Restoring Sanity Takes Time - Helen Joyce

[RethinkingLife]

A bracing read. I am still in a state of some despair about how long this will take. As several people have observed, in the last 10 days, the BBC (in common with other media) disseminated unscientific propaganda that male galactorrhea is better than mother’s milk, repeatedly called a deeply disturbed killer a woman while disdaining to acknowledge the alternate reality as a cat, and has publicly reprimanded Justin Webb for plain speaking that was probably helpful to many listeners.

What will it take to bring bigoted employers to heel? Part of the answer is time. During the past decade, the trans lobby has been stunningly successful in selling false analogies to HR departments: that separate toilets for men and women are like racial segregation; and that insisting people can change sex is “gay rights 2.0”.
Lazy, power-hungry HR managers and staff working in “EDI” (equality, diversity and inclusion) pronounce that the arc of the moral universe is bending towards denying sexual dimorphism, and relish imposing their will on others.
…
Imagine you’re an HR professional belatedly wondering if you’ve got the wrong end of the stick on the whole sex-gender thing. You might turn to A Practical Guide to Transgender Law by two barristers, Nicola Newbegin and transwoman Robin Moira White.
But that might not save you from serious missteps. The first edition, published before the binding Forstater judgment, enthusiastically endorsed the faulty lower court ruling. The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t.
Even before the recent string of judgments to the contrary, that was obvious nonsense. The law about freedom of belief expressly includes “manifestation”. And anyway, it takes but a moment’s thought to realise that the law can’t possibly concern beliefs that are never manifested, since it can’t reach inside the privacy of our heads.
…
At bottom, the mindset of the narcissistic identitarians joining in workplace witch-hunts is that of the Crusaders, who made converts at the point of a sword. They do not respect other people’s sovereign consciences, nor accept that their belief system is just one among many. And like the Crusaders, they need to be consigned to history.

https://thecritic.co.uk/restoring-sanity-takes-time/

Adding in a good read about the Meade and Phoenix rulings:

I'm not suggesting it would have been OK to do so before she gained her GRC, by the way.

I don't even know what to say. Do you believe in fairies and unicorns too? The magic in that piece of paper!

Drawing historical and cultural comparisons is perfectly legitimate.

Let me correct that for you. The purpose of feminism is to bring an end to people being disadvantaged because of their sex.

I think people should mind their own business and not constantly be looking out for people around them to ostracise.

Not in a discussion about the UK and how laws and social contracts were formed.

UK single sex spaces were created based on safety and privacy and dignity.

You came in here all faux innocent, "why do these women believe this thing". Interesting and predictable to see you do have skin in the game @ForCoralFox

I think people should consider that there are other people who have needs that are just as important and therefore discussions should be had about how to make sure that women who are told they should be minding their own business have their needs met too.

should be had about how to make sure that women who are told they should be minding their own business

One wonders why anyone would possibly imagine that this movement is misogynistic @Helleofabore

The anti trans discourse reminds me of the conundrum about a tree falling in a forest.

You should experiment - stop talking about and thinking about trans women for a year. At the end of that year consider the ways in which the existence of trans women has materially impacted on your life and the lives of other women, without all the psychic noise created by your own angry voices.

What does 'feeling like a woman' feel like? How do you know you're doing it? How do I know I'm doing it?

If you truly believe that 'people's subjective sense of self is more important' you'll be fine with me identifying as a 7 year old and joining your kids class, right? I'm going to absolutely sweep the board in the spelling test, and sports day, but my subjective sense of self is more important so my classmates are just bigots who need to mind their own business and stop trying to oppress me. Right?

Is it sinister to take an issue with these things whilst also knowing people personally affected? As it happens I felt much the same before I knew any trans people personally, but even if knowing some had changed my mind, would that be wrong?

Quite a few people on this forum say they became interested in these issues because their children are trans and they don't like it. Does their 'skin in the game' mean they shouldn't comment?

