can we discuss feminism please

Iam64 I don't think can agree with you about that. The actions taken by the suffragettes were absolutely cutting edge for their time and society, and by actng as they did many put themselves outside polite society. So much so that in 1918 the leaders had become ashamed of the militants and wrote Kitty Marion out of the first historical account. She's only recently been re-disovered. Although they always said they would not harm people it was purely luck that none of Kitty's actions damaged anyone. There were bombs as well. She was once called "The most dangerous woman in Europe".

MBHP1, I dont believe the threat in the tweet towards Terfs can be dismissed simply by the suggestion that’s there are extremists in every movement. To then compare fire setting by suffragettes to death threats towards Terfs is taking whataboutery several steps too far

Trisher, please start a new thread to discuss the impact of lockdown on women. I’d do it but as you’ve suggested this, it’s better from you.

I don’t see how you can ‘move this thread on’. Its focus on what feminism means today was lost some time ago. I accept threads meander but the issue of the impact of the pandemic on women deserves its own thread

Engaging in the page about breasts, it prompted a question for me, which is relevant to this page about feminism.

Perhaps an old fashioned term...?

What is ‘womanhood’?

I'm moving this debate on. I fear that when lockdown ends more women will be adversely affected losing their jobs for becoming pregnant and child care becomng more and more difficult to find. Is there a way we could alleviate this, help women and the economy? I'd like to see a massive government investment in care for under 5s and funding made available to establish ethical businesses run by women possibly as cooperatives.

And what exactly does that prove MBHP1? that there are extremists in almost every movement was never in question. Does the fact that Kitty Marion burned trains and houses, Emily Wilding Davison set fire to post boxes, and thousands of ordinary women broke windows and damaged property mean that women shouldn't have been given the vote?
Threats against people are never justified, but if you persist in reading Twitter it seems to be what you get.

Can’t get the image any clearer.
It is a photo shot from a friends Twitter page.
Joanna Cherry is Scottish National Party member of Westminster government. In the past she has had to have police protection and recently had to be taken to a safe house. She receives threats of assault and death from those who support the transgender ideology. The snap shot shows the most recent threat being made... It was posted by Transgender Alliance Uk and suggests that all civil rights movements have ended in blood shed and once the TERFs start being killed laws will change.

Not any better, will try something else.

2nd attempt

It has not copied well, will try again.

I leave to others to make what you will of this shocking Twitter post...

Galaxy

Trisher do you think we dont know the law. Some of us have been involved in this issue for years. We are asking for services such as refuges prisons etc to apply the law, we know the law for goodness sake it is why we are quite cross. Those services such as prisons are not enforcing the exemptions, possible because they are scared of being called transphobic as above. The situations you describe are happening already, men in womens prisons, refuges, sports, all we want is the exemptions applied but this is not happening. I think it was Topshop recently that changed its policy on single sex changing rooms when it could have applied the exemption. If we could have calm discussions about exemptions that would be great but we cant because women are threatened for even raising the topic. This week when asked if he agreed on the need for single sex spces the labour mp for Leeds simply said no. I for one am not misrepresenting the law and as I have spent most of this thread singing the same song 'single sex spaces are protected under the equality act's, I think it's unfair to say I was.

Yes you have.
You are correct, exceptions are not being applied.
Many shops, schools, companies, universities, councils have been deliberately misled. I think I posted a link about it, the ‘Stonewall Champions’.
No wonder L G and B are breaking away and forming their own Alliance. Some are now referring to it as T Stonewall.
Another example of how divisive all this is. Stonewall has done sterling work in the past.

Iam64

The reason I stopped posting was because it’s like Groundhog Day. Not because trisher posted they law’

I believe the prison service has apologised for mistakes made in the case of Karen White. There is no doubt it needs improving but that could be said for many areas of prison administration. (trisher 17.08 today). It’s ok then, to simply dismiss the Karen White sexual assaults as the result of prison administration that needs improvement.

And the assaults by Karen White are not the only ones.

I welcome the segregated space provided for men who feel they are women.

I would also welcome that it remains the case for all the spaces that are traditionally for women and children as that would be a way of minimising risks.

NellG

Ummm, I think some of you are, in fact, transphobic

www.transactual.org.uk/transphobia

Do you realise what your post is revealing?

I think it is an attempt to alarm people, that if they question your narrative, you will declare them to be trans phobic.

That does not promote safe discourse.

I may not continue any future discourse with you however be assured, I will not be silenced in my belief that it is not possible for human beings to change sex and that men and women who feel they are the opposite sex are not the same as biological men and woman, that is science. ‘Gender’ is a human construct that means different things for different people which makes it impossible to define.

I want people to be free to express and present as they wish and the world to accept that. Alas, toxic masculinity has not as yet been sufficiently addressed and that is the crux of the problem. As a left wing, feminist, I think, that is what we urgently need to be organising around.

trisher Agreed, people need to have confidence that they can find safety and that the organisations that offer it are robust. In my experience they are.

I was also looking into the aftermath of the Karen White issue to see if anything had been done and was pleased to see that there is now a dedicated wing at Downview specifically for trans women. it's had a few teething problems ( the trans women being the victims of it, and it being mainly boredom, incidents of self harm and inadequate mental health support) but is has maintained the safety of the other women in the prison. So there is some evidence that these concerns have been addressed and the there is capacity within the system to learn and adapt to mistakes.

