Sandie Peggie's tribunal and a prediction from 2018

[RethinkingLife]

Following along with Sandie Peggie's Employment Tribunal with NHS Fife, I'm reminded of this comment from a well-respected poster in 2018.

She's offering some advice to a TW and the status of GRC. I'm not linking the thread because this stands by itself and is a useful way to look at contemporary events. (Reading through those listed, it's depressingly accurate today although it's a different defendant standing trial for child rape.)

Do posters feel the landscape is changing?

What do people make of the prediction and the offer, particularly in light of current events? (This was pre-Forstater, pre every major ET victory.)

I'm going to make a prediction, and I'm going to offer you some unsolicited advice, which I think will be in your best interests.

The landscape is changing. I can't say how long it will take, but people are starting to assert absolute boundaries and reject the legal and ethical principle that a person can change from male to female and vice versa.
This will not reverse. It will grow, and it will reach an inevitable conclusion. The UK is looking very likely to be the fulcrum of change, and then the balance will shift back everywhere.

You can't stop this. All you can do is look to the future. It would be in your best interests to view this short period of history where we as a society mistakenly allowed a lie to temporarily be forced upon others, as a short-lived and unsustainable 'faux-solution' to a problem. That faux solution will be replaced with something else based upon a real and ethical foundation, and society will no longer accept 'sex changes' in any way.

Your best bet is to align yourself with what is coming. That so called sex changes are a finite blip in history, that they obstruct a real solution to inequality, and that they should be self limiting, and should be drawn to a close.
If you support the end of this era of forced pretending, and work with those who are ushering in a new era of real women's rights, then I think it is possible that the few individuals who have already gained legal recognition as the opposite sex will continue to be honoured as their legal status. A grandfather clause is a real possibility, one that accepts those men are a product of their time, but draws a line behind them and does perpetuate the problem further.

I think this is a concession that might be negotiated from women, perhaps, if we saw that the door was finally closing on the redefinition of women and their rights.
It's just my opinion. But this is where I think we'll end up.
Whether that grandfather clause will come to pass or not I cant know. It doesn't help that yet another paedophile rapist is in the news today for being transferred to a women's prison, and this one has a GRC and is legally female, yet genitally intact. The concept that having a GRC renders a person completely harmless is dissolving daily amongst examples like these…

I know what I would do in your shoes. And it isn't doubling down on 'I'm prepared to negotiate women's own boundaries with them'. It's 'I get it. It needs to stop now. Where do I go from here'

We are not there yet. Unison and Dr Upton are standing firm so far, Dr Upton with a smirk on his face. As to a grandfather clause allowing those who have transitioned to maintain their GRC status, no, because that means a concession saying they are a 'sort of' woman, and they are not.

I'm a little emotional reading that and thinking of the years that have gone by. The wheels move slowly but at least they are turning and in the right direction. Pre Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey etc there was a time when we couldn't freely express our gc beliefs. These threads were policed and deleted for merely stating biological facts. I'm sad that the fight is far from over but I firmly believe the landscape today is that bit better than 2018.

I'm a committed pessimist on the grounds that this way, nothing short of full-on totalitarianism can shocked me.

That said, following Sandie Peggie's ET has brought me to despair and frustration that it's possible to make those assertions in a place where it's expected that they will be treated with respect and weighed with other facts and evidence. That it's possible for professionals to discuss whether cutting hair changes the DNA and medical professionals to deny sex-based differences in reference ranges.

In the years since 2018, we've crowdfunded for so many actions. Keen legal teams have, inch by inch, fought back so many attempts to erode free speech, the absurdity of the NCHI. But I'm still left with the gut-wrenching feeling that women's rights were only ever a polite fiction that can be transgressed at the whim of despots or merely those with main character syndrome. The horror of realising that we've not begun to have nuanced conversations about whether considerations of equality should outweigh safeguarding. To quote a MNer on another thread), Safeguarding is about protecting the most vulnerable.
Transactivism is about claiming vulnerability for the most powerful.

