Staying on topic- threads in general

trisher

Incidently my posts about the law on women's spaces and its plain statement that if admitting a transwoman would cause substantial disruption (like women not attending) then transwomen even with a GRC can be excluded have been met with derision. But that is the law. The reason it is not being correctly applied is another question.

When you refer to women's spaces and the law you're obviously recognising the dictionary definition of woman: adult human female. By agreeing that transwomen even with a GRC can be excluded you are acknowledging that they do not meet the criteria, they are not adult human females (women). The reason the law is not being applied is because so many places and institutions have been duped into Stonewall's interpretation of what they wish the law was. They fear the violent backlash if they dare step out of line.

From Doodledog's post This fear and hounding may be happening to male academics, but the only ones I am aware of are female

I've yet to read of a male academic being hounded out. Kathleen Stock is only the latest casualty and the vicious bullies who engineered it were gloating all over the internet. All for stating the scientific fact that humans can not change sex. I wonder if these students are climate change deniers, evolution deniers and antivaxers as they seem incapable of digesting scientific fact. I'll credit them with realising the earth is not flat

Trisher, your feminist principles are yours and you are entitled to hold them.
For me feminism is about women, and when it concerns women I agree that oppressed minorities matter, but my definition of woman involves being female and since yours apparently doesn’t, as TWANW, the oppressed minorities I am concerned about are different from those people you choose to endorse in matters of female rights.

Maya is just astounding. She is isn't she. She wouldn't be quiet. She refused to back down. And I'd love to see that Kathleen Stock began her fight back against the TRAs who hounded her out of her job, the university who stood feebly by and allowed her to be hounded out and the trade union that was too afraid to stand up and support her.

And there has still been no definition of 'woman' and no explanation of what you think 'transitioning' actually is.

I wondered when suffragettes would be brought in ?.

Of course oppressed minorities matter, and if you can't see that nobody has ever said or implied otherwise, it confirms my suspicions that you don't read the posts other than to look for picky things to pull out of them in the hope of scoring points.

If you extended your reading to things outside of your narrow agenda, however, you would be aware of the fact that scholars have their hands tied where this issue is concerned. People have been hounded out of their jobs, and the atmosphere on campuses is one of fear. This fear and hounding may be happening to male academics, but the only ones I am aware of are female - something that I would have thought a feminist (or indeed any supporter of free speech, democracy or academic freedom) would oppose.

Doodledog

*Its interesting that when I comment about others opinions and ideas about transpeople I am told they are not experts and they are not obsessed with the subject, but I can be cross examined to the Nth degree.*
That’s because you are fond of saying ‘most transpeople’, ‘all the transpeople I know’ and so on, suggesting that you have insider knowledge. This may be the case, of course, but we can’t be expected to accept your expertise as fact unless it is substantiated. You constant links to (usually anecdotal) articles, and your quoting of figures definitely suggests that you have more than a passing interest in the topic. Again, that is fine, but your voracious reading around the subject is not a reason why those of us with other interests should not be entitled to disagree with your points of view.

If your ‘weasel words’ comment was yet another dig at me, I think you’ll find that I favour plain speaking. Yes, if your ‘definition’ is as woolly as the one I quoted it will be questioned, but that’s not the same thing at all. It may be that I have missed the ‘numerous times’ that you have given a definition of ‘woman’, but I don’t recall seeing one, other than that it is someone who ‘presents as a woman and shares my (ie your) beliefs’ and even that came only after repeated requests from me and others.

Of course I t would be possible for you to categorise feminists based on your theoretical understanding of the term, but much beyond fairly basic level theory it would be pointless. People don’t fit as neatly into groups as theory would suggest. A feminist, in its accepted sense, is someone who believes in the rights of women, regardless of ‘waves’ or stages on the timeline in GCSE sociology books.

Actually Doodledog my interest is purely a matter for discussion on GN. All the links and articles I post have usually been googled by me while I've been posting in the various times I spend on here between doing other things.
I used to post links to trans inclusive feminist things as well until I realised that noone was interested.

If what I have been doing is "voracious reading" I dread to think of the amount of work actual scholars must be doing!

What I see happening now is the abandonment of yet another feminist principle. That oppressed minorities matter. The examples of the ones already lost interest me because I think the way women's past actions have been recorded and are remembered indicates not only a move to the right but a masculinisation of feminism which suits the agenda of a dominant patriachy. Most people will tell you that suffragettes and suffragists just wanted the vote, they are unaware of the ideas behind that demand

Maya is just astounding. I have no words for her persistence. Thanks chewbacca.

It's good to know that common sense is still alive and kicking Chewbacca.

Lionshead Solicitors, who acted on behalf of Maya Forstater, have today issued the results of her appeal:

This is an extremely important judgment and employers, service providers, landlords, educational bodies, trade unions and other associations must now ensure that any stance they have taken on discussion of trans rights or any diversity training they may have given to staff does not give rise to potential discrimination against existing or prospective staff on their gender critical beliefs. Diversity training and the provision of protections for trans-people must not be done in a way that leads to people with gender-critical beliefs being subjected to any detriments. The use of pejorative terms such as “TERF” (trans exclusionary radical feminist) or even “transphobe” to describe those holding gender critical views could now, in certain circumstances, amount to unlawful harassment.

Any organisation which has implemented diversity training for its staff may want to revisit that training in light of this judgment. Staff handbooks which make reference to trans rights may also need to be revised.

