Eddie Izzard

LSP I'm with you all the way.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Of course they wouldn't Rosie51 but the idea that all women bleed is a common one, and supposedly part of our shared experience. Unfortunately closer examination always reveals that women's lives are different in many ways. And in fact some women and some transwomen share similar experiences

Oh now you're using the transwoman argument about periods etc. trisher .Your mother would have been seen and treated as a woman, with all the inherent attitudes of the day, and very few people, other than her closest family, would know she didn't have a uterus.

I said that transwomen have not had the same experience as natal women, and I stand by that, as I see it as indisputable
But there is no universally shared woman's experience. Her experience depends on so many other factors, including the colour of her skin, her economic status and the country she is born into, not to mention her medical history. My mother lived without a uterus for the majority of her life, she never had a period after 26, so was she not a woman?

I cross posted with trisher there - I do not want or need lectures about feminism what feminists believed in the 1970's. I remember it well. Not all women's groups believed the only way we could progress was by condemning men and striking out on our own. It really was much more complex than that. It helps no one to make sweeping statements and generalisations. Most of the women contributing to this thread were there.

trisher

Doodledog You are stuck in the 1970s when women thought the only way we could progress was by condemning men and striking out on our own.It might have been right for the time, but in doing so we rejected a whole history of feminist men. Google the Men's League for Women's Suffrage and the terrible case of William Bell. Third wave feminists recognise there are male feminists. That minority groups have been treated in much the same way women have and that united we stand a better chance of defeating patriachy.
Incidentally I still don't understand your obsession with penises.

I have no wish to exclude men, but I don't see the way forward as enrolling transmen to speak for women. Nor do I need a lecture on the history of feminism, thanks - I am well aware of the history of the campaign for women's suffrage. Again, you work from the assumption that you speak from a position of superiority when it comes to an understanding of these issues, and it is very irritating.

Where did I say that I do not recognise male feminists? I said that transwomen have not had the same experience as natal women, and I stand by that, as I see it as indisputable.

I don't have an obsession with penises either. I use the term 'tranwomen/people with penises' when posting in reply to you, as I am aware that any deviation from language which is 100% unambiguous will be pounced on as a way to divert the argument, and to discriminate between transitioned and non-transitioned transwomen. I find it amusing that the autocorrect on my phone will now suggest the word 'penises' if I type in 'people with', but this is not indicative of any obsession on my part, I can assure you.

Thank you Iam64.