Article by Sonia Sodha in the Observer today

[Ihaventgottimeforthis]

Just to say I really enjoyed reading this piece this morning, particularly this final para:
"Be wary of the white, straight men who call out lesbians and women of colour as bigots because they refuse to comply with the version of liberation they deem appropriate, and who pat themselves on the back for being an “ally” for doing so. Their naivety gives them the luxury of childishly dividing the world into goodies and baddies. The rest of us live with the consequences."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/14/race-gender-oppressed-can-be-oppressors-too-kemi-badenoch?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

@AlfonsoTheTerrible

I read the article but was not impressed. First, it conflated gender and sex. Second, Sodha claimed that many women believe "that there should be some exceptions to males being admitted to female-only spaces". Oh, yeah? Got evidence for that?

I wasn't impressed either. It seemed to me very much in the vein of Patel and Badenoch aren't the right sort of women of colour but the ghastly Naz Shah is.

It is of course racist and sexist to condemn
Neil O’Brienfor defending Badenoch. Straight, white men are entitled to defend their colleagues and shock, horror even straight, white men can be right too.

"that there should be some exceptions to males being admitted to female-only spaces".

I'm not entirely clear on what pp are arguing here?

If the default is 'males being admitted to female-only spaces' because of how they identify, many women DO think that there should be some exceptions to this 'default', i.e. that there are either some males, and/or some spaces, for whom/where male access isn't permitted.

For many women this would be all males and all single-sex spaces.

I read it as 'you might be ok with sharing toilets but some women think there should be exceptions such as female prisons, where males are not admitted.' It seemed a very particular way of phrasing it.

Did others read it as 'there should be some exceptions to males being prohibited from female-only spaces'?

Or maybe some read it as 'there should be some exceptions FOR males being admitted to female-only spaces'.

Or I might be on completely the wrong tangent.

Interesting interview with Laverne Cox. I see they discussed British feminism and trans rights. Did they discuss what Laverne thinks, these years later, of that decision to advocate for Synthia China Blast?

I remember a transwoman blogger who was absolutely horrified by Cox's actions at the time. Did it not occur to Cox that sometimes people sentenced to life in prison aren't there for stealing a loaf of bread? Details of what Blast is in prison for, here. Warning, it is horrific reading: www.womenarehuman.com/vicious-child-rapist-murderer-demands-sex-change-freedom-synthia-china-blast/

[ quote]Did others read it as 'there should be some exceptions to males being prohibited from female-only spaces'?[/ quote]

Sodha is quite clear: Bailey is a black, working-class lesbian and a survivor of child sex abuse who believes, as many women do, that there should be some exceptions to males being admitted to female-only spaces. In other words, in some cases, men should be admitted to female only spaces.

No, there are no exceptions for men being admitted to female only spaces. Female only spaces are for women, ie adult human females.

I think that line has been badly subedited, so trying to analyse what it means is fruitless.

If there were no exceptions to the policy "men should be admitted to female spaces" then all men would be admitted to female spaces.

@DeaconBoo

Or maybe some read it as 'there should be some exceptions FOR males being admitted to female-only spaces'.

Or I might be on completely the wrong tangent.

Oh it looks like this is alfonso's interpretation - "for" instead of "to".

No, there are no exceptions for men being admitted to female only spaces.

I naively wondered if such a thorough profile would mention that sorry episode, Potholes. Cox's critical thinking couldn't be said to be up to snuff. Still, she smiles a lot. With her teeth.

I read it that the spaces were the exceptions - that there are some spaces to which males should never be admitted. I can see how the sentence could be read differently though.

In novels, making a big deal of people smiling with their teeth is often a literary device to signal threatening, predatory behaviour. Is Eva doing that here? Or is it just the sign of a writer scrabbling to reach the specified word count before the deadline?

Oh it looks like this is alfonso's interpretation - "for" instead of "to".

No, there are no exceptions for men being admitted to female only spaces.

Yes. Thank you. That is precisely what I mean. Men should never be allowed in to female-only spaces.

I read it as the tongue in cheek opposite by the author, eg default being "males are entitled to women's spaces"
Many women believe there should be exceptions to this default.

Either way it's a good read overall.

Where's the evidence for your assertion?

"Male" is a biological class that cannot be changed through surgery, hormone treatment, psychotherapy or wishful thinking.

Apologies @AlphonsoTheTerrible, I think we are in agreement - Men should never be admitted to female only spaces.
But, I suspect we've interpreted part of the article differently. I read it as stating some women think there should be exceptions to single sex spaces, and I know there are women that believe this, although it's not my personal belief.

What a shame about that Laverne Cox interview. When I read that the recent court judgement ending medical experimentation on children “[put] the UK at odds with international trans healthcare guidelines”, I thought how did this bilge get into the Observer? It usually has a high standard of journalism. I looked up the writer, Eva Wiseman, and found she was a commissioning editor on the Observer. How handy!