"It is never too late to be what you might have been." Author George Eliot (born Mary Anne Evans)
"Behaving like a princess is work. It's not just about looking beautiful or wearing a crown. It's more about how you are inside." Flying nanny Julie Andrews (born Mary Poppins)
If passed in some dystopian identity wasteland future, the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) will allow individuals to self identify their gender without a formal psychiatric process.
What should be a debate about biology, the law, science, sociology, ideology and inconvenient stuff like facts has become an emotive mudslinging argument about identity (whatever that actually is) and morality.
There's also a lot of misinformation and confusion, especially in the mainstream media. And, of course, online, lots and lots of abuse from both sides. The debate makes strange bedfellows. Left wing feminists find they're sharing sheets with Daily Mail writers like Peter Hitchens, or the Canadian stand up comedian, Jordan Peterson, it's a bit depressing. But that's the problem with media (and social media) representations of the argument, there's little nuance. Those on the right disagree with the GRA not because they fear an erosion of female identity, female safe spaces or for some of the reasons I note below but because they believe in traditional gender roles and they fear change. Or, as in the case of all the online abuse that I've seen, they're a bunch of moronic misogynists from the Jordan Peterson youth camp.
Jordan Peterson. Yep, he gets fan art (a lot). He's so super dishy and hot (and as the Toronto Star put it "Perhaps the funniest Canadian since Leonard Cohen" and who am I to disagree?)
Conversely, if one publicly (online or in the media) argue that trans women are not women in a rational, reasonable, scientific, factual way you get called TERF (it means something bad I think), you are apparently propagating hate speech, you're like the racists who held back the civil rights movement in the US, you're like the fascist cops beating on Stonewall activists, man, you're like that horse what ran over suffragette Emily Davison*, etc..
*The evil horse was called Anmer, the dreadful SERF (Suffragette Exclusionary Radical Filly**)
** Anmer was actually a colt (unless he self identified as a filly)
I aim to spread the jam of knowledge on your mind bread.
Personally, I could not give a damn what anyone believes if it does not impinge on others' lives or rights. The argument is similar to other personal beliefs (as this argument is about beliefs). If one wishes to believe in, say, a god, that's fine just don't expect special laws to make it your right to dictate to others that the god exists. But wouldn't it be mad if I were branded Yahwehphobic for not believing in the Jewish god? A JERK (Jehovah Exclusionary Radical knowall). It would be mad. No wait, that's exactly the same as the TERF branding childish nonsense one sees online all the time for those daring to hold a contrary opinion. If we're going down that route, why not just burn those who don't believe transgender women are women as heretics?
The debate (about the GRA) is playing out on mainstream media in mainstream time. Here's a Newsnight piece from 18/10/18 which wades in with the opener: "It's one of the questions of our time. What is identity and who can define it clearly?"
What is identity? Who defines it? What are the limits? Can one self identify any facet of identity? Isn't that cultural appropriation? How many questions am I going to ask? Who knows?
Newsnight have covered transgender before:
In which CN Lester argues that we've always been murky about sex and gender and we should all just get over it (or words to that effect). Sarah Ditum transphobically points out that sex has always been clearly delineated in upright human people and however much CN Lester might feel like a man, or not, she is in fact a woman biologically and that is something she can't change. TERF love there from Sarah using stupid things like science and sociology for her argument.
On those bastions of investigative journalism, ITV's This Good Morning and Sky Good News we get:
What's interesting is that the normally conservative (big C and small C, lots of Cs) ITV and Sky take the peculiar position of interrogating the female guest as if it was her place to defend the present (natural) law rather than the trans activist proving there's a need for legal change. Really odd. Both videos involve Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. I know her (not personally) as Posie Parker but apparently she was 'outed' online by a trans activist so she now goes under her name name.
The ITV piece follows the taking down of a billboard financed by Keen-Minshull's campaign group placed somewhere in the wastes of the north of England (I mean, who's going to see it there anyway?)...
Our This Good Morning host, Eamonn Holmes wades straight into Keen-Minshull with "it sounds like you're making the word female more exclusive rather than inclusive." Trust Holmes, the British Noam Chomsky, to cut to the chase and tell it how it is. Yes, Eamonn, that is the point. Female is a discrete biological term. Like plant or mammal. You can't go saying oh I believe this hydrangea fella is actually a mammal we need to change the law so that hydrangea mammals are recognized and stop all this hydrangea based mammal exclusionary phobia hate. Can you?
I remember Holmes' similar interrogation of Albert Einstein: "it sounds like you're trying to suggest that time is a construct, an illusion based on our observation of natural cycles but look I've got a watch, it tells the time."
But then Eamonn spoils it all by introducing trans woman, India Willoughby, and turning to Keen-Minshull with: "why does she threaten you?" Oh dear, let's not debate let's pretend this is Jeremy Kyle. If they really wanted it to be Kyle why don't they do a live DNA test to prove India is a woman? Oh yeah...
And Willoughby wades in with unimpeachable logic: "what would make you happy Kelly, do you want me to shave my head, would you want to make me wear boys' clothes..."
That's about the level of the 'debate.' Like Keen-Minshull I frankly couldn't give a damn if India Willoughby calls herself a woman and wears a fetching dress (or not) and we can call her her but recognizing her as a woman in law is both dangerous and illogical. I shall pose questions below to prove my point.
Keen-Minshull stays supremely calm because I'd be tearing my hair out (but not to appease anyone, of course, though I do wear boys clothes, much to my chagrin). She argues "you can do anything you want but just not be recognized as a woman in law."
There, that's the nub of the argument. But this doesn't stop the intrepid Eamonn Holmes...
Eamonn Holmes: "Do you have any sympathy that you're looking at a woman who was trapped in a man's body?"
Keen-Minshull: "No, no. I don't think you can change sex in a meaningful way. Every cell in the human body has the DNA code of what sex you are. India obviously looks like a woman but I don't see India as a woman."
Willoughby: "I'm not interested in stupid science things.* What is it about trans people that makes you so angry?"
* I made that bit up but she might as well have said it.
So, that's right, ignore the discussion about sex and the law and just return to emotions (this is recurring in all the debates I've seen, check out the others above and below). I thought Keen-Minshull was supremely calm and rational (which, ironically are generally seen as male characteristics in pop culture).
The discussion goes on with stuff like Holmes saying to Keen-Minshull "are you proud to be transphobic?"
It's utterly peculiar that someone with science on their side should be described as phobic of something illogical, as being the one who must defend her position. How did this come about? It's like an atheist, to be taken seriously, having to prove there is no god and the religious person who believes in an afterlife, that god made the Earth in seven days and that god performs miracles be assumed to be in the right...oh wait, that is the case isn't it? Those crazy radical militant atheists.
"What does living as a woman mean?" asks Keen-Minshull.
"I'm living as me," answers Willoughby. Huh? What the hell does that mean?
The ITV piece is typical of the absurdity of an argument with no coherent substance. The argument being that we should listen and take radical legal action for an oppressed minority who deny science. Why aren't we then changing the laws for Scientologists, Mormons or Flat-Earthers? Stop people sailing too far, they're risking their lives, they'll fall off the edge. Why aren't we all allowed to marry as many women as we like (but not men, no, no)? Why aren't we praising Xenu in the hope that he releases us from our imprisonment by the galactic confederacy?
