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

The fact remains that you think "transition" is somehow meaningful. I do not.

Also it raises the question of what “passing” is. If TW think they “pass” on the basis of what they look like, especially just on the basis of clothes, hair and facial appearance, they should be aware that women are sensitive to many more aspects of maleness. They may depending on the situation include things like movement/gait, smell which we may sense subconsciously, but also social matters such as the way they treat women, speak to women and things like writing style.

There is a very typically male, pseudo-authoritative, smug, patronising, faux-highbrow writing style - of course women may do it sometimes, of course not all men do it, but it is a signifier that women pick up on. It is especially irritating when coming from a TW who is outraged at not being considered a woman for the purposes of same-sex spaces.

Completely agree, QueenPeary.

There is a colloquial word which is perhaps overused but describes this perceived tendency of members of the male sex to talk down to women.

I work in a group of linked community charities that includes a crisis centre. The women who run and use the place voted for absolute exclusion of anyone with a male body - that included all men, all transwomen and all transmen. Their choice. They excluded anyone whose physical appearance, voice, mannerisms, behaviour etc could possibly have a negative impact of the female sevice users

Wow, it's sad, really, that I am so unaccustomed to hearing that, it's actually surprising.

They excluded anyone whose physical appearance, voice, mannerisms, behaviour etc could possibly have a negative impact of the female sevice users

Imagine that. Imagine centring women. Female women, the cunty type.

Amazing.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The fact remains that you think "transition" is somehow meaningful. I do not.

Me neither.

@ArabellaScott

I work in a group of linked community charities that includes a crisis centre. The women who run and use the place voted for absolute exclusion of anyone with a male body - that included all men, all transwomen and all transmen. Their choice. They excluded anyone whose physical appearance, voice, mannerisms, behaviour etc could possibly have a negative impact of the female sevice users

Wow, it's sad, really, that I am so unaccustomed to hearing that, it's actually surprising.

They excluded anyone whose physical appearance, voice, mannerisms, behaviour etc could possibly have a negative impact of the female sevice users

Imagine that. Imagine centring women. Female women, the cunty type.

Amazing.

I agree, I also think it's a brilliant idea.

In a crisis centre, where presumably traumatised women would be the service users. Why shouldn't they have female only?

Surely that is their job, as a crisis centre to provide a safe and comfortable space for these women, and making it female only is part of that.

Is it time for this again?

The women who run and use the place voted....Imagine centring women. Female women, the cunty type.

And we're here defending their morality and right to make a place they run and they use center them instead of the needs of males to not be 'excluded' . We're actually having to justify it and fight for it.

one issue Labour has is it is so miserable - all oh woe is me; everything and anything is wrong. They don't delight in our people, our country, our culture. They aren't optimistic. That gets people down.
It really does. They forget the working class is pretty patriotic, and that many immigrants or second generation immigrants are really proud of the UK and think it's amazing here. Instead you have someone like Thornberry sneering at an England flag in a window.
Labour are a long way off, even for those people who don't follow the women's rights issue.

@Helen8220

You're leveraging your social capital to make an important and necessary point about stereotype threat and tone policing; you're also doing so without expressing whether you actually agree with any of my arguments, which I think is important. Even if you think what I'm saying is bullshit, you're arguing for my fair treatment in expressing it, and that includes what now amounts to several pages worth of people implying that my matching the strident tone of discussion is betraying either male privilege or a lack of femininity.

You are one of the few voices on this site who has done this. Thankyou. It's very welcome.

I don't know what your particular views are - I've not seen you post much yourself, at least in the discussions I've been involved in - but I'd really enjoy seeing more of what you have to say on the subject! If you're willing to answer, and under no obligation to do so:

-Do you think the existing EA2010 is fit for purpose in conjunction with the GRA?
-Do you think it would be fit for purpose with the GRA amended to include Self-ID?
-Do you think it would be fit for purpose if the GRA was repealed?
-Do you think Labour should be committing to support what is, ultimately, the status quo on this matter?

The way this announcement was initially presented by the Indy and other papers painted it in an extremely misleading way; presumably to drive engagement. I don't think that is particularly responsible reporting, and it has charged an already contentious subject that people feel strongly about. The expressions of frustration in this thread following clarification indicate that an overwhelming majority of posters here are concerned with the integrity of sex-based provisions protected by the EA's exceptions in situations of reasonable need, and were hoping that this announcement marked a swerve in terms of Labour's standing policy on this matter.

I might add: I think my tone is betraying privilege, and also a degree of entitlement, but that's due to the 'able-bodied, white, middle class, affluent, passing' part of my circumstances rather than any kind of essential expression of male or femaleness. I'm leveraging these things, especially the 'passing' part, in support of my own rhetoric because it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

You want a personalised reaction to that?

