Hypothetical question - Trans activists and the culture of abuse towards women.

[HamsterV2]

After the horrorshow that was the multiple hijacked Lesbian Visibility threads, my mind keeps going back to something @Helleofabore asked. Essentially a simple question - "What are trans activists doing to change the abusive culture towards women?" Sadly, in a nutshell, my answer was "nothing".

Hypothetically, if there was an organisation of trans people who wanted to stand with women against the current ideology - perhaps a campaign group based in biological reality who fought for third spaces, trans dv services, the cessation of misogyny and the co-ercive and bullying nature towards lesbians etc etc (we all know the issues) - what would you like to see as immediate priorities?

Essentially what would you, as women, like to see tackled head on BY such an organisation as part of its core aims or framework?

Apologies for this being potentially seen as a "women doing men's work task" - but I've had something scratching at the back of my brain since "those threads". Call it hypothetical fact-finding..

In light of recent threads of late where TRAs/allies have been deliberately goady, I've attached my response to Helleofabore during one of those threads so you can see my original viewpoint.

Tbh I'm actually quite scared of the potential replies because I know how bad things are, but I would quite like to get a good-faith discussion going on this.

I will dispute your "influence in all the powerful places" claim though. Who do we have to match Liz Truss or Baroness Nicholson?

2018 Baroness Nicholson hosted an event for women's group WPUK opposing self-id. Prior to this only David Davies MP and Lord Mooney were prepared to host women with this position. Davies (Conservative) was reported to the standards committee and a member of the cabinet threatened to report him to the police if he did so again. Lord Mooney was subect to disciplinary measures by Labour and so resigned the whip.

Kathleen Stock's speech from that event provides analysis of serious failures of Maria Miller MP's (Conservative) select committee report from the Transgender Equality inquiry, which came out in January 2016 and should be read:

medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

“I am a woman”

“I wish other women also had the stones to question...”

Eh, I don’t have any stones

It is a great shame that the conclusion of feminist academic Dr Em's article has been reported and deleted given its focus on The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and how, "international political policy and national political policy, built on years of research, underscores how harmful gender stereotyping is to women and women’s rights"

Uncommonground Media
Dr EM
'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part II: Robert Stoller, True Trans'
concludes:
"The belief that women have full humanity does not have to be defended by any kind of shallow show, our ideas and evidence stand on their own. With no reasonable scientific basis transsexualism/transgenderism remains at the status of an ideology, and an ideology which is antithetical to feminism."

uncommongroundmedia.com/robert-stoller-true-trans/

previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3900484-Dr-Em-article-Sexist-History-at-the-Heart-of-the-Science-on-Transsexualism-Part-II-Robert-Stoller-True-Trans-an-ideology-which-is-antithetical-to-feminism

See also
Part 1:
Uncommonground Media by Dr Em
1/5/2020

'Sexist History at the Heart of the ‘Science’ on Transsexualism, Part I: Benjamin, Ihlenfeld, Money & Ehrhardt'
"Dr Em explores how the founding fathers of ‘scientific’ research on transgenderism/transsexualism were motivated by sexist beliefs."
uncommongroundmedia.com/sexist-science-transsexualism-part-i-benjamin-ihlenfeld-money-ehrhardt/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3896788-Important-series-of-articles-by-Dr-Em-Sexist-History-at-the-Heart-of-the-Science-on-Transsexualism-Part-I-Benjamin-Ihlenfeld-Money-Ehrhardt

I wouldn't do anything to dismiss or belittle your awful trauma, but-

"But". Exactly. As per usual, a woman's horrific experiences is shoved to the side for the sake of another groups feelings.

Patronising and belittling women when they express their concerns or ask reasonable questions

So, normal behaviour most of us grow up with and are subjected to by men. Sick of it.

Always an interesting exercise to see how much of what i write is taken and responded to in good faith, and how much energy goes into finding the worst possible takes on the most minor points.

Over the years I've been on this site, it's been pretty consistent.

I just wanted to hop in and say, Hamster, that I really appreciate the intent behind this thread.

It seems to have been derailed but the original intent was most interesting.

@WoolOfBat

“I am a woman”

“I wish other women also had the stones to question...”

Eh, I don’t have any stones

Am I supposed to wait until I get gall stones, or kidney stones ? Is that the thing?

These two statements, made in the same thread seem rather contradictory. The word family clearly has some caveats.

Indeed.

Always an interesting exercise to see how much of what i write is taken and responded to in good faith, and how much energy goes into finding the worst possible takes on the most minor points.

Like that time when you accused me of calling you "it" because you didn't read the post properly, and then when your mistake was pointed out to you by multiple posters you didn't apologise for smearing me?

Am I supposed to wait until I get gall stones, or kidney stones ? Is that the thing?

I'm quite content to never have any stones. They are apparently very painful.