Some questions then (though I've never felt the need to ask these of biological females I have been acquainted with):
How will safe spaces for females be protected?
Having read/viewed numerous ( I mean, loads and loads of) pieces by trans women the general argument appears to be, the same way they are now. Except, if anyone can self identify as a woman and women, say, have a legal right to access certain services open only to women...how does that work? Obvious examples are prisons, refuges, well women centres, changing rooms, etc. If I can legally self identify as a woman (without a lengthy psychological assessment) do I have access to these areas? If I don't then I'm not a woman, am I? I mean, you can't have an act where I can change my birth certificate to "Female" yet I can't access all the same spaces that females can. That makes no sense. But then, allowing me, self identified woman (remembering that the vast majority of trans women are not transitioned) into these spaces is insanity and makes a mockery of the concept of safety. I'll keep coming back to this because it has so many angles and ramifications.
If self identifying via signing a form, and if wishing to, changing one's documentation to female, is enacted then there is no need for psychiatric verification of gender dysphoria. In fact this is the rationale for the act, as at present trans women (and men, though that's relatively rare) have to go through two years of psychiatric intervention, have two doctors sign as evidence of their dysphoria. But without this psychological assessment gender dysphoria is a meaningless term. Gender dysphoria will no longer exist as a discrete psychological concept. So what is this "feeling like I was always a woman" then, if not a psychological condition? A biological one? What are the biological markers for it? How? What? I'm bemused. If it's not a psychological feeling you were born the wrong sex (even though we're really talking gender) then what is it? I'll come back to this too.
Is it more than make up and dresses? What then?
Why does it appear that so many trans women then focus on appearance?
At least, the high profile trans women seem to head straight for the salon to get their hair sorted and down to the women's section of Primark. But this is odd as the argument from Trans rights groups and individuals is that transgender goes far beyond cosmetic socialized gender roles but is a deeper feeling of being not only the wrong socialized gender but the wrong sex. But how is this belief conceptualized beyond dresses and hair? What is it that trans women are experiencing as women that I'm not (being a non-trans man)? All I see is hair, dresses and make up and no one can ever explain what trans 'feelings' are beyond these cosmetic changes.
This isn't the first viral psychological condition affecting young people (it appears from the outside that it disproportionately affects those under 30, with a specific stress on Millenials and is fed by social media). ADHD became a de rigueur psychological condition in the late 90s and then the 'Autism epidemic' that has great similarities with the prevalence of Trans people now. Autism originally had biological (neurological) markers such as differences in eye contact, in ways of thinking (Theory of Mind), neurological manifestations (prosopagnosia, alexithymia, dyspraxia) but these were all jettisoned as masses of people self diagnosed using online tests. I have myriad examples of people saying that once they heard of Autism and were diagnosed "everything made sense, I could finally be me." Sound familiar? And, of course, transgender crosses over with this new Autism that has no recognizable features beyond anxiety.
Can it be a fact that trans women are women but also that the definition of woman is adult female? That's surely a paradox? Do we then have to redefine what a woman is? What meaning does it then have if I (a big hulking red blooded macho masculine full bodied yet mellow with a hint of raspberries...um, lost it there...man) can be a woman?
Is it ethical to use facts like women are adult biological females to make a political point? See Keen-Minshull and Adrian Harrop 'debate' over the poster on Sky News; it's worth watching as Harrop's argument is not irrational, the way he argues it certainly is though:
On one side, Harrop's, one can see that the purpose could be seen to be divisive. Yes, the statement in the poster might be a fact but it's purpose is clearly ideological. The Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins bus campaign is another example of this:
Religious people saw this as an attack on their completely irrational, baseless, implausible, absurd, self identifying unscientific beliefs. But it is a fact. Ideologically used to question the legitimacy of completely irrational etc. religious belief. This is the crux of Harrop's argument. That the poster is not about scientific facts (because we don't want to debate those) but an ideological position which spreads hate and causes unnecessary suffering.
It's worth watching the Sky piece because it's pretty heated. Harrop is a very angry young man right from the start, he's like The Hulk if he never ever transformed back to Bruce Banner,; "don't make me pleasantly mild, I don't know what it's like to be pleasantly mild." Whilst his argument that the words on the poster might be true but that the intention is ideological is perhaps fair (though of course a poster showing, say, transgender diversity would also be ideological, everything is), it is rather undermined almost immediately by his delivery. He's apoplectic with rage from the get go:
"It was put up by a campaign group lead by Miss Keen Minshull [he stresses the 'miss' but then he stresses a lot, he really needs to de-stress] who has spearheaded a campaign against trans people, particularly against trans women...where she's sought to demonize trans women and to highlight them as dangerous sexual predators, this poster is a symbol of that campaign...and for transgender people...it is a reminder for them that they are under such immense public scrutiny for every single aspect of their identity, their behaviour, their body shape, their appearance and that campaign is lead by this woman, Miss Keen-Minshull [stressed again] AKA Posie Parker..."
"I'm Mrs,"she points out
"I'm Doctor," he retorts.
Harrop is arguing, effectively, that even facts are loaded with ideology, in this case, the fact that women are adult females is pointedly aimed at the trans community.
However, his angry argument is barbed with numerous ideological accusations and inferences that he seems blithely ignorant of. Keen-Minshull points out she's Mrs. Harrop's stress on "Miss" (twice) could easily be construed as an ideological attack (what does it conjure in your mind? why use Miss explicitly, especially as he seems so well informed of her campaign?). His reiteration that he is a doctor (a male one at that) has huge ideological implications, particularly around power relations.
His argument that she spearheads a campaign against trans women is also loaded ideological language, as she clearly argues that her belief is that trans women are not women, as discussed above (is that spearheading a campaign against trans people or stating an argument, let alone a fact?). I'm not aware of her attacking trans women, unless denying a trans woman being women is "an attack", judging by the articles and reports I've read on the subject that's exactly how it's viewed. If that's not ideological language I don't know what is. She "demonizes" women? I'd like examples of this demonization. It does appear to be the case that denying trans women are women in individual cases equals demonizing, suggesting the GRA could lead to sexual predators having access to female only spaces is demonizing trans women, suggesting that a trans woman could indeed violate biological women in said safe spaces is demonizing. Apparently.
He's right in arguing that the poster is the "campaign made flesh" and I can see the reason for the call to take it down.
His point that it reminds trans women that "they are under such immense public scrutiny for every single aspect of their identity, their behaviour, their body shape, their appearance" is a peculiar one. Isn't that what trans women want? To be women. To be objectified, to be judged on their appearance, body, dress? To be continually harassed. Scrutinized, observed and molested and abused? That's what it's like for females all the time. Judging by every trans woman I've seen in the media, vlogs, posts etc. that's exactly what the whole point of the trans movement is, to identify as a woman so that you are (visibly, visually) judged as a woman, to be seen as a woman, it seems to be about that as what is there beyond the physical? I'm damned if I know what else it's about. I'm being slightly flippant but it is odd that he's arguing that the campaign would lead to scrutiny of the very thing he's campaigning on.
