‘Trans rights in performing arts schools’ (Equity)

[SandyThumb]

DD is a recent arts grad and member of Equity (the performers union). She just sent me a copy of an email inviting her to a zoom meeting…

“As we approach the end of the academic year Equity's Student Deputies' Committee are holding a hybrid Open Meeting Wednesday 4th June 6-7PM. In light of the Supreme Courts’ attack on the lives, rights and dignity of trans women in the UK, we will be welcoming a special guest speaker and discussing together how we stand up for Trans Rights in Performing Art Schools and Institutions.”

Of course it’s well known that the creative industries are totally captured, but even my DD (who tends to just keep quiet for the sake of her career) was pissed off with this, saying ‘what about the lives, rights and dignity it’s of actual women?’
Over the years she has found herself in uncomfortable situations in dressing rooms, shared with TW, and she is sick of the obsession with casting TW for female acting roles.

I have the call login details/link if anyone would like to join the call… 😉 just PM me…

I wonder why the navel-gazing committee don't consider the SC clarification of existing UK law to be an attack on the lives, rights and dignity of trans MEN in the UK.

I wonder how many female trans-IDing actors are cast in male roles.

Good on your daughter for seeing through this misogynistic batshittery. Unfortunately the world of the performing arts is riddled with misogynistic batshittery.

Shows they don’t give a fuck about ALL trans identifying people - just the men folk who want to be ladies. 🙄

And this is dangerous stuff as it is women who will (continue to) be the target if their vilification and abuse.

It really is a men's rights movement, isn't it. No thought to trans identifying women, no concern for women. It's all about the men.

Of course it’s well known that the creative industries are totally captured

Could you please clarify what you mean by this statement. I don't need you to repeat the same rhetoric that many people espouse; rather, I'd really appreciate it if you took some time to think about your statement, unpack it, then explain exactly what you mean by it and why you've chosen those particular words.

You know EXACTLY what I mean. But, just on the off chance you've been hiding away under a rock, it's basically this: https://archive.ph/57mtS

And if it's the same rhetoric point of view as others are sharing then perhaps it's because it's true, and widely agreed?

And creative industries? Well because it's full of people pretending to be something they are not - they do it for a living.

So you are parroting the same viewpoint as those around you, and you also don't like creative people.

Thank you for trying to understand my question.

My goodness, the sense of entitlement is strong with this one

It's also because people working in the creative industries are reliant on networking and often live project to project or grant application to grant application; they're easy to bully and intimidate.

It's also because of who ends up working in the arts. In the mid 20th century arts education was free and didn't require a levels. It was often taught alongside trades. But increasingly the arts has become a career mostly for people from privileged backgrounds due to rising cost of living; cost of education; the arts courses becoming academic qualifications; the requirement for unpaid internships for networking; extremely low paid positions in expensive cities etc etc.

What attack?

Well if they wasn’t captured, this meeting wouldn’t exist would it.

Good for your daughter.

It is very important to continually remind the well intentioned, well meaning and poorly informed that the reason this small group of men are displeased is because of the Equality Act protections for women, lesbian and gay people, and women with trans identity.

So anyone busy sympathising with these men is actively seeking the destruction of the rights of those groups.

And because this lobby is now happily throwing the needed protections of trans identified women under the bus they have made it plain and stark that this is now solely about men and men's rights activism, on a binary sexed basis.

If her performing arts school is into MRA support then whatever, but they need to be honest about it.

Haha, yes, I totally hate about 50% of my family members...

(And it's why I am well-placed to know that, whatever Equity may naively assume, not everyone in the industry supports this lunacy)

Yes the creative industries are captured.

Rosie Kay
Sibyl Ruth
Jess de Wahls
James Dreyfuss

And how many authors & writers?

And many more who have had to stay quiet, because I always count on there being about 10 people affected for every prominent public case.

"Attack" very unbiased.

I’m sure you don’t mean to sound so aggressive do you?

What about the poor trans men? They always seem to be forgotten in these discussions about trans rights.

That would be because this isn't has never been about 'trans', it has only ever been about men. One of the SC reasons for finding was the need to maintain protections for trans identified women: has anyone heard the lobby mention or appreciate this? I haven't.

This is an MRA movement, on a binary sexed basis. The lobby isn't bothering to hide this any more.

Because it’s a rerun of McCarthyism but instead of reds it’s gender unbelievers.

I am on a committee for a bowls club - don’t laugh, it’s a great sport! - and Bowls England just issued all clubs a “you MUST issue this to all club members” edict on the Supreme Court ruling… allegedly aimed at transgender but oops the mask slipped and they meant transwomen. BOWLS ffs!!! See photo shot of email

Transgender or transwomen ? My highlight

Shows how little they’ve considered this - “transgender females” = women identifying as men

This.

A million times over.

In fact, if you listen to the excellent Double Jeopardy podcast on this Supreme Court ruling, you'll hear the ferociously precise & very listenable KC, Karon Monaghan, explain why the decision is so important for trans-identified women/girls ("transmen").

She outlines what would have happened had the SC ruled that "sex" included "gender identity": trans-identified women/girls (transmen) would have lost ANY and ALL riughts pertain to their biological female status.

That means: no maternity leave, for example, or any kind of consideration for anything to do with their biological female status.

The recognition of "gender identity" would have wiped out a considerable portion of women's sex-based rights specifically for one part of the transgender population (ie those biologically female trans-identified people).

But the men don't care. It's so obvious.

Oh, it seems the zoom meeting has been 'postponed' 😉What a shame. Perhaps enough people have complained and pointed out that the Supreme Court delivered a lawful judgment rather than an 'attack'.