Women's rights general conversations - Thread 7

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 6.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions in the supermarket, grr"- that sort of thing).

Jonathan Liew, professional misogynist and sports writer at the Guardian, is at it again. The Twitterverse is Not Appy. Even JK Rowling has commented.

Why have rightwingers made even parkrun a battleground for trans people? | Sport | The Guardian

The usual then "banning trans people from sport" aka asking men to compete in the man category

Yes, genocide for the initiated.

He's a prick, as he's demonstrated before. It's the sheer dishonesty that's annoying; he knows perfectly well (unless he's a complete idiot, which I'm sure he's not) that trans people aren't being 'banned' from anything.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5007797-failure-to-provide-a-toilet-for-the-exclusive-use-of-women-is-sex-discrimination

I think this judgement is very significant, as is the fact that it relies on the Miller EAT ruling. It seems to me that we are getting closer to the point where case law says that employers must provide separate facilities/services for women in certain circumstances. Chipping away at the Stonewall Law idea that the bar to exclude is impossibly high. And even taking Haldane into account, even males with GRCs - the legally, but not actually, female - must be excluded if employers want to avoid an unlawful sex discrimination claim. IA soooo NAL, but I think she said that if males with GRCs were specifically mentioned in legislation, they would not have to be treated as if they were female. Which would be why males can be women on a gender-balanced board but (for example) males cannot compete as women in a gender-affected sport - because the EA says that they can be excluded in gender-affected sports. Unless I've completely misunderstood Haldane on that point.

It's been assumed by some that because the EA says males with a GRC may be excluded in certain circumstances, rather that must be excluded, that there wouldn't be a claim for sex discrimination. That provided the provider is clear about what is provided, women-only provision is optional. And yes technically the provider doesn't have to provide single sex spaces. But they then have no defence against a sex discrimination claim if they choose not to apply the EA exceptions in certain circumstances - because the EA in citing those examples of exceptions has decided that the balance should favour women in those circumstances. And courts are making that plain. I hope I am making myself understood, I don't have the legal vocabulary. It could be good news for IAmSarah's case.

Please help me, any passing lawyers! 👋 I haven't read the judgement, just the solicitor's summary of its meaning.

Don't know where else to put this, but I stumbled across, and have been following this podcast about a commune in NZ in the 70's- it's really well produced and utterly fascinating (although mindful to warn people about CSA content)

Desperate to share it somewhere, where people will ba able to draw, as I have done, so many parallels with the issues we discuss on this board. Eg; articles on child sexuality (just like the mermaids phd controversy) used to justify breaking of boundaries between child and adult, feminism vs safeguarding, infiltration and corruption of police and even an abortion clinic. The absolute mind blindness of people to address wrongs- even in the face of evidence. Even the way a committee is set to to discuss the harms, rather than facing and dealing with them head on. Honestly, can't move for mind-blowing parallels.

It makes me think of the Lars von Trier film 'The Commune'.
And also about how there is always an ongoing cultural tension between safety/boundaries and freedom (the same reason I found the Mary Whitehouse documentary on the BBC so nuanced and fascinating)

Anyway, if you're looking for an interesting podcast and fancy reporting back your thoughts after listening please do!

I'm not sure it warrants a thread, and this is the only general thread- so apologies if derailing an ongoing convo (eg the toilets one above).

It's called 'The Commune'. Sure it's on other platforms too.

https://open.spotify.com/show/3qgUKA3HHuZhIGxU6KYanU?si=U9uYD_XYSjqct0P6Yqdm-Q

Sounds fascinating, thank you.

And this thread is all about the derails.

I'm going to listen to that podcast, sounds right up my street!

Have you heard of the Children of God? They were (are?) one of the Jesus freak cults that started in the late 60s. Also a large child sexualisation issue with them. So much damage.

There was the Jesus Army too.

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/jesus-army-growing-up-abuse-things-happened-sisters-friend-1907043

It's a real sign of progress that these morally challenging ideas used to be the province of fringe groups that you had to be brainwashed by, now it feels like not being brainwashed by that kind of thing is the fringe.

Yep! I was thinking the same when listening to this Stephanie.

