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
Wow DD it's quite something, looking down that list.
Just seeing the figure of 850 doesn't give a mental picture of how many that really is, especially as many are very big organisations.
Thanks for the article grannydarkhair.
What we are dealing with now is the fact a group which started out as a Much needed proponent of gay rights has, in recent years, adopted an agenda that is misogynistic and homophobic, morphed into something very different from what it used to be.
Doodledog, I read this and was reminded of the conflict in the womens movement in the late 70’s, early 80’s . I wasn’t the only woman to leave the group I’d been involved with for some years when ‘boy children’ over the age of 6 or 8 were excluded.
Thanks, gdh, that is an interesting read.
1969 would have been an awful time to be gay (or bi, or trans - or black for that matter), and we can’t judge anyone by the standards of today; but I still believe that the detail of what happened then in the US has no bearing on either the behaviour of the UK pressure group that shares a name with the club where the riots started or the behaviour of the TRAs it has radicalised. Glorianny’s diversion into her version of revisionist history is just that - a diversion.
What we are dealing with now is the fact that a group which started as a much-needed proponent of gay rights has, in recent years, adopted an agenda that is misogynist and homophobic, and morphed into something very different from what it used to be. In a (laudable) effort to support equality for all too many eyes were taken off the ball, and this agenda was allowed to gain a stranglehold in a terrifying number of organisations.
This is a list of the ‘Diversity Champions’ who pay thousands each to Stonewall for the right to say that they comply with their agenda.. The ones in red have left. I hadn’t realised how many people were on it until seeing this list on a Mumsnet thread about the Allison Bailey case. It may seem like a triviality when they bring out a policy such as recommending that staff declare pronouns on email signatures, but seeing how many large organisations are impacted gives an idea of how many employees that covers, and suddenly it’s not trivial at all.
If the AB case does nothing else (and I really don’t think it will do nothing else) it will open people’s eyes to the reality of Stonewall in 21st Century Britain - regardless of who did what in NY all those years ago.
Glorianny Your claim that the Stonewall riots were led by trans people, etc. is wrong. It’s only relatively recently that this idea has been promulgated. And by who? Trans activists of course. Please see below for a piece by someone who was actually there, and not born years after the events.
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/fred-sargeant-debunks-the-latest?r=k9z5j&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Good point. I think it is a significant verdict- in a good way.
it is bound to reduce the number of clients they get. Nobody will trust them to tell the truth.
Not only that, those who have already taken their advice should have another good think about the policies they've brought in.
I was always quite nervous about this one as I didnt really see how stonewall would be held responsible but this is a good result I think.
Great stuff!
Galaxy
I am just ploughing through it. It surely means employers will no longer take advice on this issue from Stonewall as it leaves them vulnerable to a discrimination case.
That's what I have taken from it.
If the verdict had held Stonewall even collectively responsible, employers/clients would assume that it was in its (Stonewall's) interests to keep within the law, as it would send to lose financially if it got things wrong.
As it is, their advice not backed up with consequences for them if they get it wrong, and the employers have to pay out, so it is bound to reduce the number of clients they get. Nobody will trust them to tell the truth.
I am just ploughing through it. It surely means employers will no longer take advice on this issue from Stonewall as it leaves them vulnerable to a discrimination case.
Thanks far north.
From what I've heard, Allison Bailey won her case claiming discrimination by her employer but lost in her claim against Stonewall because Stonewall does not have responsibility for what employers do, despite giving them inaccurate advice.
So I hope this is a big boot up the behind to employers who think that Stonewall Law will do them just fine.
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/27/law-chambers-discriminated-against-gender-critical-barrister-tribunal-rules?amp;amp;amp
This probably needs to have a new thread manufactured about it, rather than being hidden here.
I'll do it tomorrow, if no-one else does it first.
That's great news, Galaxy. The worm is, indeed, turning.
I feel a bit late to this news but have just seen that Alison Bailey has won her discrimination case. A good day. Brave woman.
Glorianny, your complaints and criticisms to gender critical posters can so easily be made towards your own views. You don’t budge either
Quite MollyGo 
Glorianny Bye bye.
Now I'm off this thread because the same views are posted time and time again^( by you as well as others?) ^and I see no reason to give anyone the opportunity to post more prejudice.
