Have we reached the tipping point?

[ItsCoolForCats]

It seems that 'no debate' is dead. And now that TRAs can no longer suppress and silence women from talking about their rights, the general public has woken up to what has been going on.

I think there are many people who aren't that interested in the whole issue of sex v gender identity, but many of these people will be horrified at the suppression of lawful free speech and at the overreach and aggressive behaviour of activists. And people really don't like bullies.

And the media is finally stating to report more widely on the issue. I listened to Front Row on Radio 4 recently, and the presenter repeatedly pushed back at the organiser of Edinburgh Book Festival for her decision to not include any GC authors. I'm not sure that would have happened a year ago. And the Scottish media (with a notable exception) seem pretty determined to expose the bullying tactics of activists within Scottish Institutions. I'm feeling hopeful that in this new climate, more high profile people will speak up and refuse to be bullied.

No. The takeover of language and capture of institutions continues.

The general public hasn’t woken up and the default response to any contentious issue is to say, “Be kind”. Women are still support humans who must give way to others on demand, if not before.

I’m in healthcare and it is wholly captured. Even to the point of self-harming the value of health research or comms.

I know there is a long way to go and some institutions feel beyond redemption. What i mean by tipping point, is that I feel things are starting to swing back in the other direction, and we are now allowed to say things that we wouldn't have been able to say even a year ago.

I work in the public sector, and I'm in the SEEN network. Lately we have had more people in their twenties join and people who said they wanted to join for a while but were too afraid. And more LGB people who are utterly disillusioned with the LGBT+ network.

Even my 'be kind' friends are starting to see the issue with the behaviour of some TRAs. I think when the EHRC guidance comes out there will be an escalation in aggression from TRAs, and I hope that the general public will be less accepting of this than they were in the past. Perhaps I'm being naive.

I think the tipping point was reached when debate began opening up. There is no longer a blanket rule that the sex of a trans identifying person is a no go area for discussion in relation to sex significant issues. I think the speed of return will be varied in different areas of society.

There are sectors and groups that are clinging on to enforcing social norms that outlaw any challenge, but they are fighting a losing battle. The genie is out of the bottle.

In reality, the vulnerabilities and issues people with trans identities face do not hinge on inclusion in singles spaces. This might reflect an existential pain that they have to bear, but nothing more nothing less. This will come to light, making the hyperbole visible.

As someone who doesn’t work for a captured employer, I think that things are starting to turn.
In no particular order, pride is not being rammed down our throats for months on end, journalists are allowed(?) to question TRA views, legal actions are taking place and the GC view is winning (Virgin gyms as an example just today, on another thread), the Cass report happened, the SC ruling happened, sports bodies are restricting female categories to females, I haven’t heard of a DQ story time for a while, charities that promote T+ stuff, especially to children are being closed down, companies and institutions are leaving the Stonewall champions scheme, politicians and celebrities are expressing GC views and not being cancelled, or at least there is vocal support and pushback for them, and so on.

I think that it will take time to unpick the mess that the NHS has got itself into because it went for it in a big way, and Scouts and Guides and the WI need to take a good look at themselves, but I am hopeful that the tide is turning.

I think people are starting to see the light, though sooo slooowly.

The big problem is the major institutions (government, NHS etc) that were infiltrated, early on, by determined transactivists who had all the means and the tactics to control the agenda. Those people are still in power and making sure their supporters are too.

As gay rights are well accepted now, they cleverly co-opted Stonewall to attach T onto the unrelated LGB. That made them seem harmless to people who don’t stop to think of the difference between sexual orientation (which doesn’t affect anyone else) and men demanding women’s rights as well as their own.

Luckily, the more women actually face male invasions of female spaces, the more they realise what a con-trick the “be kind” orthodoxy is. Why not be kind to women instead?

Our biggest assets are the endless string of trans-identifying male rapists, sports cheats and general misogynists showing their contempt for women. Thanks for making our point, lads.

Yes and no.

I think we got into this mess because society felt it was more important to protect men's egos than women's rights, and that is hardly a new problem.

It has become blatantly obvious, because of the Supreme Court Ruling and sex offenders taking advantage in court, that TWAW is not sustainable.

However, I think it's always going to be uncomfortable to fight for women's rights and many people will always find it easier to make life convenient for men.

I think we got into this mess because society felt it was more important to protect men's egos than women's rights, and that is hardly a new problem.

Not entirely IMO. I think people (men and women) just didn't realise how far the rot had set in.

