Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

[Catiette]

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

I wouldn’t think that a feminist would do that intentionally, but I would think that a conservative homophobic misogynist who did want to erode gay and women’s rights would see a movement of women who had been hurt and abused by men were beginning to grow fearful or trans women and would think ‘now’s my chance!’ And would spread propaganda about trans women being men who just want access to women’s spaces in order to sow more fear and could then say ‘don’t worry ladies, the Conservative Party will protect you, just vote for us and we’ll keep those nasty men out of your spaces’ and then once they got into power it would be too late.

Donald Trump in the US promised to keep men out of women’s spaces and then he appointed conservative men into the Supreme Court who then repealed Roe vs Wade, a move which has been very damaging to women. Women voted for Donald Trump against their own interests.

'Given that I have heard of some gender critical women voting for conservative parties against their own interests in order to prioritise denying trans people their rights, is it any wonder that this was a reasonable conclusion for me to draw?'

It is interesting that you choose to frame it as 'denying trans people their rights' when the women on here are largely concerned with the erosion of the single sex exemptions and occupational requirements allowed in the EQA 2010 which is intended for the safety and dignity of women. Existing legislation which lobby groups are determinedly fighting to remove.

And I won't be voting Conservative.

Right. You are aware we are adult women, capable of assessing evidence, and drawing our own conclusions and even making our own political decisions by weighing up our own priorities, needs, beliefs and wants?

don’t worry ladies, the Conservative Party will protect you, just vote for us and we’ll keep those nasty men out of your spaces’ and then once they got into power it would be too late.

They've been in power for years. This whole shitshow has been pushed through successive govts. It's cross party. Which is why you'll find so many women say they are now 'politically homeless', because they cannot bring themselves to vote for a party that doesn't respect their sex, and currently none of the mainstream parties do so.

Do you not think it is quite offensive to suggest that the only reason feminists might want to fight for women to have single sex toilets, prisons, rape crisis groups and sports is because we have been tricked by male conservatives into doing their handiwork for them?

It doesn't sound like you credit us with very much intelligence.

Blimey! Are feminists so gullible? Really?

Or have men who wanted to take advantage of public opinion done so for their own gain?

I think once you look further you will see feminists have been speaking about this now for decades. And I don’t believe that the words of feminists are empty of evidence and full of ‘fear’, do you?

I have also heard suggested on this thread that those of us who believe that trans women are women and should therefor have access to women’s spaces have been manipulated by men and misogynists into holding this view, and I’m not really seeing much pushback on it.

The picture I painted was a cartoonish exaggeration, but I'm trying to point out that when an issue is very polarising, and each side only ever talks to each other about the other side rather than actually engaging with members of the other side, it is very easy to develop these assumptions about each other, and really neither are true. There are sensible people with genuine concerns on both sides.

To be fair that is a bit like suggesting that anyone who thinks it's OK to admit TW into women's spaces is fully in favour of legalization of sex with children. I'm fully confident that Spooky would be horrified by that suggestion even though I think there are people with that aim that are involved with pushing the TRA agenda.

I'm also getting quite sick of hearing that women are being tricked into voting Tory over something as inconsequential as the definition of a woman when it is obviously in their best interests to vote Labour and get the Tories out.

We are already in a situation where the word "woman" and even the word "female" are in danger of becoming meaningless. If anyone can identify as a woman, the word then just means "some unspecified people". Women's rights then become the rights of anyone who claims to be a woman, when they were meant to be the rights of biologically female people, to protect us from discrimination on the basis of our female biological sex. But if we redefine "woman" to mean anyone who says they are one, the group of people who were supposed to benefit from those specific rights no longer technically exists in our laws or our language. You cannot protect or fight for the specific rights of a group of people you cannot even name.

And thanks to the Haldane judgment, even our protected characteristic under the Equality Act is now in question, because if we are to interpret "sex" to mean legal sex rather than biological sex, a male person with a gender recognition certificate is considered female for all purposes without exception. So if I am a woman of childbearing age, excelling in my career, and I get married, I might then find myself passed over for promotions and other opportunities in favour of someone who is not at risk of getting pregnant. If that person is a male without a gender recognition certificate, I may be able to bring a claim for sex discrimination. If that person is a male with a gender recognition certificate, they are technically female, so I can't.

