Gransnet forums

Chat

Staying on topic- threads in general

(639 Posts)
trisher Sun 24-Oct-21 10:01:44

Do you mind if a thread de-rails after it has been running for a while and extends into other areas? I would have thought this was a natural progression of any discussion and sometimes the original subject returns with new light cast on it. It certainly seems in my opinion an odd reason for deleting any thread.

Doodledog Fri 29-Oct-21 22:26:27

trisher

You see this is what disturbs me. People who question transrights also castigate anyone who supports them as either a transactivist or as misogynistic. I don't like any philosophy that says it is wrong to question attitudes because they are held by a woman. Misogyny is hatred and contempt for women. It is not hatred or contempt to question another woman's views. Sometimes women hold views which are prejudiced, sometimes women are racist, sometimes women are discriminatory. Shuld I support the things because they are proposed by a woman? If not how can questioning a belief be mysoginistic? It is not only misusing the term it is giving women a get out of gaol free card which says you can't criticise or question me because I'm a women and if you do I'll say you are mysoginistic.

I would say that someone doing what you say, ie castigateing anyone who supports transrights as either a transactivist or as misogynistic, is wrong.

I would also say that anyone who believes that women should not have a right to have another woman carry out an intimate exam on her after she's been raped, or who believes that women should have no safe spaces, or that the very term 'woman' has no meaning, is misogynist, regardless of his or her feelings about trans rights.

I believe it was you who said that feminists always supported other women, as an argument that transmen were (according to GCFs) women, and it was others on this thread who argued against that. Which leads me to the last bit of your post, and yes, I agree that there is no reason to support everything a woman says just because she is female, and have said so on more than one occasion - even starting a thread to that effect a few months ago, in direct response to such a suggestion.

The difficulty of course, is that it is not always clear whether someone is a woman or not, as we don't have an agreement as to what it means.

Doodledog Fri 29-Oct-21 22:26:46

castigating!

Chewbacca Fri 29-Oct-21 22:26:58

Surely that depends on what is said, by whom and whether there's a screenshot to prove it.

Chewbacca Fri 29-Oct-21 22:58:11

I hope that this open letter, dated 29th October 2021, from Labour Women's Declaration, will allay any fears that some posters have about feminism being right wing ideology :

"We understand that the journalist, Caroline Lowbridge, responsible for this excellent article deactivated her twitter account prior to publication, in anticipation of an extreme and hostile response. We are outraged that this is felt to be necessary for what is a thorough, well-researched and balanced piece of journalism which the BBC should be praised for publishing. Lesbians have been raising the issue of ‘the cotton ceiling’ for years and we want to thank Caroline and the BBC for listening and allowing these voices to be heard.

Labour Women’s Declaration, supporting women’s sex-based rights, has more than 7,000 signatories. Our signatories are men and women concerned with the impact of allowing men to self-declare a ‘female’ identity and its impact on sex-based rights and many are lesbians. Measures to implement this belief, in advance of any legislation, are already affecting the most vulnerable women in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. The effect on lesbian communities, especially young lesbians, has received little attention, and attempts to discuss this are shut down often with the statement that ‘this never happens’. There are now sites which record that many of these ‘unspeakable’ things do happen.

Many young lesbians find themselves under pressure not to identify themselves as such and to accept men who identify as lesbians into their social circles and dating pools. This is simply unacceptable, a blatant disregard for the rights already won and just the latest form of homophobia which asserts that lesbians have no right to assert their boundaries and to exclude men.
The frequently violent and intimidating responses to women attempting to discuss these issues will no doubt be reflected in the reaction which the BBC will now be receiving. That will tell you a great deal about why publishing such an article is much needed, to begin a discussion of issues regarding the safeguarding of women and especially women such as lesbians, whose voices are not often heard, on the impact on their lives of self-identification. There have already been articles which have commented on the disappearance of lesbian spaces, lesbian language and identities and indeed, lesbians themselves.