Look at the threads on the NHS Audit - all UK trusts with in-patients are captured, but a quick look at their websites will state that they have single sex policies and people will take that at face value.

Then too, it's not such a big deal for men - women aren't going to steal their sports prizes, and a woman entering a man's changing room is more likely to cause discomfort rather than present the threat that a man would in a woman's changing room. So when men do realise - it's "Oh not my problem."

We've thought that we'd reached the tipping point since, I would say, Maya Forstater won protection for 'gc' views.

But tiny groups of activists working to keep women as second class human beings still have immense power over the education, health, the arts, government, media, etc.

This week's NLS debacle illustrates the problem perfectly. Sensible, thoughtful, well meaning people in power openly acknowledge and consider the risk to women's rights and freedom of speech, and still choose to support the 'LGBTQ' activists' wishes. Or consider why the Edinburgh Book Festival froze out, say, Jenny Lindsay, while offering half a dozen slots to the misogynist man who hounded her - recently seen shouting 'give us wombs and give us titties'' on a megaphone at an anti-women's rights march.

'Women' just aren't seen as a group worthy of consideration in the way that 'marginalised' men are.

Then too, it's not such a big deal for men - women aren't going to steal their sports prizes, and a woman entering a man's changing room is more likely to cause discomfort rather than present the threat that a man would in a woman's changing room. So when men do realise - it's "Oh not my problem."

Many men also see this as a 'women's issue' and either dismiss it or are wary about getting involved.

I agree that disinterest and apathy played a big part.

But it comes back to the problem that it's difficult to ask for rights and make other people uncomfortable.

'Be kind' is the easy option because it often involves doing nothing.

I don't know.

When this started, i thought the law would keep it in check. I thought safeguarding laws and the EqA would stop it getting into schools and places protected by the PC of sex.

But that didn’t happen. How did male teachers get to make children call them 'miss' and gender ideology taught while maintaining safeguarding? It didnt, professionals knew they could ignore the law.

And that hasn't changed. Its the same laws and the same people ignoring the laws, and the same politicians pretending not to see the problem.

I think the men involved in gender ideology will probably go quiet for a while then regroup and do it all over again. They are never going to give up.

I think big institutions are at last waking up to the fact they can't justify prioritising one set of protected characteristics at the expense of another. It will take a few more tribunals though.

However I despair of the widespread grassroots social capture, and of how long the corrective of the Supreme Court ruling might take to trickle down - just look at the kneejerk opposition it immediately received from supposedly intelligent people.

I still don't feel I can say what I think freely within my social groups and networks, especially feminist ones. It really is like a whisper network, sounding out individual GC sympathisers. I have been cancelled from one network for making the most anodyne of observations (I was first told I needed to educate myself then quietly dropped when I didn't grovel and apologise).

As a freelancer I'm afraid of losing work if I am visibly branded as a "terf". I am well aware that means that I'm part of the problem and I should speak up more.

I take some solace from the fact that if I feel this way, then many others must do too, but like me they are afraid to speak up because of the huge social cost involved. They need the adults in the room (eg the govt) to make it safer first, unambiguously.

My current strategy is to focus on one particular point where I feel on very solid ground and innocently poke at that. "Wow, OK, so do you mean you believe women shouldn't ever be allowed to meet and organise away from men, under any circumstances? Goodness. Tell me more!"

Turn a blind eye, don't make a fuss, shrug, turn away, let someone else do it.

That worries me too. That they will just try different tactics. But we have the law on our side, so if they want that to be changed they have to campaign openly for it.

And captured organisations will have to align their policies with the law or face legal action. They can huff and puff all they want about it. But are they going to risk being sued?

I think the vulnerabilities trans people face can be resolved by ensuring there are adequate third spaces. And some people will use these and quietly carry on with their lives.

There are many 'be kinders' who naively think this is the reasonable solution. However, when the EHRC statutory guidance comes out and more and more orgs provide this solution, the be kinders' will realise how uncompromising many TRAs are because they will refuse to use them. I think it will be eye-opening for the public to see a reasonable solution that attempts to balance competing rights being rejected. Owen Jones has already gone on an unhinged rant about Virgin Active, when VA have said they will provide unisex options for people.

Tipping point, in my book, reflects a see-saw or balance scale. One side has reached its peak, the tipping point is when the other side starts to ascend.

We are seeing lots of movement in the direction of single sex provision being single sex. Balance may not yet be restored, but this is the direction in which we are travelling.

