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

Hence the anger and abuse when they hear women say 'No'.

And sneering misogyny. Hard to miss it.

@Feelingoktoday

I hate the expression “passing”.

Women don’t all look the same. So how can you pass? I’m masculine looking in the sense I have a strong jaw line. But I have a cervix - and I know this because when I went for a smear the nurse told me it was tilted and bloody hard to find. So what does “pass” mean? Long hair? Big breasts? Long let’s? Big lips? Long eyelashes? Blah blah

I'm always amused to find a little echochamber of [people] and female allies assuring each other that someone "passes better" than some random make-up free picture of an openly GC feminist woman they've found.

What "pass" seems to mean in those cases is "approximates more closely to the beauty standards of pornography".

But I know which one would have had old transinclusive era me thinking "ooh, don't catch her eye, or she'll know you know" and it's never the picture of the woman without make-up.

@NellWilsonsWhiteHair thankyou. That first paragraph is perfect. Lovely encapsulation of the issue, addressing the complexities and acknowledging the daily realities of a wide range of different people.

Some trans people get read as their assigned genders, some trans people get read as the genders they identify as, you can't always tell, people sometimes think they're passing when they aren't, people sometimes think they aren't passing when they are, and physical appearance in general is thus an unreliable means of determining sex - regardless of how you choose to define sex.

We now have a platform for a meaningful discussion on the important bit.

I completely agree that we shouldn't discriminate between trans people who 'pass' and those who don't. There just isn't a non-awful way of doing so, the whole notion is inextricably mired in misogynistic notions of 'attractiveness', and is generally just wretched. Also, a person's inclination toward being an abusive predatory shitbag has nothing to do with their appearance anyway.

we don't (as I understand it) have a lawful mechanism for allowing these women in but keeping out the Alex Drummonds of the world: trans women who do not pass and do not claim to pass, but who we still can't bar on the basis of being actually abusive as per Karen White or the Canadian with the grotesque waxing demands

Discriminating between people on grounds of being an abusive predatory shitbag is a+ ok, regardless of how you define their sex. That's obviously not in dispute.

Can we examine the first half of this paragraph, as it's quite interesting?

What do you mean by this: keeping out the Alex Drummonds of the world: trans women who do not pass and do not claim to pass

How would you define trying to pass?

@Feelingoktoday

I hate the expression “passing”.

Women don’t all look the same. So how can you pass? I’m masculine looking in the sense I have a strong jaw line. But I have a cervix - and I know this because when I went for a smear the nurse told me it was tilted and bloody hard to find. So what does “pass” mean? Long hair? Big breasts? Long let’s? Big lips? Long eyelashes? Blah blah

So do I, for reference. The whole notion is wretched and I hate it. I'm not aware of a better shorthand for 'existing in society while read as not-trans', however; invisibility is still sadly the best defence against everyday direct transphobia.

'Some trans people get read as their assigned genders, some trans people get read as the genders they identify as, you can't always tell, people sometimes think they're passing when they aren't, people sometimes think they aren't passing when they are, and physical appearance in general is thus an unreliable means of determining sex - regardless of how you choose to define sex.'

You mean their sexes. Not read as genders.

Gender identity is invisible. It is separate to gender expression. There is no need to do anything in particular with gender expression. Further. Many trans people are not out. There are those with complex / non binary genders. This is all standard info on loads of sites that have trans as a focus.

If person is non binary. Then what presentation does that involve? And why should their gender need to be expressed outwardly?

Similarly those who are not out as trans. Their appearance does not reflect their gender. And if they did come out. Why does that mean having to change the way they dress etc? What if they don't want to?

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.

The thing about privilege is the more entrenched in society it is, the harder it is to notice one's own privilege. What makes you think you are not expressing male privilege? You were brought up as a male so you need to take responsibility for your privilege in that regard. How could it work that all your other privileges are influential but not the privilege associated with the fact that society treated you as more important than females until the completion of your transition?

@NiceGerbil

Also. Passing means people being misled.

