Ian Dunt’s concern for the sacred caste

[ThisHangrySheep]

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about

Caution: blood pressure pills may be required.

I just cannot get my head round the idea that if women say “no, we don’t want transwomen in our toilets, changing rooms, prisons, shelters, rape counselling sessions and sports” we are told we are bigots, we are accusing all trans people of being predators, we use right wing dog whistles and are all round terrible people etc BUT if men don’t want transwomen in their toilets (which I’m assuming is the general idea, or there wouldn’t be a safety issue raised about it) that’s A-ok, totally reasonable, mummy will sort it out.

What exactly is the reasoning that men don’t want tranwomen around? What are men afraid of? Are they? Why are men not accused of being worse than Hitler because they can’t share a toilet with another man who has a different gender identity to them? Do they even feel this way?

Now the Supreme Court had made its ruling there has to be a better conversation around provision for trans people. Because it looks like the only option will be unisex toilets, which won’t be suitable for everyone but will be ok in some places, additional unisex spaces along side male and female or acceptance from men. And male acceptance might be harder, and less fun than threatening and bulldozing women but given how wide the trans umbrella is (non binary men who ID as trans, the number of TW who don’t pass and are clearly read as male) there doesn’t seem to be much option.

It's MRAs. Pure and simple. Lundy Bancroft has written books about men who have lists of what they're entitled to and how people may NEVER treat them, but totally different standards of what they'll permit and do to women.

You may want to go and look at the performance currently in the second act on the disheartened thread and see one live in action. The hatred of women is front and centre. As is the absolute erasure and denial that anything ever happened to women via men in their spaces which enables it.

DL has a trans child.

What exactly is the reasoning that men don’t want tranwomen around? What are men afraid of? Are they? Why are men not accused of being worse than Hitler because they can’t share a toilet with another man who has a different gender identity to them? Do they even feel this way?

All of this. And also: what happened to "You have a gender-neutral bathroom at home"? If that works for women who don't want to share toilets with men, surely it also works for trans-identifying men who don't want to share toilets with other men?

He seems to briefly accept that sport is relevant, but then bafflingly can't understand that women need rights as a sex class.

If he believes that sex segregated toilets are discriminatory because they exclude trans people, he is free to campaign for more unisex provision. (He seems unaware of health and safety legislation or research that shows increased sexual harassment, rape and voyeurism in changing villages, or that many changing rooms don't have cubicles at all, but those points would be part of any discussion, and hopefully he would listen).

However, the issue he can't address is that there is no intrinsic overlap between the group 'people who identify as women but are male' and 'people who are female', so he is effectively suggesting that sex discrimination legislation should be removed from the equality act.

I'm sure he is too intelligent to think that every trans woman is Haley Cropper, so what does he think?

I'm now starting to wonder about his Brexit book.

"Until two weeks ago, formal trans access to single-sex spaces was based on the mercurial status of the gender recognition certificates. They were presumed to change someone's sex in law and you couldn't ask whether someone had one. This created a helpful veneer of uncertainty. Legally, everything operated in a world of fog. Furthermore, most people didn't care. Outside of a few prominent gender-critical voices in the media, there was no great groundswell of complaints by cis women in hospital wards or in toilets.

We had combined a legal muddle with politeness and tolerance, creating a classic kind of British fudge. But the ruling changed all that. It made what was benign and ambiguous extremely clear-cut. It took an impressionist watercolour painting and started carving out sharp legal distinctions."

From a man, who clearly isn't worried about his need for clear legislation on sex discrimination.

He is basically the MRA MP Philip Davies, just with slightly different tribal affiliation.

“Helpful” for who? I think we know.

His reasoning seems to be ‘an ambiguous fudge is helpful for people I like, and anyone who disagrees can be ignored because I don’t like them’.

Objectively, it’s not the strongest of legal arguments.

"Outside of a few prominent gender-critical voices in the media, there was no great groundswell of complaints by cis women in hospital wards or in toilets."

