Does anyone ever have a "are we the baddies"* moment?

[Menstrualcycledisplayteam]

• it's a Mitchell & Webb sketch, probably on Youtube.

I'm a bit disheartened this week, if I'm honest. I sometimes feel like this is a fight that we're just not going to win. Two main things recently, one personal, one geo-political I suppose.

On the geo-political level, I look across the Pond to the US, where the only people who are saying the same things as us are frigging Rand Paul and Marjorie Taylor Greene, neither of which are people that I associate my politics as being anywhere close to. There is just no bloody way that the Left, my home, will align with us now, given who our "allies" are in the States. They just can't, even those that agree with us will never position themselves as having the same concerns as Marjorie Q-Anon Parkland Taylor Bloody Greene.

The second is personal. I work for a large global organisation in a senior role. We had our Global Leadership "Away Day" a few weeks ago (on Teams, of course) and there was a presentation from some US colleagues on LGBTQ+, being able to bring your whole self to work, that kind of thing, from two gay colleagues, one lesbian one gay. So far, so good - absolutely the right thing for my organisation to be doing. Then they got onto pronouns and how everyone should start every meeting asking what pronouns attendees want to have used and encouraging everyone to put them in our email sign-offs. I'm never going to do that, but I can already see it happening around the organisation (particularly the US, but some of the easily led/want to be noticed over here will soon follow suit).

My husband won't listen to me talk about this sort of stuff anymore - he agrees with me, but says that it is basically like someone saying they "don't agree with all that Black Lives Matter stuff". My best friend works with young people and whilst I've tried to approach it with her very gently, including all of the stats about single sex spaces and how women and children's safety is negatively affected as a result, her reaction is that she gets all of that but she works with children every day who are tortured by their own bodies.

I know that our concerns are justified, I know that women's safety/opportunities are going to be negatively affected but - if I'm completely honest with myself - I just can't see how we're going to stop it. Julie Bindel has a tweet pinned to her feed which is basically that the misogyny at the moment is like a tidal wave and that's how it feels.

I'm not sure why I'm writing this really - certainly not to bring anyone down but there's no-one I can speak to about this in real life. How do you even go about discussing these things when, in my work at least, it would probably get me fired and everyone around me in my personal life has either bought into the nonsense hook line and sinker, or just doesn't want to hear it?

Or is it that most of those people CAN see the arguments but choose not to engage or think that arguments aren't necessary and it's OK to base their position on feelings instead

Combination I reckon. Some know exactly what they're doing. They just don't care. But they can't actually say that. So they adopt the faux innocent #bekind TR Are W position which covers up their real position. That they don't give a shit and they think women's spaces should be accessed by all who want to. A deliberately abusive position really.

Then there's some who actually think it's the kind thing to do. No thought or logic applied. Alongside those who know it's a risk, but compared to the feelings of this so called marginalized and vulnerable group, it's a risk worth taking for them. Even though they making decisions on behalf of women who are saying no. No doesn't matter to them on this occasion.

Either way, the expectation that women should just give up their safeguards and welcome the men in is absolutely astounding. Men know what themselves and other men are like, (no matter how they identify) they know their motivations behind it and (for those who do care about other people including women ) why it's really a bad idea. Any man whose honest enough will tell you that.

And the women that blindly go along with this are something else. Enabling this. Men know this. They encourage women to adopt the be kind position. But they know they're using those women to meet their own goals.

I have always had doubts that a majority of actual trans people support the madness of some of the activism and are worried that there is going to be a horrible backlash.

Yes. And it can be really hard to discuss that here. I got reported for being a tad blunt in recounting a trans friend's perspective - one which Buck Angel et al have now published, backed up with science!

Neither of my long term trans friends have stood up and been counted. They are scared. Oddly it isn't work colleagues they are bothered about. It's the LGBTQ community links they have.

As one said "Normal people just nod and get on with whatever. It's the [stereotypical term I won't repeat for fear of the ban hammer] that lay into you. And that's a lot of social spaces to lose".

That's LGBTQ safe spaces being made less safe that work, general life for acknowledging that you can't change sex!

@Mockolate

I would like to know what the basis would be for an exemption for transwomen to use single-sex spaces but that would still exclude all other categories of males?

Let's take another couple of categories of people that you can only be part of if you are male: Catholic priests and royal princes.

