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:

You don't think you may have influenced your son taking such a prejudiced view of a fellow student?

I don't think anecdotal evidence of one small group of friends' toxic masculinity defines a generation. But there are mixed views in all age groups. My 70 year old mother and her friends, who came of age as 2nd wave feminists in the 70s, are bemused and horrified by gender critical feminism and it's cruelty. But they probably don't represent all women their age. Though I think they may represent more than you may think.

Love how you think a mother can influence a teenage son and all his friends.

Do you know nothing about teenagers? They mostly do the opposite of what their mothers say!

And it's not toxic masculinity for a male to want privacy ffs.

Though I think they may represent more than you may think.

You should check the polling for anyone over 40. Young people are by far the largest groups who subscribe to your ideology. Your mother doesn't appear to have explained to you particularly well what second wave feminism was about, so I'm afraid I doubt her credentials.

This is interesting. Because a male person is not be 'excluded' from female single sex spaces on the basis of being 'transgender'. Because those female single sex spaces are open to female transgender people if they want to use them.

A male person is being excluded on the basis of being a male human. It is actually that simple.

And when extreme trans rights activists use 'exclusion' and 'ostracism' as reasons for inclusion of male people into female single sex spaces, this results in them ignoring that exclusion and the ostracism of those female people who need and expect that space to be as it is labelled - a female single sex space.

This is just another demonstration of the emotionally manipulative tactic in use.

There is no symmetry in these arguments. It is all based on one thing. The prioritisation of a group of male people over female people. This is not feminist in any way.

Urinating in front of others isn't privacy, regardless of the sex or gender of the other people nearby. I doubt the poor trans kid is giving your son and his friends a second glance, but I bet he doesn't find being at school with them a pleasant experience, if they are happy to express their views openly.

This is just another demonstration of the emotionally manipulative tactic in use.

Yes, it's a good example of the kind of things HJ is talking about in the OP article which hasn't really been properly discussed.

Well none of them liked the separatists, who were always a minority.

Urinating in front of others isn't privacy, regardless of the sex or gender of the other people nearby. I doubt the poor trans kid is giving your son and his friends a second glance, but I bet he doesn't find being at school with them a pleasant experience, if they are happy to express their views openly.

You can't just state your personal view as a fact. Most people prefer single sex spaces. Why are the feelings of a girl who identifies as a boy more important than those of multiple boys?

I think that you should also have a look at the YouGov polling data.

What has become clear over several different polls over the years is that as soon as someone understands that a 'transgender woman' may still have a penis, the polls switches very decisively to reject their presence in any single sex space.

It is also very clear that the UK population, as other country's polls also discover, does not support male inclusion in the female sports categories.

I think that you don't seem to know what the rest of the UK thinks and you have made that perfectly clear on this thread today.

We are literally at this moment also discussing the exclusion of a trans man.

We're not discussing any "exclusion" of a "trans man" we are discussing boys not be allowed the privacy of a single sex space. If the female person was "excluded" there wouldn't be a problem for them.

Why do you think sex realism is cruel?

Isn't the multiple safeguarding failures gender ideology has brought about for all women (including those trans men) cruel?

What about lying to young people way before the age of majority that experimental drugs are reversible and cross sex hormones won't destroy their fertility and sexual functions - isn't that cruel?

**edited for clarity

I suggest you clarify what you mean here.

In the 90s polls persistently showed that the majority of the population believed it was morally wrong to be gay. That changed very quickly, over about ten or fifteen years. I do think that gender critical feminists have been quite successful at creating a climate more hostile to trans people, but I would not assume that this will remain the case. It's dependent on many different factors, but it can't be taken for granted.

The trans boy who someone's son wishes be denied access to the correct toilet.

It's not the correct toilet though, for a girl.

I think that @ForCoralFox believes the echo chamber that they have found themselves in, because everyone I know thinks this is a load of regressive nonsense that is harmful to girls and women. No one thinks that a trans woman is any kind of woman because they are not, woman is not a feeling it's a sex class. Trans women who choose to use single sex spaces for women are acting as typical male aggressors by entering into what should be single sex spaces when it is clear to them that their presence has an impact on the safety and dignity of females.

Because of course, is not necessary for trans women to use women's single sex spaces, the decent ones, like all decent males stay away from those spaces.

We know that some trans women are acting out a fetish by being in women's single sex spaces because they have told us that validation is part of it. Does your mother know that @ForCoralFox or are you shielding her from the more unsavoury aspects of what you are advocating for?

The trans man is not being 'excluded' they are able to use the facilities for their sex, the same as every other person. We are discussing not giving the trans man special privileges which impinge on the boys rights to privacy.

Words have meaning.

Am I being 'excluded' if I can't go an under 18s youth group? What about my child, is he being excluded by pubs not serving him alcohol? No. We're having the law applied to us inthe same way as it applies to everyone.

No she can use the female toilets which are the correct ones for her sex. Or advocate for third spaces.

As it is no one is excluding her but her presence is making teenage boys feel uncomfortable.

There will be female toilets and I imagine there is probably a staff or other unisex toilet this girl could use if she isn't comfortable in the ladies'

I prefer my echo chamber. It's a much kinder and more inclusive place. My mother is not some old dear being 'shielded.' She's an active woman very much abreast of current events, but it's telling that you saw her in such ageist terms.

I should never have commented here. I'm not interested in debating your talking points. I was just exasperated by the misuse of the word misogyny. Nothing will persuade me to stop supporting equality for all LGBTQIA+ people, so what's the point?

Ok then shall we get rid of toilets altogether then?
And have mixed sex piss holes for everyone to wee into together?

I can totally understand why my son doesn't want to have his penis visible in front of any female, even in the act of urination. It's inappropriate especially in an education setting.

I suggest that you stop leveraging people who are same sex or both sex attracted into your argument. It is not a comparable situation.

People who are same sex attracted (or to both sexes) were subject to illegitimate discrimination. They were not asking for special treatment under any safeguarding principles or indeed, in life. They were asking, and rightfully so, for EQUAL treatment and equal protection.

Male people demanding access to female single sex spaces are demanding ADDITIONAL accommodations be made because of their gender identity. This is not a demand for EQUALITY based on a protected characteristic.

This is where your lack of understanding about discrimination seems to let you down. You are trying to use the wrong comparator in your argument.

It was always wrong to deny a person legally able to consent to sex the freedom to be in a relationship with another person legally of the age to consent (providing the age of consent is set to an age where it is reasonable to expect a person to be able to consent to sexual activity).

It is NOT wrong to exclude male people from a female single sex space because they are male. The protected characteristic is SEX not GENDER in this instance.

Based on sex.

What part of legitimate discrimination based on sex have you missed?

I didn't mention her age at all.

You did.

I'm not sure that many people know about AGPs, regardless of their age. Especially if they are of the 'be kind' mindset.

The fact that you do and think that you are being kinder by allowing males to act their fetish out on women and girls means that I think you also attribute a different meaning to 'kindness' than most.

Unless you ARE just another common and garden men's rights activist. A surprising number do show up on mumsnet to scold women for our boundaries.