= "I read a few tweets, but apart from that only listened to people who already agree with me".

I was so disappointed by his piece. He was great on brexit and now he is coming late to the discussion but hasn’t done his homework and claims the solution is easy. So naive.

What the actual fuck has happened to Ian Dunt?? He was so smart on Remainiacs pod. I can’t believe he actually believes TWAW, so surely he can grasp why women won’t give up our spaces and safety for men?

I guess the success over Remain went to his head and despite being astute on that issue, he is, at the end of the day, just another anti-woman lefty wokebro with the ego to match. It's interesting that he doesn't think there was enough grassroots activism over single sex spaces for it to be legitimate (fuck you, Ian, a) there really was if only women's voices were at a frequency you could hear and b) can you think of any reason women might be scared to speak out?) when I expect more people were invested in this than had heard of him.

I thought he was too - but maybe I just lacked the knowledge to know any better?

He doesn't mention the lesbian interveners in the article. Maybe his book about Brexit just ignored any inconvenient information?

Wow, he seems rather hysterical. I agreed with most of this bit though:
"If someone cannot safely go to the loo - or cannot do so without betraying some core part of their identity - they are effectively unable to leave their home. They cannot work. They cannot socialise. They cannot participate in political meetings. They cannot attend church. They cannot go to court. They have effectively ceased to exist in public space."
But he's only concerned with his special friends, not over half the fucking population.
He's a small-minded bigot who cannot conceive of why women might not be challenging the 6ft men dressed-up as women in their spaces.

And what about people with disabilities who find, because they can't use public loos, are effectively housebound? Don't they count?

So maybe the men’s loos in all those places could be reclassed as gender neutral so that nobody has to betray a core part of themselves, as he puts it, and the women’s loos remain single sex and safe from men. What’s wrong with that?

“When she is outside in public, she would similarly be forced to walk into a men's toilet and face all the questions and dangers of that decision. Will the men in the loo shout at her? Will they mock her, laugh at her, come on to her? Will she be safe? Will she be respected?”

"If someone cannot safely go to the loo - or cannot do so without betraying some core part of their identity - they are effectively unable to leave their home. They cannot work. They cannot socialise. They cannot participate in political meetings. They cannot attend church. They cannot go to court. They have effectively ceased to exist in public space."

"Outside of a few prominent gender-critical voices in the media, there was no great groundswell of complaints by cis women in hospital wards or in toilets."

Like all these other brocialists, in the end Ian reveals he's neither a deep thinker nor actually concerned about a genuinely fair society for all. Instead, it's all about displaying his Bundle of Good Beliefs for a Good Person expressed in Clever Language with Righteous Poses, like a peacock's tail (or perhaps more appropriately like a flasher proud of his mighty knob).

And as has been clearly demonstrated by all these Righteous folx, it is not a Good Belief to recognise that female Homo sapiens are full human beings with full feelings and rights to privacy, dignity and safety; we are the partially-sentient service bipeds for the actual proper people who are the only ones whose feelings and desires matter. The voices of the malfunctioning service units are, like R2-D2's beeps, completely incomprehensible to Ian and possibly out of his hearing range. Ian only notes the dutiful service units which carry out their correct role of polishing male desires.

I used to know Ian Dunt a bit through remain stuff and ofc he was bang on and a smart guy. You only have to be around that crowd for a hot minute to realise that everything they do is for a tiny subset of the London population, sitting like a sort of cream on the milk.

His mates would absolutely refuse to believe they are anything but proper left and opportunity for all, but there is massive poverty and division in London and they don't speak to that at all. They don't see women, they don't see religion or cultural complexity. They don't really see age or even tolerance. It's all just anti-liberalism and therefore Bad.

Be Kind, but as with James O'Brien, they get to tell you what kind is. Not very liberal after all.