One could argue that it is more logical to allow Catholic priests as a group to use single-sex spaces reserved for females because we know that as a group priests have made vows against sinning (which would include hurting other people) and are celibate. Transwomen reflect the whole spectrum of society and belief and behaviour so each transwoman is an unknown entity and we cannot guess what their individual moral code is. If I saw a Catholic priest enter the female changing room at my gym (recognisable by his collar), I would immediately be reassured that he was no threat to me or any children that may find themselves alone with him because, as I have said above, we know what moral codes Catholic priests are governed by. There would have to be a rule though that they wear their collar so that we know they are a priest.

Royal princes have a paternalistic duty towards their subjects and have our best interests at heart. Again, I have something to measure the likelihood of threat against. In this country, Princes William, Harry, Edward and Andrew should be allowed enter any space reserved for females because we know that based on their duty to their subjects, they would not do them any harm. We could stipulate they wear a crown when entering those spaces to signal they are princes and therefore no threat.

Unless you believe that all Catholic priests and princes are predators (which would be prejudiced), what is the argument for excluding them from single-sex spaces but allowing another category of males to enter them?

But we don't allow them, not because we believe that all Catholic priests are predators, or that all princes have an (allegedly) unhealthy interested in young women, but because it is well-evidenced (in the case of priests) that some members of their special category ARE a threat to women and children and we have reason to believe that not all princes have the best interests of young women at heart. And we know that SOME members of the transwomen category are a threat to women and children because the court cases and convictions are there to prove it.

We cannot police males based on how they present. We would only have the word of the person wearing a collar or crown that they are a priest or prince. If the exemption for Catholic priests was in place, any male could buy a black shirt and a white collar and say they were a priest. Likewise, the fact that a transwoman presents in feminine way is as meaningless a way to measure potential threat as whether or not a person is wearing a priest's collar or a crown. So, as I have demonstrated, it is impossible to police males on an individual or category basis based on assumptions about how they present and therefore we must exclude males as a class.

You will probably argue that there IS a reason that transwomen need to be allowed to use spaces reserved for females - they are more vulnerable than other males and are also at risk of male violence. I don't disagree that in some cases this is true. That does not nullify the fact that some transwomen are a threat to females. So, in the absence of any efforts by males to tackle male violence or to expand what it means to be a 'man' by presenting in a feminine way but not claiming to be a woman and thereby normalising non-conforming males in male spaces, the only answer to make transwomen feel safe and for females to feel safe, is to have third spaces for transwomen.

So if safety is the only justification (and it is a valid concern) that a gender identity theorist can put forward for allowing transwomen access to female spaces, then third spaces addresses that concern. If they argue against third spaces which offer a safe solution for both transwomen and female people, then they must provide another argument to justify why transwomen should have the right to access single-sex spaces. I have not seen any other argument that holds up. When safe alternatives are possible, demanding that transwomen access single-sex spaces and services that serve female people, comes across as that to gain that access is only about validating transwomen.

Validating transwomen who constitute a very small percentage of males, at the expense of the safety, privacy and dignity that females (51% of the world's population) require from single-sex spaces is not an acceptable reason or even a logical argument for allowing them access when we can provide an alternative.

I have no issue sharing single-sex spaces with transmen because they are female, so my position is not anti-trans. I hope I have demonstrated that despite your previous comment, it is clear I am not saying all males are a threat to females. I think I've made clear that I am not saying all transwomen are a threat.

There are many things that boggle my mind in the debates around all of this and one of them is how we are expected to immediately conclude that the solution to protecting transwomen from other males is to insist females accommodate them. I never see the male allies who call women like me transphobic and a bigot demonstrates what efforts they are making to tackle male violence and to make male spaces inclusive of transwomen. Where are the campaigns where males condemn male violence against transwomen? Where are the allies who pledge to call out abusive behaviour targeting transwomen in male spaces?

I am pretty sure that without looking up any figures, that in cases where transwomen have been violently assaulted or murdered, the perpatrator is highly likely to be a man. Yet, the poster child for trans hate is the middle-aged woman. Women, their only weapon words, are condemned for causing 'literal violence'. Men actually cause the 'literal violence' against transwomen, yet escape the kind of abuse and name-calling that women receive online and in real life. Not only is it men that cause the physical harm that transwomen are victims of, men are there fuelling the hate online, delighted that they can pour forth all their misogyny and hatred for women under the guise of being an 'ally'.