I am, of course, aware he's arguing that the poster stirs up hatred of trans women and they'll be publicly vilified and attacked because of it but how is his continual shutting down of debate as hate speech or transphobia any different? Surely if you publicly call someone a transphobe or that they use hate speech you're then subjecting that person to "immense public scrutiny?" It makes no sense to put forward an argument whose ramifications for your opposition are exactly the same as the argument.
His "AKA Posie Parker" is deeply ideological, clearly a suggestion that she's underhand in someway by going under an alias, but who wouldn't with the attacks that people receive on both sides of the divide?
He highlights her twitter feed but Harrop's seems rather unpleasant too, it seems to go with the heated territory (why can't we all just get along?...oh yeah...). Here advising Caroline Lucas of the Green Party not to enter dialogue with those he doesn't agree with:
WPUK is WomansPlaceUK, a legitimate women's rights organization, you know, an organization fighting prejudice, which is a bit odd, but still, it is odd that a white, middle class, male doctor should be so well informed about what it's like being a women.
Or not. Yeah, that'll learn you. Ok, so that's really unpleasant, the idea that one could learn from death threats, but it's the oh wise one chin stroking I'm imparting knowledge to you now young lady tone of "A challenging yet important and unforgettable lesson." Unless this is somehow out of context, but judging by his Sky News piece he does seem to believe he knows something we don't. He's a doctor, you know. A medical doctor. Which is odd, because surely he has a grounding in sex biology. But clearly lacks an understanding of gender sociology.
He does appear to have that strange 'your hate speech is ideological but whatever I say isn't' thing going on. Very odd.
Enough of Mr Harrop.
Back to the questions...
If not giving trans people equal rights is a human rights violation but not recognizing that biological females are a separate sex and gender is also a human rights violation then how do you square the two?
51% of the UK are biologically female. Less than 1% are trans. Is it fair to impact on biological females for such a small minority?
How do you stop men who wish to use the law to access female only spaces? I think I might have mentioned this. And I probably will again.
How do you enforce the law in situations where a biological female's rights are violated? Keen-Minshull highlights the crazy prison situation, and the searching of women by trans officers, as an example. Legally, it would mean if I was convicted of a crime (say transphobia hate speech) but had self identified as a woman then I would be placed in a woman's prison. I know this is a hypothetical but that's the point, why would you introduce a law that could have these ramifications for women because of a (very vocal) minority? It just makes no sense. What's more, if we are talking legitimate hypotheticals, a man could rape a woman, self identify as a woman, be tried and sentenced to a woman's prison. Or do we then have to have special laws on top of laws to make sure that doesn't happen (see Ireland, below)?
What is the difference between me, Arkady, a male, entering a female space, say a women's refuge, and me, Arkady, self identified woman entering the same space? It's merely then linguistics and faith.
It also appears the same problem occurs with the transgender debate. Stating facts like trans women are not women or that they are not biological females or seeing that the GRA means effacing the concept of woman is considered transphobic.
The National Geographic magazine ran with a "Gender Revolution" cover. One blogpost (I'm not getting into the name game though you could google it if you cared) discusses this and Graham Linehan's rabid transphobia:
The blog writer argues: "This second cover featured an obvious mistake. They had identified both Transgender females as “Transgender Female” but had referred to the Cis male only as “Male”.
This omission reinforces the idea that being cis is the default, while trans individuals require a qualifying prefix. It should be said however, that this mistake was made without wilful malice by a publication attempting to spread awareness and tolerance."
No, it made the mistake of identifying a transgender woman as a female. That's just biologically impossible. You cannot change your chromosomes or number of gametes. Male and Female is the default. It's illogical to argue otherwise, as if they weren't we wouldn't be having this debate. And anyway, why should I be labelled Cis male. I'm me. Oh no, wait, you can only use that illogical argument if you're trans. I also refuse to acknowledge this Cis nonsense. When did I become a Cis male? Who decided this? Did I miss the vote on changing the term for a male?
The blogger argues: "The same cannot be said for some of the people who reacted to the cover.
Glad to see we are finally getting rid of women in this glorious Gender Revolution. Don't worry though, male people will still exist!
— @boodleoops
@Boodleoops is Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, a notorious TERF (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist) who has written extensively about her fear of trans women being allowed into cis women’s spaces. Her conclusion that “we are finally getting rid of women” is based on her belief that the two women on the cover aren’t really women. There’s nothing particularly interesting about that (TERFs gonna TERF). What’s interesting is who decided to signal-boost her bigotry.
Fucking perfect example of how misogyny is internalised and now commercialised - Erasure of women now "a transphobic position" evidently - Graham Linehan @Glinner"
You vile abusive cad, Linehan.
"The issue had two covers. One featuring Avery Jackson, a 9 year-old transgender girl from Kansas City and another featuring a diverse group of young people, each with a label displaying their gender identity."
A 9 year old little princess is not that odd, I'm sure if I had been free to dress like that as a 9 year old then I would have loved it. But how exactly does a 9 year old understand or recognize sex and gender beyond these cosmetic notions of pink and princess? How does a 9 year old recognize they are the wrong gender? What possible understanding of biological sex and sociological gender can a 9 year old have beyond physical presentation? Is a 9 year old even fully conscious of themselves as an individual and as a complete sexual and gendered being? Why aren't they giving 9 year olds the vote then? Why isn't Avery off working at the satanic mill living an independent life if she's aware enough to know what sex or gender she is? Clearly this has nothing to do with biological sex but merely socialized gender roles. If Avery wants to live as this hyperfeminized fantasy notion of what a girl and woman is then who cares? If he wants to be transitioned to appear biologically like a woman, myah. But there is no possible way on god's green Earth that Avery will ever be a woman.
If you want to know how bonkers and how completely lacking in anything even vaguely smelling like science this transgender argument is then check out the National Geographic magazine's piece on the subject:
"In a story from our issue, Robin Marantz Henig writes that we are surrounded by “evolving notions about what it means to be a woman or a man and the meanings of transgender, cisgender, gender nonconforming, genderqueer, agender, or any of the more than 50 terms Facebook offers users for their profiles. At the same time, scientists are uncovering new complexities in the biological understanding of sex. Many of us learned in high school biology that sex chromosomes determine a baby’s sex, full stop: XX means it’s a girl; XY means it’s a boy. But on occasion, XX and XY don’t tell the whole story.”"
Where to start. Yes XX means female (girl is socialized gender) and XY is male. There are extraordinarily rare examples of the chromosomes crossing but I haven't heard anyone actually argue that trans women have 'muddled' chromosomes. Another dubious argument is that some other animals do not have clear sex differences, say frogs who don't have penises (see above). But then we aren't frogs, we're human mammals. And even if one wants to go down that dubious route you still come face to face with the gamete argument, that male animals produce many gametes (sperm) and females produce typically one (egg). What Marantz Henig is doing there is typical of the pro transgender argument, muddle in some pseudo science (XX XY don't tell the whole story, and XX means female, girl is social gender, what a dick (is that transphobic using the word dick?)) with "evolving notions" or beliefs or delusions, depending on your take. All these labels have been defined by the trans or queer community, there's not been any debate about whether I can be labelled straight (I don't mind) or Cis (I do, because of the implications). You coul replace "evolving notions" of trans, Cis etc. with evolving notions of religious sects; Judaism, Christian, Catholic, Islam, Sikh, Church of England, Mormon, etc. It doesn't make them any more rational. We're still all born without a faith and of a given biological sex.
