'Feminists on both sides of the trans gender debate should unite'

[TweeBree]

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/feminists-both-sides-trans-gender-debate-should-unite-revive-scotlands-womens-liberation-movement-and-hold-national-conference-susan-dalgety-3064980

Nice to see this called out for what it is:

it seems to many that the very organisations that grew out of the second-wave feminist movement, such as Rape Crisis Scotland – who campaigned against Lamont's amendment, no longer represent all women, but instead stand up for narrow vested interests.

Good article. I'd love to attend a women's conference in Scotland. The one in London was too far away for me.

Great Article.

Sign me up for the Scottish Conference

Get Johann Lamont, Joan McAlpine as key speakers

Post Covid, of course

Great article

It feels like the collective is waking up from a bad dream of a strange, topsy turvy world. That article would have been all but unthinkable, even six months ago.

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting. I've forwarded it to selective friends (as I do with other articles posted here).

I’m in Scotland too and feeling very isolated. Could do with some real life allies. I was watching Mrs America and the conferences, the meetings, the chats ... made me pine for real life meet-ups - feels a bit weird this Zoom / wfh / email nightmare 2020. Even for me, an introvert!

I'd attend a Women's conference in Scotland - takes me less time to get to Glasgow than it does to get to London, from here in N England. Also feel we have more in common with Scots than with the SE.

We need to have compassionate discussions with one another in order to try and live peacefully together and not strip the other of human rights.

I recommend 'Becoming Eve' by Abby Stein, an autobiography about her life as an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman of trans experience and a Direct Descendant of Hasidic Judaism's founder for a fresh perspective and better understanding of what its like to be transgender.

We need to have compassionate discussions with one another in order to try and live peacefully together and not strip the other of human rights.

Absolutely, it's so important that women have their rights respected. Women must be able to request female health care workers if they want them.

@SuzanneRaspberry

We need to have compassionate discussions with one another in order to try and live peacefully together and not strip the other of human rights.

I recommend 'Becoming Eve' by Abby Stein, an autobiography about her life as an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman of trans experience and a Direct Descendant of Hasidic Judaism's founder for a fresh perspective and better understanding of what its like to be transgender.

Funny how often the compassion is only expected one way isn't it.

I’m not aware that feminists are trying to strip trans people of human rights. Trans people absolutely have, and must continue to have human rights. what they cannot have are women’s rights

I get frustrated with this idea that feminists are removing human rights from trans people. We are not, we are simply asserting that women’s rights do not belong to men no matter how they present or identify

I'm only interested in protecting the rights of women and girls to single sex spaces. Understanding what it's like to be Transgender is irrelevant to me in this issue.

@DialSquare

I'm only interested in protecting the rights of women and girls to single sex spaces. Understanding what it's like to be Transgender is irrelevant to me in this issue.

I understand what it's like to be a woman. That's what I need when discussing women's rights.

I’d love a woman’s conference but I have no idea why trans have to be included. I want to talk about why public services are still failing women especially those with disabilities and from BAME communities. I want to talk about the constantly raising child poverty figures and the number of women facing homelessness due to DV. I want to talk about why rapists need not fear court or jail in Scotland. I want to talk about the importance of single sex spaces, activities and services.

I’m not impinging on anyone else’s human rights by discussing these issues.

Surely the headline-writer on the Scotsman has misunderstood this story? Or am I totally misunderstanding what Susan Dalgety is saying?

She isn't calling for "feminists on both sides of the transgender debate to unite to revive Women's Liberation", because if you believe a man can become a woman at will, you cannot support women's sex-based rights.

You can't have unity if one side believes men are women and the other side doesn't.

@SuzanneRaspberry

We need to have compassionate discussions with one another in order to try and live peacefully together and not strip the other of human rights.

I recommend 'Becoming Eve' by Abby Stein, an autobiography about her life as an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman of trans experience and a Direct Descendant of Hasidic Judaism's founder for a fresh perspective and better understanding of what its like to be transgender.

We need to have compassionate discussions with one another in order to try and live peacefully together and not strip the other of human rights.

We have been saying this for years. You need to tell it to the "no debate" crowd, the people who want feminists expelled, the people who try to shut down women’s meetings.

Surely the headline-writer on the Scotsman has misunderstood this story?

I agree with you, the article just talks about women's rights.

Dalgety is very clear that
since 1970, when the UK’s first Women’s Liberation Conference was held in Oxford, second-wave feminists, as the movement is called, have argued that collective action is required if change is to happen. Solidarity is their by-word.
A third wave of feminists ...has grown up on social media, and their politics is much more about identity, where personal narratives trump collective stories. Many also argue that a person’s sex – male or female – is not fixed but can change over time and at will. They use gender instead of sex to describe this fluidity, and will argue that ... a trans woman is a woman.

