Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

[MarcTheGenderSkeptic]

Despite being called a conspiracist here by a TRA, actually I work very hard to continually interrogate my thought processes, and not fall into easy generalisations etc.
So, I was reading Róisín Michaux and her fascinating conversation with someone high up in HIV funding, and the push in the last 20 years is to get everyone in the tent on retrovirals, meaning reaching out to not just gays and addicts, but sex workers (incl trans) and critically, the "third genders" who have migrated to the West in large numbers to end up as sex workers. And the decision was made to go for maximum anti stigmatization, which means zero messaging on personal behaviour, and critically deciding to accept these men as women. Don't blame them, get more onside.
Guess who has to move aside, and accept the messaging on health grounds that biological men can be women? Made even worse by the increase in HIV in European women who are the partners of men who use the services of these "third genders".
Then yesterday I read the amazing post from Hellofabore about how for 30 years plus, the sports authorities including IOC and FIFA decided to make total inclusion the policy, phasing out gender testing, primarily to allow the male DSDs from Africa mainly to be included, as they were IDd as female at birth, and the cruelty to deny they're still female is wrong.
Again, the overwhelming need is to not stigmatize these individuals. Of course a huge group (we know who) are stigmatized for objecting to losing sports opportunities.
And then back to Róisín Michaux again, her illuminating the revolution in psychiatric medicine, where men back in the day were diagnosed with transvestic disorder, a pure paraphylia, again to stop judging and be more inclusive, underwent massive de-stigmatisation and de-pathologisation, from paraphylia, to dysphoria, now to common all garden "sexual health category".
Three enormous areas where the drive to include men, to destigmatise their plight, to bring them in from the cold, couldn't happen in a vacuum. Society organised along sex-based lines couldn't be simply recategorised, no, a large population group (51% XX) was expected to move over, make their definition porous, extend the collective hand of kindness and inclusion, to this hardcore of men who were deemed most at risk, and needing most help.
At the same time, this blurring of definitions and imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education, the most motivated men worked hard to get the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book, and via Stonewall culture, "social training" and the "trans child" escalated as concepts and then real world consequences as noone in polite society other than a very brave few said anything.
So now we have developing nations male DSDs and "third genders", socially incorporated transvestites/transsexuals, and queer culture first world transgenders in the mix, a political culture in the West frozen into aquiescence and policy drift, and the only light of realism and sanity, an army of women fighting back, with amazing results re SC ruling, banishing self ID into the long grass, and medical and sports bodies tacking back to sanity.
But reading the almost scary analogousness of how health brought in trans and third genders at the expense of women, sport brought in male DSDs at the expense of women, psychiatry brought in transvestites from the cold at the expense of women, you can then see how the most motivated men got the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book to turbo charge the social trans/trans child revolution.
For me, I can now see the past as it travels into the future.

And who, pray tell, were the previous people who became part of the woman category other than the female sex class?
I mean, as long as I've been alive, and in all the science and history that I know and have read about, which individuals weren't considered women and then were?

Legal recognition, access to healthcare and freedom from discrimination were in place prior to discussions around reform of the GRA. It’s around that reform that the question of additional privileges arose. You may have forgotten- or chose not to remember- that trans rights groups were actively seeking to remove rights from women by asking for reform not only of the GRA but also of EA2010. There was no ‘moral panic’. There was a movement, by feminists, to secure the rights that women had, often begrudgingly, been given.

The proposed reforms to the GRA were intended to make an existing right — legal recognition — more accessible and equitable for trans people, rather than to create some new or additional privilege. The Government’s own consultation described the aim as modernising and simplifying a process that many trans people found bureaucratic, expensive and intrusive.

I don't agree with your premise that equality for trans people and women’s rights are inherently in conflict, but that was part of the basis for the moral panic and the growth of so called "gender critical feminism"

Exactly. So trans people already have these rights. If not, they can take legal action if they believe their rights are being violated. Why are stonewall not dealing with this rather than spending all their time money and energy into trying to bully women into giving their rights up?

If trans rights and women’s rights are not in conflict, why is women saying no to giving up their rights to single sex spaces considered transphobic?

It was an attempt to get self ID into law.

The rewriting of history and facts by those determined on wedging men into women's single sex spaces is at times quite startling. I know we should be used to is, the bare faced lies and denials along with the twisting of history that some of us actually lived through can be quite irritating. Still - rewriting history and mangling language is all they've got.

The SC judgment is final and clear. Schools are now instructed to stop teaching children gender identity is a fact, with issues relating to gender confused children being rightly located as part of statutory safeguarding. Sports are returning to clarity with men being booted out of women's teams. And still, despite all the wailing and whining - only women gestate and birth babies 😊

I reckon we should try to limit how much attention we give to fantasists caught up in this ideology. Sometimes (as we lean from being parents) strategic ignoring of irritating, attention seeking behaviour can be remarkably effective 😄

The push by trans activists to remove the single sex exceptions from EA2010 would suggest they saw women’s rights and trans rights to be in conflict. If they hadn’t, these would never have been in question.