Surely on a women-centred forum, we should not be debating if we are the baddies. It is demonstrably true that for transwomen, other MALES are the baddies, the actual physical threat, and trans rights activists should be demanding that males as a class do something about their violence rather than demanding that females give up their sex-based rights.

Where I'm at is that not all of those who call the GC position transphobic are stupid or bad but on the other hand the GC arguments are just overwhelmingly better made. So what I can't quite get to is whether this is a deliberate evasion or some sort or self-mystification because how else could a person of reasonable intelligence convince themselves that it's OK, for example, to house male rapists in female prisons?

I know. I find the whole phenomenon utterly bizarre.

I know we are not "the baddies". We are the voice of sanity in this mad world at the moment. More and more people are becoming aware of the issue.

You've just said they all should be banned just in case but they're not all a physical threat.
So not sure which is it then?

Because, dear Mockolate, we keep males out of female spaces, partly, but not entirely on safety grounds. Not because individual males are necessarily a threat themselves, but because they don't wear handy labels telling us they are harmless, and the ones who aren't don't wear handy labels telling us they are a threat. And even if they did, it wouldn't be a good idea to trust those labels.

@justaftb brilliant, brilliant post

Where I'm at is that not all of those who call the GC position transphobic are stupid or bad but on the other hand the GC arguments are just overwhelmingly better made. So what I can't quite get to is whether this is a deliberate evasion or some sort or self-mystification because how else could a person of reasonable intelligence convince themselves that it's OK, for example, to house male rapists in female prisons?

I think it can partly explained by the fact that they are so afraid that if they really believe that TWAW, they cannot bring themselves to see that a male rapist who identifies as a woman should not be in a female prison because to admit such would be an admission of transphobia.

If your starting point is 'TWAW, end of', which I hear many say, then you can not roll back on that and say that maybe there are some cases where a TWAW should not be treated as a female person. They have effectively painted themselves into a corner by holding an original position that does not stand up to scrutiny because they cannot define what a woman is and therefore what makes TWAW. There is nothing scientific, reasoned, or logical about the very foundation of their belief. They must either admit that we are right when we say that TWA not W, or cling to that position regardless resulting in defending scenarios like the example of male rapists in female prisons. The instinct to not lose face is more powerful than capitulating to logic.

justaftb

Great post. I look forward to mockolate’s answer to the question of what special exemptions and on what basis they are applied. They have been on these boards for a long time and have seen that particular topic debated intensely before. So, it’d be great to finally have an answer.

Wait, is mockolate a frequent flyer here - most recently began with Q?
In which case they have been told multiple times that no-one is saying it's "being trans is automatically a threat" - trans status is not the risk factor, particularly as no-one can even define it!

To keep claiming this is basically lying.

There have been several posters on here over the years who don't understand safeguarding and simultaneously accuse people of patronising them when you try and explain the very basic underlying aspects of risk.
Yet still demonstrate they don't know about it and haven't learnt about it. Which is fair enough - lots of safeguarding principles are not necessarily intuitive. Which is why actively learning about it is required. Especially before you go online to tell other people who do know, how you think it should be done.

But therein in the problem.

They are absolutely sure GC BAAAAD Trans good. Without any intelligent, evidenced, factual basis.

It is insulting.

It is in the interest of some posters that we keep debating the same topics over and over. The deliberate misrepresenting of our position so that we have to come back and point out that is not what we said. The 'gotcha' questions that are not gotchas because our position is based in logic and reason so we can always deconstruct what they say and point out the obvious flaws. I am sure they delight in the fact that we spend our time explaining the same things over and over. They are not interested in being convinced. They hope that answering their disingenuous questions will keep us from more important activities.

But as multi-tasking is a one of those special 'womanly' skills, we manage to repeatedly show up their weak arguments at the same time as holding down jobs, doing the majority of domestic chores, looking after children and elderly relatives, running PTAs, being the backbone of communities, as well as fighting to protect women and children.

