Heartbreaking column in today's Scotsman

[howonearthdidwegethere]

Columnist Susan Dalgety reflecting on the words of the Cabinet Minister Shona Robison in the Scottish Parliament last week.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/abusive-men-will-exploit-proposed-new-gender-recognition-law-susan-dalgety-3596504

Shame on Robison and Sturgeon. Traitors to their sex. How do they sleep at night?

I support the need for women’s spaces in some circumstances. I don’t support the demonisation of men or trans women that some folk here argue for.

Well, it's not really up to you to decide when women get to say no or otherwise, to be honest. But good to hear you can understand and support the need for women's spaces.

I don’t support the demonisation of men or trans women that some folk here argue for.

To be clear, I am absolutely, perfectly happy to 'demonise' men who are predatory and abusive and who take advantage of self id to gain access to vulnerable women in the same way I am perfectly happy to 'demonise' males who rape women and girls.

(And where you use the dismissive word 'demonise', i use the words 'express my disgust and contempt').

Most people are, strangely enough.

"Empowerment of children to report abuse"

Says it all. Put the onus on children to keep themselves safe from abusive adults.

Let's not look at the reasons why those - nearly always male - abusers seek out each and every opportunity to abuse boys and girls.

'demonisation' is an interesting word choice. It's not relevant to safeguarding practise. Safeguarding works in the opposite way to law, Robin, in that everyone is considered a risk and then steps taken to mitigate, rather than presuming everyone is innocent.

Thank you for the link.

@DomesticatedZombie

'demonisation' is an interesting word choice. It's not relevant to safeguarding practise. Safeguarding works in the opposite way to law, Robin, in that everyone is considered a risk and then steps taken to mitigate, rather than presuming everyone is innocent.

I write from a household where people are renewing their DBS for their roles as volunteer sports coaches and a couple are looking at renewing their safeguarding training.

It's quite troubling that there are people who don't understand how safeguarding works or affect not to for public discourse. I can't think who would be at all impressed by such a posture of civic ignorance.

I don’t support the demonisation of men or trans women that some folk here argue for.

It is not demonisation to say that some men will exploit a law allowing them to be legally female just by signing a document, if that will give them easier access to women and children.

98% of sexual offenders are male. It's not demonisation to say that male people are more of a danger to women and children than female people are.

What makes you so sure that no predatory men would exploit a law allowing them to be legally female with no gatekeeping?

In re: the topic of the OP I ought to acknowledge the power of the writing in that piece.

On a tangent to that, I've put Sonia Sodha's thoughtful article about programmes for disrupting violent and abusive men rather than trying to fix them into its own thread.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4497942-Sonia-Sodha-MVAW-is-about-more-than-toxic-masculinity

@MiladyBerserko

Look at the monitors, who come on here, a site called 'Mumsnet to stop wonen talking about the abuse they suffered as children, and tell them that they are mistaken and it happens only from relatives.

Why are they so invested in telling women to shut up?

I am quite fascinated by the lofty tone used too. They quite genuinely think they have the right to tell women to shut up and accept any males to women's spaces on their say so.

As it was ever thus. Transwomen have no clue, not one fucking inkling, of what it is like to grow up as a girl. Fuck off they felt like a girl. Did the predatory males treat them like they treat little girls? Did they have to walk to school knowing that almost every day some male would comment on their tits or their arse. That some bloke would try to cop a feel. That some teacher would pretend to come help them, in a classroom full of other kids, so they could look down their top. That the teacher would be bloody infamous for doing it but nothing would ever be done. After all it was only girls. That they could be sexually assaulted by a school mate, then be the called a slag, a reputation ruined. A childhood ruined. A life ruined.

Girls and women need safe spaces away to heal together. Because women and girls are the only ones who know what it is like to grow up as a female. Stop coming and telling us to shut up. Because that is exactly what you are doing. If we don't talk about it, it still happened.

98% of sexual offenders are male. It's not demonisation to say that male people are more of a danger to women and children than female people are.

If it's 'demonisation' to say that virtually all sex offenders are male then ... what isn't? What are we allowed to say? It's not okay to state facts, now?

Yes. It's good to note where the presumed authority on women's boundaries and ability to say 'no' lies. Some would say that women are allowed single sex spaces in certain circumsances. This is working from a default presumption that women are available to males as necessary. We've discussed this before in relation to consent and women's boundaries. Some people presume women's consent is yes, with some specific exceptions.

I would say women's single spaces belong to women, and it's up to us to decide if we want them or not. Women are the authorities on women's consent, boundaries and a 'yes' or 'no' is up to women only to decide.

And one “no” should be enough. Consent is not transferable. Just because some women have no issue with mixed sex spaces, that doesn’t give them the right to remove single sex spaces from those who do need and/or want them.

@MiladyBerserko

Look at the monitors, who come on here, a site called 'Mumsnet to stop wonen talking about the abuse they suffered as children, and tell them that they are mistaken and it happens only from relatives.

Why are they so invested in telling women to shut up?

I am quite fascinated by the lofty tone used too. They quite genuinely think they have the right to tell women to shut up and accept any males to women's spaces on their say so.

Strangely enough, I have done none of these things. Is it not possible to respond to what I HAVE said, as opposed to what you appear to have wanted me to have said?

@RobinMoiraWhite

I would support any measure that was likely to reduce child abuse - the subject of the article.

