Eddie Izzard

I'm sure we have all heard about intersectional feminism too, trisher, and as you know, that is not what I meant.

In any culture in which a transwoman operates, including social class, education, age, race and all the other things that impact on how we are treated, she will not share the experience of a natal woman living in that culture. Is that a better (if long-winded) way of saying it?

This is an example of what I meant upthread when I said that anything said in reply to you has to be worded so that it can't be unpicked and misinterpreted to say something completely different from what I meant.

All I can say after all this, is...
If Eddie Izzard happens to rock up and park his gym towel on the peg next to my Girl Guide group, I will be having words.

This is an example of what I meant upthread when I said that anything said in reply to you has to be worded so that it can't be unpicked and misinterpreted to say something completely different from what I meant.
I really don't spend all that long doing anything of the sort Doodledog

You really don't spend a lot of time addressing the points that people raise, either.

Now make your mind up! I thought I was unpicking your statements and saying things you didn't mean.
I posted a long answer to your individual questions. The long rants I usually skim through. They're not questions.

trisher

Now make your mind up! I thought I was unpicking your statements and saying things you didn't mean.
I posted a long answer to your individual questions. The long rants I usually skim through. They're not questions.

This is straight out of a gaslighting textbook .

Doodledog you have consistently been the one who made this personal. I have always tried to reply to the raised points rather than attack someone personally.
So rather than making personal remarks shall we get back to the basics.
If there is a law which exempts sex under the Equalities act in order to provide spaces for natal women this will also enable men to take back the spaces we fought for in the 1970s. As men still dominate all management, executive and law making areas this will be a step back for women.
If you legislate to make some spaces for women-changing rooms etc illegal for any transwoman who has not had surgery to enter how will this be administered? And what will be the consequences for women who do not present as easily identifiable as female?
By castigating Women's Refuges as unsafe because of the presence of transwomen the work of the people in those refuges is being undermined and vulnerable women may not seek help when they need it. If we don't trust those working there who can we trust?

trisher, you may feel you're avoiding making this personal but others may feel differently

It seems to me that you are unable to contribute to this discussion from any other position than rejection of any suggestion made by anyone that disagrees with you.

I think that saying that someone has obsessions with food and penises, and is stuck in the 70s is fairly personal, but anyway. . .

Nobody is saying that there should be a change in law, but rather that the existing law should not be changed to redefine men as women when they want to be so defined. That is the crux of the issue.

Sex and gender are increasingly being used as interchangeable terms, meaning that protections based on sex are being threatened with replacement by gender-based ones which allow people to select their own gender. This would, effectively, remove any and all protections that existing laws offer.

Regardless of who is ‘behind’ all this, it is increasingly difficult for anyone in positions of influence, eg politicians, celebrities journalists or children’s authors to express concern, as to do so can result in violent opposition, which is a sinister development, particularly as transexuality is not a widespread phenomenon.

Nobody on here is ‘castigating’ refuges. They have been mentioned as examples of places where vulnerable women may reasonably object to being around men, or ‘people with penises’ if you prefer a less gender-specific description.

Regardless of who is 'behind' all this, it is increasingly difficult for anyone in positions of influence, eg politicians, celebrities, journalists or children's authors to express concern, as to do so can result in violent opposition, which is a sinister development, particularly as transexuality is not a widespread phenomenon (Doodledog 11.26 today)

Two young feminist friends of mine attended a women's conference. They attempted to discuss some of the concerns raised on this thread. Both were subjected to awful abuse, rape threats etc for a good while afterwards. Both had to take down twitter and face book accounts. I'm sure you'd agree this is unacceptable trisher but it is not unusual. that's one of the significant concerns about transactivists, the ease with which so many resort to threats of that nature.

Nobody is saying that there should be a change in law, but rather that the existing law should not be changed to redefine men as women when they want to be so defined. That is the crux of the issue
But the existing law still allows people to define their gender as they wish, the only difference being that they now have to live as their chosen gender for 2 years before it can legally be changed. So you have people legally designated as men made to access women's facilities in order to change their gender. Is this better?

