GC and the extreme right etc etc

[lionheart]

In case you were wondering ...

transsafety.network/posts/gcs-and-the-right/

'In an unfortunate development, in the last few months we have seen a rapid increase in the rate at which practical crossovers are happening between so-called "Gender Critical" feminist groups (which seek to abolish transition healthcare and trans civil rights) and the traditional far right.'

Are we supposed to be shamed by been told we're far right etc?

If women posting about this actually were far right / funded by right wing religious orgs / homophobes etc then why would we be shamed into shutting up by the accusation?

The fact that calling us those things is seen as a tactic to make us rethink etc surely indicates that those saying it know full well that we're not any of those things.

I say we here. I speak from my own POV but from what I've read I'd say most especially longer term posters are solid lefties of the the old school.

Letting flares/smoke bombs off outside Greenfell: jj says they weren't smoke bombs, just flares and everyone should expect them at a demonstration, bit insensitive to do by Grenfell, but hey ho What was being demonstrated against, oh yes women meeting to discuss proposed changes to legislation which would affect their rights.

I did say this, I think it's an important distinction because smoke bombs are basically a weapon intended to temporarily stop someone being able to see whereas a protest flare is just a bright light that gives off some coloured smoke. That people insist on calaming they were smokebombs despite knowing that's not what they were really reveals that GC accounts of some of these incdents cannot be fully trusted to be impartial.

Funnily enough Grenfell residents described them as smoke bombs and smoke grenades not flares with pretty coloured smoke, they were the witnesses on the ground and when they complained to the protesters they were told by the protestors that we don't give a fuck. Split hairs on smoke bombs, grenades, flares all you like jj, I'll take the word of someone who was there and affected by it.

Antifa members and TRA's threaten, abuse, throw eggs, assault women, including women survivors of trafficking, highlighting the plight of women trafficked into prostitution and pornography: jj says: I can't see an antifa flag there, or any men completely at odds with the women who were actually there said and filmed for posterity.

This was not an antifa or trans rights protest but a protest by feminists opposed to criminalisation of sex work. So yes I did criticise people claiming they were antifa and also said I'd like to hear both sides of the story - I don't think that's unreasonable.

Carrying Antifa and Trans Rights flags definitely not Antifa or Trans Rights Activists, spraying Save 1 Trans Person, Kill 1 TERF on the monument the trafficking survivors were standing on is of course nothing to do with TRAs.

Both sides of the story in jj speak means find some way to blame the women on the receiving end of the abuse and violence and absolve those dishing it out.

I've seen you comment on both the Maria Machlaclan incident and the meetings held by FPFW and other organisations for women, you are always dismissive, paint the groups and attendees as alt-right or some other such nonsense and as such deserving of the treatment they receive from TRAs and their ilk.

Can you give me an example of a far left MRA website

I'd say that 'Sisters Uncut' - who turned the recent vigil for a young British woman who had be murdered, into a violent demonstration against the police, are one example of an extremist leftist organisation that prioritises the rights of males over the rights of women.

They purport to be a leftist organisation, against austerity and cuts, but actually, in practice, they campaign, for example, for the rights of imprisoned males who have committed acts of sexual violence and abuse against women and children. Members have also been responsible, and prosecuted, for the physical assault of a sixty year old woman.

There is whole thread on this forum which is devoted to the discussion of their modus operandi, as a result of their take-over of a largely female vigil.

Oh yes I read the that.

So is it considered as the first known trans person in the UK?

Gotta say I am really uncomfy with applying modern labels to long dead people.

@Scepticaltank

Why did Caster Semeya feature so prominently in this thread. It makes no sense. And Julie Birchill seems to be bad woman flavour of the month. Who cares? What a crazy thread.

I simply picked up on an incorrect statement by a pp.

Is Jessica Watkins a trans rights activist or just a trans person? Was the assault on the capitol done in the name of trans rights? Hardly. This is like someone trying to smear gender critical feminists with Rose West. I'm sure you'd think that would be misogyny, so why isn't it transphobia when you do the same to trans people?

