate situations. The worrying thing is how IRL scenarios where this law is often replaced with ‘stonewall law’ and women are called bigots for wanting to keep this law.

Yes, both India and Debbie have wives and children too IIRC.

And as ThePurported says in her excellent post upthread, quoting TinselAngel, feminism has a responsibility to those wives. Not to their transitioned ex-husbands.

The worrying thing is how IRL scenarios where this law is often replaced with ‘stonewall law’ and women are called bigots for wanting to keep this law.

Indeed. Bigots. 'Frothing'. 'Nasty women'.

For wanting to maintain current legislation.

Even if we were moderated to never say anything at all, we almost don't need to. All you need to do is link to what transactivists say.

Can't help seeing in that BB video India performing a form of femininity that might be described as a camp man's idea of how women are.

Also, I know it’s been mentioned here before, but you can’t make criteria based on how well tw ‘pass’ as that in itself that would be discrimination, might push tw towards more and more invasive surgery, and would potentially exclude based on how much surgery someone could afford.

Any Safeguarding which is sex based is intended to discriminate in order to protect women and girls.

Its extraordinary that some seek to prioritise the feelings of those who have more successfully hidden their male sex.

I can't think of any other Safeguarding context when this would be the case, for example concern for an adult who had surgery to present as a child in circumstances where age was a discriminatory Safeguard.

That's the first time I've watched that video although I'm aware of the 'penetrate' quote from it.

Apart from anything else, how unbelievably rude is it to argue wearing mirrored sunglasses? Never mind the aggressive finger pointing and shouting. I wouldn't give anyone the time of day who behaved in such a rude manner.

I think that the point is more that trans people have as much right to advocate for their own position and interests as anyone else. In terms of the social discourse or trying to shape public policy, we always have to engage with others to try and find a way forward. In a healthy society this should be done in good faith, even when there is opposition. Feminists can talk all they want among themselves about ideology but that's not political engagement, and no one and no group should expect that they should be allowed to control or set the agenda for such discussions alone.

Plenty of TRAs aren't engaging and aren't acting in good faith, and women and feminists have been rightly critical of that, and really angry. But that criticism is diluted if we don't engage and act in good faith with those trans people who are involved in the public discourse at that level.

When it's so rare to find those people - at least in terms of those who are willing to be publicly politically engaged - it becomes a soft target for the bad faith actors to say, "look at those feminists, they aren't engaging with us. They are trying to do what they say we are doing." And it can potentially affect the perception of the wider public who are more observers of the debate. Which is totally unfair but it's a strategic win for those kinds of interests.

Engaging respectfully and looking for commonalities with those who are willing to engage in good faith discourse then is not only in itself an important part of the larger political landscape, it has an important strategic role in showing the wider public that we are looking for real policy solutions that are fair and effective for all, that we listen to other people, and that we are not the ones trying to shut people up.

That article by Dr Em is amazing.

What we are seeing now is the legacy of all those bad decisions. Like certain rape crisis centres in the UK being led by males who are invited to represent women's voices. They say they don't see any problems - obviously not, because they would have to implicate themselves as the problem.

And as ThePurported says in her excellent post upthread, quoting TinselAngel, feminism has a responsibility to those wives. Not to their transitioned ex-husbands
I completely agree with this.

Having pragmatic relationships with those whom we may agree with on specific points is one thing. It's perfectly possible to have productive conversations respectfully with people whom we disagree.

But it does not make sense to take that reasonable approach to consensus and dilute the aims of feminists who are holding the line on women's rights.

Sure, a vanishing few TW have been making positive noises about women's rights. Still less have not been actively involved in damaging those rights and driving holes in safeguarding etc.

And as much as I understand the use of strategy, and the acknowledgement that every group has the right to campaign for their own position, I reject utterly that women should strategize to hamstring their own movement to protect their rights. I will speak respectfully to a TW and our aims may even intersect in some very small ways. But anyone who thinks that you can effectively hold the line on women's rights while playing compromise with someone who wants things which will categorically undermine those rights hasn't understood the basis of what is going on here.

