can we discuss feminism please

You comment is untrue & unpleasant .

Bridgeit

That is what I said Doodledog?

Is it? I read your post as saying that there was nothing left to fight for apart from terminology, which isn't worth getting 'stewed up' about.

Sorry if I have misunderstood, but I can't honestly see a different meaning in what you said.

On a thread about feminism, I am speaking as a feminist about the way in which this issue affects female people, but even then, I was careful to say that transmen AND transwomen's rights are human rights. I hereby include non-binary people in this statement for the record.

You are deliberately picking on one part of what I have said to discredit the rest, whilst ignoring the thrust of the argument. It is sophistry. Please stop it.

That is what I said Doodledog?

Doodledog the insistance on maaking this only an issue about transwomen is just wrong. There are transmen and binary people who are deeply affected by this issue as well. Ignoring them is not acceptable.

Galaxy that's not quite true (as I think you know). Your belief in anything can remain. You simply can't call people what you wish, but comply with their request to be called what they believe they are.
It could also be compared with the Mrs/Miss/Ms debate which some people thought unnecessary but others thought of vital importance and wanted the right to choose. Should those who think it's a waste of time be allowed to use the one they believe is appropriate and ignore someone's preference?

It's really not about terminology, Bridgeit. It is about men (full-bodied) being able to shower next to women because they self-id as 'female'.

It is about the notion of femaleness being erased, so women become 'non-men' whilst men retain their own sex and rights.

It is about all-female shortlists becoming meaningless, and about men competing with women in sport (and potentially injuring them in the process).

It is about women being imprisoned alongside full-bodied men, not being allowed to change or have intimate medical procedures carried out in female-only environments, and many more things besides.

The fact that it could become a crime even to discuss these things is very worrying, and detrimental to the cause of misgendered people as well as women.

I have no issue with trans rights - transmen and transwomen's rights are human rights, and should be protected in the same way as the rights of the rest of the population. Where I part company is that I do not support this at the expense of women's rights to exist as a sex, and I do not support the silencing of anyone who disagrees.

The rights for many categories of humans have in the past been hard fought .
What does feminism mean today? I don’t think it is clear anymore, perhaps the hard battles have been won, so now it is reduced to fighting for the ‘correct terminologies’ & maybe we ‘Grannies’ cannot get too stewed up about that.

A more accurate comparison is an evangelical Christian insisting that we all say we believe in God. I dont believe you can change sex in the same way I dont believe in God. Neither of these views are hate speech.
I am now on two different threads arguing for different sides on the free speech debate which is confusing even for me

Galaxy I don't see who made the threat matters. If Hate Crime was a legal issue he wouldn't be able to make such threats. You can say what you believe, that doesn't mean you can target other people because of your beliefs. I may be an evangelical Christian, that does not give me the right to refuse to recognise Muslims, or to insist that their first name be referred to as their Christian name.

She was threatened by a man trisher. Stating that you cant change sex is not hate speech, it's the truth. And a statement made by many many transwomen.

MBHP1 You are entitled to believe what you like, you have no right to inflict those beliefs onto other people. So just as a Muslim or Jewish person cannot be compelled to attend a Christian service or take part in any activity which might conflict with their religious beliefs you cannot call a transwoman "he" because of your beliefs.
It seems to me rather a conflict of ideas to post about someone forced into hiding by hate speech and then oppose a Hate Crime Bill

petunia

You may have a point there Trisher but there are two sides to every argument. Just because someone disagrees with an argument doesn't make the facts wrong or the writer transphobic. A barrister would be a fool to make statements that are not true, knowing the implications. I would imagine people opposing the argument presented in the article would use carefully selected facts in a response.

Perhaps, however I consider it not only inconsiderate and biased but possibly really damaging to the University targeted, and prospective students. who reading that article might assume they would not be treated properly because there was no disability policy or equality policy, when in fact entirely the opposite is true. The two issues have been moved on from policies into embedded organisations. Which of course leads on to the reason for a Trans policy and training, because the issue is still a recent development which many (as the posts on this thread illustrate) misunderstand and struggle with. In years to come trans issues may well become part of the Equalities service. Such articles are dangerous and inflammatory.

Doodledog

Have any Scottish grans been following the Progress of the Hate Crime bill in the NEC?

It could become a crime to use the term Adult Human Female, as this could be seen as stirring up hatred. This could also apply in the home, so will effectively prevent women from even discussing the way they are being erased.

In similar nonsense, people will be allowed to self-ID as black or disabled, in order to be considered for one of the 4 protected seats available to each group.

It’s barmy. I suspect that this might be to attract young voters who are too naive to understand the implications of this sort of thing. They are statistically more likely to vote for independence, and Nicola Sturgeon has the Alec Salmond allegations hanging over her.

Why people aren’t up in arms about all of this is beyond my comprehension.

