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:

so absolutely zero to lose by giving away women's rights to dignity and single sex spaces. And all the brownie points to win from the blue hairs for being progressive? while actually having to make no adjustments in his life whatsoever? double plus sigh.

I wonder if the feminist utopia that some envision is a world where your sex has absolutely no relevance to your life? Rather than what I always thought, a world where you are not discriminated against or disadvantaged due to your sex.

The first one would have to be some kind of science fiction world where we are somehow detached from the physicality of our own bodies. It sounds like more of a dystopia to me.

I think as feminists we should just keep it real.

Him being a convicted rapist doesn't stop him getting a GRC.

Indeed. Convicted murderer Karen Jones comes to mind.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3180059-To-think-if-youve-killed-raped-women-we-dont-give-a-flying-fuck-what-you-think-on-any-given-matter

Hmm..... Sounds like a spicy way to describe a heterosexual man to me.

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

In your humble opinion.

More pithily put than I did @JanesLittleGirl

I wonder if the feminist utopia that some envision is a world where your sex has absolutely no relevance to your life? Rather than what I always thought, a world where you are not discriminated against or disadvantaged due to your sex.

The first one would have to be some kind of science fiction world where we are somehow detached from the physicality of our own bodies. It sounds like more of a dystopia to me.

I think as feminists we should just keep it real.

This.

In addition, during the GRR Bill debate in Scotland, the following amendments were voted down by MSP's -

An amendment to pause an application for a GRC for those charged with rape or sexual assault which was defeated by the casting vote of the Presiding Officer.

An amendment which sought to prevent convicted sex offenders being allowed to change their gender.

I think we should try to move forward, not remain limited by the past.

Women used to die in childbirth very regularly. That was the reality of the physicality of our own bodies. Now we don't, in the western world at least. Is that dystopian?

Women used to die in childbirth very regularly. That was the reality of the physicality of our own bodies. Now we don't, in the western world at least.

Black women are 5 times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. That's an issue which cuts across race and sex. It's not going to be priority number one for Black Lives Matter. Without the language to recognise that this is a problem for specific groups of women, it's lost in the mists.

@ForCoralFox

We are all limited by biology in some ways. We don't live in the utopia you imagine. You keep working for it (as I am sure you are doing around the clock) and I'll keep plodding on acknowledging the biological and social reality of the here and now.

I can see you don't really understand what feminists of the past fought for.

Feminists fought against oppression. That oppression largely took the form of negative sexist discrimination. ie. society treating female people negatively due to their sexed body. I have seen many posters try to argue that feminists fought for 'equality'. When the reality is that feminists fought for 'equality of outcomes'.

The difference becomes clear when you look at previous lifting limits.

Way back in the past, female people would have been not considered for a role that involved lifting heavy items. That was negative sexist discrimination.

It was deemed that female people could not do the job because they were not strong enough, therefore no female person should be employed in that role.

Then feminists pointed out that female people can do the job with accommodations. That being lifting smaller weights more often. Or using a device for assistance. Because of their sexed body, they simply do not have the ability to lift the same weights that male people can, or they can, but not as often without injury. That is the reality of their sexed body. By the way, the evidence is that males who suppress their testosterone still have advantages for that lifting that female people do not have.

So, now there are very few jobs requiring manual lifting that female people cannot apply and should have equal chance of being employed for.

But this was not achieved by denying the unique needs of the female sexed body. It was achieved by forcing through accommodations for that body.

Another example is reproductive capacity. I lost many opportunities because of my ability to get pregnant. It is very clear now though that this is negative sexist discrimination because it should never be assumed that any female person will get pregnant. That is because it is a woman's choice to get pregnant, or to continue a pregnancy that might disrupt employment. This example though is here to highlight the growth of 'women's choices'. Because it was assumed through stereotyping that someone with a female body would choose to get pregnant.

That was always a false basis to reject someone for employment because it could not be applied universally. It was a stereotype. However, it is true that the ONLY people in the world to get pregnant are female. Thankfully society has moved on and female should be less discriminated against because they can get pregnant in the UK.

Still, no denial of the sexed body in objective.

Then there was the ridiculous notion that women could not do a role because they lacked intellect, or ability or whatever. That did require a great deal of work to overcome. And yes, that is where 'there is NO difference between men and women' came into being. Because there is no real difference between IQ or arriving at the same outcome of a task.

However, here women were not denying they were female. They were saying they were as good as any male and that they should not be denied the opportunities that male people had based on a ridiculous notion that was false.

Please stop spreading misinformation. This below is complete bollocks.

'The purpose of feminism is to bring an end to people being defined by their sex, not to entrench divisions further.'

In addition, during the GRR Bill debate in Scotland, the following amendments were voted down by MSP's -

An amendment to pause an application for a GRC for those charged with rape or sexual assault which was defeated by the casting vote of the Presiding Officer.

An amendment which sought to prevent convicted sex offenders being allowed to change their gender.