Ian Dunt is in the pile of men I used to respect because they talked a lot of sense about Brexit, who chat absolute shit about trans issues.

He’s insufferable. I used to follow him because I agreed with him on Brexit but had to pull the plug a few years ago because he’s a complete fucking idiot about this stuff.

Who needs to wear a dress? No man can be challenged because as the judges said the group ‘women’ becomes heterogenous and cannot be defined by any unique characteristics.

Come on women! Just be ‘polite and tolerant’ to men! You know you are just an ‘impressionist water colour’ so how can you possibly need rights with their nasty ‘sharp legal distinctions!’

there was no great groundswell of complaints by cis women in hospital wards or in toilets

And whenever anyone complained, they were told that they were the only one; they were prejudiced; they were unkind or evil; they would have to leave their club, their job or their university.

It took a while for the groundswell to build, and now it has. So, Ian Dunt, now that you are seeing that groundswell, do you realise that you were wrong?

Precisely.

Women faced with men in their spaces are afraid, and often will not challenge or do or say anything except quietly get the fuck away asap rather than be shouted at, threatened or assaulted.
Women were threatened with loss of care for saying complaining.
Women were threatened with reporting to the police for 'hate incidents' for complaining.
Women were lied to and gaslighted (actual gaslighting) that the person that had just been recorded raping them on CCTV wasn't a man, and wasn't there, because there were no men on the ward, so it didn't happen. So couldn't complain.
Staff were strongly encouraged not to record incidents which risked making a particular group look bad or might threaten their access to women's spaces
Senior staff went to lengths to avoid recording

We know in the rape crisis/refuge situations there were whole meetings where women tried to talk to the people they were complaining to and were laughed at while women were in tears. And then those people AT THE MEETINGS gave statements saying 'no woman had ever complained'.

None of this is mindless ranting, all of it is absolutely factual and can be evidenced at any time by any FWR regular who knows the history never mind by groups such as Sex Matters with barristers on their staff. Much of this made the national press without the NHS or government noticably caring other than a bit of mumbling that it was 'complicated' and the important thing was to care about and respect not the women who'd been harmed, but men the most oppressed group in history yada yada.

And the evidence is only the women who managed to make themselves heard, so God only knows how many women it actually happened to who were not able to. It would have to be assumed that for every woman who managed to get something on record many more suffered the same thing unheard.

In this appalling mess it impossible for anyone to say with truth or honesty that no women minded and nothing happened. This suppression, dishonesty, threatening and chilling behaviour was the SECOND CRIME that followed the first one of PUTTING MEN IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO HARM THOSE WOMEN. And we've got idiots whinging that its terrible a man might have to have a private room and how terrible it might be if he feels distressed?

HQ, we're going to need much much bigger text if we have to talk about this utter bullshit.

I got blocked for asking how we could have a "calm, rational debate" as per the article when female people get vilified for questioning?

So I rather think the debate will be around whether to call dissidents hateful bigots or just bigots.

I don’t know who Ian Dunt but he dismisses this as “Mad feudal shit, basically” i.e a transwoman who is imposing into women’s spaces because he wants to be a woman can magically be male again to inherit a title or a property - and this is just OK, just some stuff from many years ago that we can’t possibly change, nothing to worry our silly little heads about.

has this happened yet? Usually when i get embroiled in the "but we don't know anyone's sex" discussion, i point out that everyone seems to know who to ask when they want to indulge in human trafficking find a surrogate mother. I keep forgetting that we can also always tell when it comes to inheriting a title. But i am interested in the dynamics of it.

Say the Duke of Borsetshire has a son and a daughter (in that order). The son, Henry, claims a female gender identity. Then the Duke of Borsetshire pops his clogs and the son, now Henrietta, inherits the title. Is he then Henrietta, Duke of Borsetshire? or is he Henrietta, Duchess of Borsetshire? AFAIK a Duchess isn't an inheritable title, and is only a courtesy for the wife of a duke.

it is all very confusing.