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 far on this thread we have:

-it's fine for women to have to get naked in front of trans identifying males
-aha! male cleaners means there aren't any women's toilets anyway!
-nobody can prove that men commit the vast majority of sex offences

I'm not sure the word "insanity" even covers it.

I'm not wading into the 'they're all rapists and paedos' territory. It's disgusting discourse that should be limited to 4chan, not a feminist forum.

Just pointing out for lurkers that absolutely no one said this, it's an invention of this poster in their good faith debate.

How's that feminism working out for you?

🤣

Plus my aunt looks like Charles Bronson, so men must watch women changing.

I think far more women commit sexual offences against children than we have historically assumed.

Please cite your peer reviewed papers on it.

Here you go

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly

from Claire's site.

https://www.sexsegregation.org.uk/home

She takes care with her statistics. But feel free to contact her and tell her why you disagree with her. I think she would love to chat with you about it.

Sounds to me like, after being presented with various arguments, scenarios and evidence that are difficult to refute, you are perhaps starting to suspect that your gender beliefs aren't quite as straightforward to defend as you'd hoped, and you're attempting to distract instead of trying to robustly address this criticism.

I'm well aware of that. You have no idea of my personal history. Perhaps some of us with experience of violence and coercion find it trivialises and disrespects our experiences to have them used in this way for nefarious ends. Experience which has nothing to do with trans women.

It's not anti feminist to acknowledge this.

Perhaps some of us with experience of violence and coercion find it trivialises and disrespects our experiences to have them used in this way for nefarious ends.

It's not for "nefarious ends" though, it's for the rights of other women and girls. And your feelings about how your experience of violence and coercion is talked about in the public square don't trump mine about mine.

nope, this is just more deflection. Please provide that evidence to support that the risk of a committing a sex offence is lower for a male person at any point in their transition compared to the general male population.

And if you find that, please then provide evidence that that risk is then lower than or the same as a female person.

I wonder whether it's the leaks from the appalling WPATH that has initiated these desperate attempts to persuade women on here that we're all transpohobes?
Claiming that single sex spaces never really existed and that saying no to random men who require access to women and girls when undressed makes us big old meanies.
Plus every single box ticked on that old bingo card 😂

'nefarious ends', - not putting rapists in women's prison, maintaining the integrity of female sport, not forcing little girls into toilets with boys, not having my elderly mother forced into her toileting needs with a man, not allowing the police force to use men to do strip searches on women and girls.

Can I suggest you Google the actual meaning of nefarious.

Along with all the other words that you've learnt from George Orwell.

Yep. A straw man got built right there.

That there was a very weak attempt at distraction and deflection.

TRAs must order their Calamine in bulk.

I could spend time finding evidence but I have no wish to. No amount of statistics are going to persuade me that it's OK to misgender and discriminate against trans people. This will be seen as a flounce, but I don't care. This debate is bad for my blood pressure and will get no one anywhere. I wish I'd never engaged. Crow about 'winning the argument' all you want but the real argument is not on mumsnet, and in the real world these matters are still very much in flux.

plus the old

'women do it too!'
'I am a woman and I am alright Jack, I am absolutely fine with it'

And the completely inconsistent 'my friend got a piece of paper so now I am fine with them being in a single sex space. Without that piece of paper, no way!'

😂

No amount of statistics are going to persuade me that it's OK

Of course.

That's why it's an i.d.e.o.l.o.g.y.

Logic, statistics, women, girls, fairness, privacy, safety, risk assessment, none of it matters to you.

You believe in prioritising men over women. Nothing will persuade you otherwise.

The end.

But you're okay with discriminating against lesbian women by insisting that males mustn't be barred from lesbian-only events? That's not right is it.

I wonder if Fox realises that only 5% of men who say they are women actually have that piece of paper.

Basically, she's just dismissed 95% of transwomen purely on that basis.

I don't think there was a single argument raised that didn't originally appear in that batshit manifesto from"Sisters Uncut"

And every single point focussed on the importance of male demands being met - no matter what they are.

I said it would NOT have been OK to exclude her before she had her GRC. My post was misread.

So, you have looked and you could not find any evidence to support the inclusion of one group of male people into female single sex spaces based on their lowered risk of committing sex offences?

Because maybe you realise that there is NO evidence. It could be argued they are a higher risk, but that is not the relevant point.

The point is, that no group of male people should be treated as having a lower risk of committing a sex crime for the purposes of assessing safeguarding risks. And those safeguarding principles are what sex segregated spaces in the UK have been historically based on.

All the swivelling in the world about religions being the cause of sex segregation is fucking meaningless in the discussion about here and now EXCEPT for the needs of those female people who have those needs dictated to them by their religious beliefs.

No one is 'crowing'. But you seem to not be able to accept the material needs of women and girls.

And no. Declaring that male people are male people is not 'misgendering' and you have again shown you have no understanding of discrimination and how discrimination works. Maybe, just maybe, something of what we have said today will sink in eventually.

I said anti trans campaigners were using other women's trauma, not that victims were.

By that do you mean that we shouldn't be saying that rape crisis and women's shelters should be single sex, and that it is appropriating women's trauma to say that these things are needed?

Good grief are their no lengths that men's rights activists won't go to to remove all sensible safeguarding for women!