The Fawcett Society response to the Govt announcement re GRA

[Melroses]

twitter.com/fawcettsociety/status/1308428220182781953

www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/News/fawcett-comments-on-government-response-to-gender-recognition-act-consultation

I am not sure what this organisation is for TBH nor why they are named after a suffragette.

[wellbehavedwomen]

[quote smithsinarazz]**@wellbehavedwomen* Absolutely. I won't say Stonewall's stance doesn't annoy me, but it doesn't give me the same burning sense of indignation and betrayal as it does when supposedly feminist organisations spout the same bullshit. I probably would* be equally infuriated with Stonewall were I a lesbian, though. Because lesbian and gay people are supposed to be who they're supporting.[/quote]
Oh, I think Stonewall gave up on lesbians some time ago, given their descriptions (in school resources, no less) of Get The L Out as, "a group of transphobic women." And yes, lesbians have every reason to be incandescent about that.

Stonewall anger me a lot. Their ruthless dishonesty, their demonising women simply seeking to protect their own rights. But not as much as the group actually tasked to support us in that, who make chocolate teapots appear robust and well-considered.

[smithsinarazz]

@wellbehavedwomen Absolutely. I won't say Stonewall's stance doesn't annoy me, but it doesn't give me the same burning sense of indignation and betrayal as it does when supposedly feminist organisations spout the same bullshit. I probably would be equally infuriated with Stonewall were I a lesbian, though. Because lesbian and gay people are supposed to be who they're supporting.

[Antibles]

What Sam Smethers doesn't seem to grasp is that this is not a clash between two sets of rights.

It's a clash between women wanting to keep their sex-based rights and some angry men who want to dismantle them - for reasons we are Not Allowed to Mention.

We have to tackle the very concept of trans and publicise what it really is because, while I daresay Sam Smethers is well-meaning, while people believe in gender essence/brain in the wrong body, they will keep barking up the wrong tree and the door to further attack on our rights remains open despite today's great news.

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

This is the first line of their press release. It could have come from any trans organisation tbh. You would never now they were supposed to be anything to do with women.

You really wouldn’t would you. Shocking.

[wellbehavedwomen]

Stonewall: "Our job is to advance trans rights. We will ensure that trans people are centred in every conversation, we will ruthlessly attack any efforts to consider other affected groups, and we will ensure our narrative is the dominant one. We are tasked with progressing the agenda for trans rights, and we will focus on that come what may."

Fawcett? "Oh, we can't just think about women's rights, I mean, that's not very nice, we need to make sure we think about everyone..."

In fairness, Stonewall are doing their job. They're advocating for the group they're meant to serve. The problem is that women's orgs wouldn't advocate for us, or fight our corner, to the point that they wouldn't even keep the Overton window open enough for a discussion on women as female people to be allowed. Which is why they've been replaced, in the last few years, by orgs that make no apology in centreing women, and that Overton window is being forced wider again, inch by painful inch.

Fawcett have identified as redundant.

[MonicaFree]

The first line tho. They centred men in their response.

[nepeta]

@Antibles

Very disappointing. They've been disappointing before though, haven't they, so I'm not surprised.

Far too many organisations want to ignore the clashing rights problem and to pretend that the clash doesn't exist.

[Antibles]

Very disappointing. They've been disappointing before though, haven't they, so I'm not surprised.

[Escapeplanning]

That statement really highlights the stupidity of demanding demedicalisation at the same time as demanding more medical services doesn't it?

It doesn't even help with mental health.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/

[JamieLeeCurtains]

None of these pontificating charities and organisations ever seen to tackle the clashes and dichotomies between the drive for the medicalisation of 'gender', and the drive for the de-medicalisation of 'gender', and the healthcare needs of 'medicalised' trans persons (eg those with shortened urethral tissue; those who won't 'get' the tortuous woke language on posters; those who don't know what effects of their meds are going to be because nobody fucking does ), and the ethical pressures put on the medical profession.

[WhereAreWeNow]

It's crap. I thought Sam Smethers was leaving.

[BatShite]

We remain of the view that it is possible to progress and recognise both trans rights and defend the rights of all women, including women who are trans.

It is indeed possible. However, its not possible to do bth with what TRAs currently want.