But, it could be so many types of activism or appropriated proxy sensitivities on behalf of others or the ill-defined omnicause. I'm aghast at the sense that everything is justified for those on the Right Side of History, as long as the cost of those luxury beliefs is borne by others.

I wanted to post a picture. But, I can't. One of the few places in the world where women can talk to each other about these matters is under siege (last night's incident) so we can't upload pictures while this continues.

Tonight, I'm in no mood for even a grandfather clause if it entails compelled speech, the enshrined right to access women's spaces, distorted laws and policies. I may feel differently on another day. I hope that I do.

In support of the OP the message is

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, they grind exceeding fine."

We will get there in the end and when we get there, all will be good. Patience is not a single.

I found a tin of coconut milk in my cupboard this week dated BBE 2018. Couldn't believe that was 7 years ago (let's overlook my slovenly housekeeping and poor stock rotation that allowed this to happen) but my mind is more blown by a poster having such faith 7 years ago that the tide was turning on GRCs. I'm sad that it has taken so many years and the fight is still far from over. But I only joined battle 2 years ago and I'm sure week by week more women and men see the light too.

The grandfather clause is an interesting point. I would actually support that, I think, on the grounds that I'm sure there are many trans people who do not support the ideology and understand the harm it causes women. And recognise themselves as exactly what they are but were sold a lie by the government who reissued legal documents with different gender markers. But I can see why such a clause is still problematic.

Excellent quote. It's taken years for genderism to get its hooks into institutions, it will take years to roll it back - but with each victory, more people hear what's happening and the scales fall from their eyes. It's SO IMPORTANT do be doing this from the grassroots, not waiting around for politicians to save us.

This is genuine popular change, managed without violence. This is worth all our support.

It absolutely is. Isn't this exactly the kind of grass-roots popular movement than the Left were supposed to support?

I would love to know who wrote this, OP. It's very prescient, particularly as, back in 2018, we were at the very beginning of this struggle and there was really no indication that we would win. All the major institutions were ideologically captured, you could get thrown off Twitter for saying humans can't change sex, the government was still planning to introduce gender self-ID, and even the first Forstater tribunal hadn't happened.

In 2018 I was just starting understand - initially triggered by that notorious man who got his thrills by telling shop assistants about his sex hobby -
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/03/my-life-in-sex .

Then watching online as a young member of my extended circle presented the idea that they were a man, despite much evidence to the contrary, and the horrible physical and social fallout from that.

Discussing it then, in the hidden, tightly monitored corner that feminists were penned into on a different site, continued my education - then the hidden corner was burned down by management, and some of us ended up here, a bit over two years ago. I've watched the discussions here becoming more free and open, and the attempts at pushback becoming desperate.

Mills. Slow. Small. Exceeding small.

I think one of the factors that sustains the status quo is the high percentage of people who are not engaged in the issues and who actively 'switch off' or zone out when they are raised. I think the polarised nature is a contributing factor to this behaviour.

I think change will come if / once 'the debate' focusses on 'how best to include transwomen in society'. Many posters balk at this as it centres trans people. However, the question itself acknowledges that transwomen aren't women and there is an issue with their provision.

I don't think it's appropriate or reasonable for women to lead the charge on addressing the issue of 'how can transwomen be included in society'. However, transwomen won't lead, as they want as little light as possible and to sneak in under the guise of bring women. Men won't lead as they don't care enough and it isn't impacting on them. I think these issue play a significant part in why change is so slow

Can you quote and link, please, OP, it's not on to just lift a massive chunk of writing like that and not attribute it.

Responding to Arabella. IME it leads to a derail but, as per request:

Debbie Hayton in the Times
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/3364094-Debbie-Hayton-in-the-Times?reply=81111062&utmcampaign=thread&utmmedium=share

@Brainworm - suggests we focus on 'how best to include transwomen in society'

Absolutely fucking not. If we are going to focus on trans people (and I am not convinced that is a wise course) it has to be transmen just as much as transwomen.