When looking at legal reform, it is not only the apparent reform itself that must be examined, but also the consequences of that reform. When feminists examined the proposed reforms, it was clear that they would have a long lasting and irrevocable negative long-term effect on women. Not just single-sex spaces and services, but also data collection, funding etc. Further examination demonstrated that some of these effects were already coming into play due to de facto self-id thanks largely to ‘Stonewall law’ advice.

Of course, the process of accommodating transpeople was made more difficult by the ‘no debate’ stance of activists, which stood in the way of finding solutions that neither disadvantaged nor privileged one group over the other. The demand was “believe transwomen are women or we cannot talk”.

Quick reminder.

Gender Critical doesn't mean critical of transgender identies. It means critical of gender full stop. Gender Critical Feminism is critical of socially constructed gender roles as a whole. We consider them one of the mechanisms through which structural and unconscious sexism (aka Patriachy) is enforced and replicated.

And I can say with 100% certainty as someone who lived it, Feminism was gender critical way before we needed to consider whether TWAW, way before the Genderists started imposing their sexist demands and constructs in the name of "gender identity". We just didn't think it was necessary to say so, in the same way we didn't think we needed to specify Feminism exists for female people.

The proposed reforms to the GRA were intended to allow everyone to choose their legally recognised sex. With self ID there is no gatekeeping of who can apply (otherwise it wouldn't be self ID, would it?). So GRCs wouldn't only be available to 'genuine' trans people, but to everyone.

I don't think you have to be a genius to work out how this law could be exploited, particularly by predatory men like rapists and paedophiles.

a process that many trans people found bureaucratic, expensive and intrusive.

The existing law may be bureaucratic, but so is applying for a passport or any state benefit. The Tories lowered the cost to something like £5 or £10 and it's hardly intrusive to have to show copies of your utility bills to a government department.

When I as a 13 year old girl decided that I wanted to do the boys subjects, woodwork, metalwork, engineering drawing, back in 1980, I was met with hostility, impossible timescales, obstruction, humiliation, and that was just from the teachers.

I was one of 4 young women who went into the engineering division of my college and the only female who did the 2 week long trial period for an engineering placement at the local base of a large worldwide engineering firm.

I remember being told I'd done the most comprehensive work one tutor had ever seen but he could only give me 60% because I was female. Unwritten boys club rules apparently.

I ended up moving to construction and spent most of my career working in or teaching construction then moving to horticulture and landscaping later in life.

That is what 'breaking boundaries' was about.

These days id have been told I was a boy, and probably would have been referred to a gender clinic for drugs as girls do not do boy things. As a child I had a Swiss army knife on me at all times to take things apart and put them back together again. I own all the tools in our house.

But these days according to a report out yesterday, im a white supremacist because I do not 'do' my nails.

People think we came here last week and have no memory of where we were with our work in widening the range of gender, all our work has gone to shit.

Special people expect special rules.
While the rest of society must follow the rules and regulations (not to mention abide by the social contract), a sacred caste gets to have their own rules and systems (see the DBS system, much of the NHS and even the workplace).

I get that it may be a challenge for some, but learning how to navigate life alongside neighbours, peers, colleagues, families and communities is all part of living in a functioning, democratic society. Stonewall and the endless number of trans lobby groups have done no favours by pretending to vulnerable people that they's so special that accepted societal conventions don't apply to them.

When you think about it clearly, it's shocking that the GRA and GRCs exist at all.

It is shocking that in the 21st century, legislators thought it reasonable to say the social stereotypes that Feminists had been challenging for decades were not only valid, but so intrinsic to being a man or a woman that changing ones name and adhering to stereotypes were all that was needed to actually become the opposite sex.

Breathtakingly sexist and regressive.

That's some journey @Shedmistress

And that's why we're here. To ensure that the rewriting of history by the self invested and the removal of women's rights by the misogynists, doesn't happen.

👏

Even though I'm keeping the discussion going with Northern, specifically re this female v woman definition dichotomy, it's establishing one thing only. That part of this zero sum game culture war is on language.
I always wanted some hint of what was meant by TWAW. Because at the start, it was the magical claim, men could become women.
But now what I find according to Northern is that it's purely the language, that females mean/represent one thing, women another, what you might call females PLUS.
So, this is the big idea?
Not that males are found in some cases to produce large gametes and secondary sex characteristics of females, or some other clownfish-like ability to change sex.
No, just a linguistic twist, sleight of hand, that says females mean THIS, and women mean THAT.
Of course, I shouldn't be surprised, we all know the large gametes thing is well beyond men, and there is no Gnostic-like (or clownfish-like) ability of the human race to switch sexes. And we know the developing world Third Genders and preponderance of DSDs are just...men. Science still being what it is.
Of course, this argument from Northern is actually part of a well trodden path of railroading language changes.
Here, female means one thing, women another, and some males can join the women thing.
To the move to relabel woman-centric activities like breast feeding as chest feeding.
To rewrite reality in her penis.
Even euphemisms like top surgery for double mastectomies of young women.
Females = this, Women = this PLUS
Just more post modern jargon designed to obfuscate, and consistent with all other language sleight of hand indicating the ideology is one of social control.
Would love to know what was the last new group of people that were incorporated into the woman category as differentiated from the female category.
White and black/brown women, disabled women, poor women, gay women, migrant women, poor women, abused women...I mean, they were always women (and still are)...and females. Who before TIMs becoming women according to Northern weren't women and then became women?