You cannot have womens rights, while saying men ARE women. Its..fucking obvious? Why people pretend to not get this is beyond me.

[Clymene]

@Melroses

"The Government's moves to reduce the cost and complexity of the transition process are a welcome step forward. But today’s announcement will leave many trans people feeling short-changed. This is a missed opportunity to better support trans people by de-medicalising the process."

This is the first line of their press release. It could have come from any trans organisation tbh. You would never now they were supposed to be anything to do with women.

I know. If you put that into a poll and asked what organisation it came from, I would be very surprised if anyone thought it was from an organisation which is supposed to fight for women's rights

[Melroses]

@CivilCervix

Fiona Mactaggart is chair of trustees, which I hadn't realised and is, well, surprising.

Maybe it is some sort of club for Baronet's daughters?

[Manderleyagain]

I've generally felt alot of people are too harsh on fawcett society and Sam smethers in particular. I thought her blog about the whole issue was quite useful as it recognised a conflict in rights. But I think I was wrong. This statement, though still trying to be a bit fence-sitty, actually makes it clear which side of the fence they have fallen. They don't see a difference between the rights/needs of male people who identify as women, and women. There are clear differences between the two groups and both need to be advocated for. They should be advocating for women, not trying to unsee the difference.

[WeeBisom]

"We recognise the importance of maintaining sex as a protected characteristic, while also adopting an inclusive starting point for trans and non-binary people. We remain of the view that it is possible to progress and recognise both trans rights and defend the rights of all women, including women who are trans."

Just for once I would love these organisations to explain, clearly, why they think there is no clash between sex based rights and gender identity. The main reason to make sex a protected characteristic is to allow women to have female only spaces (it sure isn't to protect us from hate speech, because misogyny isn't recognised as a hate crime). Non binary females and trans people who are female are already welcome in women's spaces - no one wants to exclude them. So do they mean male trans people? But if so, that means there is no longer sex segregation!

And of course it is possible to recognise trans rights and women's rights at the same time, so long as trans rights doesn't veer into the bizarre territory of claiming they are literally female and literally the same as women and so are entitled to every single thing that women are entitled to.

[CivilCervix]

@Melroses

"The Government's moves to reduce the cost and complexity of the transition process are a welcome step forward. But today’s announcement will leave many trans people feeling short-changed. This is a missed opportunity to better support trans people by de-medicalising the process."

This is the first line of their press release. It could have come from any trans organisation tbh. You would never now they were supposed to be anything to do with women.

Quite, it's completely the wrong way round. They should be relieved that self ID hasn't been introduced because of serious concerns about the infringement of women's rights and pleased the govt is highlighting the single sex exemption before anything else.

[Melroses]

"The Government's moves to reduce the cost and complexity of the transition process are a welcome step forward. But today’s announcement will leave many trans people feeling short-changed. This is a missed opportunity to better support trans people by de-medicalising the process."

This is the first line of their press release. It could have come from any trans organisation tbh. You would never now they were supposed to be anything to do with women.

[CivilCervix]

Fiona Mactaggart is chair of trustees, which I hadn't realised and is, well, surprising.

[Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons]

My opinion of them is so low that I’m actually surprised the statement isn’t worse

Not fit for purpose

[wellbehavedwomen]

My main feeling is annoyance that they're abusing a courageous woman's name.

[AbsintheFriends]

If you can't say anything coherent, don't say anything at all

[Clymene]

"Fawcett Society is the UK's leading charity campaigning for gender equality and women's rights."

Gender first, women second.

[PearPickingPorky]

@ThinEndoftheWedge

We remain of the view that it is possible to progress and recognise both trans rights and defend the rights of all women, including women who are trans.

Do they mean TWAW - or TM?

Me thinks the former.

I have seen a few people say this, Sophie Walker (formerly WEP, now YWT) also said this was the YWT position.

I am hopeful they are being "clever" and this is their way of bringing the needs of transmen into their remit, but without saying anything clear enough that will get them death threats.

Too optimistic? Maybe. But I think "including women who are trans" is intentionally double-meaning.

[CivilCervix]

@Kit19

Still trying to sit on the fence then! Do they have TW on their Board or something?

Isn't it Sam Smether's own position? She's part of the Good Law Project with a certain lawyer who is no friend of foxes, I've assumed in the past that it must be the view in her circle.