I've thought for a while that the worm was turning when it comes to 'trans' issues. It is finally getting through that support for self-id is misogynistic and that gender-criticism is not the same as transphobia. Slowly but surely, court cases and policy changes are moving towards (to my mind) a more sensible approach.
Ironically for many women I know who are broadly left-wing, it has been the Tories who have caught on to this first, and it's interesting that at least two of the leadership candidates have mentioned 'gender politics' or 'culture wars' in their campaigns. Meanwhile, the LP has been woefully behind the times, with idiotic comments about men having cervixes and how transpeople are the most marginalised group in society.
But now it appears that they realise that they are behind the curve, and that many feminists and female-supporting men will struggle to vote for them - or maybe it's that they realise that it's becoming more acceptable to speak against the tyranny, and they are now saying what they really think. Either way (and I speak as a member of the LP) it's not a good look, but it's a better look than the craven adherence to Stonewall's No Debate mantra that we've seen so far.
This is from James Kirkup in the Spectator and for those who don't like links the text is at the bottom of the post.
It's probably obvious that I would be delighted if the LP did a U -turn on this. I'm not delighted at the display of what I see as cowardice that has held sway for so long, but it will be such a relief to be able to vote for the party whose policies are closer to my heart than any of the others without fearing that by doing so I am betraying my daughter and future generations of women.
What do others think? Am I being naively optimistic? Will the Lib Dems, the Greens and SNP rethink their ideas ahead of the GE? Will any of it make a difference to how you vote, or do you think that it isn't important compared to other issues?
Here is the text of the Spectator article:
Amid the noise of the Tory leadership fight, some significant comments in the papers could be missed today. Here’s the quote, from a Sunday Times interview with an intelligent, ambitious female politician in her forties:
“Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man’s biology. We’re seeing in sport sensible decisions being made about who cannot compete in certain cases."
Could it reflect a new approach to trans issues from the Labour leadership?
She says she would ‘have a problem’ with someone with male genitals identifying as a woman and using a female changing space, and isn’t entirely sold on the use of gender pronouns. ‘You don’t have to say to someone, “Shall I call you he or she?” – it’s pretty obvious. But there are also difficult cases of somebody who is born as one sex and defines as another. I wouldn’t want to deny their right to define themselves in the way they want to be defined.’
Even by the standards of recent days, that’s pretty punchy. In particular that line on rejecting pronouns because ‘it’s pretty obvious’ strikes me as potentially controversial. I certainly know people and groups who would find that offensive. No candidate in the Tory race has thus been so outspoken on sex and gender. So are those quotes above yet another Conservative attempt to stoke a culture war?
That phrase has been used a lot recently, generally with disapproval and often by people keen to dismiss the concerns that some women raise about the impact of trans-rights policies on their rights and standing. And framing women’s concerns as the product of right-wing, social conservative politics makes them easier for lots of people in politics and the media to ignore and denigrate those concerns as marginal and ideological.
Of course, there’s nothing illegitimate about being either right-wing or socially conservative (I’m neither) but in much of our public discourse, those things are routinely denigrated, put beyond the pale of acceptability. So it’s significant that the author of those comments above cannot possibly be described as a right-winger or a social conservative. She is Rachel Reeves, Labour’s shadow chancellor.
The fact that Reeves, as smart and decent a politician as you’ll find in the Commons today, has said these things could have many implications. Could it strain Labour unity? It’s pretty hard to reconcile those comments with the position of some of her frontbench colleagues.
Could it reflect a new approach to trans issues from the Labour leadership? Reeves is today taking a much clearer line than Sir Keir Starmer, who has been more equivocal. I don’t know the answer to those questions, which can wait for another day.
My point here today is simpler. Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow chancellor, has backed banning transwomen from women’s sport and excluding them from women’s spaces. And she’s rejected using gendered pronouns. By doing so, Reeves has provided yet more evidence to prove that concerns about trans rights policies and their impact on women’s rights are not right-wing or conservative. Nor are they marginal or ideological.
James Kirkup
I wasn't really commenting about surgery Glorianny although Shapeshifter talks about it a fair bit.
His main point, I think, is that he should have used clothes, hair, make-up as he preferred without claiming to be a woman. That is what he is doing now.
I don't understand what difference there is between a man who does that and a man who claims to be a woman.
Doodledog do you mean that the transwomen came across as vociferous women but they had this drawn to their attention as being too 'manly'?
And that a woman like Glorianny would have no comment made to her?
It seems very strange to me to claim you support trans people, but insist that men transitioning must have surgery to use women's loos etc then post about someone who regrets surgery. If shapeshifter hadn't had surgery would you have been happy for him to use women's toilets? Looking as he does using mens might be dangerous.
I didn't mean that, but now you mention it, I don't know.
I meant that they were treated as we would treat men who behaved like that - gentle then not so gentle ribbing until we knew them well enough to tell them to STFU, as we would with male friends who mansplained and talked over us. But really I was making the point that their maleness impacted on their communication style - however much they were trying to 'present as' female.
Which probably doesn't address the content of the video - sorry.