That's not good.

And given the aims apparently are to increase general acceptance etc of trans people. It's irrelevant. And counter productive. Because to achieve the aims society in general needs to become more accepting of different ways people present etc. Especially men.

But that's never ever seen as the direction to go is it.

Because getting men to be more accepting of men who are not 'manly'. Is too tricky. Easier to steamroller women.

I suppose in a way it does, yes. If being invisible is the only way to short-circuit transphobia and having the toss argued over their validity and everyday right to be present in spaces, then can you really blame people for trying to be invisible?

This is also completely disregarding the reality of gender dysphoria, which is often what drives people to transition in the first place.

Plenty of people are agender. How is that too be recognised? However you look it's not a reflection of your gender in any way.

And some have a very fluid gender.
If you meet them on a masculine day (they are male) surely most would think man. Some would think cis man. But that's wrong. They may or may not meet them again on a feminine day and understand that they are trans.

This is all standard with many many trans orgs. Gender id doesn't need to be expressed. Lots of people aren't out. Etc.

@MonsignorMirth

The Labour leader’s spokesman said he remained wedded to the policy on which the party fought the last general election – and that there was “no reason to expect it is going to change”.

This meant backing “the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces”.

Really?
I don't have much confidence that he won't back down/change what it means but let's see.

Unfortunately not everyone uses the same definition of “woman”.....

And why is gender is different to sex. Is there so much importance attached to successfully misleading people about your sex? How will it help the majority of trans people who don't pass or do not want to change how they look?

Doesn't the whole passing thing actually act counter productively for trans people as a whole? With the strong emphasis on hiding trans ID? That's not positive is it.

Why IF gender is different to sex.

That should say.

we don't (as I understand it) have a lawful mechanism for allowing these women in but keeping out the Alex Drummonds of the world: trans women who do not pass and do not claim to pass, but who we still can't bar on the basis of being actually abusive as per Karen White or the Canadian with the grotesque waxing demands

Response from Butterfly:
Discriminating between people on grounds of being an abusive predatory shitbag is a+ ok, regardless of how you define their sex. That's obviously not in dispute.

But to the TRAs, it isn't a+OK. It HAS to be discrimination on the basis of being (or claiming to be) trans, they won't hear anything else, and anyone who says different is by their definition transphobic. And the TRA's are as abusive as they come towards any of those women who dare to challenge that thinking, threatening her with rape, death, kidnapping and killing her children. Even if that 'TW' has raped natal women.

And then they say that WE are the unreasonable ones.

Surely the most positive thing would be for trans women and trans men and all the other genders to be loud and proud?

We are here. We are disciminated against in employment etc. That is illegal. Trans women are trans women. And people. Let's work to get past the society norms that judge us in all sorts of ways. Let's face up to the biggest problem. Men. And work for change.

Not. Denying biology. having the greatest achievement as successfully misleading. Insisting that males need to be everywhere that is for female people for really important reasons- on the day so of the male who wants in.

Not in insisting that we are referred to in newspapers medicine etc. By our cunts. Something men have always done.

Own being a transwoman.

The current situation and what we can all see coming. Is a huge fucking disaster for women and girls. For our most basic issues and needs. For our lives. Everything.

What do you mean by this: keeping out the Alex Drummonds of the world: trans women who do not pass and do not claim to pass

How would you define trying to pass?

Do you think Alex is trying to pass?

To go back to basics, perhaps, what has never been explained is WHY we need spaces segregated according to identity? And if we were to do that where would most women (who had no gender identity) go?

So maybe we'd end up with

1. spaces for people who identify as women
2. spaces for people who identify as men
3. spaces for people who don't identify as either but have XX chromosomes and
4. spaces for people who don't identify as either but have XY chromosomes

That is a lot of spaces.

But really what people are suggesting is that we have

1. spaces for people who are female (yes, we do all know what that means) and does or does not identify as a woman plus anyone who identifies as a woman or uses that as a cover story to get into women's spaces for any number of reasons plus some transmen who don't fee safe in a men's space due to male pattern violence

and 2) spaces for men and some transmen.