Why do women's interests, even women who have gone along with the genderist stuff, always get ignored?

Focus on including men only? Why ffs?

I think this is what needs to happen and I don't see it happening soon as I can't see who will lead on it.

As I said in my post, I don't think 'we' should - meaning feminists, FWR posters, women in general.

You think we need to focus on men?

men
men
men
MEN
MEN
MEN

This is a feminist discussion board, why do you think it 'needs to happen?' Why do you think it isn't what already happens. Everything, everywhere, focusses on the effing men.

I'll focus on the women, thanks very much. men

btw, some of my best friends are men, I like, love, and admire many men, but I am not going to spend my life focussing on them.

TW are currently the most valorised and prized of the trans umbrella (somebody please correct me if NBs or TM are sweeping awards categories and winning prizes in similarly well-publicised numbers and I'm overlooking them).

https://womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/

There is a need for a conversation about the entire umbrella.

I would like a discussion about the ethics of bring whole selves to work.

I'd like conversations rather than legal disputations that continue to stir up silty depths but never seem to deliver clarity. (E.g., the inherent tension between the much-cited Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which place employers under a specific duty to provide separate facilities for men and women and the GRA 2004 plus EaQ 2010.)

Above all, I'd like the trajectory to be more about 'broadening the bandwidth' of what it means to have a sexed body. Is that achievable without appropriation or transgressing the boundaries of those who interact with you?

the ethics of bring whole selves to work

I remember some Irish business guru doing an interview and he said one of the most important things people need to learn about work, whether they are the CEO or the cleaner, is - don't project your moods on your customers, colleagues or clients.

If you read my post, I explicitly said that I don't think posters on FWR, feminists or women should make this their focus. My point is that until people recognise that this isn't/ shouldn't be a problem for/with women but a problem for/with transwomen (aka trans identified males) I fear that progress in protecting SSS spaces will be slow.

I would like a discussion about the ethics of bring whole selves to work.
I'd like conversations rather than legal disputations that continue to stir up silty depths but never seem to deliver clarity. (E.g., the inherent tension between the much-cited Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which place employers under a specific duty to provide separate facilities for men and women and the GRA 2004 plus EaQ 2010.)

I've mentioned this podcast elsewhere but it asks a lot of similar questions. It's hosted by a woman who reports on HR. She has a number of episodes, a couple with James Esses, and the issue of whether anyone should be encouraged to bring their whole selves to work crops up a number of times. There is a lot of criticism of DEI throughout all the podcasts and some (for me, anyway) really interesting discussion about whether measures designed to increase equality and visibility in the workplace can work or are even really necessary in a society where there is legal protection for minorities. It's quite thought-provoking.

This is a link to one of them, but you'll find the others:
https://thisisntworkingpodcast.co.uk/ep-10-is-dei-built-on-dodgy-data/

I think she's saying a lot of things that need to be heard, so if you're in a position to share that link it would be helpful. And no, I don't know her, I don't work for her and I have no incentive to promote her except the idea that what she's saying needs to be widely considered.

That Guardian article is creepy.

A man then, but one who knows he is a man despite surgery and frocks. Interestingly he has always stood against the trans madness.

'I let the sales ladies know I am shopping for myself. As I pay, I smile and wink, as if to say, “I am enjoying this even if you aren’t.”'

Guardian happy to showcase a paraphiliac who openly gets off on non-consensual participation. So edgy. Much surprise.

I disagree re: Hayton but I'd rather not divert onto that topic, if you'll forgive me. It's yet another example of valorising people who put their own needs ahead of wider social contracts.

That Guardian article is creepy.

Isn't it. That was a scales falling from eyes moment for me. Not just that he wrote it, but that the Guardian printed it without comment - no suggestion that involving other people in your sex life without their consent is wrong.

Thank you.

That post was from the wonderful Barracker. Page 24.