Full facts surrounding the Maya Forstater case, and appeal, is here:

lionsheadlaw.co.uk/a-gender-critical-belief-is-a-philosophical-belief-which-is-entitled-to-be-protected-under-the-equality-act-2010/

There's a huge difference between something being genuinely misinterpreted and something that's said which is blatantly untrue.

There is absolutely nothing justifiable telling women that they are not feminists, along with the other insulting labels that have been thrown around, because they have, and have expressed their concerns trisher.

"It would be possible for me to tell many on these threads that they are not feminists because their ideas have deviated from those of the first wave feminists". Really, can you direct me to any posts that could substantiate this claim?

I am taking a break from this subject but I when it's usually only myself and trisher holding a different (and also sometimes the same despite assertions otherwise) views against others...

Well I reserve my right to point out when the elephant in the room has done another widdle on the rug.

I would and have sincerely apologised when what I have said has been genuinely misinterpreted but perhaps there is a reason for that.

Violetsky are any men going to have to accept changes that are difficult for them?

Its interesting that when I comment about others opinions and ideas about transpeople I am told they are not experts and they are not obsessed with the subject, but I can be cross examined to the Nth degree.
That’s because you are fond of saying ‘most transpeople’, ‘all the transpeople I know’ and so on, suggesting that you have insider knowledge. This may be the case, of course, but we can’t be expected to accept your expertise as fact unless it is substantiated. You constant links to (usually anecdotal) articles, and your quoting of figures definitely suggests that you have more than a passing interest in the topic. Again, that is fine, but your voracious reading around the subject is not a reason why those of us with other interests should not be entitled to disagree with your points of view.

If your ‘weasel words’ comment was yet another dig at me, I think you’ll find that I favour plain speaking. Yes, if your ‘definition’ is as woolly as the one I quoted it will be questioned, but that’s not the same thing at all. It may be that I have missed the ‘numerous times’ that you have given a definition of ‘woman’, but I don’t recall seeing one, other than that it is someone who ‘presents as a woman and shares my (ie your) beliefs’ and even that came only after repeated requests from me and others.

Of course I t would be possible for you to categorise feminists based on your theoretical understanding of the term, but much beyond fairly basic level theory it would be pointless. People don’t fit as neatly into groups as theory would suggest. A feminist, in its accepted sense, is someone who believes in the rights of women, regardless of ‘waves’ or stages on the timeline in GCSE sociology books.

trisher

Incidently my posts about the law on women's spaces and its plain statement that if admitting a transwoman would cause substantial disruption (like women not attending) then transwomen even with a GRC can be excluded have been met with derision. But that is the law. The reason it is not being correctly applied is another question.

Has this misunderstanding arisen because Stonewall said that transwomen must be allowed in these places whether women wanted them or not? Was the law misinterpreted?

Your post @ 15.04 is completely untrue VS and proved to be untrue. Four posts were made that mentioned your abusive child hood and all four of them were made by you.

Please stop making false allegations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion some of us are trying to have.

Sorry Galaxy but you have completely lost me.

Are you OK?

I need a break, I'll try reading back through later

But you said that GC feminism doesnt include transpeople I am giving examples as to why this isnt true.

Galaxy no I'm not, that's why I said people

Because you are only putting a focus on transwomen in feminism. But transmen are supported by feminism. I would fight for them to not have to go into a Male prison for example.

Well that's the main difference I was trying to point out in the first place Galaxy so you have lost me

1. erode natal women’s rights to safe spaces, particularly rape crisis centres, safe houses for domestic and sexual abuse where natal women have good reason to be fearful of people with a penis and where their trauma will be treated with respect and dignity before being informed that they must "first address their prejudices".
2. to jobs and the freedom within those jobs to be able to voice their opinions without being bullied out of their job by a loud and vocal minority.
3. to places e.g. sport where female against TW creates an unfair advantage for the TW and questions raised about that won't be shouted down as transphobia.
4. the right to have the word woman mean a female. So that if a woman prefers to have a relationship with a woman (and by that, she means a person with a vagina) she isn't accused of transphobia and told to address her bigotry.

Women are far more than their biological parts. We are more than the owners of a cervix, vagina, breasts, people who menstruate and a womb. To reduce "females" to those is to make us abstract and is dehumanising.

Women may have to accept some changes that are difficult for them. Why?

I don't care what any one wears, what they calls themselves or how they perceive themselves to be. But whatever they do, it shouldn't be done at the expense of any other group.

Also the other thing is that I accept trans women as women

but

They will also face many issues that I do not face, types of discrimination I do not face, medical issues I do not face, mental health issues that I do not face.

Also the same in reverse.

So its still not as cut and dry as that which is why acceptance probably will always have to come with a level of differentiation between us and why we will always need different types of care and yes, safe spaces.

And a spectrum is needed

You said transpeople not transwomen. I am not sure how often I can say I dont believe you can change sex so I dont believe transwomen are women. You will find that it is feminists who have stood with the transmen who have expressed regret about their transition or do those transpeople not count. As I have said repeatedly there are numerous gender critical transpeople who would think the idea that transwomen are woman wasnt true.

It's really difficult because I just don't have all the answers but I have no problem with the changes made so far to address the issues.

It is a possibility that with acceptance will come more solution's and eventually we are probably going to get this right.

I do believe that eventually we can get to a place where everyone feels comfortable, safe and accepted.

In order to achieve that, trans people may have to accept some changes that are difficult for them. Women may have to accept some changes that are difficult for them.

It's tough but not impossible.