That’s exactly what I used to read from other posters who claimed that other posters were prejudiced (whilst ignoring the fact that their own posts demonstrated prejudice). It’s like asking “Do prejudiced people know they’re prejudiced?”
A man might like the idea of looking at young women change their clothes before or after swimming and if they say they are women they have a legal right to use the women's pool. The women concerned may feel they have a right to decide who sees them naked, and don't want to undress in front of men.
Whose rights take precedence?
Now, that's what I struggle with. To me, it's so blindingly obvious that a woman/girl, has an absolute right to privacy when she undresses to go swimming or in a gym and I just can't think of any decent reason as to why anyone wouldn't understand that and argue against it, unless there's ill intent. Most men accept that there are just some spaces that they have no place being in and don't want to cause embarrassment, distress or anxiety by forcing their way in. But if a 6'4" person, with a 5 o'clock shadow and an Adam's apple the size of a goose egg walks in and says he's called Lola, even if he's wearing an itsy bitsy, teeny weeny, yellow polka dot bikini....he's a bloke and he has no place in a woman's changing room.
Now I'm off this thread because the same views are posted time and time again and I see no reason to give anyone the opportunity to post more prejudice.
Well, of course you are within your rights to keep posting the same views, just as it is our right to counter them. But it's a shame you didn't bother to explain the reason for your unjustified attack on me upthread before your flounce, despite me saying that I found it offensive. It was a non sequitur, so your accusation is baseless, and it would be good if you had the decency to admit it.
You do, of course, have the right to be offensive, and I am used to that; but 'the spirit of Gransnet' attempts to afford posters the right to expect civil interactions.
Well said, Molly.
I don't believe one person's rights are more important than any other persons, and I don't believe according one group of people rights has, or ever will, erode someone elses.
This is absolute hogwash.
There are many examples of this on this board. Children have a right to play on common land, but people have a right to peace in their homes.
People have a right to earn a living to provide for their families and take the train to get to work. Other people have a right to strike to maintain a decent standard of living for their own families and work on the railways.
A man might like the idea of looking at young women change their clothes before or after swimming and if they say they are women they have a legal right to use the women's pool. The women concerned may feel they have a right to decide who sees them naked, and don't want to undress in front of men.
Whose rights take precedence?
The situation at Hampstead Ponds is a lot to do with non-binary trans person Edward Lord, who has been an elected member of the City of London Corporation since 2001, chairing various committees, and acting leading member at the Local Government Association from 2004 to 2017, as well as holding other public and private non-executive roles.
"Trans people" now includes any male person at all, regardless of their motives.
a-question-of-consent.net/2020/04/28/edward-lord-responds-on-single-sex-spaces-and-that-survey/
Bye bye Glorianny.
I have absolutely no idea what is happening at Hampstead pools nor any idea how the organisers are deciding who is to be admitted. However if there are women who feel unable to use the pool it is of course entirely legitimate to exclude transwomen even those with a gender certificate. If the law isn't being correctly applied how can that be the fault of transpeople? The advice is clear www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/04/trans-people-can-be-excluded-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc
I really don't see any point in discussing things with those who seem to imagine gender critical is some sort of badge of honour. Most of us live our lives trying not to promote gender norms. We just don't blame trans people because those norms exist or are promoted by anyone. The reasons that happens are many and diverse and little to do with trans people.
Now I'm off this thread because the same views are posted time and time again and I see no reason to give anyone the opportunity to post more prejudice.
That's ok DD. We were making slightly different points anyway. ?
Me on the other hand, I think both or all three groups deserve safe spaces from each other.
G
The question still remains why is it OK now to say a child may be gay but not to say a child may be trans?
I don’t recollect saying either of those things, so please show me where I did.
I don't support any form of discrimination by the way.
Whatever the dubious or doubtful grounds for discriminating. I don't believe one person's rights are more important than any other persons, and I don't believe according one group of people rights has, or ever will, erode someone elses.
And literally, by saying that, you discriminate against or in favour of one group or another.
You don’t think women have the right to safe spaces from males, ergo you do think males have the right to invade those spaces.
Discrimination against women’s rights and for male rights.
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.