Labour won't fix this. They will make it worse.

So, your suggestion was a game? To point something out?

“manipulated by men and misogynists”

Were those manipulative and misogynist ‘males’ by any chance? As in the very people who are demanding access to female single sex spaces, sports, opportunities and roles set up to progress women and girls in light of the negative sexist discrimination we as female people face?

This is really interesting @SpookyFBI
I've also read your follow-up to the question the followed about the "nefarious agenda" 👍

Agendas seem to be a really difficult and polarising subject. From personal experience on this thread, I have no idea who thinks I'm gameplaying an agenda myself, despite my comment to clarify my motivation for being here. I'm not going to worry about that and I'll continue to engage in the way that I've been doing since I first started posting on the FWR. I prefer to think of it as me being objective and using my critical thinking before I write anything, but If BarristerVoice is the name of my style, so be it 😁

I'm going to watch the Trans Agenda video that has been posted above and while I do, I'll think about it through the lens of what you said:
It’s all too easy to demonise and assume malicious intent of the other side so it might pay to be careful when you’re tempted to assume some big nefarious agenda of those who support trans rights.

I also question whether the Tory party is comparable to Trump?

To be fair to Spooky she said conservative parties not The Conversation Party and as she is not in UK while she may include the Torys in that statement I don't think she meant it specifically.

I have also heard suggested on this thread that those of us who believe that trans women are women and should therefor have access to women’s spaces have been manipulated by men and misogynists into holding this view, and I’m not really seeing much pushback on it.

As I have never heard a coherent explanation from those who believe TWAW as to why they do believe that then, yes, it would appear that manipulation from misogynistic men is a valid possibility.

I’m not sure if you’re new to this thread but I have laid out in great detail over several posts why I believe that trans women are women. Of course I can only speak for myself and my personal worldview, not on behalf of anyone else who holds the same beliefs. I do understand that this is a very long thread now so these posts may be difficult to find.

Ok, I can sense some defensiveness growing from some posters and I can feel myself getting defensive as well so I think it’s time for me to take a break and come back when I have a cool head

Fair enough. Let’s see what Spooky says. I assume that they are referring to the threads here discussing voting for the Tories, and so meant both UK and USA.

Thank you @BonfireLady . PS what does FWR mean?

Feminism and Women's Rights. As-was the name of this board.

The picture I painted was a cartoonish exaggeration - I see, fair enough.

@SpookyFBI

I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on my June examples below

Hello, @SpookyFBI
When you come back from your break would you quickly explain to me what it is about transwomen which makes them women rather than men?

Conservatism isn't necessarily an evil, you know. Conserving things that work or have been shown to work through time is often a sensible and practical thing to do. The reasons we have single sex spaces is because women have required them in order to feel comfortable and to have dignity in certain types of intimate situation. Nothing has changed to suggest this is no longer the case.

To be radical is to over-throw the old for the sake of something that is seen as being new or progressive or better in some way; but quite often radical over-throw is not progressive; especially when the conditions you have feel you have over-thrown still exist, or simply re-assert themselves.

When i was younger I was in the habit of fairly frequent and radical over-throw - but after having to re-build a new set of conditions on multiple occasions I became a bit more cautious about what I wanted to throw out from then on.

If it works, It works. You don't need to re-invent the wheel.

Yes, this is true - but my feeling is that when it comes down to it if someone believes that TWAW then that is fundamentally opposed to what I, and most others, personally know to be true. How can we possibly move forward from there?

The obvious solution on a practical level is third spaces, services and open categories - but that still does not address other issues such as the teaching of gender identity theory as a fact to children and young people, rather than presenting it as a belief.

Not new to this thread, no. Yes I have read your posts and, like I said, not a coherent explanation. You know people are allowed to disagree don't you? Why is it everyone on your side of TWAW take things so personally and become defensive or snippy?