No debate is over at the Guardian

[InvisibleDragon]

Simultaneous release of pieces by Susanna Rustin and Zoe Williams:

Rustin:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/labour-policies-trans-women-rights-gender-recognition-act

Williams:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/labour-policy-gender-back-trans-rights-boris-johnson

I disagree. It’s not the Guardian as a whole who dismissed concerns around males in women’s prisons (now changed to “trans prisoners”) which has resulted in sexual assault of women, as “confected outrage”. Zoe Williams did that. Zoe Williams thinks this is not worthy of outrage and thinks it must be made up to be outraged at such a thing.

Regardless of how terrible she is a journalist, or poor at fact checking, or the lack of standards that allowed her inaccurate article to get published, she has quite clearly nailed her colours to the mast there. Women in prison don’t matter. So I think it’s fine to criticise her personally for holding such deplorable views.

@InvisibleDragon

Williams has exploded my head with this: The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has provided guidelines extending the circumstances under which trans people can be excluded from single-sex spaces. “Legitimate justifications” now include female-only fitness classes and the toilets of places of worship where it may offend people, on religious grounds, to have inclusive spaces. I can’t even wrap my head around the person who doesn’t want anybody trans in their aerobics class, nor in my years writing a fitness column have I ever seen “female-only” as a spec. This is a hokey, made-up scenario. Those crop up a lot. And let’s not rehash where faith as a caveat to equality meets its hard limit.

She lives in London. Has she never been to a women only swim session on Bethnal green? (Unlikely)

Has she ever thought about why women might want a Women's self-defence class (with no men)?
(Clearly also unlikely)

She's banging on about feminism, but did she never hear of women's consciousness raising groups and The personal is political? (It appears not)

I think a lot of people who say stuff like this have never actually met a trans woman, and I don't mean that to be offensive and say that they are horrible men who are gonna beat everyone up, definitely not the case, (although actual horrible men will take advantage and use this as a way to be horrible) but what I mean is, when people say stuff like this it's like they're assuming that trans women are exactly like women and you'll never tell the difference... my neighbour is a transwoman, keeps herself to herself mostly but as soon as I met her, I knew she was a transwoman and not a woman, just instantly, before she even spoke

Of course she will have met transwomen. The Grauniad has trans staff.

@MangyInseam

I just can't imagine that it would be possible to be so unaware that there are lots of single sex gyms or classes, I guess - and a journalist might do 5 minutes of googling to check before writing that it is so.

I know, mind-boggling. Private gyms aside, down the road from me is a council-run leisure centre that has several women-only studio classes.

I have to say Random789 I'm bemused at the idea of The Guardian using FWR as their barometer. But I take the point on board and withdraw the word 'Madam'.

You're probably right Floisme, but you never know. I made a crack once about Evan Davis being so cute I wanted him for a novelty keyring, and the comment made it into some Guardian piece or other. So at least we can influence the media when it comes to the presenter/keyring interface

Tim Dowling of the Guardian once found a thread in which he was mentioned, and proceeded to write about it all.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/757299-Tim-Dowling-for-example-is-a-twat

I really liked his columns, so I felt rather hurt on his behalf. So much so, that I haven't dared find out what he thinks on this issue, in case it would upset me!

nor in my years writing a fitness column have I ever seen “female-only” as a spec.

Odd. I spent best part of 20 years teaching exercise classes billed as "women only". A few time we had men asking why, but they usually wandered off when I explained we would be talking about ways to stengthen the pelvic floor, preventing the giggle/cough leakage, concentrating on diastasis recti, discussing exerice and the menopause.

There was a men only session - based on lifting heavy weights with bad technique.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

nor in my years writing a fitness column have I ever seen “female-only” as a spec.

Odd. I spent best part of 20 years teaching exercise classes billed as "women only". A few time we had men asking why, but they usually wandered off when I explained we would be talking about ways to stengthen the pelvic floor, preventing the giggle/cough leakage, concentrating on diastasis recti, discussing exerice and the menopause.

There was a men only session - based on lifting heavy weights with bad technique.

I'd call her a useful idiot, but given the fiasco that was that article I'm not sure the first word applies.

I haven’t respected Zoe Williams since she complained about the Tories winning a general election and then admitted she hadn’t voted because she couldn’t be arsed.

I can’t even wrap my head around the person who doesn’t want anybody trans in their aerobics class, nor in my years writing a fitness column have I ever seen “female-only” as a spec. This is a hokey, made-up scenario. Those crop up a lot.

I think she is hiding behind the meaning of the words women and female.

In her world (definitely not mine) women includes women and men who say they are women. So a women-only exercise class includes female adults and male adults.

In her world female-only is different because it excludes male women.

So if she has only come across women-only classes she can pretend that it was never synonymous with female-only classes.

Obviously, to the general public women-only means the same as female-only.

It's why it's so important we only use the word woman for women as anything else leads to confusion and loss of women's rights.

Going back to the lunch article, I was struck by how obvious it was who the transwoman was. By contrast, DH thought the transwoman was the biological woman. DS (twenty something) got it right but thought it wasn’t blindingly obvious. It led to a useful discussion about why/how women need to be able to identify men and take avoiding action where needed. They do actually know but it’s helpful to reinforce the message in this context.

Having said that, I’ve spent 30 odd years trying to get DH to try not to look like a tourist on holiday in cities and to stay sharp. Both DSs are far more aware.

And talking of Saturday's lunch article the transwoman didn't think it a problem to come 500 and push a woman down to 501. It sure as hell would matter if that was a woman in top level sport and she was pushed from say third bronze medal position to fourth - no medal.

I am very surprised that your husband did not immediately recognise the transwoman.
However, I remember saying once to my son that transmen often pass better than transwomen and he told me that men spot transmen straight away. Maybe it is a question of one sex always knowing the opposite srx.