But to take an example related to the subject matter rather than randomly affecting other groups, I understand it to be the case that a high proportion of child abuse is committed by male relatives.

No one would be suggesting that all male relatives should be denied access to children.

Rather we need empowerment of children to report abuse, appropriate steps when we do and understand of warning signs to identify potential perpetrators.

I support the need for women’s spaces in some circumstances. I don’t support the demonisation of men or trans women that some folk here argue for.

This is a perfect quote for a critical thinking exercise. In fact I think someone ought to archive it. I am presuming you are a lawyer? It might sound ok to a jury if you spoke it quickly, but writing it down to be analysed, it shows very clearly what you think. And why women, many of whom on this forum are mothers of daughters, are standing up for women’s rights.

In summary, it reads as if your solution is not to prevent child abuse but once the child has been abused, somehow this child will find someone morally good in authority and gain a relationship long enough, so they trust them enough, to snitch on their abusers, possibly, as your reasoning goes, their fathers/brothers/uncles?

I would support any measure that was likely to reduce child abuse - the subject of the article.

Then openly advocating to retain safe single sex spaces should be a no brainer rather than supporting organisations / individuals who think that the presence of naked girls in a swimming pool changing room are essential to affirm a boy's belief that he is a girl.

I look forward to hear RMW challenging all the powerful organisations busily eroding safe single sex spaces for girls and women........

“The demonisation of men”.

Yeah, the thing about talking about the sexual abuse of children, it makes men look bad, eh?

I don’t think I’ve read anything on here in your whole career of monitoring and scolding the women of Mumsnet that has given me quite such an insight into how you formed your opinions, Robin, and in quite what low regard you hold women and our testimonies and realities.

Thank you. It’s very helpful. We used to get a great many people, mostly men who would come here and accuse of being manhaters. It tailed off about five years ago in favour of us being called t*rfs.

I won’t spell out the obvious.

@RobinMoiraWhite

I would support any measure that was likely to reduce child abuse - the subject of the article.

But to take an example related to the subject matter rather than randomly affecting other groups, I understand it to be the case that a high proportion of child abuse is committed by male relatives.

No one would be suggesting that all male relatives should be denied access to children.

Rather we need empowerment of children to report abuse, appropriate steps when we do and understand of warning signs to identify potential perpetrators.

I support the need for women’s spaces in some circumstances. I don’t support the demonisation of men or trans women that some folk here argue for.

Of course no one is suggesting that all male relatives are denied access to children, even though that would massively reduce abuse against children, because it is completely impossible and unworkable.

Do you know what is not completely impossible and unworkable though? Allowing women to have some spaces in public where they may be vulnerable that are female only. Where they know that the only other people around them, or treating them, or counselling them, or incarcerated with them, are women, are female.

Allowing women to know that they live in a society where men cannot just change their legal sex at the drop of a hat, and that therefore they can challenge the very obvious male in their changing room, or refuge, or request that the person doing their smear test is a biological female, without being scared that they will be labelled a transphobic bigot because that very obvious man may or may not have signed a single form changing his legal sex to female.

Allowing women to recognise and be able to speak about the things that make them anxious or uncomfortable, like being gaslit into being told that members of a high risk sex class are able to remove themselves from that high risk class, simply by saying they are a woman.

Women know what men are. Women know men, as a class, are high risk. Women know that men will take advantage of any loophole, however small, if it means they can exert power over them, whether that be by carrying out actual crimes or by making them feel anxious, uncomfortable, powerless.

And apart from all of this, no one has ever answered this question:

Why should trans people have the right to legally falsify their birth certificate by signing a single form? What is that actually equal to? Because last time I checked I didn't have the right to do that?

As always I find it interesting which threads sone ppl choose to appear & comment on…..

And the onus should never be on children ti report child abuse once it happens but in all adults to take every step humanly possible to prevent it. That includes single sex spaces and girls growing up knowing that there are spaces for them where no men are allowed.

Why should trans people have the right to legally falsify their birth certificate by signing a single form? What is that actually equal to? Because last time I checked I didn't have the right to do that?

Not just trans people. Under self-ID, everyone has the right to do this. Any man can legally declare himself a woman.

There is no definition of what it means to 'live as' the opposite sex. Therefore it can never be proven that a man has falsely claimed to be living as a woman.

For evidence of this, in the case of a woman 'living as a man', we have Freddy McConnell, who while 'living as a man' has given birth to two children. Freddy's GRC has not been revoked on the grounds that Freddy wasn't 'living as a man' when pregnant.

So a man who commits a rape while 'living as a woman' will not have his GRC revoked because he has lied. If a woman can be deemed to be 'living as a man' while deliberately becoming pregnant, then a man can be 'living as a woman' while using his penis to rape someone.

I'd like Robin to explain how this push for self-ID helps transgender people. It seems to me that the only people it actually helps is male sexual predators.

@Waitwhat23

"(And where you use the dismissive word 'demonise', i use the words 'express my disgust and contempt')"

Nail meet hammer!

"I write from a household where people are renewing their DBS for their roles as volunteer sports coaches and a couple are looking at renewing their safeguarding training."

I have just seen there is now a special addition for transgender DBS applications in cases where an applicant does not wish to reveal a previous identity to a potential employer. Discovering that gave a sense of unease.

So, that's it. You demand something from us. We say No.

Indeed.

No, thank you.