I have been following it and am deeply concerned and alarmed about the implication for women’s and children’s rights.
The Equalities Act 2010 has, as one of the protected characteristics, ‘belief’ along with ‘religion’.
My belief is that you can’t change sex and science supports that. This means I do not accept that biological women, and men who feel they are women, are the same. If this Hate Crime Bill is made law in Scotland, my understanding is that I could be prosecuted for making such statements.
The public seem unaware of the implications for women and children’s rights and those of us who are aware of the implications will be silenced. I believe that is the the main ‘hidden’ purpose, of the Bill.
The Scottish National Party elected members will have an opportunity at stage 3 of the Bill to make clear to the public where they stand on this and I hope they go with their conscience.
The newly formed Independence for Scotland Party is an alternative for those who support independence and their policies about this are the same as mine. They have produced an excellent video, has anyone seen it? I don’t think I can post the link here, can I?
Joanna Cherry QC was the SNP Justice Minister in Westminster and Nicola Sturgeon sacked her so she is now a back bencher. JC has had to have police protection in the past due to threats on her life because she champions women’s rights. Apparently, she had to be taken to a safe place again at the weekend.
I would urge those who live in other parts of the UK who share my views to keep a close eye on what happens with the proposed Hate Crimes Bill and prepare.

Have any Scottish grans been following the Progress of the Hate Crime bill in the NEC?

It could become a crime to use the term Adult Human Female, as this could be seen as stirring up hatred. This could also apply in the home, so will effectively prevent women from even discussing the way they are being erased.

In similar nonsense, people will be allowed to self-ID as black or disabled, in order to be considered for one of the 4 protected seats available to each group.

It’s barmy. I suspect that this might be to attract young voters who are too naive to understand the implications of this sort of thing. They are statistically more likely to vote for independence, and Nicola Sturgeon has the Alec Salmond allegations hanging over her.

Why people aren’t up in arms about all of this is beyond my comprehension.

It would be an interesting exercise to have a poll on Gransnet about bra fitting...who would you not want to do it?
E.g. I would not want any of my
female/male neighbours
my in-laws
my daughters/sons in-laws
former colleagues
former students (I was a trainer)
Thinking this through, I would rather the woman was unknown to me.
I would not accept anyone other than a woman (biological).

trisher

petunia were the service users permited to choose their contact with the service on any other grounds? For example if someone said they didn't like a particular woman would they automatically be moved to someone else, or would the service be withdrawn?

I worked in the male violence against women and children field for 40 years providing practical and emotional support. I can confirm that the policy was that if a woman, young person or child did not want a service from a particular member of staff or volunteer that was accepted without question and another was found.
I support that policy because to do otherwise is counter productive and to withdraw the service can be experienced as a further form of abuse which can drive a woman back to the abusive man.

You may have a point there Trisher but there are two sides to every argument. Just because someone disagrees with an argument doesn't make the facts wrong or the writer transphobic. A barrister would be a fool to make statements that are not true, knowing the implications. I would imagine people opposing the argument presented in the article would use carefully selected facts in a response.

If there is one thng barristers are good at it is presenting facts with bias, in fact it's their job. They present things in the best light for their client. Even barristers can be biased. As I said- no mention of the Disabled Student Service at Edinburgh or of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion programme which covers all the policies alleged not to be provided. www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/about/outcomes
Then Rainbow laces and rainbow lanyards have to be bought and handed around. Well why not? It raises LGBQT awareness.
As I said it smacks of homophobia

The article that you object to Trisher was written by someone who is an experienced barrister who specialises In Employment and Discrimination. I would imagine that this author has checked her facts and knows her stuff. Maybe its not biased at all. Maybe it is based on her experience, observation and knowledge.

That article is one of the most biased and unbalanced reports I have ever read- see my post about Edinburgh University and disabilities. It belittles the rainbow which as most peole know is the symbol, not just of transrights but of all LGBTQ rights, which makes me believe the writer is not just trans phobic but homophobic. I'm surprised anyone would want to be associated with such views www.rd.com/article/how-the-rainbow-became-associated-with-gay-rights/

No Trisher- that's not what I said. Management are relaxed about who cared for who and did not interfere, in most circumstances, But if a woman confided that she did not want a particular supporter because that particular person was a transwoman, we would need to share that with management. In this particular organisation, there would be all manner of forms to complete and much discussion, ending in the client being told she had no choice.

But it seems that my organisation, and many others who have been influenced by Stonewall, have jumped the gun. That article is sobering reading. Stonewall has fudged and confused the issue by selling their diversity training and organisations are implementing polices that are dubious if not illegal. There are exemptions for sex, an example in the article cited the Marks and Spencer bra fitters. Quite right too. No woman should be made to feel uncomfortable in changing rooms, toilets or when undergoing medical procedures, swimming etc. Why should a woman put up and shut up? Why should young girls or women who's religion demands modesty, or, dam it, any woman be made to feel uncomfortable in moments of vulnerability when the law is actually on their side?

Gramm that isn't the intention at all it is in fact support for transmen who choose to have chldren but do not want to be called women- so lots to do with feminism and nothing to do with pretending to be pregnant.
So in effect petunia the management opposed all transfers and not just ones involving trans women?

Trisher, as we all can not like everyone all the time, it is sometimes necessary for a client to swap supporter. It happens. It is easily and compassionately done. However, management usually have no interest or involvement in this swapping.
If a woman is so upset by being faced with a transwoman, I do not feel that it is my place to educate her into the correct way of thinking.

Is this feminism, supporting men pretending to be pregnant