I also appreciate your good faith post, Hamster.

I appreciate anyone who can discuss in a civil way, despite differences in experience, situation or viewpoint.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Am I supposed to wait until I get gall stones, or kidney stones ? Is that the thing?

I'm quite content to never have any stones. They are apparently very painful.

I did have gallstones but had them removed along with my gallbladder. And yes they were extremely painful!

Always an interesting exercise to see how much of what i write is taken and responded to in good faith, and how much energy goes into finding the worst possible takes on the most minor points.

Maybe if you posted in good faith, you'd get responses in good faith.

I have a small doubt about your original premise, Hamster. I would appreciate support against misogyny and abuse from any trans person, even those who are not gender critical and believe they are not the sex they were 'assigned at birth'. I don't think believing yourself to be a different kind of person because of your trans identity should get in the way of decent behaviour. If a transman wants to fight the appalling abuse and aggression women face, while believing themselves to be a man, I wouldn't want to exclude them from a trans organisation.

I understand your differentiation, I'm not sure it's necessary. Do you think it could work to ally all trans people who disapprove of aggressive abusive campaigning? Or is there something in their belief which makes civility impossible?

I'm not trans, I'm a gender critical feminist, I understand the complexity that arises when you allow TWAW- the collapse of language and discussion etc. I wonder whether someone with that belief is constitutionally unable to behave respectfully within an organisation like your hypothetical one!

I'm quite content to never have any stones. They are apparently very painful.

I've had both and they're awful, although kidney stones take the biscuit. I had one pre-op and even the memory of passing it is making me cross my legs and shudder.

If we keep talking about kidney stones I'm going to need a safe space

because you didn't read the post properly, and then when your mistake was pointed out to you by multiple posters you didn't apologise for smearing me?

I do remember that incident quite clearly.

Until trans activists are willing to admit that the possible inclusion of members of the male sex into female only spaces is wide open to abuse , then their abuse of women will continue. One woman raped is one too many, one woman who turns away from help because a male person is there, is one too many, one incarcerated woman cowering in a cell unable to get away from a male sex offender is one too many, one girl denied the opportunity to further education because a male athlete has been awarded her scholarship is one too many. Acknowledge the problems and then we might be on the way to finding solutions which suit everybody.

Sorry everyone. Those stones are obviously a very sore point...

Picklemewalnuts - Those are actually very interesting points. I think such a hypothetical organisation would definitely have to seek to ally all trans people who disapprove of the abusive campaigning. Transmen are definitely under-represented within the trans community and their important voices are often drowned out by very vociferous transwomen. The likes of Buck Angel, Scott Newgent et al have very important messages but are often ignored, discounted or accused of being transphobic etc.

As for civility, I believe there are certainly factions whose tactics mirror MRAs, with deeply misogynistic beliefs. I'm trying to be as vague as possible here because I've already had deletions due to making "generalisations" (even though they are based in fact) - so please excuse me if this sounds "woolly". There are others whose fundamentalist beliefs parrot "TWAW/No Debate" are unlikely to see the bigger picture anyway.

I think such a hypothetical organisation would prove deeply devisive.

For example:

Campainging for better healthcare provision for trans adults

ALONGSIDE

Campaigning for non-affirmation/watch and wait therapeutic methodology for GNC children

I worry about the distinct lack of support, even interest from anyone else about this. In my speaking clubs, I've heard many speeches from TW members explaining the pain and anguish of their transition. They get a great deal of support and sympathy from the mixed audience. As do BAME and Muslim members. But I don't feel able to do the same about being a woman in today's world. Is this right? Should I take the risk and do it anyway?

Indeed.

How divisive should it be, though, to watch and wait for the child's best outcome, and to advocate for good trans care for adults? Better outcomes for children should reduce the need for adult healthcare. Successful and timely intervention shouldn't cause health issues further down in adulthood. That said, is 'trans healthcare' actually health related? I'm not intending to be inflammatory, and it's an area I'm not knowledgeable about. Is most trans healthcare about managing complications of taking hormones and having surgery? If 'trans healthcare' is code for cosmetic intervention, then it needs to sit alongside all other cosmetic interventions. I don't believe transwomen should have preferential access to laser treatment for facial hair over a woman with unwanted facial hair, for example.

Have other organisations negotiated similar divisions, I wonder?
The Church of England handles pretty diverse beliefs- women in ministry, gay marriage. Church members have deeply held convictions on both sides, and campaigns on both sides.

In every oppressed group women are expected to subordinate their needs to men. Hence black and religious women are expected to not talk about the abuse they receive from the men within their communities lest they harm the struggle for equality. It is also significant that within the transgender community the rights of transmen rely feature. In every part of society women are expected to ignore the abuse they receive from men lest we think all men are like that do it is unsurprising that trans activists continue the patriarchal view of women, is to be ignored lest it harm the needs of men.