Having also done bank work and assessment work in both male and female prisons I am of the view that it is the trans women/trans men who are at the greatest risk of violence and assault by other inmates. But I shouldn't dare to tread on the sensibilities of these nice women by pointing out how dangerous their transphobia is in reality. I mean, how could GBH, rape and mutilation possibly compete with their concerns that a handful of trans people having more robust rights and protections would reduce their life experiences as women?

NellG thanks so much for that. One of the things which was pointed out to me and which I posted once on GN and which was met with the usual comments was that by questioning the abilities of refuge staff to deal with the problems posters could frighten women who needed shelter, and leave them in violent relationships, afraid to seek help. It's good to have a professional opinion.

Galaxy I worked for Women's Aid, both in a refuge and in the community in a role that was part funded by the probation service too ( Ie I had the 'pleasure' of dealing with the men too). In my experience I can absolutely tell you that those places and the women they work with were protected not only by the law as single sex spaces but by the very, very dedicated and skilled staff who operate the facilities and service. I have zero reasons to believe that will change. People can't just turn up on the doorstep and be let in, not even natal women. It just doesn't work like that. I really hope that reassures you. In fact the really depressing side of it was that it was more often the women themselves who would reveal the location of the refuge or support centre and put others at risk. DV is a hard and often complex issue.

So, I am very familiar with the issue of predatory men and I still have no reason to believe that my rights and safety as woman will be adversely affected by the proposed changes and how they will help trans people.

In all honesty, having worked professionally within the field of women's safety it's pretty insulting to be told that the people who work in this field aren't capable of applying the law and continuing to keep people safe. A handful of incidents where someone has slipped through the net is an opportunity to learn and improve - not deny a whole group of people the right to live safely and in peace too.

The reason I stopped posting was because it’s like Groundhog Day. Not because trisher posted they law’

I believe the prison service has apologised for mistakes made in the case of Karen White. There is no doubt it needs improving but that could be said for many areas of prison administration. (trisher 17.08 today). It’s ok then, to simply dismiss the Karen White sexual assaults as the result of prison administration that needs improvement.

Galaxy Perhaps you were but there is no doubt that it was easy to misconstrue many of the posts on this thread about the right to single sex spaces. To imagine that men would be allowed free access and indeed when I have posted about women's refuges using adequate risk assessments to decide who is admitted nobody bothered to say that actually people with a GRC are already limited for access and can be refused entry.
I don't think Topshop could have applied the restriction as it requires a reasonable and justifiable condition to be present.The number of people who would not use single sex changing rooms particularly in the demographic using that store would I think be small. And if the store offered exchanges for clothes tried on at home it would be inapplicable.
I believe the prison service has apologised for mistakes made in the case of Karen White. There is no doubt it needs improving but that could be said for many areas of prison administration.

Sorry lots of typos

Trisher do you think we dont know the law. Some of us have been involved in this issue for years. We are asking for services such as refuges prisons etc to apply the law, we know the law for goodness sake it is why we are quite cross. Those services such as prisons are not enforcing the exemptions, possible because they are scared of being called transphobic as above. The situations you describe are happening already, men in womens prisons, refuges, sports, all we want is the exemptions applied but this is not happening. I think it was Topshop recently that changed its policy on single sex changing rooms when it could have applied the exemption. If we could have calm discussions about exemptions that would be great but we cant because women are threatened for even raising the topic. This week when asked if he agreed on the need for single sex spces the labour mp for Leeds simply said no. I for one am not misrepresenting the law and as I have spent most of this thread singing the same song 'single sex spaces are protected under the equality act's, I think it's unfair to say I was.

Ummm, I think some of you are, in fact, transphobic

www.transactual.org.uk/transphobia

Rosie51 I believed it when people said women would feel threatened because they must have transwomen accomodated into the refuges beside them. I believed it when I was asked how women only swimming groups would manage because women with religious objections wouldn't swim with transwomen. Neither of those is true. Transwomen can be excluded for refuges if their presence would stop other women using them. Transwomen can be excluded from swimming groups if religious beliefs meant other women would be unable to use them.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood what was posted but it seems obvious to me that the rights of natal women are protected under the law when I had started to believe they weren't. I apologise if I didn't understand your posts.
The remarks about genital inspections were about changing rooms and toilets where restrictions remain unenforceable .

trisher you have just demonstrated how you have paid such scant attention to posts made by me and many others that referenced the sex based exemptions allowed under the 2010 equalities act!! Do you honestly think we were too stupid or lazy to have read up on it before referencing it? Every single time you came back with how are you going to enforce it, "genital inspections" ? I will not be responding again, it's useless going over and over the same ground with you deliberately misquoting. I know I'm not transphobic, I don't need your endorsement.

trisher

If you want to read it yourself
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

Exceptions allowing services to be provided only to women (or only to men)

The first two relevant exceptions (Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26 and 27) allow service providers to provide separate services for men and women, or to provide services to only men or only women in certain circumstances. The symmetrical nature of the ban on sex discrimination means without these exceptions it would be illegal, for example, to hold women-only sessions at a leisure centre or a new fathers’ support group at a nursery.177

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment

The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.