She points out that
the conflict between [second-wave] sex-based feminism and a [third-wave] philosophy that insists biology is irrelevant has infected public policy in recent years.
And it seems to many that the very organisations that grew out of the second-wave feminist movement, such as Rape Crisis Scotland – who campaigned against Lamont's amendment -- no longer represent all women, but instead stand up for narrow vested interests.

So she is not calling for transgenderists to unite with feminists -- which wouldn't make sense, because their interests are directly opposed. If transwomen can use women's single-sex facilities, then women no longer have single-sex facilities.

It seems to me she is calling for old and young women to unite, to campaign for women's liberation.

Great article, and really encouraging to see the Scotsman publishing it, and even more that the amendment passed.

I followed the link to the article written by Rape Crisis Scotland. Quite a good article till it came to the part where they discussed the amendment. Then it was totally disingenuous - i.e., it’s not clear what Lamont is trying to achieve with this. Yes it is clear. It’s totally clear to whoever wrote that article and to everyone else. It’s about removing any ambiguity about the sex of the doctor you can request. And then lots about how this is a total distraction because the real problem is there aren’t enough of the right kind of female doctor. Yes, that is a bigger problem and really hard to solve, and we need to be working on it. But this is also a problem, even if there aren’t any transwomen working in these roles right now, and we can solve it instantly by changing one word. So it’s totally irrelevant that it’s not the only or the biggest problem.

@Biscuitsanddoombar

I’m not aware that feminists are trying to strip trans people of human rights. Trans people absolutely have, and must continue to have human rights. what they cannot have are women’s rights

I get frustrated with this idea that feminists are removing human rights from trans people. We are not, we are simply asserting that women’s rights do not belong to men no matter how they present or identify

Yes. Framing matters. Feminists have never ever been attempting to 'remove trans rights'. They have been trying to uphold (and strengthen really) womens existing sex based rights. Its always made out to be us trying to remove the rights of transpeople, thus putting us on the immediate back foot.

Framing GC feminists as "attacking trans rights" "denying trans people exist" and as "bigots" who are somehow allies to the far right, and of course as "transphobic", is all part of a massive projection to try to make people see these feminists as evil, because the trans agenda does not have a rational argument it can win any debate with. This is also at the root of the anger, threats, online abuse, cancelling and aggression. The "no debate".

It makes absolutely no sense - GC feminists are obviously not likely to be the same kind of people as the moral majority bigots who opposed gay rights, or those who hate trans people for prejudiced reasons. Old-school radical feminists include a large proportion of lesbians for a start. GC feminists do not routinely try to attack, silence or threaten trans people in the way that transactivists often do to them.

It is arguing for the protection of women's sex-based rights and young people's bodies, things based in material reality, that upsets trans ideologues because it is hard to argue against that scientific, empirical evidence. That's why they make up lies to try to cast GC people as in the same camp as someone who would have beat you up in the park in the 80s for being gay. Just evil, transphobic haterz. And it has worked to an extent to get all kinds of "allies" on board who think they are being good and righteous to stand up to the "transphobic" "bigots" (who are actually not).

I do however think the two sides have one very big thing in common - that they do not think your sex should decide how you behave and your "gender" choices. It's just that for GC feminists that doesn't erase the boundaries of sex or have to involve doing something to your body.

Ridiculously and circularly, to believe in a transgender identity, you have to believe that your gender does not match your sex, so they have to exist and be different things and sex has to matter. Yes a GC woman just has to say "sex matters" and she's a bigot.

I loved the sentiment of the article but the idea that suddenly trans activists would join with gender critical feminists and meekly start campaigning for women's sex based rights is pie in the sky!

If anything having lost in one instance they will be back on the attack with yet more accusation of making trans women vulnerable.

I would like to think it was just euphoria that made the author propose this, but in the cold light of day and previous behaviour, does anyone think queer activists and trans warriors are just going to hold up their hand and say, oh sorry we were wrong, of courses sex, not gender. Hardly!!!!!

And in case anybody didn't see it trans activists (called equality campaigbers by the news paper) have been given the right to intervene in the ForWomenScot court case. www.heraldscotland.com/news/18939324.equality-campaigners-give-evidence-landmark-gender-court-case/

I loved the sentiment of the article but the idea that suddenly trans activists would join with gender critical feminists and meekly start campaigning for women's sex based rights is pie in the sky!

Stumbledin I agree, that wouldn’t make sense. But it’s only in the headline. The article itself doesn’t mention trans and GC uniting — only second-wave and third- wave feminists. Because feminists (third wave) can still be liberals without believing men can become women.

How can you unite when you have completely opposite views? If it’s call for dialling down the worst aspects of people and the nastiest elements from some on the fringes (shorthand lets be civil in our debates) ok. But not sure what the united bit means!