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
Iam64 when push comes to shove, I expect I'll still vote Labour (could be through gritted teeth), and maybe that's what they're counting on, but I do resent the party's attitude of dismissing concerns on the impact of the trans issues as being either unimportant or transphobic.
Personally, I'm capable of being concerned about the rising cost of living, honesty and integrity in a political leader, adequate and decent housing for all, more investment in the NHS, a firmly committed programme for global warming AND the basic recognition of what a woman is and the need to protect women only spaces.
Chewbacca
Personally, I'm capable of being concerned about the rising cost of living, honesty and integrity in a political leader, adequate and decent housing for all, more investment in the NHS, a firmly committed programme for global warming AND the basic recognition of what a woman is and the need to protect women only spaces.
Extremist!
That's me! 
If that's what being an extremist is all about, then I'm proud to be one
.
Gloriana says "the patriachal society we inhabit . . . has designated certain characteristics male and others female for such a long time." but the physical differences between male and female bodies were not designated by "the patriachal society we inhabit" They evolved over millenia, and exist in matriarchal societies too. Saying that they don't exist is deliberately ignoring reality.
Good point, Elegran (as usual).
Glorianny has it ever crossed your mind that you may be the one who needs to broaden your mind and ideas about women, as you seem to project on to others outdated feminist perspectives. As Elegran evidenced in her clear response to your assumptions of characteristics being “designated” female characteristics. We have moved beyond this model of thinking
I came across this recently-
"The fact that society believes a man who says he's a woman, rather than a woman who says he is not, shows that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman."
Brilliant FarNorth.
Very good FarNorth.
Glorianny
These threads get funnier. Now besides holding a tape measure to check height and shoulder width my "How to ID a man" kit will have tissues for blowing the nose before sniffing several times.
Sorry, but you only need to check what’s his trousers (or under his skirt) in order to discover whether or not he is a man. If you’re a scientist you could also check his chromosomes. Two XX for female, XY for male.
A few people are indeterminate, but I’m speaking of the majority.
I've looked on the LP website, and this is what they have to say about what they are calling LGBT Equality. The bits in bold are taken (unedited) from the LP website here: and the rest army comments.
Labour has a proud record of championing the fight for LGBT equality.We abolished Section 28, equalised the age of consent, created civil partnerships, and it was only through Labour votes that equal marriage became law. However, there is still a long way to go on issues such as education, equal access to public services, levels of LGBT hate crime, and mental and physical wellbeing.
So far, so good.
A Labour government will reform the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act 2010 to ensure they protect Trans people by changing the protected characteristic of ‘gender assignment’ to ‘gender identity’ and remove other outdated language such as ‘transsexual’.
Here, 'the Devil is in the detail' and similar cliches. Removing outdated language such as 'transexual' is fine (and you can't transition to another sex anyway), but how far will the change from 'assignment' to 'identity' impinge on women's rights? How will this change 'protect' transpeople, and from what? And will claiming an 'identity' simply mean chanting magic words?
Labour will bring the law on LGBT hate crimes into line with hate crimes based on race and faith, by making them aggravated offences.
So long as it is not considered a hate crime to ask a man to leave a woman's space, or express an opinion on women's rights, then this is fair enough. Bullying, violence and attacks on transpeople should absolutely be seen as on a par with racism and faith-based crimes, but again, this is vague. According to the CPS, both LGB and T groups are already protected - what more is planned and how will it impact on the rights of feminists to defend their own rights?
To tackle bullying of LGBT young people, Labour will ensure that all teachers receive initial and ongoing training on the issues students face and how to address them. And we will ensure that the new guidance for relationships and sex education is LGBT inclusive.
I have serious doubts about this bit. Bullying of all children across the board is not being tackled very effectively, and of course kids who are sexually confused get more than their share, and of course it should be stopped. But teachers are not (necessarily) trained counsellors or psychologists, and I am unhappy with their being 'trained' in this area (as opposed to educated - there is a huge difference) and where the training will come from. If it is coming from within a mile of Stonewall I would be very unhappy. Also, there is no mention of parents and how much they should have a say in what their children are encouraged to do without their knowledge.