Did anyone say she was a TRA?
Or did we just say she was a transwoman?
I try and be very very careful with what I say and how I say it, as do the majority of posters here
I wish others would extend the same courtesy and not twist things

They purport to be a leftist organisation, against austerity and cuts, but actually, in practice, they campaign, for example, for the rights of imprisoned males who have committed acts of sexual violence and abuse against women and children. Members have also been responsible, and prosecuted, for the physical assault of a sixty year old woman

You skated right over that in your support for Sisters Uncut didn't you jj?

Men's Rights on the left are a stealth operation, in the guise of a human rights movement. Women are expected to put up and shut up, or else to be kind. Failure to comply leads to abuse or shaming.

@NiceGerbil

Oh yes I read the that.

So is it considered as the first known trans person in the UK?

Gotta say I am really uncomfy with applying modern labels to long dead people.

Chevalier d'Eon possibly had a DSD.

The Trans Rights Movement: appropriating 'intersex' since 1966!

@AtTheDickensDesk

My apologies for the delay, my battery was about to run out, I'd just had another personal attack for daring to stand up for trans people's rights and I had other responsibilities so I went and did other things.

1. It turns out the numberpad on my computer isn't working very well; the 1971 toff was Captain Arthur Cameron Corbett, 3rd Baron Rowallan who was a total cad to his wife.

1. In terms of a simple explanation of complex human rights law, I'm certainly not putting myself forward as an expert. I linked, earlier, to this summary which I found really useful and interesting:

www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Gender_identity_eng.pdf

1. Such as I can explain, I will; firstly by reference to two other examples which have come up in this thread to clarify the ideas before everyone starts shouting about trans women being men:

a. Your human right to a private and family life isn't that we all get the right to marry the person of our dreams and shack up come what may. It's more subtle than that:

The state is not allowed to prevent you from marrying the person of your dreams if they want to marry you too and the only thing in the way is a unreasonable duty from the state.

Equal marriage is the obvious current example: LGBTQ+ people were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex but not someone of the same sex. Why? Bluntly because the UK has had some of the most homophobic laws across history and it'd been decided that being Gay itself was unlawful in living memory.

The right to equal marriage is actually a protection from the government imposing a rule on people that prevents them from living their own lives and having a family.

b. Similarly, the repeal the 8th movement in the Republic of Ireland was predicated not on forcing people to have abortions (clearly wrong) or denying people the right to an abortion (equally clearly wrong) it was the removal of a government restriction of people's private lives which could not be justified by the outcomes.

Again; human rights being a shield to stop the government making abortion a crime with all the attendant horrors that resulted.

c. The argument for trans rights and the GRA is similar: why should people not be allowed to change their legal gender? If there is a difference in their presented Gender and their documentation, they will subject to discrimination (and have been, I found a massive list of examples citing everything I could think of and several more but don't have it to hand).

Trans people were also prevented from various other things like being buried as their gender (which seems frankly cruel), getting married as their true selves (which again, harms absolutely no one and restricting it seems totally bigoted and just nasty) and faced constant barrages of discrimination because they had to give people massively private information in order to get a job and were often fired or not hired as a result.

The case histories are actually pretty sad. Those trans people didn't get some mythical advantage by being openly trans and the government and others were restricting them from living their lives in peace (remember the protection from not the protection to...).

That came to a head, for the UK in the Goodwin case in relation the late 1990s and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act where an international court found that there was no justification for the refusal to accept people as who they were save for a very limited (and as far as I understand totally misconceived medically) process for certain people with intersex conditions.

I actually met some of the people who this impacted, years ago. They'd spent years having to sort out a right b*llsup at the time of registration and carried their birth certificate round with them like a touchstone (except worn so thin it was almost see though).

