Labour have committed to single sex spaces

[flumpetto]

Excluding trans

This is a step in the right direction at long last....

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html

Not being funny, but I'm paying an inordinate amount of time and effort giving consideration and credence to the opinions of people who [disagree with me] (CharlieParley's substitution)

And a substantial number of women have collectively donated greater time, effort, effort, and diplomacy but you don't value that. As CP indicates, your response has been to deploy terms of abuse in what you affect to believe is a covert way.

You have not reflected and considered. You have transgressed with your language, you have transgressed with your clichéd stereotypes and when they are highlighted, you persist or perform backing away. You have persisted in ascribing errors of misunderstanding or frank ignorance to others and yet this has not prompted you to modify your writing style. It's almost as if you are subtly acknowledging that the interpretation of those of us who've done you the courtesy of reading are correct in your intentions or identifying your flaws.

It's interesting to observe how much you valorise yourself for this intervention in a discussion about single sex spaces and to instruct us that we must accept your intention to transgress by continuing to use them.

I must ask, you're so heavily invested in a thread about Labour's commitment to single sex spaces, do you hold office in the Labour Party or are you a member?

explicitly trans-hostile private spaces

Female sex based needs made all about males.

It's never about females having needs, it's just about the meanness and unkindness to males about them having those needs.

I'm done. No. The world of every female does not revolve around male people's needs and best interests.

Leontine Sagan's Madchen In Uniform, widely acknowledged as the first lesbian film, features this key scene with the protagonist cross-dressing to play a male role in the school play at her all-girls school.

If this is going to be framed by presentist ignorance as an example of transgender identity, then there must be plenty of ex-schoolgirls on here who also qualify as member of this 'beautiful emerging community.'

Would also love to know how many of the estimated 10,000-15,000 homosexual victims of the holocaust need to be redefined as trans, and on what evidence that continues to elude all the noted scholars in this area.

pp have made excellent replies to Butterfly's reply to my comment but I will pick up on this -

All this, while demanding I unpick, explain and then retract statements referencing the clear and well documented ideological drift within gender critical feminist spaces toward reactionary trans-hostile attitudes as if it's a shocking, offensive implication with no basis in reality, despite being demonstrated repeatedly in the same damn thread and discussed as a known issue all over feminist spaces, including GC ones.

This entire debate has been framed (deliberately) as women being 'anti trans'. We have seen articles, newspaper reports, programmes which all push the narrative that this is about trans rights and there has been next to no acknowledgment that there are competing needs and rights for women and transpeople which need to be carefully balanced. The recent judicial review was notable as one of the only/first sources to even mention that women may be negatively affected by the inclusion of transwomen into single sex spaces.

The chilling effect which was produced by no debate, no platforming, doxxing, reporting 'wrongthink' to employers, screaming 'transphobe!' at anyone who disagrees means that women have simply been unable to speak up. This is one of the only places women can talk about it, anonymously. Discussion on other platforms is either banned or invites a pile-on of rape and death threats. You don't see rape and death threats here. There's discussion, debate and quite a lot of disagreement but no violence, no pictures of baseball bats with barbed wire around, no threats to report to employers. I, and many other women, find the hostility, threats and outright hatred expressed towards women on other platforms and in real life truly shocking - a TRA screamed 'witch' repeatedly in the face of a woman peacefully protesting outside the Scottish Parliament - it was shocking in its aggression and violence but it's been dismissed as just 'part of the debate'. There's a definite feeling that those who have a hatred and dislike of women have now got a 'socially acceptable' platform to express this.

Some women need single sex spaces. That is inescapable. It is not transphobic to say so. Women are now self excluding themselves from rape crisis services because their needs are not being met Third spaces are rejected with no other solution offered. As I said before, we're being told that this is what's happening and to shut up about it. The fact we refuse to do so is not transphobic.

I heard a Labour lady on radio 4 this morning. She was terrible. She just did not answer the separate spaces trans question and probably annoyed 50% of the people in the UK as a result. She was asked a very simple question - in effect would Labour keep people with male equipment out of female spaces. She did not answer it. I presume that is because that is because their answer is no and that they prefer trans people to the 50% of the UK which is female.

@CorvusPurpureus

The mask slips & the gloves come off.

Every. Single. Time.

I don't care greatly for male people who hear women saying 'no thank you' & respond with 'yeah but...'.

Precisely. It's so incredibly telling.

Not being funny, but I'm paying an inordinate amount of time and effort giving consideration and credence to the opinions of people who systematically misgender me

I might add that the inordinate amount of time spent whiffling on has still not managed to address any of the very simple questions asked.