You can read the piece from The National Geographic "In their words: how children are affected by gender issues" for yourself. It clearly has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with gender and class. Stories of children being sold into marriage aged 9 because of repressive religious beliefs and generally how it sucks being a female in our patriarchal world. Yeah, so why on earth do so many males want to identify as women? It makes no rational sense unless one views it as a form of misogyny, whereby males can maintain their patriarchal privilege whilst indulging in gendered fantasies about what it's like being a woman.
And little 9 year old Avery clarifies his/her gender dysphoria issues (to be fair it's just as good as any adult trans explanation):
"What’s the best thing about being a girl?
Avery Jackson swipes a rainbow-streaked wisp of hair from her eyes and considers the question. “Everything about being a girl is good!”
What’s the worst thing about being a girl?
“How boys always say, ‘That stuff isn’t girl stuff—it’s boy stuff.’ Like when I first did parkour,” an obstacle-course sport."
Avery spent the first four years of her life as a boy, and was miserable; she still smarts recalling how she lost her preschool friends because “their moms did not like me.”"
There we are. Transgender.
I can't understand why we can't agree on a third space or gender. As far as I'm aware, no one is arguing that Avery Jackson can't identify as a trans woman (despite being 9, or recognizing her gender dysphoria aged 4...4? really, how can anyone take this seriously? 4? What understanding of biology beyond poo and front bottom can a 4 year old have, what understanding of social gender?). If transition were free to everyone would the 80-98% (dependent on source) of trans women not transitioned automatically take that option? Should we allow 9 year olds (or indeed 4 year olds?) to transition? Are we completely mad?
Is this upsurge in young men identifying as women in the same historical time period as the rise of men's movements orchestrated by postmodern comedic acts like Jordan Peterson alongside an age of social media truthiness just a coincidence? Is it the so called crisis of masculinity in which men recognize the underpinning of patriarchial discourse, economic independence and control is under threat (by machines, not women, ironically) and simply either try to reinforce their masculinity by denouncing feminism or retreating from masculine norms by pretending to be women?
If ever the metaphor of The Emperor's New Clothes was applicable then this debate is it. Everyone is either hypnotized by the logical fallacy that if a person says they're something they therefore must be something or simply terrified of denying trans' rights for fear of being branded a TERF or transphobe, lumped in with racists, homophobes, and, ironically, misogynists.
THE LOVECATS
If you argue that a biological female who might feel uncomfortable with a trans woman in a woman only space is transphobic you have to argue it's based on an irrational feeling (see definition above) in the biological female yet one would then have to argue that transgender is a rational feeling. Transgender has been based on a psychological condition, gender dysphoria, all psychological conditions are very simply based on a comparison to 'normality.' So are trans people still psychologically disturbed if the GRA were passed? Well no, but if they aren't, once more, what causes them to feel being in the wrong body? That isn't 'normal' in psychological terms, just by definition and by numbers. So if they aren't 'normal' in psychological parlance then they must be psychologically disturbed but if self identifying is the only criteria for assigning oneself a gender (and sex, it seems) then everyone is free to do that and so it is normal and not psychological but roughly 99% of people don't do this so...I'm confused. If you're trans you aren't psychologically disturbed but you feel as if you've been assigned the wrong sex at birth and that isn't delusional but a natural response to um...No, I can't unravel that paradox.
One of the most vocal campaign groups for trans rights is Mermaids UK (supporting those who self identify as a bit of a fish). Their mission statement shows the paradox at the heart of the GRA:
"Mermaids is passionate about supporting children, young people, and their families to achieve a happier life in the face of great adversity. We work to raise awareness about gender nonconformity in children and young people amongst professionals and the general public. We campaign for the recognition of gender dysphoria in young people and lobby for improvements in professional services."
But if the GRA were passed then gender dysphoria would have no meaning and would no longer be diagnosed. Or would it in those under 16, for legal reasons? It's utterly baffling. If transgender were 'normalized' by the GRA then it would be 'normal'....oh no, let it go man, this is impossible to understand, like the immensity of the universe, or the popularity of Will Smith.
If there were no such thing as gender, or indeed, sex, as the GRA would effectively enshrine in law (anyone and everyone is free to assign their own gender/sex) then what's the purpose of gender equality law?
What's the purpose of gender statistics?
What's the purpose of gender? Or biological sex at all?
The Labour Party was under fire fromfeminists TERFs for accepting that trans women can be included in their All Women Shortlist. Pink News reported on it back in January but I'm still utterly nonplussed as to what transgender has to do with gay rights: Pink News
They report it utterly evenhandedly: "despite pressure from TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) within Labour, the party has clarified its position at a meeting of the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC)." Right on sisters. Brothers. Cisters. I'm utterly bamboozled.
It focuses on transwoman Labour MP Sophie Cook.
The point of the all woman shortlist was to both bolster the number of female MPs and in turn for British politics to be more informed about issues relating specifically to women. The problem with including trans women in the process is precisely the same problems as recognizing trans women legally as women. Sophie Cook, as an example, has never experienced what it is like to be a woman. The socialized roles, discrimination, sexual and psychological harassment, the restrictions of opportunities of being a woman. Cook never will. She'll only experience any discrimination as a transgender woman. Look at her, a “22-stone bald bloke” as she described herself before becoming a 22 stone woman with hair transplants. What exactly has changed (other than the hair)? This isn't a ridiculing of her appearance but the very real point that because she looks like what she is, a large man in a dress, she won't experience the everyday harassment and discrimination meted out to biological women. She has not experienced what it is like being a woman and never will.
Cook helpfully pens an article on her site covering this very topic: Equality for trans people doesn’t take away anyone else’s rights. So being a high profile trans campaigner I'm seriously hoping that she can explain what transgender is and just how it won't impact on biological women.
It doesn't bode well when she argues: " If being transgender is trendy then I’ve never been trendier. But there’s nothing new about being trans, transgender people have always existed throughout human history — the hijra or two spirit people."
The hijra in the Indian subcontinent are recognized as a third gender/sex rather than as women, so that kind of goes against the whole GRA argument, as most TERFs like me are perfectly accepting of that notion. Two spirit people are not transgender, and that smacks of cultural appropriation. Two Spirit people were rather like shaman or historically were simply gay men who were allowed to opt out of traditional male pursuits like hunting and stay in camp doing women's chores.
Just supplying learning sprinkles for your brain donut.
Cook then redesigns our whole sex history by suggesting "We all exist somewhere on the gender identity and sexuality spectrums, straight-gay, male-female, and growing up we all come to a realisation about who we are, it’s just that if you’re straight and cisgender, you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth, then no-one notices. It only becomes an issue if you’re LGBT+."