That got replaced with the bureaucratic process we have now. I've heard it described as "something you get when you need it" and it still seems odd to me personally that it's so long-winded given that it doesn't give trans people superpowers and legally can't impact on cis people except in a tiny number of circumstances.

Remember, the right to update records of birth and marriage is totally separate from the Equality Act and access to spaces. There was no 'good' reason for the restrictions; the government fought the case all the way and lost. Basically claiming that other cases from the 1990s impacting the same questions 'didn't count' because, well, UK government.

The case then was about the direct impacts - the pension provision, getting married and workplace discrimination (which was unlawful but still rife: anyone claiming otherwise can go and argue that "Mummy Tracking" is ok somewhere else and come back when they've learned better) - but it was also a question to the government: was there a valid reason not to respect trans people? The answer, obviously, was no. The rules and law (created by accident in a case about a toff wanting to get away without paying for a divorce) were an unjustifiable breach of human rights.

In some way it mirrors some of the GC debates

• "it's a bit confusing on paperwork"
• "I don't want to have to learn a new name and title"
• "this (insanely convoluted and difficult process) will be abused"
• "what about titles and insurance"
• "safety (except that had be governed by separate law and it was already protected and working far earlier than this)"

All of those arguments seem to have been tried and the highest applicable Human Rights Court said: 'trans rights are human rights', that the restrictions were unlawful, that the Government's excuses were pitiful (which, as far as I can see they were) and that trans people's article 8 rights required that they be allowed to change their sex / gender (the laws are old and there seems to be no consistency in the use of the terms at all.)

All the GC claims seem to be that as some of the presenting discrimination has changed over time, that the fundamental reasoning that the government was breaking human rights law in relation to trans people goes away but that's not how Human Rights Law works; it's a right you can expect of your government and it's the government's job to prevent discrimination against people in minorities because they don't do a lot of good otherwise.

As I said: history cited, some of the typos cleared up (and some new ones, I'm sure) and an inexpert explanation of something mindblowingly complicated in part because things 'felt off' and I wanted to understand it for myself.

@NiceGerbil

To JJ and bigotryisbad and any others who have joined to explain why GC people (women) are wrong etc.

I'd be interested to know what other sites you take your arguments to.

I've heard that there is transpobic stuff on other sites, ones mainly used by men. Do you take your arguments there? What sort of reception do you get?

The other question I'm interested in is why.

There are lots of groups that I feel have views that are awful and damaging. However I don't find where they hang out on the internet and go and argue with them. What would be the point? There are better ways to effect change than arguing with eg incels or BNP types etc. I mean I'm happy to hear about them on the news or see them put their views on a politics show in a debate. But no way am I going to join their sites and post.

So why do you come here? I'm interested.

I often wonder this too.

I think it's just a fundamental dislike of women talking and a desire to misrepresent their opinions. No-one - absolutely no-one - on here makes death threats to trans people, no-one wishes them harm, or a removal of their universal, human rights. Our language is carefully, and I would argue, rightly, policed to ensure the discussion remains civil and productive. We are civil towards people we disagree with.

Twitter, 4chan, kiwi farms, you can say actually transphobic things and it stands.

But no, the real problem is that silly handful of mums, who presumably are responsible for the many, many murders of trans people here in the UK. No, wait, there were no trans people murdered in the UK last year. Not even one.

But we have to believe they're the most vulnerable, at harm in a 'brutally transphobic' nation. Conversely so many women were murdered it took an MP four minutes to read out all their names. Heaven forbid all the murdered women require a discussion about their rights and the danger that males - all males - represent to them.

And what do we have instead? Sisters Uncut mourning the suicide of a paedophile rapist who identified as women. And a bunch of posters who LIE about things like puberty blockers being reversed, and present ridiculous arguments that don't stand up to careful scrutiny, and downplay the verbal and physical violence of TRAs.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

And no, the fact that the current law setting out the current test is 11 years old does not mean that the rights are only 11 years old.