But that is not male behaviour, it's learned behaviour. Mum lets dad speak over her. Like all learned behaviour it can be changed.
I have never insisted that men should have surgery in order to use women's toilets etc.
I am not happy with any men being in places that are intended for females only.
If Shapeshifter, or any other man, looks convincingly like a woman (I've never seen him in real life) then he would be able to fool women who saw him in a toilet or changing room.
Here's a pic of transwoman Fionne Orlander in a men's toilet. At one time Fionne ran a campaign along with another transwoman Miranda Yardley, saying that there is no great danger for transwomen in using men's toilets.
Glorianny
But that is not male behaviour, it's learned behaviour. Mum lets dad speak over her. Like all learned behaviour it can be changed.
Yes, which is what the women in the group did, as I said.
My point is that regardless of how someone tries to 'present', their socialisation, learned behaviour, call it what you will, will out, as it is part of the gendered way many people are raised.
I was responding to FN's post, which I took to be asking about how people shift between 'male' and 'female' presentation on a regular basis (although I haven't yet seen the video), and suggested that in a lot of cases things are too ingrained.
The difference is FarNorth that Fionne respects women as a sex class, recognises that a transwoman will never be female (despite the surgery Fionne has recently undergone), but most importantly is a thoroughly lovely person who deserves every happiness.
So DD if you hadn't known they were male, would anything have been said?
By the way Glorianny you say you speak over a man who interrupts. It's far more likely that when a man speaks over a woman it is he who has interrupted.
I take your point about learned behaviour. I'm just making an observation here.
The video isn't really about different types of behaviour DD, it's about Shapeshifter's realisation that he can continue to present as he likes without claiming to be a woman.
My point in posting it was to ask what anyone thinks is the difference between him (or anyone) saying he's a transwoman or saying he's a man who chooses to present in a 'feminine'way.
Rosie51 Exactly.
I will watch it tomorrow- sorry if I have diverted the conversation.
As to what would have happened had we not realised they were male - who knows? It was, as usual, obvious. We tiptoed round it for a while out of politeness (we first met on Zoom) and I think if they had been openly male we would have gone straight for the kill and asked them to refrain. I’m not a shrinking violet when someone is being rude, as you may have noticed, and nor are the other group members, but nobody wanted to hurt the elephants in the room. It was/is (supposedly) a female group, but there are no safety issues and we get along, so nobody has suggested we disband and set up without them. I am in similar groups with mixed sex participants and it doesn’t matter - it’s not a physical activity, but a shared interest in a specific topic.
With regards to the comments on surgery I dont think surgery makes any difference to what sex you are. We shouldnt have pretended that either.
By the way Glorianny you say you speak over a man who interrupts. It's far more likely that when a man speaks over a woman it is he who has interrupted.
That's true and I meant I speak over a man (or anyone) who interrupts. They will try to shut me up, but as I said I have quite a deep voice and can project when I need to. It is a skill and maybe it should be taught more. It basically means your voice becomes louder, but it isn't shouting. I also believe there is some research that shows deeper voices are listened to more (which was why Thatcher was trained and dropped hers). It takes confidence and a certain disregard of what is considered good manners to do it but it can be done.
FarNorth
I have never insisted that men should have surgery in order to use women's toilets etc.
I am not happy with any men being in places that are intended for females only.
If Shapeshifter, or any other man, looks convincingly like a woman (I've never seen him in real life) then he would be able to fool women who saw him in a toilet or changing room.
Here's a pic of transwoman Fionne Orlander in a men's toilet. At one time Fionne ran a campaign along with another transwoman Miranda Yardley, saying that there is no great danger for transwomen in using men's toilets.
This looks a very nice male toilet and I am sure there are some where transwomen would be perfectly safe (especially if it's that empty). I'm equally certain there are others where they would be attacked.
Glorianny
^By the way Glorianny you say you speak over a man who interrupts. It's far more likely that when a man speaks over a woman it is he who has interrupted.^
That's true and I meant I speak over a man (or anyone) who interrupts. They will try to shut me up, but as I said I have quite a deep voice and can project when I need to. It is a skill and maybe it should be taught more. It basically means your voice becomes louder, but it isn't shouting. I also believe there is some research that shows deeper voices are listened to more (which was why Thatcher was trained and dropped hers). It takes confidence and a certain disregard of what is considered good manners to do it but it can be done.
That was not the issue in the situation I described. As I said from the start, the transwomen were not 'allowed' to get away with it. My own voice - and that of others in the group can be projected - I have been a lecturer for decades and can be heard easily when I need to be.
It was probably just good manners that stopped us being rude at the start. The group meets because we want to - it's not a work thing - and as with many social 'events', people did not set out to be antagonistic with one another. Also, the fact that it was clear that there were transwomen in the group (who didn't know one another either - it wasn't an invasion) was the elephant in the room. They introduced themselves with female names and had clearly made an effort to look like women, so I, for one, didn't want to appear to be discriminatory or 'unkind', and assume the others felt the same.