In strategy terms, sometimes you can negotiate with the invaders and make bargains to survive. But you will always be a conquered people. Those arguing that women should in any way accommodate the desires of the male people who subscribe to a worldview which will harm us all, are behaving like a conquered people negotiating with the oppressor. Don't know about you, but I see women's liberation differently, and have come to a place where I am quite content to hold the line, despite being told what a harridan it makes me.

Women's clear boundaries are not aggression against men. They are foundational to what we are standing for.

What we are seeing now is the legacy of all those bad decisions. Like certain rape crisis centres in the UK being led by males who are invited to represent women's voices. They say they don't see any problems - obviously not, because they would have to implicate themselves as the problem.

That a women's rape crisis centre is being led by males is also evidence of systemic Safeguarding failure.

I have no problem with pragmatic coalitions but I'm very uncomfortable with transwomen being pushed to the forefront of feminist campaigns. Transwomen should create their own campaigns. They may align in some ways but ultimately their campaign positions come from a very different motivation, a very different lived experience and aren't feminist.

Engaging respectfully and looking for commonalities with those who are willing to engage in good faith discourse then is not only in itself an important part of the larger political landscape, it has an important strategic role in showing the wider public that we are looking for real
policy solutions that are fair and effective for all, that we listen to other people, and that we are not the ones trying to shut people up

This has been rumbling on for over a decade, how long do we present our cheek to be slapped down again?
Also I'm fine with my enshrined in law rights at this moment. If trans people want something more than they already have, they can do what other minority groups have done for millenia and campaign. They would need proof that they need whatever and why, but access to women only spaces isnt even up for debate.

What would be really, really helpful would be if transwomen who want to support us demanded their right to be accepted, safe & respected in the spaces for their own sex, as valid as anyone else with a prostate. And if men who want to support us backed them.

@EmpressLangClegSpartacus

What would be really, really helpful would be if transwomen who want to support us demanded their right to be accepted, safe & respected in the spaces for their own sex, as valid as anyone else with a prostate. And if men who want to support us backed them.

That would indeed be nice.

I've yet to see a campaign saying

Men, accept transwomen in your spaces, please.

Men, femininity is not exclusively the purview of women.

Men, femininity isn't weak.

Men, other men performing femininity is not a threat to you.

I haven't seen a single person, activist or otherwise with even the smidgen of a whiff of an interest in a campaign like this.

@Msgimpy Agree with you.

I haven't seen a single person, activist or otherwise with even the smidgen of a whiff of an interest in a campaign like this.

It’s a shame, Datun. I think all of us would happily support a campaign like this.

If that was addressed to me, I’m not sure that is what I said, but yes, DT did refer to Caitlin Jenner who undoubtedly had a more lucrative career as a male sportsperson.

Oops sorry wrong thread

Datun we all desperately need such a campaign.

Yesterday's Radio 4 Today programme had a piece on domestic violence during lockdown, and included info. on just how much men's violence towards their partners costs - extra costs over lockdown in the millions of pounds.

Time for all men to pay the "masculinity/male violence" tax surcharge. I'd start it at 2% on all tax rates for men - all natal men - no exclusions. If they really resent paying it, then they can put pressure on the violent abusive & sexually perverse ones.

It would be a campaign we could all support. It's interesting that some male celebs have almost started towards those positions but haven't consolidated it into a campaign eg Robert Webb with his critique of toxic masculinity; Marilyn with his example of femininity not being the preserve of women.
I wonder where we would be if male 'allies' had focused on such a campaign ... or maybe it wouldn't have made a difference since TRAs are fuelled by misogyny and the search for validation, and lots of their supporters are MRAs

I wonder where we would be if male 'allies' had focused on such a campaign ... or maybe it wouldn't have made a difference since TRAs are fuelled by misogyny and the search for validation, and lots of their supporters are MRAs

Well, it would definitely show who just wanted transwomen to be able to 'pee in peace' and who wanted access to women's spaces, wouldn't it?

Yy. It would also show who want to gain plaudits by 'leading' female causes and who actually want to face uncomfortable truths about their complicity. It would be nice if men did do that work for a change.