#RepealTheGRA apparently 'hails from the right

[TheShadowyFeminist]

Tweet by Ruth Serwotka

Does this have any basis in fact? I know plenty who think the GRA should be repealed. None have been right wing, ring leaning, aligned with the right or even come close to what Ruth states here.

This tweet is a flavour of what I've seen. And I think the sentiment is fairly accurate IMO.

What do others think? Do you think the GRA should be repealed? Are you or have you ever been, right wing, right leaning, right adjacent or meet the description Ruth has for women who have said the GRA should be repealed?

@AfternoonToffee

[In the UK] I wish they wouldn't use 'on the right' as a gotcha, the right aren't a homogenous lump of evil, and all nasty people. It adds nothing to their arguments.

No, but it does display their credentials for the tribalists, and obviously that's what is most important.

The point isn't that Ruth holds a particular view on the GRA, the problem is her ridiculous and poorly informed opinion that everyone pro-repeal is 'right wing'.

It suggests a serious lack of political awareness.

There seems to be a few very vocal male transpeople in the inner sanctum of the WPUK so I think she is talking witha political rather than a feminist focus, here.

This is the crux of it. WPUK is a classic example of the pitfalls of including male transpeople in your 'feminist' organisation. They now have their hands tied and have to publicly distance themselves from any conversations around repealing the GRA in case they upset these males. They can no longer engage with many women's concerns about the GRA because of this shortsighted alliance. Any other 'women's' orgs reading this, please take note.

WPUK could have done the decent thing and say something neutral like "we don't agree with such a position, but we appreciate other women will have different views from us and may disagree with our stance. We are open to respectful dialogue and discussion to understand opposing perspectives."
Instead it appears there's the usual lazy habit among many prominent left-wing people and groups to label others as right-wing purely to signal to other lefties in their social circles that they are the 'right kind' of lefty.

I'm so over this kind of purity politics. And I'm done with women being treated as second, or even third, class citizens. When male sexual predators have a 'right' to women's prisons, and women's fears and concerns aren't even respected enough to take precedence over male desires, you know the whole system is fucked up.

I'm open to rational and reasoned persuasion, but I'm pretty sure repealing the GRA is the only way out of this mess. No one has the 'right' to falsify their birth certificate. The GRA grants a privilege to a tiny minority, not a right. I certainly don't have the privilege to falsify my birth certificate and I don't see why anyone else should.

It's too, too tedious. Women everywhere are concerned by this. Because of the aspects of safety and privacy. Not because of their bloody politics.

I also don't understand how the GRA could ever be reformed.

The only way would be through having ID, and making surgery a condition. Obviously not something that I agree with, nor that I think is at all workable. Or desirable on any level, including the interests of trans people.

So what's the rest of it? What rights stay and what rights go?

Because it's all about ceding women's sex based rights.

You can't cede some and not others. Toilets but not changing rooms? Shortlists, but not women's officer jobs? Amateur sport, but not professional sport?

Obviously it's completely bat shit.

And I notice that despite many women asking the question, what rights are you talking about in terms of ring fencing them for trans people? it's not answered.

What's the bottom line?

What does it look like?

May be Ruth was cut short and they missed out:

....side of history
....'s of women being undermined
....side of the street
....definition of sex and gender
....ing of wrongs
... eous
....ful place of women

This is the crux of it. WPUK is a classic example of the pitfalls of including male transpeople in your 'feminist' organisation. They now have their hands tied and have to publicly distance themselves from any conversations around repealing the GRA in case they upset these males.

Exactly. And everyone knows it.

Weaning yourself off male approval is quite hard.

This is the crux of it. WPUK is a classic example of the pitfalls of including male transpeople in your 'feminist' organisation.

Well, I hate to say I told you so....

The aim is to smear left-wing people to other left-wing people.

In this case I'd say that was spot on.

There seem to be quite a few on the Left who hold GC views but whose Leftist identity comes before their support for women and girls. They are of course absolutely free to do that but it does create a conflict at times.

