J K Rowling has nailed it - re Starmer and the trans issue

Goodness me. I was only asking for an understanding of why a number of transwomen didn't/dont feel free or able to speak out.

That's what I'm saying, Galaxy. I don't know a better word for a non-TRA TW though. Also, as I've always said, I don't have anything against TW per se - I just believe that women should have safe spaces, and that includes organisations and meetings - safety is not just about fear of attack.

Oh if you have been in women's spaces that isn't being 'quiet', it is a deliberate decision. Anyone who did that knew that many women didn't consent and carried on anyway.

Fear of attack by TRA has been a major contributory factor in allowing the damage to females to continue.
Even now, SM is full of people throwing hatred at anyone who dared or still dares to say Only females are women.
We are still seeing the hate driven antics of some TW and TRA, and their mocking cries of, “You can’t stop us!”

I can understand why people who were just getting on with their lives said or did nothing.
Fear is indeed a great behaviour driver.

Fear of losing their jobs, or criticisms at work is what drove some women to kow-tow to the equally scared, or sometimes plain stupid rules that they must accept the lies they were being asked to use.

But if women had done that, we would still be allowing men to cheat at sports and lie their way into places, associations and jobs that they have no right to, just because they say, (with or without surgical or chemical intervention, or a GRC) that they are women.
I feel sympathy for those who will have their previously quiet lives disrupted by the ruling that your biological sex is the sex that you are, whether or not you try to dress it up as gender change.

I hope the new ruling will enable both women and trans to live in peace, but I’m absolutely certain that some TW are not interested in gender neutral.
They want to be something they can never be, and will use violence, lying and subterfuge to try and get it.

You're right Wyllow that it would have been difficult. I suppose what I mean is that if a group of individuals (and we have to remember that they were individuals, not an organised mass, IYSWIM) is prepared to accept bad things happening in their name, then when that stops they can't realistically expect everyone - particularly the people who fell victim to what was happening - to put them at the top of the priority list when it comes to putting things right.

So if someone was in the WI and 'passing' as a woman - the 'quiet' TW we have referred to before - and realised that the screaming TRAs attacking feminists and threatening all sorts of violence was being done in the name of TWAW, and that other members of the WI were asking for a vote on whether TW should be considered women for the purposes of membership yet carried on regardless, she was complicit. Maybe not in the violence, but definitely in taking advantage of the prevailing No Debate culture. As an individual, there may not have been much she could do about any of it, but why join an organisation knowing that members are not comfortable with your being there? Why not form a similar one for transpeople, or ask to be Associate Members with no voting rights or something (I'm clutching at straws a bit, so that might not be a great idea).

I'm not suggesting Mao-style denouncements or anything remotely similar, but I think it's unreasonable to suggest that TW in that position should have special pleading when the dust settles. Just as the prevailing attitude then was that TWAW and they went along with that, the law now says that they are men, so they can't have it both ways.

I am not saying this from a position of wanting vengeance or to seek to hurt 'quiet' TW. Not at all. I have sympathy for people just wanting to go about their lives, I honestly do. But the way women were silenced, victimised and swept aside by the TRAs makes it difficult for me to feel that women should give an inch on this. It was making allowances that got us here, a step at a time.

I know you aren't trying to pick a fight, and nor am I - and I hope this post doesn't sound vindictive. I am also trying to sort out my thoughts on all of this.

To be caught between fears of exposure by declaring "coming out" at work, socially, and fears of criticism by TRA's was a terribly hard place to be in. There were and are still attacks and mocking in society at large.

I'll counter that statement with "To be caught between fears of knowing the biological reality and being declared transphobic, bigoted or a TERF for daring to even question transgender. To fear your employer or colleagues will insist that you need to be "retrained" unless your emails state your pronouns. To fear needing the services or support of a rape crisis centre and knowing that, should you dare say that you only want to see a woman; you'll be told to reframe your bigotry.

There were and are still attacks and mocking in society at large.

This is true. We only need to cast our minds back to last weekend when placards calling for the rape/decapitation/death of TERFS were on our streets.

Matthew 7:5 first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I don't really care if people spoke up or not. I differ from a few people on here I think, in that I don't have any expectation that trans people should have spoken up, I suppose in the same way I don't care whether men speak up about male violence. The whole speak up for a group identity politics just isn't my thing.

Doodledog you say that "the quiet" transpeople should have spoken up but to be fair you also said not everyone is born brave.

To be caught between fears of exposure by declaring "coming out" at work, socially, and fears of criticism by TRA's was a terribly hard place to be in. There were and are still attacks and mocking in society at large.

Not trying to pick a fight here. Just to understand an aspect of what has happened.

You can see how Hitler got so much power. When minorities become so powerful, we end up being scared to say anything because of the consequences. Losing your job. Other people not talking to you. So many people go with the prevailing narrative instead of critical thinking and making their own mind up. I would love to know what other people think and how this happens.