It is simply untrue that any man who identifies as a woman is one, in terms of legal status. Even where a GRC has been granted, specific exemptions can ensure women-only services. The Equality Act protected characteristic is gender reassignment, not gender identity. The assertion that ‘any man who says he is a woman is one’ is dogma, and those claiming to be lesbians constitute a real danger, including on dating sites which are now inclusive of many males seeking relationships with lesbians. Men who seek relationships with women are generally understood to be heterosexual. Many lesbians and gay men have objected to the Stonewall redefinition of their sexualities as ‘same-gender’ rather than ‘same-sex’ attracted. New lesbian and gay organisations demonstrate the resistance to this authoritarian and non-materialist ideology, imposed on people who have fought for decades for recognition of their rights as same-sex attracted people. The false analogy of the struggle for trans rights with those of lesbian and gay people entirely ignores the very real differences and conflicts between very different communities, and as is often the case, the lesbian view goes unheard and is completely lost in the amalgamation currently made fashionable by the LGBTQI+ lobby groups.
The issue of evidence will no doubt be raised in the criticisms you get about this piece. Women talking about rape and sexual assault, naming men as those who principally commit these crimes (as lesbians do in this article), was the beginning of the movement to highlight and work towards ending sexual violence to women in the 1970’s. We begin with the truth of what women are experiencing. We thank you for allowing the truth of women’s experiences to be heard.
There is a lack of formal study and evidence around many of the controversies in these areas. There is no hard evidence, for example, of the claimed high rates of suicide amongst trans-identified people, used to justify claims that untested drugs should be available to young people, amongst other things. The long-term effects of these drugs and their effectiveness in ameliorating the presenting problems have no proper research evidence. There is also no evidence that trans-identified people are more often subjected to violence and harassment than others. Nor is there evidence that male prisoners who self-identify as women are not a threat to women prisoners; in fact, what evidence there is makes clear that trans-identified men (‘transwomen’) demonstrate the same male pattern violence and crime as other males. Yet these claims are frequently made and go unchallenged.

When proposals are made which undermine existing safeguarding measures, sober assessment and evidence are needed before radically altering the basic premises on which our society operates. Hard-fought-for safe spaces for lesbians, and the right for women to define our own sexuality and to maintain the boundaries we choose, are threatened by proposed and prematurely implemented changes. The dogmatic insistence that ‘trans women are women’ is not shared by many people. Civil rights for those identifying as trans are commonly supported, and largely already exist, but the blanket assertion that ‘any man who claims he is a woman is one’ and must, therefore, be given access to women in all circumstances is completely unacceptable to very many women, and to those concerned with our safety.
The voices of lesbians have been absent from much of the discussion so far. We hope this important article will begin real exchanges of experience and ideas and challenge the dogma of those who deny the reality of biological sex, few of whom have the experience of being a lesbian, or indeed of being trans-identified.

Let lesbians speak and let us, as a society, address the real conflicts and dangers present in this controversy."

Smileless2012 Fri 29-Oct-21 23:08:03

Excellent.

nanna8 Fri 29-Oct-21 23:12:11

Excellent article. I couldn’t add anything more.

Mollygo Fri 29-Oct-21 23:42:47

Excellent article, but I fear it will fall on stony ground.

Doodledog Fri 29-Oct-21 23:59:00

Mollygo

Excellent article, but I fear it will fall on stony ground.

I fear so.

FarNorth Sat 30-Oct-21 08:46:19

All transwomen are male.
Some male people are dangerous to female people.
Female people should not be forced to pretend that everyone who says he is a transwoman is also a female.

The Equality Act has provision for single-sex services.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

The Prison Service doesn't use those provisions but accepts the word of male prisoners who say they are women.

How would it be to be one of the women prisoners who are locked in with some of these male people?

Can you really envisage no possibility of that being harmful to women prisoners?

Rosie51 Sat 30-Oct-21 09:51:43

Just a thought, why can't women have anything that's concerned just with women? The Dogs Trust doesn't consider sheep, cats or parrots. The BHF doesn't campaign for cancer treatments or the disabled. GOSH don't give a minute's campaigning for the aged. Help the Aged hasn't campaigned for the homeless. Shall we castigate every single-issue organisation for not being inclusive? Stonewall might cover a lot of interests including minor ones such as the furries, but afaik they don't campaign for heterosexual men or women. Yet all these organisations are allowed to operate in the interests of their chosen field. It's only when women want to campaign and organise for themselves and their children that suddenly there's a need to be inclusive which results in prioritising everybody else.

Mollygo Sat 30-Oct-21 09:55:35

Perceptive comment Rosie51.

Smileless2012 Sat 30-Oct-21 09:58:27

You're right Rosie and when I read your post it reinforced for me how farcical this is becoming.

Doodledog Sat 30-Oct-21 10:26:39

You are right, Rosie, which is why (I think that) this is all based on misogyny. It’s only women who are being asked to accommodate the needs of transpeople.

Transmen aren’t forcing themselves into male wards or prison wings, and there are no calls for men to be called ‘people with penises’. I started to call them that on threads like this a while ago, to try to make a point; but of course it went over the heads of the trans supporters, and I was accused of being obsessed with penises?.

Rosie51 Sat 30-Oct-21 10:35:12

Transmen aren’t forcing themselves into male wards or prison wings, and there are no calls for men to be called ‘people with penises’. I started to call them that on threads like this a while ago, to try to make a point; but of course it went over the heads of the trans supporters, and I was accused of being obsessed with penises?.

You just need to vary it Doodledog, perhaps try 'scrotums' as a shortcut identifier, no need for 'people with a'. I'm sure nobody in possession of said item would object grin

Smileless2012 Sat 30-Oct-21 11:25:12

Ah but then Doodledog wouldn't want to be accused of being obsessed with scrotums eithergrin.

