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'

I suppose I can be grateful for that in the way that I'm grateful for Isla Bryson's choice to wear pink leggings. I'm not falling over myself with gratitude to Isla himself, but there's no denying that he provided a very useful illustration of the problem.

I refuse to be grateful to DH for anything. I believe the harms they have perpetrated far outweigh any superficial good people may perceive. DH cares about DH. Not women and especially not children.

Gratitude to a man because he speaks a tiny bit of truth about fetishism while continuing to push the big lie about women being a fancy dress costume for men. And wants men centred in women's attention. Nah.

As I said on one of the Sandie tribunal threads if a man is lying to me about his sex, I ask what else is he lying to me about.

Such a man is by definition manipulative and not to be trusted.

And if I was ever in any doubt, Hayton's pose in rubber gloves was the final straw for me too.

There've been whole threads about Hayton, and he's indisputably annoying. But I was disappointed that more advantage hasn't been taken of what he's actually said.

He's a male transsexual.

We can call him 'him'.

It was a sexual fetish.

He no longer demands access to the ladies.

He doesn't believe in gender identity.

I feel as though we should have made more mileage out of the above, instead of which his book just sank out of sight.

If he said he would work with the schools to remove the ability for men and boys to access the female toilets, I'd maybe be more inclined to believe it.

But he didn't. He hasn't. It is all about him, as per usual.

In what kind of world is a man who talks and writes about having a sexual fetish more worthy of respect than all the men who do interesting and necessary things?

Despite the changes in the landscape, are we still at the stage where the impact of these over the last 7 years is not fully realised? E.g., the ongoing drama of NHS Fife and Sandie Peggie.

What would a seismic shift in the landscape resemble?

A settled opinion on the intersection of pieces of legislation and competing rights?

Totally agree!

Brianna Wu is using the same playbook in the USA - getting on podcasts and giving it the whole “TERFs are unreasonable to poor little harmless trans like me. I should be allowed to enter women’s spaces and take women’s places in organisations because it hurts me not to be thought of as a woman”.

It’s image manipulation and reputation massage in their favour and definitely not ours, particularly as Wu is in favour of PBs being given to adolescents.

We don't have to respect him, or expect his cooperation, but we can point to his views in our own defence.

How can treating a transwoman as male be harassment, when A FAMOUS TRANSWOMAN has said they are male?

How can mentioning Malaga be a deletion/banning offence, when A FAMOUS TRANSWOMAN has given us chapter and verse on the topic?

And so forth.

I agree with every word of this, but as you can see there's been a weird falling out between people who think it's helpful to let some of the more self-aware sexually motivated trans voices say their piece, and those who hate them so much they just want to bury them.

I think I was still in the TWAW mindset in 2018 - it was a year or so after I finally gave my head a wobble

@AlisonDonut I didn't say "these men are on our side," I said they were testifying to something that we agree to be true. That's helpful for us, and for cases like Sandie Peggie's.

The fact that we have any TW admitting they are men and testifying to their actual motivations for transitioning strengthens what we have to say, whether they intend to help us or not.

For me it comes down to, and always has, the definitions of the words "gender" and "sex".

You can see that those campaigning for the GRA / EQA2010 knew this too because of the unusual lack of clear definitions of these important terms and vehement resistance to any sort of clarification. It's deliberate.

Without definitions words can mean whatever you want them to. Hence legislation that talks about gender reassignment and then segues into certificates that change "sex for all purposes". Or transgender meaning that their "gender" doesn't align with their "sex".

And yet, we're simultaneously told that gender and sex are not the same thing.

We need a clear and workable definition of sex and a clear and workable definition of gender and then we can request that services are designated single sex or (if you feel the need) single gender and write guidance accordingly.

In the meantime, be cautious of listening to the likes of Whittle or White who have done very nicely for themselves by keeping language unclear. Always an unsatisfactory thing for those who want good laws and sane interpretation of same.

I agree with Barracker’s thrust in that statement. I’ve always believed women’s rights would win out in the end, on the grounds that, as Martin Luther King put it “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

I should have taken the first part of that quotation more seriously, because I’m very much aware how slowly things are moving still. There were many times in the early days (think it was 2018 for me too) I thought “this will be the case/thing that brings it to a critical point” but it never did.

The UK is still the furthest forward at the moment. Trump has been an interesting diversion, but I can see from Twitter that the whole men in women’s sports at college debacle is simply carrying on - an effect I’ve seen here in the UK, most recently perfectly represented by the Sandie Peggie case. HR, especially in big institutions ought to have caught on to the ongoing situation with court cases/employment tribunals, but haven’t because transactivism has been embedded so deeply in them all, from the top down.

In other countries around the world, things are still moving in the wrong direction because the women haven’t managed to organize, as we have, which has to partly be down to Mumsnet, where we could still post, even if only in muted tones.

For a few years now, I’ve believed that the thing that will finally resolve the situation will be medical negligence cases when all the US mums and dads finally realize their children have been mutilated and sterilized, but their mental health problems have not been resolved or have worsened.

I think the whole medical complex will collapse and with it, the remainder of transactivism will fall like dominoes.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think it will eventually be recognized that going along with delusion or desire does not alleviate that distress or reduce the desire, but rather exacerbates them causing huge problems to a society that uses sex for all kinds of segregation.

Anyway, it was a lovely passage you quoted. I hope all those old posters are still persevering quietly somewhere.

Nothing weird. If he stopped womanfacing and playing his sex game for the camera, put it all behind him and didn't get photographed in rubber gloves, maybe what he said would be useful. Until then he's just another creep.

@DeanElderberry I will write this again for you. He has written candidly about the things you find distasteful - THAT IS THE POINT. This means that he is owning them, which is the complete opposite to the Uptons of this world who are still parroting all the "I'm not a robot" drek. Having these admissions is writing from a trans-identified male is very helpful to us, whether it was written FOR us or not.

Pluvia has recommended this Tanya de Grunwald's podcast (This isn't working) which has 3 episodes on DEI episodes 6-8:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Grunwald makes an interesting distinction between what she terms "good DEI" and "bad DEI" that might be useful to thinking about all 9 PCs and the value of broad DEI rather than hyper-focused on the needs of one group. It's a useful argument about what we should expect of modern workplaces.

@RayonSunrise I will write this for you. In 2018 Hayton wrote those paragraphs. He has written about his fetishes in various places since. It is irrelevant whether I find them 'distasteful' - in those seven years he has made no impact on the debate.

THAT IS THE POINT.

You might interpret this as meaning means that he is owning his trans status, however he defines that, but the person who really owned what being trans is and how it acts out is Upton in the Tribunal over the last two weeks. Having these admissions in a legal hearing from a trans-identified male has been enormously helpful to us.

As has the testimony of Sandie Peggie, as has the professionalism of Naomi Cunningham.

Poor old Hayton hasn't been.

The ground shifted this month. It wasn't Hayton who shifted it.

@DeanElderberry He's saying the quiet bit out loud, and that's good for the GC position! I'm not saying you need to share your nail varnish with him.

I just remembered this thread, and wanted to take a second to celebrate that this prediction has come about!!!