Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
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
They are not between sexes either daisyanne. Oh I cant remember the name of the advocate Claire ??? she did some great work on Twitter talking about her experience and the fact that people with a dsd are either Male or female.
Doodle whilst I remember have you read the article on toilets by Rosario Sanchez, sorry if I have got her name wrong as well!, she started in a similar position to me, that toilets werent a priority to worry about, the article describes why she changed her mind. She really made me think.
Galaxy
Crikey I will try to say it again. I think that believing the earth is flat is extremist, I think that climate change is not real is extremist, the reality of biological sex is however not extremist.
However, I said nothing along those lines Galaxy. You are, as the man said in Parliament "being economical with the truth".
As for the reality of our biology, you do not know, any more than I do. Tomorrow, or in years to come discoveries may be made that will change how we see things - that was my reference to people once believing the earth was flat. Nothing like your suggestion. Knowledge changes as we should hope it does. Telling rather less than the truth about those with a different view and creating a pile-on doesn't, it seems.
Galaxy
Doodle whilst I remember have you read the article on toilets by Rosario Sanchez, sorry if I have got her name wrong as well!, she started in a similar position to me, that toilets werent a priority to worry about, the article describes why she changed her mind. She really made me think.
No, I don't think I have. I'll see if I can find it, and if not I'll PM you to see if you can help me out. thanks.
Yes that was the point I was making if that applies to biology i.e that we dont know about the reality of biology because science changes and we have to keep an open mind, then that applies to all subjects surely. We need to keep an open mind therefore on the shape of the earth, on climate change and so on.
Having been out all day today, I've only just caught up with the thread and by the end, I was 
as to where the insults were. I find it odd that posters are conflating intersex and dsd with ordinary women just asking to retain single sex spaces. You can be any sex you like, have as many chromosomes as you can reasonably manage; but leave women spaces for women. That's all. It's really not difficult.
Don't suppose you have a link to the Rosario Sanchez article have you Galaxy? I'd like to read that.
I think Julie Bindel retweeted it if I remember rightly. Although all those radical feminists blur into one 
. It was very interesting about our insistence that it is a human rights issue for women and girls to have access to single sex toilets in developing countries but then the opposite here. I have always thought there was some quite considerable racism going on in those double standards.
I think this is probably the Claire you meant Galaxy.
womansplaceuk.org/2019/10/21/biological-sex-is-not-a-spectrum-there-are-only-two-sexes-in-humans-with-claire-graham/
By Racquel Rosario Sanchez:
thecritic.co.uk/toilets-matter/
Doodledog
There are really no attacks here.
Please quote what you see as attacks? I think you will find that they are simply differences of opinion, people defending themselves from frankly insulting accusations of extremism or requests for something other than these accusations that can actually be discussed. All things considered, I think this thread has remained remarkably polite.
So you do not believe the views you discuss are at one extreme of the spread of this topic. As I have said, several times, as someone whose views sit squarely in the middle area I find the attempts to tell people they must agree with one of the views, at one end of the scale, extreme. The idea that it is a "belief" horrifies me. That is how this conversation makes me feel.
None of you is, as far as I know, medically trained. Nor did anyone offer knowledge of research that will suddenly mean we know everything about how human beings are constructed and work.
I can't think of another time when someone saying, "I know what I don't know", has caused such hostile comments, lies and a pile-on.
Thanks so much FarNorth.
Eh? Medical training? What now? O Level biology is really all you need DaisyAnne! But what, if anything, have all your arguments and filibustering got to do with women wanting to keep their spaces for women only? If, in the future, it's found that there's a 3rd, or 4th or even a 5th biological sex, we'll deal with that then. At the moment, women are having to fight hard enough to keep just one other sex out of our refuges, prison cells and safe spaces.
It's not a pile on. People are disagreeing with you. This site is part of MN which has been at the forefront of this discussion relating to womens rights. It's not surprising therefore that there are a number of people on this site who are gender critical. I agree its bloody hard work when you are in a minority on an issue. But that cam change like the wind. I still remember being outnumbered on a disability rights thread on MN, crikey it was hard work.
No, I am not an extremist, DaisyAnne I am probably one of the most middle-of-the-road reach-a-compromise people on Gransnet. I neither want to eliminate trans people nor champion them over non-trans ones.
However, I do like accuracy . How can we communicate effectively with one another if we use words as labels for something which is not their meaning? Putting the coffee into a jar labelled "TEA" devalues both tea and coffee. It works in the family that uses that jar daily, but when a visitor tries to make themselves a cuppa, they run a serious risk of getting something they didn't want.
The sexes exist for the purpose of reproduction. Without reproduction, the human race would die out when the last representative tottered off. There are other ways of reproducing, and there are individuals in most species which are not interested in male/female sex but prefer their own sex, but but for mammals the norm is male/female.
We call many animals by different name for males and females. A male swan is a pen, a female a cob. A male horse is a stallion, a female a mare. a male fox is a dog, a female a vixen. a male bird is a cock, a female a hen. A male human is a man, a female a woman. This is nothing to do with how they feel themselves to be many or womanly, it is biological fact.
Do you believe that someone who transitions has somehow changed the DNA in every cell in their body? That they stop producing eggs and produce sperm instead? That their hips and shoulders change their shape, their eye-sockets alter, their Adams apple shrinks or grows, their breasts atrophy, their thigh bones alter how they fit into their pelvis? Do you believe that they can father children, when before they would have been mothers, or that they have grown a uterus and can gestate a child?