I think the space opened up when people felt women no longer needed special protection.

In the 80’s the various laws discriminating against women were changed and it became a case of monitoring outcomes as change worked its way through the systems and institutions.

We had lad culture, where women weren’t just no longer discriminated against but were now allowed to behave like lads. Drinking, drugs, casual sex.

Any push back against that was seen as sexist- why can’t she have 4 kids by 4 dads, you bigot, rather than recognising the different vulnerabilities and outcomes for women behaving like young men.

So apparently we ‘had it all’. Feminism was done. At that point companies and institutions must have felt it unnecessary to view women as subject to discrimination apart from around maternity issues. We moved on to menopause management.

Now anyone paying attention will have seen that this needed constant attention to prevent back slipping, that women are still disadvantaged in many many ways. But it’s not as obvious as it was, leaving room for an apparently more vulnerable minority- trans- to be prioritised above women.

Race and disability continue alongside throughout of course. This is more about women losing ground to transgenderism.

I don’t think the vulnerabilities that trans identified people experience can be addressed through them accessing singles spaces that are not for their sex. Whether they are allowed to access single sex spaces or required to use mixed sex spaces - the vulnerabilities arising will remain, because they are existential and not grounded in the material world.

TRA and allies make out that access to wrong sex provision is essential to trans identified people’s existence. However, will be plain to see that this isn’t the case as/when using third spaces is in place. It may be that issues arise in relation to the quantity and quality of 3rd spaces but that’s a separate issue.

@myplace
interesting as it made me think / the whole ladette culture was really about approaching the male default

we might be better if the less aggressive less selfish female default was more prevalent in society

I think the tipping point came when people running organisations started acknowledging that saying that TW are not women is not a rejection of TW’s humanity or worth, is not an attempt to humiliate, and does not signal a refusal to coexist with TW in society. Recognising that it is a simple communication acknowledging the material nature of sex and that sex matters in life and law.

The Japanese Soldiers are desperately trying to reinforce the idea that acknowledging TW are not women is unconscionable. A calm and measured approach challenging this is cryptonite.

In reality, the vulnerabilities and issues people with trans identities face do not hinge on inclusion in single spaces. This might reflect an existential pain that they have to bear, but nothing more nothing less. This will come to light, making the hyperbole visible.

I think this is really important. And is, in my view, a far kinder way of looking at the issue than the traditional “beeee kiiiinnnnnd” approach. It recognises that there are in some circumstances vulnerabilities associated with a trans identity but (unlike for women) single sex spaces are not the solution to those. It would have been much kinder, in the first place, to focus on the actual vulnerabilities and issue trans people have rather than trampling on women’s rights.

Now anyone paying attention will have seen that this needed constant attention to prevent back slipping, that women are still disadvantaged in many many ways.

I've been quite surprised that so many people don't understand this.

It's not even necessarily a question of women being oppressed by the patriarchy.

The world changes and women are impacted differently, as detailed extensively in 'Invisible Women'

there’s a sunk costs fallacy re all this for TRA and their supporters. To admit they were wrong to be pro trans kids, pro men playing in women’s sports, pro forced pronoun acceptance, pro self identifying into all areas of life, pro legal fiction of putting wrong sex on passports etc is to make them all look like gigantic fools at best, harmful abusive horrors at worst. Like an abusive marrruage where partners cling on till the bitter inevitable end, TRA will hang on until they very last and go down screaming and frothing.

I agree that disinterest and apathy played a big part.

I would add that ingrained sexism helped too. "What's wrong with saying that women are people of either sex who are feminine? Women ARE feminine, aren't they, really, inside, except for a few lesbians? And feminine men - well, you can't expect to treat them as MEN, can you? They're not men if they're not masculine, so the women can have them!"

Although Maya F was an important brick in the wall, I think the SC ruling has built on that and had the greatest most widespread (potential) impact so far.

Every court case was a step in the right direction too. I think we'll never know the true indirect implications of some of the results we cheered on.

I think when this 'cause' becomes a liability, both legally and financially, we'll reach the tipping point with organisations and company's, I think give the recent cases we might be approaching that point.

I read recently that Naomi Cunningham has recently been cleared by the bar association of misconduct because someone complained that she 'mis-gendering' someone in court. It's another tactic by the AIB's to cut women off from justice, by making lawyers to afraid to take our cases.

It really depends on whether the government bring in new legislation that closes down women's ability to fight back, which they may well do, so just as we're getting somewhere, they swerve and we're back where we started.