I mean, it kind of has, but only by omission.

@Xenia

I heard a Labour lady on radio 4 this morning. She was terrible. She just did not answer the separate spaces trans question and probably annoyed 50% of the people in the UK as a result. She was asked a very simple question - in effect would Labour keep people with male equipment out of female spaces. She did not answer it. I presume that is because that is because their answer is no and that they prefer trans people to the 50% of the UK which is female.

You expect a politician to answer a question? 😂

@Xenia

I heard a Labour lady on radio 4 this morning. She was terrible. She just did not answer the separate spaces trans question and probably annoyed 50% of the people in the UK as a result. She was asked a very simple question - in effect would Labour keep people with male equipment out of female spaces. She did not answer it. I presume that is because that is because their answer is no and that they prefer trans people to the 50% of the UK which is female.

That was Angela Rayner, deputy leader.

If people like her are so sure that there is no threat to women, why are they so scared of having a debate/discussion about it, where they can explain to us why we're wrong to worry about males in women-only spaces?

Constantly refusing to answer a simple question and making a lot of irrelevant comments in order to avoid answering just makes it clear that they know they can't justify their policy.

I read the Times piece on Angela Rayner this morning and found it infuriating.

She's gone through and achieved so much. She knows fine well the impact of biology on a woman's life and she's pretending not to for woke points.

The consolation is that people are asking the question now. At some point they're either going to have to say out loud 'yes, no women's spaces at all, anywhere' and defend it, or row back.

Such an insightful comment EmbarrassingAdmissions (amongst so many on this thread)
You have not reflected and considered. You have transgressed with your language, you have transgressed with your clichéd stereotypes and when they are highlighted, you persist or perform backing away. You have persisted in ascribing errors of misunderstanding or frank ignorance to others and yet this has not prompted you to modify your writing style. It's almost as if you are subtly acknowledging that the interpretation of those of us who've done you the courtesy of reading are correct in your intentions or identifying your flaws.
It's interesting to observe how much you valorise yourself for this intervention in a discussion about single sex spaces and to instruct us that we must accept your intention to transgress by continuing to use them.

What's the difference between the charmer bawling "witch" in the face of a woman peacefully demonstrating in Scotland and someone repeatedly using a word salad to malign women standing up for women's rights and the safeguarding of child?
Answers on a ribbon.....

From the off it was clear Butt had a personal mission to use their own appearance to explain why blockers were something parents and horses not in the race should simply agree to if their 10/11/12 year old wanted them and that the suicide escalation/surgery deaths/damage to health was no greater risk that a skiing accident. Or maybe the suicide risk is greater, the greatest of all risks a child could ever experience. I get confused with the logic.

They were remarkably ill informed about the impact, knowing nothing at all about I am Jazz, a review of this was later subsumed into a long ramble on their own TV show likes and dislikes.

The same lack of knowledge about the work done in thousands of submissions to the GRA consultation, recorded submissions to the Equality Committee, recordings of presentations at meetings, on papers and books written on ROGD, and publications by feminist academia has been obvious.
All ignored for a second hand prosecco stormfront prejudice.

A prejudice so great that Butt arrived with a ready-made solution, there must be regulation of what gender critical feminist a are permitted to say.

I'm not actually a gender critical feminist so I'm not captured by the proposed new regulations, but I do think those developing the framework for regulation ought to read the actual source material produced by the [persons] they want to regulate or they might find they've regulated a figment of their own imagination.

They won't be explicit because they know it's a vote-loser. That's been the case all along. To the general public a transwomen is the nervous transsexual in the corner who has been tolerated for years. The minute you point out that 80% of transwomen retain their penis and under self-ID anyone can access female spaces without any gatekeeping, the penny drops.

That's why the Staniland question is so good. It cuts to the chase.

I don't want to undress in front of a strange bloke. I don't want my five year old daughter undressing in front of a strange bloke, either. Statistically (and as I have learned the hard way) in practice we are more likely to be assaulted by a male than a female. The police barely bother to raise an eyebrow if we complain and the CPS will not prosecute. If I get hurt, there is no redress.

Therefore, my choices are:

A) find single sex provision
B) miss out.

I don't see it as acceptable to return to Victorian times where women rarely took part in public life. Do you?

Yes, I wonder how many votes would be gained if the Labour party stated unequivocally in their manifesto their committment to making all prison cells, domestic violence refuges, homeless shelters, hospital wards, hostel dormitories, shared sleeper train compartments, public showering and undressing facilities totally mixed sex? This is after all what MPs like Sobel really think.