Likewise, we will ensure all frontline health and social care professionals receive ongoing training to understand and meet the needs of LGBT patients and service users.
See above, and of course 'the needs' of some of these service users (eg to change the vocabulary of medical staff to include terms such as 'birth giver' and 'cervix haver') should not ride roughshod over the needs of the majority to use terms they know and understand, and to be able to embrace terms like 'mother' which have cultural significance for many.
Labour will ensure that NHS England completes the trial programme to provide PrEP as quickly as possible, and fully roll out the treatment to high-risk groups to help reduce HIV infection.
100% necessary.
So, IMO it's a mixed bag. Some of the small print is thin on details and I don't see this as likely to be accidental. Whether it will go one way or the other when nip comes to tuck remains to be seen, but I know I'm not the only one who would like to see some clarification ahead of the next GE.
If you search on Google images for "Male silhouettes" you get lots of images and black-and-white silhouettes to give you a rough idea of the average shapes of males and females.
There are also images of half a dozen or so "male types" in case your chosen bloke doesn't conform to "average".
Be careful which images you choose to follow to their website - a lot of the pics are clickbait for porn sites, including the beefcake, but mostly the ones of female bodies - unsurprisingly, since studies have shown that on average men are more likely to find female bodies arousing than women do male ones.
Doodledog I can hear the voice of Stonewall in some of the phraseology of those bits in bold.
Elegran
Doodledog I can hear the voice of Stonewall in some of the phraseology of those bits in bold.
Agreed, but there may be some wriggle room, I think/hope?
So long as it is not considered a hate crime to ask a man to leave a woman's space, or express an opinion on women's rights, then this is fair enough.
Of course those things will be considered hate crimes.
That's easily seen if you were to replace 'man' & 'woman' with 'black person' & 'white person ' as that's what they'll use for comparison.
There needs to be a complete change in the thinking on trans people.
No-one can change sex however everyone should present however they like, as long as it's not indecent.
It's ridiculous that schools pander to 'trans' pupils and give permission for them to wear the 'opposite sex uniform' but they can't cope with allowing all pupils to wear the uniform they want or with having a unisex uniform.
Limited thought capability is very much a part of the whole situation.
*Of course those things will be considered hate crimes.
That's easily seen if you were to replace 'man' & 'woman' with 'black person' & 'white person ' as that's what they'll use for comparison.*
My concern is that it will end up watering down the existing legislation that protects people from race and sexuality-based hate crimes. I just can't see the public putting up with not being able to speak 'common sense' without fear of arrest. What dad is going to stand by and see a man go into the changing room where his young daughter is getting ready to swim? Or follow her into the Ladies while he waits for her outside? When the realities become obvious, people will object, and all we can do is hope that the response will be to reconsider this part of the Act, and not water down the rest.
Didn’t want to start a new thread, but think this is brilliant ?
twitter.com/cheesycuban/status/1549398510474240005?s=21&t=RCs2MuxEIsitV5UMwuJziQ
Nadia Whittome who identifies as queer says some Labour MPs are transphobic.
twitter.com/mathempell/status/1549481709808271361?s=12
Grannydarkhair The Universal Toilet (but the men's is the next door along)
Thanks for the LP position Doodle. I support the views you and Far North expressed in response
Doodledog
Chewbacca
Personally, I'm capable of being concerned about the rising cost of living, honesty and integrity in a political leader, adequate and decent housing for all, more investment in the NHS, a firmly committed programme for global warming AND the basic recognition of what a woman is and the need to protect women only spaces.
Extremist!
???
Found this on YouGov: Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2022?
It makes fascinating reading, particularly the sections "Should it be made easier for transgender people to change their legal gender?" And "Should transgender women being allowed to take part in women's sporting events?" And "Should we grant trans women access to women’s spaces?"
yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
It would seem that were not alone in our concerns.
Even so, those questions are unclear.
'Transgender women' sounds like actual women who have transitioned.
Of course transmen, who are not on testosterone, should be in women's sports if they want.
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.