Male and female are sex. Is there a sex spectrum? Male, female, intersex. That's not exactly a spectrum is it? Growing up and realizing who you are is a sociological phenomena. Being a female is a biological phenomena. I don't think Cook has any idea what any of this means. I fear I'm not going to get any answers to my questions here either.
No, sadly, Cook just reiterates the same ideas about trans women not being a threat by pointing out the "jarring echoes for those of us old enough to remember the same child safety concerns being used to justify anti-LGBT [except there was no T in that acronym back then] laws like Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned the “promotion of homosexuality” on the grounds that it was a direct threat to our children. The connection between homosexuality and child abuse was as disgusting and incorrect as the current attempts to link transgender people and child abuse or sexual violence."
Unfortunately the two situations are totally different. The right wingers who claimed homosexuals abused children (and they do, let's not forget, precisely because they are men, oh god, do I have to point out not all homosexuals) did not base their arguments on any concrete concerns but just plain old bigotry. We had the same rubbish in 1967 when the Sexual Offences Act was passed and homosexuality was legalized but I don't remember feminists en masse arguing against it. You know why? Because it didn't bloody affect them.
What a stupid argument.
"They claim to want debate around the issues, yet their language continually denies the identities of those they seek to debate with..." Well, reverse that logic Sophie Cook.
"There is no hierarchy of oppression. Human rights are not a nil-sum equation. To grant one group equal rights does not diminish the rights of others. Black rights do not come at the expense of white rights, women’s rights do not come at the expense of men’s rights, and trans rights do not come at the expense of women’s rights."
That's her argument. Don't bother with facts or data or anything like possible ramifications, just do that thing where you argue the GRA is just like The Race Relations Act of 1965 or The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 (or indeed the change in abortion law and contraceptives in 1967). Except it isn't is it? Race and sex are biological facts and no, equal rights for non-white people or women had no impact on white people or men. But the GRA clearly does impact on women. Women keep saying so, why would they lie? Likening other campaigns to this is nonsensical, and more importantly just evades the very real concerns of women. You feminist women are wanting to hold back equality! In fact, Cook dares to actually spout this nonsense:
"There’s a clue in the word, equality: equal. You cannot demand equality for yourself but not for others — for that is not equality, that is privilege."
Right I want equality for every belief I hold to. It's gibberish.
The piece in Pink News focuses on the confusion over Labour's position and how "Labour MP Stella Creasy was barraged with abuse earlier this month when she spoke out in favour of transgender equality."
"“No one said change was easy and change is imperative for each and all of us to live in a world where everyone is free to be who they are.
“However hard the road ahead know we can do it…even in overly high heels,” said Creasy.
Trans-exclusionary radical feminists then took aim at Creasy, attacking her for her support for trans rights."
Come on, what was this abuse?
"The vile abuse misgendered Lees and claimed that Creasy’s support for trans people went against the fight for women’s rights."
Oh my god. Vile facts.
"One person wrote: “So, Ms Creasy … you think a male pretending to be a female is appropriate for associating with the history of the Suffragettes?”
“Absolutely shameful abandonment and insulting of women by @stellacreasy. Labour really doesn’t give a sh*t,” another added."
You can see what they've done there, the same as many trans campaigners, they mix up vile abuse with opinions that differ from them.
What does it feel like to be a woman, I repeat? I'm a male, I have no idea what that feels like. I have cojones, but apart from the physicalness of being biologically male (producing millions of gametes unconsciously as we speak) it just is, how does one quantify one's sex? I can understand not identifying with one's given gender. I'd love to be free to wear dresses, oh the colours, the styles, I can empathize with Avery Jackson, I'm pretty sure if I'd been free to dress like a girl and play 'girl games' I would have but that wouldn't mean I was transgender because aged 9 I would still have been going through the early stages of puberty, I wouldn't have been a man so how could I know I was a woman? I suspect it doesn't feel like anything. As trans people seem to be almost exclusively male to female, is this actually about an unhappiness at being a man and the social restrictions that that entails? Here's a radical idea, why don't we change the way maleness is viewed and how men behave rather than doing away with the concept of woman? I know, I know, too out there, yeah let's just do away with the concept of woman instead.
Well our old friends Sky News reported on the Labour All Woman Shortlist with an in depth deep depthly discussion quoting two opposing views from Twitter. One voicing said concerns about women and another:
"Bronwyn Amelia Driver wrote: "So, apparently 300 feminists intend to resign for Labour tomorrow as a protest over all women shortlists being open to trans women without gender recognition certificates.
"As a counter protest against said feminists me and my partner intend to join."
Bronwyn is (of course) a trans woman who helpfully gives me answers to many of my questions, like when do you know you're a different sex or gender, what does it feel like, is it more than just dresses and hair? She gets to the heart of the issue and explains it all:
"The filing clerk from Manchester had spent 33 years feeling trapped in the wrong body.
But after his mum, Mary, lost her battle to lung cancer in January 2012, Brian revealed everything to his family and started living full-time as Bronwyn.
“I suddenly realised life’s too short to be unhappy,” she says. “I had to be honest with myself and everyone else. I wanted to be a woman.”
Growing up as a boy, Bronwyn was bullied at school for not liking football.
She’d feel envious when her sisters, Sharon, Karen and Gail, wore pretty dresses, although at the time, she didn’t understand why.
“One day, I sneaked into Karen’s room and stole one,” the 35-year-old confesses. “Slipping it on once everyone was asleep, I admired how I looked, finally feeling beautiful.”"
Hang on. She's 35 and has spent 33 years as the wrong gender. Two year old Brian knew he was the wrong gender? What? Was he even conscious? That makes no sense.
And as to the football, what kind of man doesn't like football? Oh yeah, I remember the point of the piece now. But this is sounding suspiciously like it's about dresses.
"Confused and desperately wanting to fit in, Bronwyn tried to bury her deep longing."
What is this deep longing? Is it just wearing dresses?
"But it didn’t go away and when she was 19 she came across a programme about a man who dressed as a woman.
“I’d never seen anything like it, but suddenly everything made sense. I had gender dysphoria. I was meant to be a woman.”"
Hang on, so are you saying Bronwyn, that's it is just about the dresses?
"Scared that no-one would accept her, Bronwyn continued to hide her true feelings.
“While other people my age were out on the town, I stayed in alone,” she says. “I felt safe in my bubble. But years passed and I grew miserable and lonely."
Yes, yes, Bronwyn but what is this feeling, this gender dysphoria? Is it more than just the dresses?
"“I would eye up women’s outfits, wishing I could wear them. Occasionally it got the better of me and I’d buy a silky blouse, flustering to the shop assistant that it was for my sister.”"
There we are, the answers. For Bronwyn, at least, transgender is about pretty dresses. To be honest, I have asked my girlfriend "What makes you a woman?" And she immediately, unhesitatingly replied: "The dresses, definitely the dresses."
Questions continued...