It is definitely not my experience that transpeople are 'the most marginalised' - I suppose it depends on the circles you move in, but I have found the reverse to be true. People go out of their way to 'be kind', and I think we were all pretending not to have noticed.
Anyway, this was one anecdotal incident which I am not saying is representative - I was talking about differences in male and female communication patterns (which are well-documented) and was suggesting that regardless of whether people try to present as the other sex these patterns remain fixed, so I doubt that they can be switched on and off if someone presents as a woman on some days and a man on others.
I don't want to divert the conversation further, so I'll say no more on the subject.
This looks a very nice male toilet and I am sure there are some where transwomen would be perfectly safe (especially if it's that empty). I'm equally certain there are others where they would be attacked.
Ok. In the past you have made the point that the odds on a woman being attacked by a transwoman in a toilet are remote, and that therefore there is no need for women to have safe spaces. You have also made the point that women are as capable as men of being violent (as an argument against keeping prisons single-sex for women's safety). In both cases the argument is that the odds being low is good enough reason for the instances to be ignored, so why, therefore, are you now arguing for transwomen to use female toilets on the grounds that in some cases they might be at risk in a male one?
Doodledog
*This looks a very nice male toilet and I am sure there are some where transwomen would be perfectly safe (especially if it's that empty). I'm equally certain there are others where they would be attacked.*
Ok. In the past you have made the point that the odds on a woman being attacked by a transwoman in a toilet are remote, and that therefore there is no need for women to have safe spaces. You have also made the point that women are as capable as men of being violent (as an argument against keeping prisons single-sex for women's safety). In both cases the argument is that the odds being low is good enough reason for the instances to be ignored, so why, therefore, are you now arguing for transwomen to use female toilets on the grounds that in some cases they might be at risk in a male one?
Don't think I have said any of these things so certainly not going to discuss them with you. As you seem able to manufacture views when you choose, you can manufacture replies for yourself as well. Enjoy!
Well if you are certainly not going to discuss them, there can be No Debate, can there?
This is a perfect example of how it is not 'the gender-critical' who shut down discussions, so please stop making those unfounded allegations.
I never said the gender critical shut down discussions. I said they manufacture threads so they can continue to post their views and it's not worth engaging. I do wish you could get at least one thing right.
Glorianny
I never said the gender critical shut down discussions. I said they manufacture threads so they can continue to post their views and it's not worth engaging. I do wish you could get at least one thing right.
Quoting to make sure I get one thing right.
“*Manufacture threads*” everyone does that.
“*Continue to post their views*” very few threads ever have only one post re their views from either the OP or other contributors-as you evidence by your continued posts.
Not worth engaging and yet . . . you’re still engaging.
I do wish you could get at least one thing right.
Should have said continue to post their views and defend each other.
Glorianny
I never said the gender critical shut down discussions. I said they manufacture threads so they can continue to post their views and it's not worth engaging. I do wish you could get at least one thing right.
How rude.
As Molly says, all threads are manufactured, if that's how you want to describe them. I don't start many, but this one is asking a question. It got derailed when accusations of extremism on both sides started, as they were not accompanied by an opinion or contribution, and went downhill from there when people were 'advised' not to post on threads:
There is a group on GN determined to keep posting their views over and over again. Like the child that screams to have its own way, they yell "Agree with me"at the top of their voice and pretend they want to discuss when all they really want is to confirm each others prejudices. Ignore them and don't engage.
That is clearly nasty and designed to be hurtful, and isn't advising people to ignore others considered bullying? I would say so - when I was at school it was strictly discouraged on those grounds, and things were a lot less enlightened than today.
Do you not post your views? Most of us do, even when the questions get difficult - as I keep saying, that's the point of discussion boards. Rocking up and saying that you aren't going to answer, and advising others to ignore 'a group of people' runs directly counter to that, and can't possibly be in the spirit of GN, surely?
Rather than sniping, why not say what I haven't got right, and counter it with an idea of your own? It would be more useful if you pointed out flaws in what I am saying about the subject of the discussion, than nitpicking about minor things though - unless of course you want to derail the thread.
People manufacture start threads because they have seen something in the news, read an article or had a thought which they wish to bring to the attention of other posters. This is "continuing the discussion", yes. What is wrong with that? If you wish to continue the discussion too, you are free to post. If you don't, there is no obligation to.
There’s so much happening politically these days that I can’t quite keep up with it all so have tended to avoid transgender issues. I know I need to understand it more. The one thing I will say ( and I hope that doesn’t offend anyone) is that if I was on my own in a toilet (eg in a station where there are usually not many people using it at any one time) and someone who looked very masculine came in I’d feel a bit scared.
No, I don't think that is offensive - it's natural to feel uneasy when something isn't 'right', and with very few exceptions, transwomen do look male - because they are. And that's without the ones who say they are women but still have beards and receding hair.
There is that, coupled with the fact that, like it or not, women are vulnerable in public loos. It's not a case of quickly zipping up and either running off or fighting off an attacker - we have underwear issues to deal with, and probably have bags and other things to sort out too.
I think your feelings are justified, MayBee70,
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