Your perspective on your 'passing' is yours. And nobody has any right to remove it?

But I doubt I'd agree with it... for all the reasons I have above, mainly basic physiology.

Bugger. Accidentally deleted the second sentence...

You want a personalised reaction to that? So 'someone' can spend a few minutes reporting us nasty women?

Sorry mate. To paraphrase what I wrote, you think what you like. The rest of us will do the same. Physiology doesn't lie!

And there was me just thinking that Helen was just performing an homage to fractal mathematics when she explained in the middle of a thread in FWR that she didn't perceive any issue. Mumbelbrot set? Nah, the name will never catch on.

At some point, if one is colour blind, one should accept that other people can tell the difference between red and green, and stop trying to change the subject to how one sees no difference when the rest of us are trying to decide whether red is overwhelming the colour scheme of the dining room.

Anyway.

"A2014 studyfor Fortune.com by Kieran Snyder examined 248 reviews from 180 people, (105 men and 75 women). The reviews came from 28 different companies, all in the tech sector, and included a range of organisational sizes.

One word appeared 17 times in reviews of women, and never in any of the reviews of men: ‘abrasive’. Other words were disproportionately applied to women, including bossy, aggressive, strident, emotional and irrational. Aggressive did appear in two reviews of men, in the context of them being urged to be more aggressive. Reviews of women only ever used aggressive as a criticism. The gender of the person writing the review didn’t affect the results of the study."

sacraparental.com/2016/05/14/everyday-misogyny-122-subtly-sexist-words-women/

I think my tone is betraying privilege, and also a degree of entitlement, but that's due to the 'able-bodied, white, middle class, affluent, passing' part of my circumstances rather than any kind of essential expression of male or femaleness.

I'm sorry but that is hilarious. It's like meta-mansplaining. You don't get to decide which privileges you acknowledge and which ones you deny exist, either.

Shorter words Oink Don't go getting ahead of yourself.

I thought there was something beautifully self explanatory in that sentence, maybe not what was intended, but it did the job!

Did I need to have added a 😆 in there?

@FlyingOink

I think my tone is betraying privilege, and also a degree of entitlement, but that's due to the 'able-bodied, white, middle class, affluent, passing' part of my circumstances rather than any kind of essential expression of male or femaleness.

I'm sorry but that is hilarious. It's like meta-mansplaining. You don't get to decide which privileges you acknowledge and which ones you deny exist, either.

Isn't it just FlyingOink and then using that privilege and entitlement against women.

At least it's all out in the open now - women, especially those who are extremely vulnerable, Butterfly's entitlement and privilege is worth far more than you are, nice to have that cleared up.

@FlyingOink

I think my tone is betraying privilege, and also a degree of entitlement, but that's due to the 'able-bodied, white, middle class, affluent, passing' part of my circumstances rather than any kind of essential expression of male or femaleness.

I'm sorry but that is hilarious. It's like meta-mansplaining. You don't get to decide which privileges you acknowledge and which ones you deny exist, either.

Totally agree. It’s laughable

Well. This is an interesting turn.

Still no acknowledgement about female’s needs though. For medical transition of young females to be reconsidered as affirmative only has been recognised by one of the authors of the Dutch Protocol and a quickly growing group of practitioners, or for females requiring single sex spaces that do not include males.

Anything but.

Given that you've been thinking about your privilege, has considering your status as someone white, middle-class, able-bodied and affluent made you rethink the way you leveraged Stormfront as an epithet against women of different races, classes, income and varying levels of disability, simply for thinking they are entitled to single-sex showers at the council leisure centre?

Women who have fewer options than you, for whom it might be the closest swimming pool or no swimming at all?

@ButterflyHatched

I might add: I think my tone is betraying privilege, and also a degree of entitlement, but that's due to the 'able-bodied, white, middle class, affluent, passing' part of my circumstances rather than any kind of essential expression of male or femaleness. I'm leveraging these things, especially the 'passing' part, in support of my own rhetoric because it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

With all respect, Butterfly, and I don't mean this to be directed at you personally - the question of 'passing' isn't up to you, or a matter of your perception. 'Passing' is by definition something that rests in the perception of others.

It's one of the reasons I think some of the ideology of genderism is actively harmful and damaging to people who follow it - it tends to encourage people to depend upon the responses and reactions of other people for their own happiness/contentment. (I can't see that being upset about being 'misgendered' or pronouns is not an empowering situation, for anyone involved).

So if women don't scream, call the police or glare at you, you've passed?

There's a whole Theory of Mind problem here.

due to the 'able-bodied, white, middle class, affluent, passing' part of my circumstances

Every transwoman I've encountered think they "pass". If someone pointed out that they didn't pass this would be considered a hate crime. It's safer to play the game.