Chewbacca
Eh? Medical training? What now? O Level biology is really all you need DaisyAnne! But what, if anything, have all your arguments and filibustering got to do with women wanting to keep their spaces for women only? If, in the future, it's found that there's a 3rd, or 4th or even a 5th biological sex, we'll deal with that then. At the moment, women are having to fight hard enough to keep just one other sex out of our refuges, prison cells and safe spaces.
You obviously didn't read my earlier posts Chewbacca. Perhaps you should before you decide to join in the attacks.
Daisy Anne the immutable fact is the difference between male and female anatomy. This has never changed in the whole of the history of humankind. And the few abnormalities only prove the point. Yes we form an opinion but the perspective we take mostly arise from the beliefs we hold, but beliefs are not truths. Come on You know this.
Thank you Elegran that makes it very clear.
You're not being attacked DaisyAnne, you're being disagreed with. You know... like people disagree about politics?
Yes thanks for clarity Elgar. And even if we reach a time where men could have babies through modification of their bodies, they still would not be, and never will be Women.
It would have been better if I hadn't typed the cob/pen swans the wrong way round.
A male swan is a cob, a female a pen
Elegran
No, I am not an extremist, DaisyAnne I am probably one of the most middle-of-the-road reach-a-compromise people on Gransnet. I neither want to eliminate trans people nor champion them over non-trans ones.
However, I do like accuracy . How can we communicate effectively with one another if we use words as labels for something which is not their meaning? Putting the coffee into a jar labelled "TEA" devalues both tea and coffee. It works in the family that uses that jar daily, but when a visitor tries to make themselves a cuppa, they run a serious risk of getting something they didn't want.
The sexes exist for the purpose of reproduction. Without reproduction, the human race would die out when the last representative tottered off. There are other ways of reproducing, and there are individuals in most species which are not interested in male/female sex but prefer their own sex, but but for mammals the norm is male/female.
We call many animals by different name for males and females. A male swan is a pen, a female a cob. A male horse is a stallion, a female a mare. a male fox is a dog, a female a vixen. a male bird is a cock, a female a hen. A male human is a man, a female a woman. This is nothing to do with how they feel themselves to be many or womanly, it is biological fact.
Do you believe that someone who transitions has somehow changed the DNA in every cell in their body? That they stop producing eggs and produce sperm instead? That their hips and shoulders change their shape, their eye-sockets alter, their Adams apple shrinks or grows, their breasts atrophy, their thigh bones alter how they fit into their pelvis? Do you believe that they can father children, when before they would have been mothers, or that they have grown a uterus and can gestate a child?
I have not expressed anything along the lines you seem to be suggesting. My first posts pointed out that I would not argue about what you believe, although I was talking about the fact that it is a belief.
Somebody chose to infer that I said the opposite of what I actually posted. That set everyone who can't be bothered to read back saying things that bore no reference to my posts.
I am not interested in your description of men and women. Nor am I interested in the description used by those at the other extreme of views on this topic.
I suggested that we do not know; that knowledge can change. It's the intransigence of the extremes and the insistance that they and only they know, that I was discussing.
Chewbacca
You're not being attacked DaisyAnne, you're being disagreed with. You know... like people disagree about politics?
But you are disagreeing with posts I did not make. I think that twist of the fact is an attack.
Whatever DaisyAnne, I'll put it down to the heat! 
So you do not believe the views you discuss are at one extreme of the spread of this topic. As I have said, several times, as someone whose views sit squarely in the middle area I find the attempts to tell people they must agree with one of the views, at one end of the scale, extreme. The idea that it is a "belief" horrifies me. That is how this conversation makes me feel.
No, I don't feel that my views are extreme. I have nothing at all against transpeople living their best lives. Nothing. All I want is for them to do so whilst respecting women's rights, and to accept that they are transwomen, rather than expecting us to accept that we are 'cis' women and allow them into female spaces if they are male.
I don't think that your views sit squarely in the middle, although I accept that you believe that this is the case. You have told us that we are extremists and therefore that our views are simply 'beliefs' (as opposed to what, exactly, is not clear). I am not telling anyone that they must believe in anything. I am (perhaps forcefully, but at least politely) explaining what I believe, which is that men (or male-bodied people) should not have unrestricted access to places where women are vulnerable. I am doing so in the face of increasingly tautological opposition, which reminds me of conversations with Marxists when I was a student. They were always closed down because anyone who disagreed was told they did so because they suffered from false consciousness. If only they understood the reality of the Marxist POV, they would understand that the Marxists were right, but until then they could be safely ignored.
I am not, and have never been an extremist. Unless, that is, you are defining 'extremist' as 'anyone who disagrees with you'. I don't think you have defined 'extremist' in this context - it's one hell of an accusation, so maybe you could do that? What is it about my views, or others on this thread that are 'extreme'.
I don't understand what you mean by 'the idea that this is a belief horrifies me'. I understand the horrifies bit, but what actually horrifies you? The idea that people think differently, or the belief that men and women are biologically different? (or something else, before I am accused of attacking or misquoting.)
Also, the thread is about whether the LP is changing its stance. You say that they are open minded and you admire that, but have not given a single example of what you consider open-minded. Anything would do.
Chewbacca
Whatever DaisyAnne, I'll put it down to the heat!
Then I will be equally tolerant of your misconceptions of my posts - if that is an end of it.
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.
