the law as it stands on sex

Never ever look at the comments under any appeals for womens domestic violence projects that cost me a fortune as well.

Galaxy

Its a costly way to prove a point VS I should know. I got into a habit of donating to JKR s charity and other organisations when I got irritated on the internet

Oh me too Galaxy I bought all the HP books, all the Strike books, donate regularly to Lumos, do every crowd funder for Alison Bailey, Maya Forstater et al. Costs a blooming fortune, but if you've got principles sometimes they cost.

The Groanian will be glad of at least one subscription Galaxy; their readership has plummeted in the last 2 years so even one will be very welcome!

I'm in the same position Doodledog; hate the thought that the Conservatives are the only party who are on the same wavelength 're trans and who might just have to have my vote. I cannot, in all conscience, vote for Labour or Greens. Judging from the groundswell of younger voters on Mumsnet, they're feeling the same too.

Its a costly way to prove a point VS I should know. I got into a habit of donating to JKR s charity and other organisations when I got irritated on the internet

I wonder if the reduction in popularity of the Guardian will make any difference .

I've just subscribed

Re subscription to the Guardian - I cancelled my (online) subscription a while ago. I don't like to take things for free that others are paying for, but I got so sick of their stance on the trans issues that I couldn't in conscience continue to support them.

I'm still in the LP, but am seriously considering pulling out of that, too. And UCU (and I used to be a rep). It's hard to believe.

It's all very worrying, and further through the looking glass.

Knowing that left-leaning feminists can't vote Labour (or don't feel comfortable about doing so), get frustrated with the Guardian and turn instead to The Times or Torygraph makes me wonder if there is any truth in the idea that someone (Putin?) has deliberately sown the seeds of disintegration of the left in the West for their own nefarious ends. I'm not usually remotely given to conspiracy theories, but a few years ago I wouldn't have believed that I'd distrust the Guardian and be worrying about where to cast my vote.

Hadley Freeman still contributes to the Guardian but she recently wrote a good piece in unheard.com titled “The week the trans spell was broken”. That would obviously never appear in the Guardian.
It would be interesting to find out the current subscription figures for the Guardian, a great many people on Twitter say they no longer subscribe due to it’s trans stance.
And yes, noxious is an excellent word to describe Owen J. , in fact it applies to a great many of the TRAs.

I agree. But when feminist writers, meaning those that haven’t been captured, like Suzanne Moore and Staniland and Bindel and Stocks and Joyce cannot be published in the guardian, which is full of the noxious misogynistic owen Jones and other camp followers, they have to turn to the Telegraph or Times. I noticed today in waitrose, which still give out free newspapers to members, only the guardian was left.. it always used to be first to go.

I used to really like the Guardian, but as Doodledog says, it’s lost the plot. I still enjoy certain of it’s writers, Grace Dent and Jay Rayner in particular but that’s because neither of them ever mention anything to do with the trans issues and only write on food/related subjects. John Crace is also worth reading.

It is indeed worrying that the Conservatives are claiming to be on the side of women, and Labour are looking like they don't care.

There is more sense in the Tory press on trans issues, which is disconcerting and worrying.
True, and very worrying, but if BJ says it, it might just persuade other parties to think seriously about their stance.

Oops. Forgot the photo

What truly annoyed me though was that she was on after that heart-breaking piece by the woman talking about the horrific loss of her baby. Whoever thought they should be heard on the same programme needs a severe talking to.

Yeah, the juxtaposition of stories can leave a lot to be desired, and shows the attitude of the editors.

Look at this display of sensitivity to women's issues - the senseless murder of a woman by a man who chose her at random, next to an item on the 'trans mental health crisis'. The Guardian really has lost the plot on this topic. There is more sense in the Tory press on trans issues, which is disconcerting and worrying.

Another way of looking at Emma B. not challenging Grace L. is that by letting her be” wiffley waffly”, she dug her own hole and hopefully “peaked” a few people who were listening to the utter rubbish that comes out of her mouth. Believe it or not, GL is an associate Professor at an American uni.
What truly annoyed me though was that she was on after that heart-breaking piece by the woman talking about the horrific loss of her baby. Whoever thought they should be heard on the same programme needs a severe talking to.