• *There's alot of disbelief expressed that "intelligent people could go along with it"

It actually starts in the 70s but continues on for many years longer.
Was aware of the Children of God and other groups, yes. I think a long interest in formations of groups like these (deletable word I think?) informs my skepticism of and alertness to around any form group think/indoctrination generally.

This one is particularly interesting as it's just some very ordinary bloke called Bert! He was able to create a whole movement of willing followers around him that enabled him to unquestioningly fulfill his unbridled desires.

I haven't finished it yet. There's 12 episodes!

Just started listening! Childishly giggling at the NZ accent talking about how he was into six every day! I'm such a child!

One of my nurses is a New Zealander and I have to fight my baser instincts not to speak to her in her accent.

The podcast looks really interesting and I've put it in my Spotify library to have a good listen to.

I have an interest in this sort of thing and I think part of it stems from a number of dramas in my teens which was all about families getting deprogrammers to rescue their young adult children from a variety of cults. I like to think I'd have been smart enough not to fall for that sort of indoctrination but I had vulnerable times in my early years and that's when they go for you, offering you all the support and answers that you're looking for. All big fat lies of course but easy to believe when you're searching for meaning.

Yeah. I think it's a bit like the unhappy teen who end up in those gender clubs in school. Many detransitioners I've read about talk about how they were so lonely, so unhappy and didn't feel like they fit in with other kids, excluded or bullied, and suddenly they found a welcoming gang. Poor kids. Life can be very, very hard.

Blimey - the Jesus Army and the Jesus Centre. I got slightly involved with them in my troubled teens in the mid-70s but had completely forgotten about them until now. They used to hang around the ramp to the Bullring shopping centre in Birmingham, giving out leaflets, and me and my equally misfit friend used to talk to them. They persuaded us to start going to the Jesus Centre, also in town, which was a sort of social club/indoctrination centre.

I was even talked into going to prayer meetings at one of the communes, which was in a big house, Harborne way, I think. As I recall, the house had communal kitchen, dining and socialising areas and they used a nearby hall for their meetings. The communes themselves seemed quite nice, if a little austere and I remember wanting to live there.

Everyone seemed friendly enough, but they were a little too earnest and their eye contact was always held slightly too long. I'm glad to say that my attention was soon taken by young men from elsewhere and that was that.

they were a little too earnest and their eye contact was always held slightly too long

I knew my dislike of eye contact had a useful function.

Probably a good protective factor Binturongs!

I think stories about cults tell us so much about the vulnerabilities in human psychology- that have nothing to do with intelligence and education.

It is interesting that when looking from the outside we might think we would never be susceptible.

That's partly why I found the latest Cormoran Strike book so compelling (and frightening). She captures very well how even the most intelligent and sceptical person has vulnerabilities that can be exploited.

I'm only half way through the first book Squeaky.
Do they need to be read in order? * *

Unexpected shoutout to the Brighton Centre for its lavatorial arrangements. Downstairs: men, women, accessible, and a completely separate baby change room. Upstairs: everyone, women, and accessible.

And braille on all the door signs.

@DameMaud I would say that you will get more from the series if you read them in order, because the relationships of the permanent characters (not just Strike and Robin, but the other people they know and work with) develop over time. But if you're impatient there's no reason why you couldn't read them as standalones, I guess.

I might have to give those books a go. I was turned off because it was J K Rowling and I was sick to death of the whole Harry Potter thing and her woolly liberalism. Now, of course, I'm turned on by her marvellous support of women and I've heard a lot of good things about them.

Re intelligence and cults. People often think they wouldn't be "stupid" enough to be taken in but they're not after stupid, they're after vulnerable and anyone can be vulnerable. I reckon that any one of us, at different times in our lives, could have been susceptible. I'm grateful for all the deprogramming made for TV movies for making me aware that cults were a thing.

Yes, I'll keep going with the books in order I think, thanks @StephanieSuperpowers

Agree Mouse. Vulnerability and isolation are susceptibilities.

On another thread we joked about going for a curry here

https://www.theindiaclub.co.uk/menu

Sadly, soon after we did it closed, making way for a posh hotel, ending over 70 years of history. 😥