And every time one of them posts a disingenuous question or tries to lead us on a merry dance with circular questions or refuses to answer OUR questions, it opens the eyes of the women who were on the fence and came here to see for themselves what bile those terrible GC women that they've heard about are spewing, only to find that the GCs are the only ones making any sense at all.

justaftb excellent logical thinking and explanations, thank you

@Helleofabore

justaftb

Great post. I look forward to mockolate’s answer to the question of what special exemptions and on what basis they are applied. They have been on these boards for a long time and have seen that particular topic debated intensely before. So, it’d be great to finally have an answer.

I’m really excited to finally have it explained- today will be a wondrous day of edumacating!

Deliriumoftheendless

I think your analogy with royal princes and catholic priests works very well justaftb. Both groups are also a minority, and have sometimes suffered discrimination.

A difference would be that it is never suggested that either category can be defined subjectively. I would guess that few posters on this board would ever expect to successfully identify as a royal prince or a catholic priest, regardless of whether they wore a crown or a collar.

It is depressing and extremely concerning that certain posters either cannot understand or are wilfully ignoring basic safeguarding rules in favour of a certain group. Do they not read or hear the news? Do they not see what happens when certain groups are given a free pass? Do they not care about the damage inflicted when this happens, or is the ideology they hold more important to them?

If the last is the case then words fail me.

Thank you to those who said they liked my post. It drives me up the wall that in this debate, those that are pro gender identity politics think they do not have to 'show their workings'.

Two years ago, I was more or less neutral on this, leaning towards 'be kind'. But it was 'no debate' that turned me, or when some debate was consented to, the inability from their side to explain WHAT makes a TWAW a woman without resorting to stereotypes or feelings, or WHY we should suddenly accept that because of how they present, some males can access single-sex spaces created for female people.

I don't personally spend much time thinking about about changing rooms, toilets, etc. but the very idea that people will argue for males to be allowed access to women's refuges or prisons and ignore the vulnerability of the females who use the refuge or are incarcerated in the prison, is beyond bonkers. To justify that access because the male person 'feels' that they are a woman and that feeling trumps the feeling of fear that a female in those places have about being in proximity to a male body. To reject third spaces because by not accommodating someone in the facility that they 'feel' reflects their gender identity will make them feel invalidated trumps actual fear that females might experience.

(Sorry, I'm going on a bit but have a lot of thoughts!)

Regarding 'no debate' and lack of rigor in the arguments from proponents of gender identity politics, I believe that refusal to consider the issue from every side and weigh up the pros and cons as well as model all the possible outcomes results in poorly thought through decisions being made. A small example from my life to illustrate this. We have to go back to about 6 months before the pandemic as it concerns the building I worked in.

The building has 6 floors and houses a variety of business. The company I work for is the largest tenant and occupies 2 and a half floors. On each floor, when you come out of the lifts, there is a set of toilets on either side of the lift. The toilets to the left were designated for male use and those on the right for female use. Each toilet block contained about 6 cubicles with shared sinks, mirrors, etc. Very common set up. I assume the male toilets had urinals, but I never entered them, so am none the wiser. Anyone could use the toilets, they weren't for specific companies, but I guess people used the ones nearest to them on their floor as it just makes sense. As I work in a very male-dominated industry, the female toilets were never very busy and I would always recognize other users as they worked for my company.

After the refurbishment, all the toilet blocks on every floor except one were designated as gender neutral. I happen to work on the floor where the toilets remained male or female. There was no staff consultation on the change, no surveys to gauge attitudes. I expect (hope) that the owner did some sort of assessment, but once the new toilets were unveiled it was with the message that it makes for a more inclusive workplace. And I don't doubt it was done in the spirit of inclusiveness, but it is an instance of where the thinking seemed to stop once they started making their list of pros for the changes and the first pro they came up with was 'Inclusive' and then they stopped thinking.

In practice, here's what happened. As the toilet block on my floor was the only one still designated exclusively for women, suddenly it was busy and there were lots of women in there that I knew did not work on my floor. And these were not the purse-mouthed, spoilsport TERFs that you might expect. Our company is the most boring one in the building, the rest of the building is filled with media companies, the head office a trendy fashion brand aimed at young women, and various other 'cool' industries where the employees are young and woke and wear rainbow lanyards and who seem to delight in their bending of gender norms. While waiting for a cubicle to become free one day, one of these young women turned to me and said that the women in her office hate the gender-neutral toilets and they prefer to take the stairs a couple of floors to use the ones on my floor. They don't like the wee on the seats (was never an issue before the change), they don't like touching the sanitary bins because they can't be sure that they haven't been sprayed accidentally by pee, too. A female colleague of mine said she wasn't comfortable using the gender-neutral toilets because one particular male colleague always managed to coincidentally go to the loo at the same time. Nothing you could pin a harassment case on, but she felt uncomfortable and her only way to avoid that situation was to seek out the female toilets on my floor.