But that means that spaces are NOT segregated according to identity. The same argument of 'there's been trans women in female spaces for years without all this fuss which is proof that you don't need female spaces' can be used to say that 'spaces never have been segregated according to identity which is proof that we don't need spaces segregated according to identity.

I'd really like someone to just simply explain (because of the adage that suggests that if you can't explain something simply, it's probably because you don't understand it)

1. What does it mean to feel like a woman?
2. Why do we need spaces etc. segregated according to identity?
3. If we do segregate spaces according to identity, how do we know how to draw the boundaries between one identity and another? How much do I have to feel like a woman to justify going into the women's rather than the men's spaces?

Until we transition, society attempts to bring us up as the gender role it assigned us and punishes us for transgressing.

Are you talking about sexism here or something else?

Your arguments are aggressive butterfly. You think we are transphobes because we disagree with you. You think you match our strident voice rather than considering that we match yours - name calling of 'transphobe' is worse than strident: it is downright nasty and conversation ending. If you honestly, even if you don't agree with our position, think that our views are based on anything other than a desire to protect women, who really are some of the most vulnerable members of society, then you are not worth engaging with. I think you are massively naïve and self-centred, but I don't think your motivation is actually to harm women. Perhaps give us the same courtesy rather than resorting to insults. If you appreciate being called out on shitty toxic behaviour, that's good. I'm calling you out right now. Calling us transphobes is shitty toxic behaviour. PA comments such as 'wonder why that is' is shitty toxic behaviour.

Just FYI too, I think this has been said before but perhaps this time you can hear it. People not calling you out on your entitled behavior and explicitly linking that to your early male privilege is not conclusive evidence that it's not what they're thinking. Maybe they're not, maybe they are. I've only ever called our my OH on his male entitlement despite regularly experiencing it including from a transwoman. Anyway enough of this. I'm giving up speaking to someone who is only interested in showing the world their superiority and not really engaging with any discussions about the harm we think gender ideology is doing to women.

'Until we transition, society attempts to bring us up as the gender role it assigned us and punishes us for transgressing. This obviously isn't an experience unique to being trans, and I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm not disputing that I benefitted from having grown up in an environment that didn't try to deny me access to particular opportunities and experiences based solely on my gender expression. Stupid pink and blue toys'

Pink and blue toys?
Is the final sort of. Punchy finish to this part?

TOYS?

You have this totally back to front.

The colour of a toy is not the reason for anything.

The socially imposed expectations on the two sexes- male and female. Is the problem.

Toys are a symptom. Make all toys green? Problem solved?

Come on you can do better than this.

And you place a great deal of importance on 'passing'.

How do you do that? By making your appearance conform to certain standards of femininity. Gendered norms.

Instead of saying fuck the norms. They are limiting shit and cause massive issues for some/ many.

You say ok. I'll switch to the oppressive gender norms for the opposite sex. Then I get get away from these things I am supposed to like and do but I can't stand them.

Note. Not all the gendered norms for women and girls. The major ones are about how to look. To adopt the massively socially enforced trappings of feminine appearance. And thus. Accepting them. Approving them. I had a choice. I chose this.

Meanwhile women who are more likely than the general population to have noticed and hated the gendered expectations. And thought fuck this. This needs to be dismantled. Jobs clothes interests etc are for everyone. And because of their noticing and reacting against the gender role, the trappings, the assumptions, and the hierarchy with us inferior. Became FEMINISTS.

we could and should have been on the same side.

But that was not of interest. Not the aim.

Because it's not really. At least for many. The point. Liberation is not of interest. It's about male supremacy. Not every individual obv. But look where we are. Political parties state that women can be male and women and girls must accept males in all the places they didn't used to be allowed. Because it was obviously a terrible idea.

Look at the responses to the Lancet on Twitter. The responses to ed Davey.

The idea this is just a tiny group of Russian bots/ USA funded zealots etc is ridiculous. It always has been.