Sex and gender are increasingly being used as interchangeable terms, meaning that protections based on sex are being threatened with replacement by gender-based ones which allow people to select their own gender. This would, effectively, remove any and all protections that existing laws offer
Please could you post examples of this as it seems to me thatt people who are transgender are sure about the difference between the two.

Nobody on here is ‘castigating’ refuges. They have been mentioned as examples of places where vulnerable women may reasonably object to being around men, or ‘people with penises’ if you prefer a less gender-specific description
I think that saying people workng in refuges are forced to make statements they don't agree with, denying that the risk assessments they undertake are adequate and questioning the safety of the women who use them is pretty much "castigating" them. I see the last part of the question "Who then can we trust" has been ignored.

Iam64 there are always people who post unacceptable things on social media. It isn't limited to trans issues. It should always be condemned but as I have said before we don't legislate for the many because of the extremism of a few. That applies to trans issues, extreme politics and many other areas.

There already is provision in the Equality Act to allow single sex provision of services or spaces if there is a legitimate reason for it.

To say otherwise is scaremongering.

But the existing law still allows people to define their gender as they wish, the only difference being that they now have to live as their chosen gender for 2 years before it can legally be changed. So you have people legally designated as men made to access women's facilities in order to change their gender. Is this better?
This is misrepresenting the situation, I think. People can define their gender how they wish, but the law is based on sex, so a man who defines his gender as female is still legally male.

There are difficulties with people in the process of transitioning (we are back to lavatories again!), so why not issue a certificate of intent to those who are planning to transition? Not perfect, but it would go some way to assuaging worries that men with ill-intent can use the trans cause as a means of accessing women's facilities.

Please could you post examples of this as it seems to me thatt people who are transgender are sure about the difference between the two.
Well no, as the law has not changed yet. I am not saying that transgender people are unsure about the difference. I am saying that discussions surrounding the GRA often confuse sex and gender, and workplace policies and so on often do so too.

I think that saying people workng in refuges are forced to make statements they don't agree with, denying that the risk assessments they undertake are adequate and questioning the safety of the women who use them is pretty much "castigating" them. I see the last part of the question "Who then can we trust" has been ignored
I haven't said any of this, so will leave it for those who have to respond. I didn't 'ignore' the 'who then can we trust?' question, so much as misunderstand what it was asking. I assumed it was a rhetorical question.

As I have been accused of "gaslighting" I thought it appropriate to investigate this properly. This link gives 11 examples of behaviour that is typical of gaslighting www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting
If someone could indicate exactly which of the 11 I am guilty of then I will look for examples of them. Until then I think using a term which is indicative of an abusive relationship simply because your arguments are questioned or proved insupportable is not only incredibly silly it belittles the very real abuse some people have suffered from.

There are countless articles about gaslighting that could be used in a game of 'pick an example', and this thread is so long that I am not prepared to trawl through it picking out instances, so I will just say that this is an example in itself:

. . . using a term which is indicative of an abusive relationship simply because your arguments are questioned or proved insupportable is not only incredibly silly it belittles the very real abuse some people have suffered from.

This deflects from the accusation that you are gaslighting by accusing those making it of being 'incredibly silly', and belittling others. It also embeds the idea that you have proved the arguments of others to be 'insupportable', which is (at the very least) open to question, and suggests that those who disagree with you are averse to having their arguments questioned.

All of that is gaslighting.

trisher, I'm well aware that social media has given some people the opportunity to behave badly. I'm talking about threats of violence, rape and death directed during a conference and in its aftermath.
Once again, you chose to ignore, minimise and disregard the extreme levels of abuse directed at two young women simply because they attempted to discuss some of the issues raised in this thread.
This suggests you simply don't care about women abused and threatened in this way.

Iam64 Of course I care. I care about people like Diane Abbott regularly abused and threatened on social media because of her socialism and her racial origins, I care about Caroline Flack who committed suicide because of on-line bullying, I even care that Pritti Patel has been a target. What I don't do is regard one sort of on-line abuse as worse than another. It is all wrong. It is all harmful. The people who do it need dealing with and social media companies need to take more action. But it isn't just a trans issue.
I could have posted that apparently you only care about the two women abused by trans activists but I haven't for the simple reason that I believe you have women's best interests at heart but I do wish you could behave in a similar way and stop accusing me of things I haven't said, or of not caring.