Everything having to be sorted out legally still isn't enough for some. Something a five year old could have answered. I can never take KS seriously again for his comment, women can have a penis, he is running the country and yet his observation skills are nil. A lot of bullying, fired on by idiots.
Doodle, I agree with what you say on this issue.

Women have been persecuted for wearing the suffragette colours in the Scottish parliament. For some reason (I really don’t understand why) the TRAs are very against suffragettes.

In the WI magazine they sell items such as tea towels promoting the Suffragette movement, that our ancestors bravely fought for and on the other hand accept transwomen into the WI without a vote from the membership.

They are being very slow in responding to the new ruling.

Strange post.
Thanks eazybee and Doodledog for answering.

Absolutely. If that’s what BP meant, I couldn’t agree more.

As a biological woman it is my business.

BlueberryPie

Leave people alone and mind your own business.

I’m not sure what you mean Blueberrypie. Your post is too vague to make sense, but it is very much the business of women to defend our right to safe spaces, and it’s not possible to do that without involving the people who want to invade those spaces.

Leave people alone and mind your own business.

As Carlotta posted yesterday;

This is on the WI's website, under "inclusivity":

No, men are not allowed to be members of the Women's Institute (WI)

As a trans identified woman is now a legally recognised man; it would go against their own constitution to continue their admittance. Apart from it being in direct breach of the law.

The idea that it’s all right for some TW to contravene the law in any situation that suits them is what caused the problems in the first place.

The fact that that has backfired on people who mean no harm is the saddest part of the whole affair, but in the WI, there was some definite unkindness to women who didn’t want males in their women’s group.

Now it’s been confirmed that TW are not women, who decides when it’s OK to ignore a legal ruling?

How often and under what circumstances does anyone even just on GN think it’s OK to ignore a legal ruling?

So, take a vote;
To change the name?
Change the constitution?

I wish we could edit- obviously I meant ‘if those people. . . ‘

Yes, the whole trans movement has been for the men. There will be innocent people caught in the crossfire, and I recognise that and sympathise- but if those had spoken out when the TRAs were screaming at feminists, or when sexualised drag queens came to schools and libraries to read to young children, or when women were hounded out of careers for speaking truth to power I would sympathise more.

We aren’t all born brave. I have lost out for speaking out about other things before now, but this nonsense hit at a time when I could afford to say no. I refused to declare pronouns on Zoom ( during Covid in particular) and when questioned just laughed and asked who wasn’t able to tell my sex and why it mattered. I have a unisex name, which complicates things a bit, but I would never castigate anyone for making assumptions about my sex if they had never met me. IMO it is entirely irrelevant to work-based correspondence, as I am employed for my expertise, not my sex.

I do, however, sympathise with young colleagues who have had to go along with this nonsense and pretend that they think men can be women or use plural pronouns to describe someone who wasn’t even there - if she had been everyone could just have called her by her name.

Would I have been so compliant? Who knows? I ask myself that question a lot. Maybe so, as I had children to feed. It’s very easy to judge from the sidelines when you don’t have anything to lose, so I would ask anyone who sneers at others’‘failures’ in this regard to consider what (if anything) they have personally sacrificed. And that they are honest in their replies to themselves.

The beauty contests well thats always been for men, haven't they?

I really feel that's been a problem in 'women's groups' and anything female Doodledog Females are socialised to 'be kind' 'put others first' almost from birth and haven't they complied! From sports to beauty contests women have stood back and let males take over. I saw a video on X where an obvious transwoman won the beauty contest. Without being rude and horrible if this overweight, not especially attractive person had been a biological woman there's zero chance they'd have won, but 'inclusivity' had virtually guaranteed the win from the get go. The other, more conventionally beautiful contestants all whooped and smiled because that's what they had to do, but it was a farce. If it had been a 'strongest man' contest no way would the smaller transman that could barely lift a car wheel have been judged the winner. And therein lies the difference. Every organisation it would seem has prioritised transwomen as being most in need and deserving of the fast track whereas transmen just take the normal female back seat.

Just thinking, what about the Men’s Shed movement which is very big here? Country Women’s Association? Things seem to be nuttier and nuttier. Maybe Men of Harlech isn’t right,either.

NanKate will be able to say better than me, but I think the feeling was that it doesn't get much more establishment than the WI when it comes to women's groups, yet the person now making policy on EDI is male. Friends of mine who are in it complain that they were never consulted, and that it usually takes years to get to the policy-making level, but the TW managed it in short order, which made it appear like a 'gesture' that was seen as a slap in the face for the membership.

Thats my point Doodledog, it was imposed before, and as you say is up to the members.

But having to change a long standing name - that doesn't sit well with me, I think it's perfectly understandable by the public as long as its biological women that make the decision.