You're ignoring my substantive point, that the definition of "trans" and by extension the question of who accesses female spaces where women expect privacy and dignity away from the opposite sex, has changed.

The Equality Act guidance from the time that I found just said that it collected previous rights together in one act and didn't create any new ones.

They just got put in one place, not in the whole list of the preceding acts / cases / stuff, there's a bit about it in the act that I saw when I read it that 'saved' a load of previous case law as it was all the same.

I still think a test that's been working for 11 years is still pretty battle tested at this point.

So why did Caster Semenya feature so heavily in this thread?

@NiceGerbil
@adviceseekingnamechanger

I don't understand; are you trying to say that Mumsnet is just for transphobic views and that other viewpoints are unwelcome? Mumsnet have stated, publicly, that they'd "welcome debate" and invited people with more sympathetic attitudes to trans people.

I haven't, particularly felt that debate has been "welcomed", because, bluntly, there's been a lot of personal attacks in this thread and claims which have precisely nothing to do with anything I have said.

However, I think you may well be right: there is no point posting things that are in favour of trans rights on a forum this hostile.

What I would usually do is simply report the most outrageous offenders and try and provide support for those being directly victimised.

Where there's no realistic recourse (for purely hate sites like kiwi farms) I report them for spamming and hate where it seems like there might actually be some accountability.

I'll go back to doing that.

Thanks for the warning about not wanting 'my sort 'round here' though; you couldn't have made yourselves any plainer.

However, I think you may well be right: there is no point posting things that are in favour of trans rights on a forum this hostile.

You've never answered the question as to what rights trans people don't have, despite being asked several times.

You mentions human rights in relation to trans people but dismiss human rights for women.

You dismiss any impact on women's rights or their lives by enforcing the removal of their rights to single sex services and spaces and reducing them in language to their body parts or bodily functions.

[quote bigotryisbad]@NiceGerbil
@adviceseekingnamechanger

I don't understand; are you trying to say that Mumsnet is just for transphobic views and that other viewpoints are unwelcome? Mumsnet have stated, publicly, that they'd "welcome debate" and invited people with more sympathetic attitudes to trans people.

I haven't, particularly felt that debate has been "welcomed", because, bluntly, there's been a lot of personal attacks in this thread and claims which have precisely nothing to do with anything I have said.

However, I think you may well be right: there is no point posting things that are in favour of trans rights on a forum this hostile.

What I would usually do is simply report the most outrageous offenders and try and provide support for those being directly victimised.

Where there's no realistic recourse (for purely hate sites like kiwi farms) I report them for spamming and hate where it seems like there might actually be some accountability.

I'll go back to doing that.

Thanks for the warning about not wanting 'my sort 'round here' though; you couldn't have made yourselves any plainer.[/quote]
No, you've deliberately misrepresented what I've quite clearly said.

I said quite clearly our discussion is rightly policed and posters are civil to people they disagree with, and I include you in this, I think you are generally civil as you post your points of view. You perceive the site as hostile, what I think you're seeing is people challenging you. No-one is calling you names or anything I would take as hostile. I may be wrong, I haven't read every word closely and may have missed any death/rape threats or posters telling you to go away.

I don't believe I've in any way suggested you shouldn't say what you say. You have a right to speak. As do any of us. And I do welcome your opinions.

But look at what you've done here: wondering why you're on here and not actually transphobic sites (and you've answered, and I'm glad you call out hate on there) but you've taken that to mean something I wasn't implying, and ignored all the rest, to suit your opinion.

Which is your right to do. But it doesn't make you very convincing.

For absolute clarity: please, continue making your points. I read them in good faith and it helps to clarify and check my own opinions.

*In some way it mirrors some of the GC debates

• "it's a bit confusing on paperwork"
• "I don't want to have to learn a new name and title"
• "this (insanely convoluted and difficult process) will be abused"
• "what about titles and insurance"
• "safety (except that had be governed by separate law and it was already protected and working far earlier than this)"*

Well, if you think any of those are GC arguments, then it's unsurprising that you are struggling to effectively engage, Bigot. You might want to read a bit more on this forum, & scold a little less, & then you might bring credible arguments which could be sensibly engaged with.