Pointing out the very real possibilities of sexual violence if men were free to self identify as women and access female only safe spaces means being branded as believing that all trans women are sexual predators rather than that such a change in the law makes those real possibilities more likely. Not all men are necessarily sexual predators but being a man there is the very real possibility that you have the potential to be a sexual predator. Self identifying as a woman does not defer that threat.
Anyway, why is the LGB community supportive? Why LGBTQ? Sexuality and gender are separate issues surely?
Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, has argued it's about sticking up for the marginalized minority: "I always stand with the oppressed. Trans women and men are certainly some of the most vulnerable and oppressed people. They deserve our support..." he argues irrationally in The Guardian.
But Tatchell's argument makes no sense (are you seeing a pattern?). He criticizes an open letter to The Observer signed by various Councillors and academics claiming that women are not getting a fair voice in the GRA debate. He argues that the letter is "“one-sided” and “totally devoid of compassion for the suffering of trans women and men...It does not acknowledge and condemn the abuse, threats and intimidation by some feminists against trans people and their supporters, including really vile abuse directed against me personally because of my support for trans human rights.”"
Well, no, because it's about the abuse suffered by women campaigning against the GRA, that's the point of the letter. I note in his arguments that he doesn't mention the really vile abuse that campaigners against the GRA receive. You see, you can do this for any argument and effectively shut it down. His point is now completely invalid as he's clearly showing no compassion for those women. I'm sure if anyone read my blog I'd get some vile abuse too. Lucky I'm so unpopular, huh? Why doesn't Tatchell offer me compassion for my suffering?
Now, if the open letter had ended "and trans people get lots of abuse too, which is also bad" would he then have agreed with its remit? It's a bizarre argument. If one acknowledges that it must be dreadful to not feel like you are your given sex but then maintain that that still does not mean we should change the law to accommodate said people are you still devoid of compassion? It's a completely irrational argument (from someone who is usually relied on for rational arguments) to suggest that because trans women (it is women) are vulnerable and oppressed we must assume their right to be not only women but legal females, in the face of science and the myriad counter arguments that could lead to further oppression and vulnerability on the part of biological women. Hang on, aren't women oppressed and vulnerable? Shouldn't he be supporting the women's rights groups opposing this law? That's how nonsensical such an argument is. That his belief is equally valid for both sides of the debate.
The shutting down of debate by calling anyone who disagrees as transphobic is fascistic (in the real sense of the term).
The fact that some pro GRAers use emotive arguments likening trans issues to the civil rights movement or gay movement or suggesting a 'third space' for trans people "smacks of segregation"as Helen Belcher, a high profile trans campaigner argues in the Newsnight piece above is depressing. Of course it's segregation, that's the point of female only spaces. In an ideal world these would not exist at all.
I know I'm being longwinded (I keep finding more and more bizarrely irrational arguments in favour of this act) on this but a piece today (30/10/18) in The Guardian "UK universities struggle to deal with ‘toxic’ trans rights row" perfectly encapsulates both the absurdity and terrifying implications and reality of the debate.
"Last Tuesday morning, an angry student shouted at Prof Rosa Freedman outside the students’ union at Reading University. She was a “transphobic Nazi who should get raped”, he yelled."
There are so many mixed messages in that cry from the heart.
"...Freedman, professor of law, conflict and global development at the university, is one of a number of feminist academics expressing concerns about proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that would make it easier for trans people to have their preferred gender legally recognised. Freedman says she has been treated like a “pariah” by some academics, students and trans activists as a result."
"A fortnight ago, Freedman and 53 other academics wrote a letter to the Guardian questioning the proposed introduction of self-identification for gender reassignment. They said that critical academic analysis of transgenderism is being suppressed."
The letter in The Guardian was signed by a group of academics who argued there is a closing down of any debate and the frankly mad idea that trans activists are stopping "the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism, and its multiple causes and effects."
No, no, no, trans activists want to be understood. Don't they?
"Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work."
Ah yes, "training." Isn't that transphobic, questioning the definitions of transphobia? Ah yes, well you might throw academic analysis behind your argument but we have feelings.
"...We maintain that it is not transphobic to investigate and analyse this area from a range of critical academic perspectives. We think this research is sorely needed, and urge the government to take the lead in protecting any such research from ideologically driven attack."
Ah, Prof, you used the 'c' word and that's why you're a hateful Nazi transphobe TERF person. You can't critically analyze, you can analyze transgenderism, but only if your aim is to prove that it's magically natural and right in some obscure subjective way (see the academic's letter below).
"Our subject areas include: sociology, philosophy, law, criminology, evidence-informed policy, medicine, psychology, education, history, English, social work, computer science, cognitive science, anthropology, political science, economics, and history of art."
That's all very well being respected academics in the social sciences but they know nothing about what it feels like to believe you're the wrong gender.
"We are also concerned about the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism, and its multiple causes and effects."
Yes, why? Why now? Why are there now huge amounts of young people self identifying (ahem, the internet, social media)? Were there the same number when I was a youth in the 1970s but they were all zealously hiding their different gendered orientation? Why aren't they all coming out now they are free of this gendered yoke? Sadly, figures for transgender in any form are hard to come by. In a freedom of information request back in 2015 asking:
"Approximately how many transgender people are thought to live in the United Kingdom at present?
How many gender reassignment surgery procedures were carried out in the UK in each of the last five years?
How many people identifying as transgender committed suicide in the UK in each of the last five years?"
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) answered "ONS do not produce estimates of the number of transgender people living in the UK."
So any figures bandied around, including those I've alluded to or quoted are completely unreliable. There may only be one transgender person out there posting all these angry tweets. One very vocal trans person. Who knows?
There was a follow up editorial the next day (after the open letter) in The Guardian highlighting the main concerns around the GRA:
"Important questions of personal identity are at stake, but also legal rights and protections. (The rights of trans men are far less controversial because they do not, while transitioning, gain access to spaces designed to protect a disadvantaged group.) While campaigners for trans rights are entitled to push for laws that they believe advance equality, feminists are entitled to question whether such changes could adversely affect other women. Neither group is a homogeneous bloc and there are more than two points of view.[my italics]"
It highlights spaces such as prisons being a key ideological ground. Interestingly, though Ireland have passed a similar law, and this is often used by trans activists to point out that there has not been the problems that anti GRAers have argued may come to pass, Ireland still segregates prisoners by natal sex (i.e. even if you're trans and have changed your birth certificate that doesn't entitle you to a place in a woman's prison).
"Trans organisations say such fears are exaggerated and born of prejudice and hatred. Transphobia must be opposed. But misogyny too must be challenged. Gender identity does not cancel out sex. Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake. The struggle for women’s empowerment is ongoing. Reproductive freedoms are under threat and the #MeToo campaign faces a backlash. Women’s concerns about sharing dormitories or changing rooms with “male-bodied” people must be taken seriously. These are not just questions of safety but of dignity and fairness. [my itaics]"
"The consultation has stirred up questions that go beyond the proposed change in the law. The UK may be moving towards a situation where the default is single-gender spaces rather than single-sex spaces, with organisations such as the Girl Guides amending their practices. The implications of this shift should not be underestimated. The public needs to be better informed, and safeguarding considered....This is a complex issue that society needs to consider thoughtfully. Further research into the rise in referrals of children to gender identity services would be helpful, for example."