It seems that no one thought through or modeled possible outcomes of what that change would mean or if they did, they didn't care that effectively, males in the building had a choice of 11 toilet blocks they could use including one male-only toilet block, while women's options were much limited by the reasons the felt uncomfortable using the gender-neutral toilets. I also imagine that any transwomen who work in the building also felt disadvantaged because in order to be sure to not be in the toilet block with a male, they would have to come to the floor I work on and use the block there. (Transwomen were using the female toilets without issue before the change.)

No one I spoke to about it could offer what advantage the change made. Male colleagues weren't crazy about it either and on most floors, there seemed to be an unspoken agreement that males would continue to use the block previously known as male, and ditto for the females. But, you can't police everyone and some males were happy to use either or they were new and didn't know or were a visitor. Because obviously you couldn't say, 'I know the sign says gender neutral, but actually, on the lowdown the men use this one and the women the other', because there is the possibility if someone reporting you to HR for not being inclusive.

So, there seems to be a free pass from considering all outcomes and consequences once an idea is considered 'inclusive' according to gender identity politics. People who are incapable of thinking through outcomes or who refuse to recognise conflicts or engage in good faith to reach compromise, these people should not be allowed anywhere near decision making when it comes to public policy (I'm looking at you Stonewall).

We are not the baddies.
Sex is real. Pretending people can change sex instead of giving them proper mental health support to manage their dysphoria is unkind.
Breaking down gender roles is a good thing, e.g. men don't cry, can't wear make up, women can't drive tractors etc.
Single sex spaces are a good thing.
Most people I know agree with the above, in fact I can't think of anyone who doesn't, young or old. The only question I have been asked is why aren't womens groups fighting this. Which is pretty annoying!

Another excellent post justaftb.

The be kind inclusive brigade will never accept that their inclusivity results in excluding vast numbers of women who for whatever reason simply cannot use so-called gender neutral facilities, nor can they use single sex facilities that pretend to be single sex but in reality aren't because they allow transwomen in. If truth be told they don't fucking care about those women, they are only interested in the men and their wants and desires.

@RedDogsBeg

Another excellent post justaftb.

The be kind inclusive brigade will never accept that their inclusivity results in excluding vast numbers of women who for whatever reason simply cannot use so-called gender neutral facilities, nor can they use single sex facilities that pretend to be single sex but in reality aren't because they allow transwomen in. If truth be told they don't fucking care about those women, they are only interested in the men and their wants and desires.

In a nutshell.

This is argued with by first, that these women don't actually exist. And when posters point out the evidence that they do, and indeed some of the women talking here are some of those women... .

they're instructed that it's their fault that they are excluded, and that they need to abandon their faith/culture/get over their trauma/somehow get over their disability and its implications/ stop wanting privacy and dignity, and it's their fault if they lose access because they can't.

You'll notice the expectations differ hugely on a sex class basis.

You'll notice the expectations differ hugely on a sex class basis

It is always, always the prioritisation of the male wants over the needs of females.

Once you see it, it cannot be unseen.

Great post justaftb
A female colleague of mine said she wasn't comfortable using the gender-neutral toilets because one particular male colleague always managed to coincidentally go to the loo at the same time. Nothing you could pin a harassment case on, but she felt uncomfortable and her only way to avoid that situation was to seek out the female toilets on my floor.

This reminds me of one of my least-favourite arguments, that 'well if anything inappropriate happens (with males in female spaces) of course you just report it, so problem solved'.

The category of "nothing you can pin a case on" is huge and unsettling.
In any toilet (female or mixed sex) if you saw a large male person(s) following a teen girl to a toilet and lurking around, you would have no idea whether their inner gender identity was male or female and therefore whether this was potentially inappropriate or not. Certainly not something you could call the police on - or now even make any comment on, as they might be female.