Great post! I'm probably a similar age and when I was at school I was one of only 2 girls in a year of 400+ to do 3 science. The only careers advice offered to girls was to leave at 16 and do a secretarial course at the local college. I was an active feminist in the late 1970's early 1980's and a lot of discussion was around the dismantling of sexist stereotypes for men as well as women and enabling people more freedom to live as they chose. Gender non-conformity was also common and most people were relaxed about it and no one thought they were the opposite sex. I see real arrogance at times among those who think that their modern woke beliefs must progressive.

I see real arrogance at times among those who think that their modern woke beliefs must progressive.

This.

Arrogance and ignorance. Total ignorance of women's history, women's struggle, women's experiences, women's existence, women's fight for liberation. A complete lack of understanding of how society was arranged before the 1990s and how this impacted women's real lives.

I see genderists throw "Section 28" around as if they know all about it (they don't); however, I see zero acknowledgement of the status of women in society at that same point in the past.

Women have fought to be where we are now. We have seen it and we have lived it. We are not giving up what we have gained. What we now have can easily be taken away again. Progress can be erased. Sorry fellas. No.

These days id have been told I was a boy, and probably would have been referred to a gender clinic for drugs as girls do not do boy things. As a child I had a Swiss army knife on me at all times to take things apart and put them back together again. I own all the tools in our house.

Of course you wouldn't, that's just utterly silly.

I don’t accept that including trans people necessarily undermines single-sex protections. It reflects a different, more expansive understanding of sex and legal recognition — one that recognises that birth sex, anatomy, gender identity and legal status can interact in complex ways.

On that view, including trans women as women in some settings does not mean that sex ceases to matter, or that single-sex provision becomes meaningless. It means that whether particular people should be included or excluded should be considered in context, rather than starting from the assumption that recognising trans people automatically takes rights away from women.

What settings?

Edited: to rewrite your final paragraph so we are clear:

"including men as women in some settings does not mean that sex ceases to matter, or that single-sex provision becomes meaningless. It means that whether particular men should be included or excluded should be considered in context, rather than starting from the assumption that recognising men as men automatically takes rights away from women."

There are no single-sex settings where including transwomen wouldn't matter. If a service or space is exercising its right to lawfully discriminate against male people - which is what we are talking about - then it has already been acknowledged that the presence of any male would matter. What trans activists demonstrate, in their constant push to gain access to these spaces for transwomen, is their lack of respect for women's boundaries. This is nothing to do with equality.

It's instructive also to look back at the debates about reform of the GRA. There are of course clear examples of discrimination within the act. Sections 15 and 16 deal with succession and hereditary titles. This is one area where women who 'become men' should of course be at an advantage, hopping above younger brothers. Of course, exceptions were made in the act to ensure this didn't happen. I can't see anything in the submissions from trans activists, during the debate on reform, that sought to correct this 'injustice'. To recognise transmen as men in all circumstances. Almost like it's just concerned about transwomen.

How are you letting 'nice' men who transgress boundaries in and keeping 'bad' men like potential rapists out?

In your 'single sex but not sex but a whole host of other random things including v neck tshirts maybe height but definitely men who desperately want to hear women pee' vision of utopia?

Well said. This of course is why this poster is so keen on policing language on Mumsnet. if you can redefine accurate language and truth as bullying and bigotry, then men get free access to girls and women undressing, playing sport and anywhere else where single sex principles matter.

@Lacksie seems to be todays thread hijacker which @MarcTheGenderSkeptic started. Sadly and quite unbelievably they are also wading in on the Sandie Peggie thread where Jennifer Melle is currently given evidence in the tribunal. The level of arrogance is off the scale. Qualified female nurses who were exposed to men in changing rooms and a patient who was offended because Jennifer misgendered him are supporting fellow nurse Sandie Peggie and @Lacksie wants to push their pro trans agenda. Women really cannot have anything can they? Not even a MN thread explaining why we want single sex spaces and an employment tribunal. This on the back of the outraged man larping as a women at the Labour conference being angry because he, as a man, was not permitted access to Labour Women’s conference. He has since gleefully trashed the event as a flop because less women attended. Two reasons - self exclusion to avoid being called transphobic and non attendance to not upset those who are wedded to gender ideology and identity. Essentially women compromised so as not to cause trouble. Well courage calls to courage as the attendees of the women’s conference showed and today women supporting other women at the Sandie Peggie tribunal.