I wish that too grannygranby and one can only imagine what the answer would have been.

Another great post @ 10.35 Doodledog, articulate as always.

Ilovecheese I agree and it was meant to distract and confuse...the funniest bit though must be her assertion that until Caitlyn Jenner women had never been categorized by their biology (??) and that feminists who believe this are handmaidens of the patriarchy which has told them they are different. beggars belief. I wish Emma had said 'what on earth are you talking about?'

I heard the Grace Lavery interview but would be hard pushed to tell you what she actually said, it was so wiffley waffly.

. I can be very slow at typing, so I'm always at cross-purposes when threads move quickly. I can never decide whether to quote previous posts as I know it annoys people, or not to bother as it can seem as though I haven't read the thread before replying, which I always do.

I was working all week, so haven't heard any of the radio stuff. I will try to catch up over the weekend on Sounds.

I see that has cross posted with Doodledogs excellent piece. I was still commenting on the BBC. Things can happen as you are writing! Which makes the discourse look a bit odd sometimes but I’m sure we can all cope with the leaps and jumps.

Especially as it follows the harrowing time some women have suffered in maternity hospitals. Which made the interview with GL even more bizarre and insulting to women. And did anyone hear this mornings today interview on trans women in sport where they ‘balanced’ Sharon Davies with a trans woman who wished terfs to die in grease and celebrated the death of a woman who died of brain tumour. Ffs. Is it the only way bbc can discuss the issue? It’s like having to bring in a flat earth enthusiast every time they speak of global issues.

Fennel

FarNorth your definitions -
The word 'Man ' is often used in such phrases as 'All problems known to Man' = a different concept.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse BTW.
I t just seems to me that it's only an inner circle who understand what's going on.

FN can speak for herself, of course, but here's really nothing going on, and definitely no 'inner circle'.

'All problems known to man' is an example of how 'man' is used to denote 'humankind', in other words it shows how male is so often the default in a patriarchal society.

A woman is, of course, an adult human female. For thousands of years people have had words in their language to differentiate men from women - when talking about women there has been no defaulting to male, although that default still exists in phrases like 'all mankind', 'known to man' etc.

A transwoman is a man who, for whatever reason, has decided to 'present as' a woman. There are differences of opinion as to what that means. The so-called gender critical, who don't believe in stereotypes about what constitutes 'male' and 'female' appearance and behaviour, maintain that this does not mean that they are women (only adult human females are women), but Trans Rights Activists disagree., although they are usually entirely unable to define what a 'woman' or a 'man' actually is. Nevertheless, they believe that TransWomen Are Women (TWAW) and that dressing or 'presenting as' stereotypical women is enough to over-ride biology. They also believe that women (adult human females) should make room for transwomen in what were previously safe spaces that women have fought over the years to have designated as female only. Refuges, hospital wards, changing rooms, prison cells and so on.

To return to the language issues - by referring to transwomen as 'women' TRAs are obscuring the meaning of the word (and concept of) 'woman'. Because men (and therefore transwomen) do not have wombs, cervixes or babies, and because men are accustomed to being defined in terms of what they do have (ie penises), new vocabulary has to be found, and abominations such as 'breeders', 'people who give birth', and 'cervix havers' are used to describe women, and the word 'woman' is (often violently) insisted upon to include anyone who does not 'define as' men.

So again, language props up the patriarchy. Women have nowhere to go to stay safe from male intrusion, there is no word to describe adult human females (meaning that statistical data can no longer be used to ensure sex-based equality) and women no longer exist as a group of people that does not include men.

Transmen are women who want to be men, and are, apparently growing in numbers amongst younger people. It also appears (although figures are difficult to obtain as there is no register of transpeople) that more transmen go in for surgery than transwomen, most of whom retain their male bodies, and that there are increasing numbers of transmen who attempt to 'detransition', having regretted their decision to have the operations to stop being women.

Does that make things clearer ?

Sensible point FarNorth