Doodledog Sat 30-Oct-21 11:28:27

Very true. My obsessions run more interesting than that grin

Mollygo Sat 30-Oct-21 11:42:22

I’ve never been amused on this sort of thread before. Thanks for the nutty comments. R and D.

Chewbacca Sat 30-Oct-21 12:12:30

Our universities are struggling to balance TRA's demands and showing fairness and inclusivity to all students, staff and lectureres. Leeds is the latest:

Students and staff at Leeds University have called on their vice-chancellor and senior employees to include gender pronouns when introducing themselves in meetings.
They also said that the vice-chancellor, Simone Buitendijk, should state her preferred gender pronouns in her email signature. Both measures are designed to show support for the transgender community.

The university was accused of having “a deeply entrenched culture of transphobia” in a letter signed by LGBT staff and student groups, as well as by the Leeds branch of the University and College Union.

The letter called on her to “rapidly address and effectively rectify the current discriminatory situation” at the university, which the writers said was “a hostile environment for trans staff and students”. Concerns were raised over people being misgendered by colleagues who, in some cases had not apologised before being asked.

Among the other demands, the letter called for “an effective and fit-for-purpose pronouns policy to be enacted, to include our VC showing her support for the trans community by using pronouns in her email signature, and a culture which encourages the sharing of pronouns when, for example, in meetings and seminars”.

The university said: “We strongly deny the assertion that we have created a ‘hostile environment’ for transgender staff and students, but recognise that we need to do more to alleviate concerns that have been put to us and are working with our community to do so. We have a clear and unwavering commitment to ensuring equality, diversity and inclusion for all. The use of pronouns – in emails or in meetings – is a personal choice. We do not have policies on this, but do provide support and resources to help inform that choice.”

But, this reads to me, as though personal choice is becoming as rare as hen's teeth these days. What if you'd rather not declare your pronoun at the end of an email? Or you'd rather not have to stand up and declare it at the beginning of a meeting? What about that choice?

Doodledog Sat 30-Oct-21 12:30:31

This is particularly acute for people who do not want to link their personal and professional lives. An email signature is not private, and there are people who use different names at work and in their personal lives.

This has traditionally usually applied to married women who may choose to use the family name socially, but keep their birth name in the workplace, but this is not the only group who is affected.

Not everyone is 'out' (whether as gay or transgender) to their extended families, who may live in a country that is different from where they work. Why should anyone have to declare a personal choice of pronoun on an email when this is, effectively, outing themselves to all. As it is, lecturing staff have photos on university websites, which can be intrusive, and this seems to me a step too far.

Why does it matter if people are male or female (or 'non-binary') other than to themselves? Who benefits from this enforced invasion of privacy? Someone emailing a member of staff can just address their message to 'Dr X'. Why does it matter if X stands for Xavier or Xanthe, and whether either of those people is male or female? All it's doing as far as I can see is pushing the idea that gender is far more important than it needs to be.

Chewbacca Sat 30-Oct-21 12:52:56

Precisely Doodledog. If we are not expected to announce our ethnicity or disability status say, in support of ethnic minorities or disabled people, why should our signatures have to be used to show support for trans people only?
It's within living memory that some people were forced to wear yellow stars to make their ethnicity known in public and we all know how that ended. I am very strongly against forcing people to reveal private personal information when there is no reason, other than to validate the insecurities of others. How does one minority group trump another?

Mollygo Sat 30-Oct-21 13:07:20

I might have mentioned before that one all girls’s school is punishing even year 7 for not using ‘they’ instead of she.

Lucca Sat 30-Oct-21 13:15:38

Thank goodness I’m not teaching languages any more!!
Absolute minefield I’d guess with “feminine masculine neuter endings, agreements etc”
Great excuse for students getting those agreements etc wrong!

Smileless2012 Sat 30-Oct-21 13:27:46

Isn't that why some women prefer the prefix Ms. because they don't want their marital status known?

Is it personal choice if you risk being castigated depending on which choice you make?

I agree Chewbacca it's up to the individual to decide how much, if any private personal information the choose to disclose.

All I can say to that Mollygo is there would be hell to pay a year 7 child of mine was punished for thatangry.

Mollygo Sat 30-Oct-21 13:46:59

There was hell to pay-I didn’t have to deal with it but I was asked for my advice. Evidently their super citizenship lessons decided a group of girls to claim they were boys, despite being at a girls school and all dressed in the same uniform. Of course, once having told the pupils about the ‘rights’ to a gender neutral pronoun, it was declared as transphobia not to use them-even if you couldn’t remember which pupils it applied to. The group in question used it as a power tool against staff and pupils.

Doodledog Sat 30-Oct-21 13:54:29

The group in question used it as a power tool against staff and pupils.

Yes, the lesson from all of this is that if you shout loudly enough, and bully everyone who disagrees with your aims, you will get your own way.

Excellent.