I also remember the fuss made over the amendment to the Forensic Medicine Bill, and Johann Lamont's request for victim centred language to allow women to specify that they wanted person of the same sex to examine them after rape, not the same "gender". Mridul Wadhwa, then a rising star in the SNP left the party in a rage because the other MSPs voted for the Lamont amendment.

@ForCoralFox - you described the age identity thought experiment as facile. Let's try another.

Rachel Dolezal, a white Caucasian woman with no heritage of other ethnicity, identified as black, did her hair in a way stereotypically identified with black ethnicity, and used that identity to access roles reserved for people with non-Caucasian ethnicity. Was she justified in doing so because she sincerely thought of herself as black?

Having a different view on feminism is not spreading misinformation, and nothing you've said above contradicts the bit in bold.

This really does show a complete disconnect in your thinking.

You believe that a legal fiction has changed something other than the fact that your friend now has a legal bit of fiction.

You can be as furious as you want. It doesn't change anything. Your friend is male. By entering into a female single sex space, your friend is causing harm to a female person who needed that space to remain single sex. You telling us that it is no one else's business is false.

It is the business of the female person in that space who entered it expecting it to be female only.

I never understood what all the fuss was about. Technically, she could have had that job as a white person, I believe. But she is just a strange and troubled person, and representative only of herself.

The difference is that trans and non binary people have existed throughout history in almost every country and culture. People identifying as a different age or ethnicity is not a recognised phenomenon in the same way.

You cannot end female people being defined by their material reality. It is a false objective and it is harmful, so it is bollocks.

And you have tried to redefine feminism. So, yes. That is misinformation.

If you choose to end female people being defined by their sex, you need to call it something other than generic feminism. Because it really is not. You can call it liberal feminism or attach some other label to it. But it is not an objective of 'feminism' in general.

Ending oppression of female people from the patriarchy? yes, that is a common objective.

Ending female people being defined by their sexed bodies? No. that is not a common objective to be labelled generically as feminism.

@ForCoralFox - do you understand that a black person might have a different view of that?

Having a different view on feminism

Denying that sex is ever relevant to feminism is certainly a "different view". However ridiculous many modern "women's" organisations are, could you let me know where you got this idea from that it is the "purpose of feminism to bring an end to people being defined by their sex"? Genuinely interested whether it's a particular thinker or just something you came up with.

And how do you see female people having their sex category removed moving forward with reducing this mortality rate?

Please give us some specific examples how you see this being done using your objective of removing the sex definition of female people.

No one is actually harmed by being in a changing room with a trans woman who is minding their own business. They may not like it, but they are not actually harmed, unless we have radically redefined what 'harm' means. Anti trans people talk about how feelings should not be prioritised, yet claim that harm is being made to feel uncomfortable, rather than actually hurt in any way.

@DadJoke talks about the causes of gender identity. Here's another brought about by self-ID.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/05/spanish-soldiers-change-gender-benefits-for-women/

Sorry don't know how to create an archive link but here is the beginning of the article.

Spanish soldiers and policemen are changing their gender in order to access benefits intended for women, an investigation has found.
Spain’s Left-wing governmentt_ introduced a self-ID law in 2022 that made it simple to transition formally, while at the same time boosting benefits for women in the military and security forces.
Since the change was introduced, 41 men have become women in the Spanish territory of Ceuta in North Africaa_. Only four of that number have changed their names.
According to a report in online newspaper El Español, the vast majority of the 37 newly registered women are employed by the military or the police.
‘On the inside I am a lesbian’
Roberto Perdigones, an army corporal who registered as female in the last year, now earns more money and lives in superior accommodation.
“On the outside I feel like a heterosexual man, but on the inside I am a lesbian. And it is the latter that counts. This is why I made the legal change to become a woman,” Corporal Perdigones, who continues to sport a beard, told El Español.
Sources close to Ceuta’s security forces said male officers are changing their legal gender in the hope of gaining promotions.
Advertisement

Corporal Perdigones said “positive discrimination” was an incentive for becoming a womann_.
“For changing my gender, I have been told that my pension has gone upp_ because women get more to compensate for inequality. I also get 15 per cent more salary for being a mother,” he said.
The corporal explained that he was planning to sue for shared custody of his 16-year-old son because he thought his new gender status will give him a better chance in the courts.

But this is absurd. We can't move forward from the fact that 100% of the physical risk of reproduction is carried by the female. It's great that medical advances have reduced the risk and some of the pain/discomfort, but it will never be eliminated and it will never fall on a male. I've had three pregnancies and two births and although I came out the other side basically unscathed and I'm very thankful for the healthcare I received, it was incredibly relevant to my life that I was the female in the couple. My male partner had a wildly different experience.

The female reproductive system will never be irrelevant to a woman's life, even if that woman never actually experiences pregnancy or childbirth herself.

No one is actually harmed by being in a changing room with a trans woman who is minding their own business.

"Trans women" are male, and there is psychological harm involved with coercive behaviours.