Women say no. And with bloody good reason.

It's so strange though. It only ever seems to happen in online conversations with transphobes, and only when I rise to match the strident tone frequently used in discussion against me. When I (regularly) engage in discussion without disclosing my trans status, nobody has ever accused me of male entitlement. It's like it's being weaponised as a form of bad-faith tone-policing. Wonder why that is.

So what are your datapoints for this? Mumsnet? What other places have you tried this? Twitter?

What about Pistonheads? Kiwifarms?

Could it be that you have a particular way of typing when you 'speak' online to people you perceive as female about philosophical issues you diverge on? And could it be that feminists are extremely qualified to notice that tone change?

It's not a coincidence you're using the word strident right now... Even though I already posted something discussing how it is a word more often used to describe women than men, regardless of the "gender of the writer".

@Feedingthebirds1

we don't (as I understand it) have a lawful mechanism for allowing these women in but keeping out the Alex Drummonds of the world: trans women who do not pass and do not claim to pass, but who we still can't bar on the basis of being actually abusive as per Karen White or the Canadian with the grotesque waxing demands

Response from Butterfly:
Discriminating between people on grounds of being an abusive predatory shitbag is a+ ok, regardless of how you define their sex. That's obviously not in dispute.

But to the TRAs, it isn't a+OK. It HAS to be discrimination on the basis of being (or claiming to be) trans, they won't hear anything else, and anyone who says different is by their definition transphobic. And the TRA's are as abusive as they come towards any of those women who dare to challenge that thinking, threatening her with rape, death, kidnapping and killing her children. Even if that 'TW' has raped natal women.

And then they say that WE are the unreasonable ones.

The mind boggles at anyone who tries claiming being trans is a 'defence' for abusive, predatory behaviour. Urgh.

As for trans activists being abusive online: People who do that are being unspeakably awful and I really, really, really really wish they'd f*cking stop. I don't think there's a way I can coherently articulate the crushingly, despairingly rage-inducing nature of the whole thing; online abuse disregards the suffering and ultimately humanity of people who are its victims. Being trans doesn't give anyone a free pass for being awful. I'm so, so sorry.

We desperately need to get our house in order; our community has grown from a tiny fearful little bunch to a massive - and often very young or socially awkward, and often incredibly shittily socialised - group of people with a very wide range of opinions and ranges of experiences, many of whom really should know better.

We're working on it. I'm so, so sorry.

@OldCrone

Until we transition, society attempts to bring us up as the gender role it assigned us and punishes us for transgressing.

Are you talking about sexism here or something else?

I'm talking about people experiencing oppression due to the patriarchical enforcement of gender roles, so...absolutely, yes.

You are not listening though.
Or reading.
You do not have an open mind.

All we want is words for the female billions of humans to be described easily.
The words woman/ girl have been taken from us. Using them to mean what they meant forever is seen as hate, aggression.
Female is going. That leaves none.
And we need one as much as we ever did.

What we are told to do.
Is open up all of the limited number of places that were sex segregated to males. And not question anyone because it's rude and gender is invisible and means more than sex.
These demands are however undermined by the same people talking about women in Afghanistan etc.
Showing they too know exactly what these words mean.
But women and girls must not own them.

The impact on taking our words is monumental. Catastrophic.

And all because women gave an inch but what was taken was a 100 miles.

'I'm talking about people experiencing oppression due to the patriarchical enforcement of gender roles, so...absolutely, yes.'

You are implying that women girls who have always noticed and hated and defied and fought our gendered roles and position in society.

Fucked up?

Because a common response was to be a feminist and possibly one of the really unpopular sort.

That was silly and all those women and girls should have just transitioned?

And they didn't so now should take their feminist views about gender and hierarchy and the position of women and girls all over the world. Realise they were very silly and made a big mistake. And slink off back to the kitchen?

We desperately need to get our house in order

Maybe start by acknowledging that your community poses the same danger to women as men do. Then , from that perspective, accept that your presence in female only places causes problems .