@OldCrone the "causes" of sexuality and gender identity are very complex. Both have a genetic component. Neither are a "belief" in the sense that being gender critical is a belief. The sad case of David Reimer demonstrates in the instrinsic nature of gender identity even in cisgender people. He "knew" he was a man. I don't think you would argue that this was social contagion or a transmitted belief. There is no simple unitary explanation. Twin studies suggest a genetic component, which gives the lie to the idea that it's a "belief" rather than something inherent. It would be a useful starting point, at least, for gender critical people to acknowledge this, even if they don't accept that transgender people should be accommodated. This is going to keep happening, whatever the law is, despite Joyce's comments that all transgender people, happy or otherwise are "a problem in a sane world" and the number should be "reduced."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17749-0

Transgender people are what they are, and this is not a new phenomenon. Acceptance of transgender people, and people having labels for their internal sense of self have enabled people to come out. There wasn't a huge increase in left-handed people when being left-handed became acceptable, and there wasn't a huge increase in gay people when being gay became legal.

Being gender non-conforming and being transgender are not neccessarily related. "Wanting to be a boy" is not the same as "being a boy." Destransitioning in adults is very rare, and regret rates for gender confirmation surgery is lower than almost every other procedure.

AGP has also been thoroughly discredited, and nutpicking trans women who fit your profile, does not provide any evidence.

The major so-called study on social contagion is the RODG study. The paper initially proposing the concept was based on self-selected surveys of parents of transgender youth recruited from three anti-trans websites, with one likely trans-supportive Facebook group. It would be like doing a political poll by asking people on primarily pro-Tory websites.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/there-is-no-evidence-that-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-exists

I said it was the disingenuous nature of your discourse I had an issue with, I didn't say it was sinister in any way @ForCoralFox

This is just facile.

Like many of your points.

It's now gotten to a point, given the amount of evidence to the harm to women and girls safety and dignity (prisons, sports, rape crisis services, hospital wards, gender clinics etc) by the determined attacks on the single sex exemptions allowed in the EQA 2010, that ignorance is no longer an excuse.

I don't think I was disingenuous. The definitions of misogyny in this thread just aren't misogyny, that's all.

How? If you truly believe, as you said, that people's subjective sense of self is more important, then you surely support me in my subject sense of being a 7 year old, despite my in fact being a middle aged woman. How is my belief that I'm something I'm physically, provably not any different to a males belief that he is something he physically provably is not?

Edited cos autocarrot

lol.

so a man can apply for a piece of paper, and on that basis access women and girls who are getting undressed. And you're fine with it, and absolutely don't see it as any kind of misogyny.

🙄

On the contrary, it's completely accurate. But I recognise it must be embarrassing to be confronted with the reality of your arguments so commiserations for that.

Again, you are the one here who has decided to declare what is not a core right as being a core right.

Male people did not ever have a blanket right to access female single sex spaces. It doesn't matter how you try to parse this. It was never a right.

The fact that it is a temporary allowance that can be removed, as per the screen shot posted of the example, means it is not a 'right'. It may be called a 'right' but it is and always was temporary. If you want to just keep repeating 'it is a right', 'it is a right', fill your fucking boots. It does not mean it is a right that is protected under the EA. It is NOT protected because it is part of those exceptions!

You can keep repeating it and we will keep telling the readers that under the EA, toilets and changing rooms are exceptions. As are other instances. You are relying on language to attempt to demonise and vilify legitimate actions. That is the act of a misogynist when you are doing to shame women who are campaigning for the needs of female people.

Your constant repeating of the phrase 'It is an actual right' doesn't change that it was never a 'right' for a male to use a female single sex space that we are seeking to remove. It was an allowance because it was always subject to acceptance by the organisations allowing it to happen.

No. It is using the premise of identity to illustrate an alternative scenario. You can call it whatever you like. That scenario is about a person who is materially not of the protected category of age demanding access to the protected category of age.

Age is as material as sex because it is based on proven fact.

(I'm not suggesting it would have been OK to do so before she gained her GRC, by the way.)

honestly. It's not even a disingenuous argument. It's complete stupidity.

A middle-aged man can access undressing teenage girls on the basis of applying for a piece of paper.

Him being a convicted rapist doesn't stop him getting a GRC. Nor does being a self confessed fetishist.

But it's not misogyny!! 😆

Or are we now going to be told that a GRC should only be given to 'good men'.

I cannot wait for that formula!

All those women who marry men who end up beating, raping and killing them.

They could absolutely benefit from learning the formula that tells them that's going to happen.

To be frank, so could schools, the police force, the judiciary, the priesthood and parliament.

Only if by 'just facile' you mean something like 'a valid argument using a clear analogy to show what I said was really silly'.

Perhaps you do. Who knows?

By Jove I think you've got it!

You agree that the socially-constructed stereotypes (gender) are used to oppress women.

I'm glad we got there...