Transphobic Nazis. They're going to be in for some abuse for arguing with the use of science...
Of course, there were outraged letters in The Guardian refuting the concerns of both pieces.
One person suggests "Where is the evidence that trans women transition so we can have access to rape centres or prisons in order to commit crimes against women? Where is the evidence that trans women transition to abuse girl guides? All sectors of society contain a criminal element, and I don’t imagine transgender people are different in that respect."
Clearly not understanding the concepts of future threat or risk. Yep, all sectors of society contain a cr...woah, hang on. What different sectors of society are you talking about? What other sectors are there other than transgender? Male and female, right? And males are the only risk in this particular "criminal element" as women already have access to "rape centres" (there are rape centres?) and women only prisons. That's the point. If men self reporting as women are allowed access to said women only spaces then...God, isn't this so obvious a 5 year old could grasp it?
"You made no reference to the vulnerability of the trans community. No reference that among us there is a frighteningly high level of bad mental health, with a dreadfully high incidence of attempted suicide, or that we are subjected to hate crimes in the streets and that many have to deal with ostracisation from our families and friends."
Yes, that's why it's considered a psychiatric condition. Psychiatric conditions are not considered normal or rational that's why they're a psychiatric condition and not just a lifestyle choice. We don't change laws to accommodate the mad do we? Should we outlaw white vans so schizophrenic people won't feel like they're being followed anywhere?
An academic starts his argument (oh he signs it, so he's Dr Luke McGuire of Goldsmiths) with little more than an ad hominem attack:
"The authors claim to be concerned with how reform to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) will impact research programmes related to transgender people. The letter raises issues that I believe the authors ought to consider beyond their desire to publish or receive grants.[my italics]"
Ouch. That's not a good start. But there's more...
"Proposed changes to the GRA will make it more straightforward for trans people to self-identify without having to go through the invasive process of “proving” their gender identity to authorities. Extensive literature has established the consequences of threats to self-identity. Recent groundbreaking work has shown that transgender children respond to gender identity measures in line with their identified gender, not their natal sex. The idea that these people should then face a burden of proof is deeply upsetting."
Sadly he does not link to this groundbreaking work. But there are a number of such "studies" out there such as the 2017 Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations by Bauer et al, which might even be the groundbreaking research itself. "Transgender children respond to gender identity measures in line with their identified gender, not their natal sex" is merely a pseudo science speak for asking children how they identify to gendered questions. The questionnaire was online, open to over 14s and advertised through Facebook. Questions are supplied in the link. "What gender do you think you are?" etc. Somehow I don't think this kind of drivel is what the academics were talking about when they were discussing transgender research. This research piece is obviously heavily loaded to prove its point. What does it tell us beyond transgender people identify as transgender and not trans people identify their gender as reflecting their natal sex? Wow!
I twitter stalked McGuire to see if he links the groundbreaking research on his feed but sadly he just spouts nonsense like "Claiming to be concerned or interested in working with the Trans community and then disregarding said community's basic right to self-identity is a pretty bad look for a lot of well-educated people."
Basic right? When did it become a basic right to self identify as anything? Is it a basic right for me to self identify as Native American? That's how nonsensical such an argument is.
And intriguingly (and illegally?) McGuire signs his letter to the Guardian as Dr Luke McGuire but he's actually a postdoctoral research fellow, i.e studying for a doctorate. Isn't that naughty, young Luke?
McGuire continues the personal attacks, what is it with the pro trans lobby that means they have to do this?
"I do not think the letter’s authors are unaware of this research, but I believe they have set it aside in favour of self-interest. [my italics]"
It smacks of the same logic of climate change deniers who believe climate scientists argue their case to get grants. Woo woo.
But disentangle McGuire's argument here:
"Academics have a basic duty to design research with empathy for those in our society who are victims of discrimination [do they?]. We must face the possibility of protest from marginalised groups who disagree with research proposals. It is a fallacy to claim that “disagreement is reasonable” while simultaneously arguing that protest movements are unfair. I agree with the authors that furthering research programmes related to transgender people is important, especially in building an equitable society for people of all gender identities. But I believe this goes hand in hand with challenging antiquated systems for gender recognition in the UK. Researchers ought to work with those who are discriminated against, show empathy, and put others before themselves."
His argument goes: If you're going to research this subject, don't try to prove that trans people are wrong or deluded. Accept that others will disagree with you. But you can't say that that's ok whilst disagreeing with them. Research is good, as long is it's done to prove trans people are correct. Gender's old news, get on board people. If you're going to research this area then make sure you're researching it for the good of trans people.
What absolute nonsense. That makes absolutely no sense.
And the final letter is the usual, we want frank and open discussion as long as it's not about us and isn't critical or analytical in any way: "We appreciate the need for open discussion and do not want to stifle a frank exchange of views. However, we know of no other topic in which it is considered acceptable for a minority group, known to be at heightened risk of self-harm and suicide, to be discussed in such insulting terms, including crude references to particular body parts, to be linked to violent sex offences and paedophilia and a risk to women’s safety simply by virtue of being who they are, rather than how they behave.
...We also want to make very clear that neither we nor our children chose the transgender identity. It is a fact, not a choice, albeit one of which we are all very proud."
It's a fact that they believe they are a different sex/gender but that doesn't make their belief a fact. Wow, this is pretty basic stuff, n'est pas?
No one is saying that trans people are sexual offenders/paedophiles. They are saying that this law would give the potential for sex offenders/paedophiles lawful access to safe spaces. This isn't tough to understand is it? Apparently, it seems it is. But then, that's the level of the debate. You can't mention this potential in the law without an emotive outrage on the part of trans people, and when I say people, I mean women. Trans women, that is.
The whole debate (it is a debate because it's precisely (possibly) going to debate in the Commons and then as a bill and into law) is flawed by the assumption that gender and sex ARE somehow interchangeable and just a matter of personal opinion. It's enlightened to accept difference and to offer spaces for difference in a liberal democracy but denying science and sociology flouts enlightenment thinking.
The whole argument around transgender law is reminiscent of that between a recalcitrant teenager and a supervisory adult.
"Why can't I go to the party and self identify as a woman?"
"Because you aren't so you can't."
"Everyone else is allowed, mum, you're such a transphobe. Nazi."
Why is there so many young people NOW self identifying as a different gender (it genuinely seems to be on the rise, not just a new kind of reporting)?
Why is it almost exclusively men identifying as women (the reverse is relatively rare)?
Why is it that nearly every trans woman I see in the media in the UK is white, is transgender specific to white (middle class) men/women?
On a sensationalist note. Again, what is there in place to stop sexual offenders accessing female only spaces by identifying as a woman? Say, let's call our hypothetical sexual offender Humbert Humbert.