...but do they 'really' believe? Or are they chanting along with the crowd for fear of being turned on and cast out?

Chanting. They haven’t actually though it out - no critical thinking or ‘what if’ or ‘what is the natural conclusion of all this?’

Another thing I don’t understand about the current transactivist position on toilets and other spaces.

If you don’t think women should have safe singe-sex spaces, and TW should be allowed in them too, AND you support self-ID - which is a common stance including among politicians - then what you are actually saying is that a “womens” (and indeed a mens) toilet/other space is for absolutely anyone. You can’t argue that it’s safer for TW while also arguing that absolutely any man of any appearance or degree of transition, including none, can go in just by saying he’s a woman - as per wii spa man.

TW who want to avoid dangerous men are not safe because any man who wants to harass or harm TW can easily come in, just as can any man who wants to harass or harm women. So what you have created IS that mixed space that you turn your nose up at.

The only possible reason, logically, that anyone could want this instead of a third mixed space, is to punish women and take away their rights and safety, their ability to exclude males, out of misogyny and resentment.

I think it's fear of the mob Jaysmith71
Vanishingly few people genuinely believe the "sex is complicated" and that men are having babies all over the world. But at a time when we have so identity politics, conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers, I suspect it's easier to be self protective and nod along with aggressive demands rather than engage with the issues.
As ever it's overreach. We're now at the stage where the Labour party are being forced to be open about the end game just as creepy Ed was for the Lib Dems. Open removal of women and girl's rights to privacy from men everywhere. No shower, hospital ward, sport, medical examination, refuge etc anywhere for women. Male access 24/7.

Women will stop going into the new mixed sex areas. Maybe sex based crimes will drop - (although the way things are measured by gender, I can’t see this). So it will look like fewer attacks on women but more ‘female’ violent offenders.

And two generations down the line they will be asking ‘what the hell was in the water in the 1990/2000s????’

@QueenPeary

Another thing I don’t understand about the current transactivist position on toilets and other spaces.

If you don’t think women should have safe singe-sex spaces, and TW should be allowed in them too, AND you support self-ID - which is a common stance including among politicians - then what you are actually saying is that a “womens” (and indeed a mens) toilet/other space is for absolutely anyone. You can’t argue that it’s safer for TW while also arguing that absolutely any man of any appearance or degree of transition, including none, can go in just by saying he’s a woman - as per wii spa man.

TW who want to avoid dangerous men are not safe because any man who wants to harass or harm TW can easily come in, just as can any man who wants to harass or harm women. So what you have created IS that mixed space that you turn your nose up at.

The only possible reason, logically, that anyone could want this instead of a third mixed space, is to punish women and take away their rights and safety, their ability to exclude males, out of misogyny and resentment.

Yes, indeed. The logical conclusion of self ID is all mixed-sex spaces. At least if trans activists argued this they would be being consistent.

Well the allies won’t support them on an anonymous forum so i doubt there’s much chance of support in the loos

I’m sure there’s a word for people who tweet support then refuse to back it up in real life.

Oh yeah, it’s arseholes.

@QueenPeary

Another thing I don’t understand about the current transactivist position on toilets and other spaces.

If you don’t think women should have safe singe-sex spaces, and TW should be allowed in them too, AND you support self-ID - which is a common stance including among politicians - then what you are actually saying is that a “womens” (and indeed a mens) toilet/other space is for absolutely anyone. You can’t argue that it’s safer for TW while also arguing that absolutely any man of any appearance or degree of transition, including none, can go in just by saying he’s a woman - as per wii spa man.

TW who want to avoid dangerous men are not safe because any man who wants to harass or harm TW can easily come in, just as can any man who wants to harass or harm women. So what you have created IS that mixed space that you turn your nose up at.

The only possible reason, logically, that anyone could want this instead of a third mixed space, is to punish women and take away their rights and safety, their ability to exclude males, out of misogyny and resentment.

That. ^^

There will be be male spaces for men and male spaces for males and all the good cu bodies with vaginas who are privileged enough to be able to use mixed sex spaces.

There will then be a lot of bodies with vaginas who are excluded and erased from public life, hospital wards, refuge places, stuff like that, but it will be viewed as their just desserts for being hostile to placing the needs of bodies with penises above themselves.

This will be called 'inclusion'.

What was that phrase of Terry Pratchett about innocent words being dressed up and sent out to walk the gutter?

What was that phrase of Terry Pratchett about innocent words being dressed up and sent out to walk the gutter?

Reacher Gilt?

“You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency, and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although “synergistically” had probably been a whore from the start.”

― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

That's the one!