@jj1968
I did say this, I think it's an important distinction because smoke bombs are basically a weapon intended to temporarily stop someone being able to see whereas a protest flare is just a bright light that gives off some coloured smoke.

Nope

Are you conflating a smoke bomb with a smoke grenade?

Smoke grenades are weapons
Smoke bombs are fireworks

Signaling flares release copious amounts of smoke and light
Depending on the class of flare, they can release considerablt more than "smoke bombs"

And if you don't believe me look it up

That's a huge and very peculiar reaction to my post.

I just don't get what you hope to achieve? It's a genuine question?

Do you hope to change minds?
Is it for the lurkers?

I have absolutely not told you to sod off. And I note your use of the word transpobic.

Given that is how you feel it would be like me joining an incel site or an anti abortion site and trying to argue with them. I wouldn't ever do that for a variety of reasons.

Obviously you are here and you have said repeatedly that this section is transpobic.

I'm more than happy to talk, I enjoy hearing other people's perspectives. I just don't understand what's in it for you.

I still think a test that's been working for 11 years is still pretty battle tested at this point.

What you're ignoring, is that the definition has widened massively in the last few years of the "trans rights" agenda to include a whole host of male people who wouldn't now be described as "transssexuals". I find that either naive or disingenuous.

This sqiibbling about smoke.

Doesn't matter.

Using anything that produces smoke whatever colour, at the time and place, was a shitty thing to do.

but also @jj1968 I'm induluging in a little sophistry in that flare/bomb thing but it is true and I did it, because you ignored the actual point:

Was it appropriate to use a smoke generating device by Grenfell Towers?

@NiceGerbil
Of course women can and do commit awful crimes but nowhere near the same rate as men. Sex offences, family annihilation, and violent crime are massively predominantly male perpetrators.

And when you remove women who were coerced by male partners from the female serious crimes the numbers are vanishingly small

'Equal marriage is the obvious current example: LGBTQ+ people were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex but not someone of the same sex. Why? Bluntly because the UK has had some of the most homophobic laws across history and it'd been decided that being Gay itself was unlawful in living memory.'

I think if you think UK law has been much harsher on gay people around the world and through history you might want to do a bit more to reading.

Many religions have not been very keen with results that affect a huge amount of people.

Homosexuality is still illegal around the place. How is it worse in the UK?

I would also point out that the history of women's rights around the world and through history is pretty grim.

In the UK it was only made illegal to rape your wife in the early 90s. That's not great is it. And yet our laws are pretty strong around women (in theory). Which shows how bad it is in many other places.

@bigotryisbad Thank you - and no worries, definitely better to step away for a little while on occasion. Glad you came back though. And I appreciate the long reply!

Reading your post, as I understand it you're making the case for the GRA as a mechanism to protect trans people from discrimination on the basis of being trans - that it allowed them to do something exceptional (i.e. change official records) because if they couldn't the attendant risk of harm outweighed the detrimental effects of doing so. That makes sense. But I'm under the impression a) that they are already legally protected, in principle at least, from discrimination on the basis of either gender reassignment, and b) that sex cannot generally be used to discriminate unless there are very good reasons to do so, in which case the GRC would be irrelevant anyway. Are you saying that because transphobia is so virulent, trans people should be allowed this exceptional power to change records, as not doing so exposes them to a societal tendency to infringe their human rights (even though it's illegal under other laws)? And if so, should people concerned about eg ageism be allowed to change their records, and if not why not? Changing your birth certificate in itself is not a universal human right, and setting up a mechanism to enact a "legal fiction" when all human rights are covered by other legislation anyway is problematic to say the least - if one law doesn't work...

Or, if I'm misinterpreting your argument and there really are things that trans people would not be able to do if the GRA were repealed, what are they?