I want to put the female sex front and centre, it's much more important than any political identity I might have, so I want the GRA repealed no question about that.

It's utterly shocking that it ever became law in the first place.

And I'm done with women being treated as second, or even third, class citizens. When male sexual predators have a 'right' to women's prisons, and women's fears and concerns aren't even respected enough to take precedence over male desires, you know the whole system is fucked up.

Same here Nonny, it's male supremecy - pure and simple

Sex-based protections should be enough to protect trans identifying people from discrimination in housing, healthcare, work etc. Present and live as you please regardless of sex. Use whatever name you choose. What else is there beyond that? Privilege.

Privilege to conceal your sex (for those who pass). Privilege to enter opposite sex spaces. Privilege to falsify sex on official and historical documents. Those are privileges to which no one should be entitled. Repeal the GRA and shore up sex protections in the EA.

When male sexual predators have a 'right' to women 's prisoners s

Everything Nonny said better than I ever could!

I have a lot of time for LS that RS was quoting but I don't understand what part of the right to privacy is broken by your sex being known - as everyone's sex is known how can it be?

As ever the contrast with trans-age flashes in neon.

I'm team repeal fwiw.

This is the crux of it. WPUK is a classic example of the pitfalls of including male transpeople in your 'feminist' organisation. They now have their hands tied and have to publicly distance themselves from any conversations around repealing the GRA in case they upset these males.

Exactly. And everyone knows it.

Weaning yourself off male approval is quite hard.

Indeed, Nonnymouse and Datun!

@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons

Everything Nonny said better than I ever could!

I have a lot of time for LS that RS was quoting but I don't understand what part of the right to privacy is broken by your sex being known - as everyone's sex is known how can it be?

As ever the contrast with trans-age flashes in neon.

I'm team repeal fwiw.

It's appears to be an unequivocal mindset that some men must be allowed to conceal their sex.

They just must. The alternative is too awful to contemplate.

When in reality, it's a vanishingly small number for whom it's even possible. And the negative repercussions reverberate across society to the point where it's entirely unacceptable.

But it's that unequivocal conviction that no matter how small, and no matter how dangerous the result, a number of men must get what they want. Because men.

I think Lachlan Stewart's tweets, although I disagree with him on this, were more thoughtful and considered than Ruth's in that he was actually responding and conceding points others made.

*no matter how small the number

Personally I see no reason why having a false sex marker on official documentation should ever be a right, nor that "privacy" should extend to being able to conceal your sex to other people who it concerns.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I think Lachlan Stewart's tweets, although I disagree with him on this, were more thoughtful and considered than Ruth's in that he was actually responding and conceding points others made.

Yes I think they were - which makes it even more cringeworthy to see RW rushing to agree with him.

Well said Flypass; selling it like that to those still on the be kind bandwagon is a chance to make them see that it is just male dominance again (and again etc.). Bringing right and left wing into such a basic concept of woman = adult human female is so wrong and tries to split those working toward common sense.

Soz - RS not RW

What's wrong with not being left wing anyway? Don't non-left wing women and children matter too? Or is feminism only for the benefit of those on the left?

That's a good point. I think for women like Ruth being called "right wing" would be the worst thing they could imagine.

@FootballisComingHome

What's wrong with not being left wing anyway? Don't non-left wing women and children matter too? Or is feminism only for the benefit of those on the left?

There is nothing wrong with it broadly, but the term is used as a slur nowadays for say Trump Supporting looney or such in the media.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

That's a good point. I think for women like Ruth being called "right wing" would be the worst thing they could imagine.

Absolutely Eresh, it's part of the whole Leftist identity ultimately being more important that I mentioned upthread.

As others have said, I don't think old school ideas around Left or Right are particularly helpful here, but they certainly are useful for those on both sides who want to "virtue signal" to their own tribe.

I see a lot of this amongst trade unionists (and I'm one myself!) any failure is always put down to insufficient left wing purity.