Doodledog whilst you continue to use the term Gaslighting for my posts rather than addressing the issues I have raised which combat your ideas there is really no point in engaging with you.
I do think you might apologise for using a term which describes the terrible way many people are treated in an abusive relationship for a simple disagreement with a complete stranger on a social media site. If you don't think it belittles them and their lives it certainly trivialses it.

I just came across this clip of Piers Morgan, from about a year ago. It's a bit of a squabble and not something I'd usually listen to.

It does, however, include a well-known transwoman India Willoughby (about 3m30sec) who tells a young 'cis-gender man' transactivist that his ideas of 'compassion' and the current transgender movement are damaging to trans people.
The young man doesn't seem too interested in India's point of view, unfortunately.
How about you, trisher?

youtu.be/C1roM98Dass

LSP I'm with you all the way.

trisher

Doodledog whilst you continue to use the term Gaslighting for my posts rather than addressing the issues I have raised which combat your ideas there is really no point in engaging with you.
I do think you might apologise for using a term which describes the terrible way many people are treated in an abusive relationship for a simple disagreement with a complete stranger on a social media site. If you don't think it belittles them and their lives it certainly trivialses it.

I have addressed the issues you have raised - every post I have made on this thread has been in response to the issues you have raised.

You are not engaging with me (or others) on here. You are selectively finding small points with which to pick fault and ignoring the answers to your questions.

Gaslighting is often one part of a pattern of abusive behaviour, and I am in no way trivialising its impact on on those who suffer from it; but neither am I going to be sidetracked into defending myself from accusations, or getting involved in a discussion of gaslighting in a way which diverts from the topic, or from the points I have made that you choose not to address.

This is what has happened over and over on this thread, and I am not playing.

Before you ask which points you have not addressed, I ask again :
Do you accept that there are women who feel threatened by the fact that men can self-identify as female and enter single-sex spaces?

Do you think that the concerns of these women should, as a matter of course, be put second to the wishes of men who wish to self-identify as female?

Do you think that it is ethical to let a natal woman (or anyone else for that matter) believe that she is being treated by or is in an intimate professional exchange with someone who presents as female but is, in fact, male?

FarNorth I listened to that although I really cannot stand Piers Morgan. What I noticed was that India when she was speaking was consistently talked over by both Piers and the young man. She was effectively treated as most women are treated when men debate.
As for her views on the trans issue. I wouldn't expect every man or every woman to agree about things so why should I think trans people should? She is entirely entitled to her view. I'm sure if I looked I could find transwomen who would disagree with her.

Doodledog I have answered these before because I didn't say what you wanted me to is not "not answering". I'm sure there is a term for badgering someone in the hope that you will get the answer you want but anyway here goes.
1. Of course there are and the answer is rigorous and thorough risk assessment which keeps people safe and constant reassurance. Not a blanket ban on transwomen.
2.I think this is anoher way of asking 1 so the same answer applies.
3. I have answered this before and asked about how precisely this would work (whiich you never answered). Personally if someone has transitioned I will accept them as a woman. If someone presents as a woman but the person being examined is not comfortable with them for whatever reason then they are entiitled to ask for someone else (which means they needn't accept anyone with a masculine appearance). Are you saying that every medical professional can never be permitted to go through transition because a patient might object to them? That doesn't seem fair.

trisher, I'm sorry for repeating myself but the two young women were verbally abused, threaten with rape and death at the conference. their names were on conference papers and in any event, they introduced themselves by names. Not content with abusing them at a feminist conference, the abuse continued on social media to the extent they had to withdraw. The abuse was from transwomen.
It doesn't matter to me if the transwomen had tough lives. So did many of us. It does not give us the right to abuse others.

trisher I too normally can't stand Piers Morgan and I was about to switch off the squabbling but I thought it was interesting to hear what India said.
Please do find transwomen, not people who only claim to be a bit girly like Izzard, whose views would add to this discussion.