So HH has a sexual predilection for pre-pubescent girls. It's hard for him to be alone with them because, naturally, their mothers would never leave them with predatory Humbert. But surely, if Humbert identifies as a woman, is a woman in law, then girls can safely, and most importantly, legally, be left in the care of Humbertina. At Rainbows, say, in single sex infant schools. Is Humbert still a risk because he has a penis and the DNA of a man? Or is it his or her legal right to be accepted into these spaces? Could Humbertina sue these authorities for not letting him/her the freedom to ogle young girls hula hooping whilst sitting in his bathrobe?
I'm interested in how this could play out with religious groups. Say, a single sex religious school which only employs female staff for their female schools legally at the moment. What if they refused a trans woman employment based on her previously identifying as a man because they were one? Whose human rights win out in that one?
What about sport? Women's football, rugby, cricket, allowing trans women? How is this going to work?
Ultimately, of course, for those who who support the GRA this is about equality for transgender people. For those opposed to it it means that the concept of woman and biological female will be irrelevant and with that goes the whole history of feminism. For some the whole purpose is misogynistic. If there were one argument from the trans community beyond "it's how I feel" then there might be a reasonable debate but how can you reason with someone's gut instincts?
The litmus test is that if we who disagree on feminist grounds are TERFs or transphobic then we would be equally vocal about female to male transition. I can't speak for others, but personally I have no concerns about a woman who wishes to be recognized as a man. I'm sure there are concerns and questions. But if I'm a TERF, a transphobe, then surely I would be equally disquieted by women transitioning to men? Of course, you could not have a law just for women transitioning to men, or could you? It has far less impact than the other way around, and that is the unpalatable truth for trans campaigners, that this isn't about transphobia or some other imaginary discrimination but real concerns that aren't addressed by them and the GRA would be a giant step towards effacing sex differences legally altogether whilst paradoxically reinforcing a patriarchal if not misogynistic social order. Unlike the arguments for its introduction, our objections to the GRA are reasoned, reasonable, rational and (probably) right.
"Behaving like a princess is work. It's not just about looking beautiful or wearing a crown. It's more about how you are inside." Flying nanny Julie Andrews (born Mary Poppins)
If passed in some dystopian identity wasteland future, the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) will allow individuals to self identify their gender without a formal psychiatric process.
What should be a debate about biology, the law, science, sociology, ideology and inconvenient stuff like facts has become an emotive mudslinging argument about identity (whatever that actually is) and morality.
There's also a lot of misinformation and confusion, especially in the mainstream media. And, of course, online, lots and lots of abuse from both sides. The debate makes strange bedfellows. Left wing feminists find they're sharing sheets with Daily Mail writers like Peter Hitchens, or the Canadian stand up comedian, Jordan Peterson, it's a bit depressing. But that's the problem with media (and social media) representations of the argument, there's little nuance. Those on the right disagree with the GRA not because they fear an erosion of female identity, female safe spaces or for some of the reasons I note below but because they believe in traditional gender roles and they fear change. Or, as in the case of all the online abuse that I've seen, they're a bunch of moronic misogynists from the Jordan Peterson youth camp.
Peter Hitchens, thoughtful, meditative and mad as only upper class right wingers living in that social bubble can be.
*The evil horse was called Anmer, the dreadful SERF (Suffragette Exclusionary Radical Filly**)
** Anmer was actually a colt (unless he self identified as a filly)
I aim to spread the jam of knowledge on your mind bread.
Emily Davison, the suffragette who fought a horse bare knuckle for the rights of women (biological ones)
Anmer, suffragette wrestler and horse
IN BETWEEN DAYS
The debate (about the GRA) is playing out on mainstream media in mainstream time. Here's a Newsnight piece from 18/10/18 which wades in with the opener: "It's one of the questions of our time. What is identity and who can define it clearly?"
Newsnight have covered transgender before:
On those bastions of investigative journalism, ITV's This Good Morning and Sky Good News we get:
A deep and penetrating debate between two self identifying women (one is an actual woman), one of whom discusses science, the other one talks about hair and clothes...honestly, is this what it's really all about? (I'm not making this up, do watch).
Sky news has Marilyn Monroe arguing with a very angry man in comedy glasses. It doesn't end well, boop boopy doo.
The ITV piece follows the taking down of a billboard financed by Keen-Minshull's campaign group placed somewhere in the wastes of the north of England (I mean, who's going to see it there anyway?)...
I remember Holmes' similar interrogation of Albert Einstein: "it sounds like you're trying to suggest that time is a construct, an illusion based on our observation of natural cycles but look I've got a watch, it tells the time."
But then Eamonn spoils it all by introducing trans woman, India Willoughby, and turning to Keen-Minshull with: "why does she threaten you?" Oh dear, let's not debate let's pretend this is Jeremy Kyle. If they really wanted it to be Kyle why don't they do a live DNA test to prove India is a woman? Oh yeah...
And Willoughby wades in with unimpeachable logic: "what would make you happy Kelly, do you want me to shave my head, would you want to make me wear boys' clothes..."
That's about the level of the 'debate.' Like Keen-Minshull I frankly couldn't give a damn if India Willoughby calls herself a woman and wears a fetching dress (or not) and we can call her her but recognizing her as a woman in law is both dangerous and illogical. I shall pose questions below to prove my point.
Keen-Minshull stays supremely calm because I'd be tearing my hair out (but not to appease anyone, of course, though I do wear boys clothes, much to my chagrin). She argues "you can do anything you want but just not be recognized as a woman in law."
There, that's the nub of the argument. But this doesn't stop the intrepid Eamonn Holmes...
Eamonn Holmes: "Do you have any sympathy that you're looking at a woman who was trapped in a man's body?"
Keen-Minshull: "No, no. I don't think you can change sex in a meaningful way. Every cell in the human body has the DNA code of what sex you are. India obviously looks like a woman but I don't see India as a woman."
Willoughby: "I'm not interested in stupid science things.* What is it about trans people that makes you so angry?"
* I made that bit up but she might as well have said it.
Eamonn holmes (he's one of these)
The discussion goes on with stuff like Holmes saying to Keen-Minshull "are you proud to be transphobic?"
It's utterly peculiar that someone with science on their side should be described as phobic of something illogical, as being the one who must defend her position. How did this come about? It's like an atheist, to be taken seriously, having to prove there is no god and the religious person who believes in an afterlife, that god made the Earth in seven days and that god performs miracles be assumed to be in the right...oh wait, that is the case isn't it? Those crazy radical militant atheists.
"What does living as a woman mean?" asks Keen-Minshull.
"I'm living as me," answers Willoughby. Huh? What the hell does that mean?
WHY CAN'T I BE YOU?
Poor old liberal feminist comedy writer, Graham Linehan is a transphobe too apparently. Transphobia in Merriam Webster is defined as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender or transsexual people." What does that mean? Who knows (if gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, that by default makes it irrational (see below (norms)) so how can you have an irrational fear of something irrational?). Everything and anything that one chooses to define as such, it seems. Is it irrational to reassert that trans women are not biological females? Apparently it is. MW cites an article by Terry O'Neill in the Huffington Post as its example of how to use the word. The article makes absolutely no sense: "This is a feminist issue on two levels. First, like racism and homophobia, transphobia grows out of and helps perpetuate the same patriarchal ideology that dictates women’s subordination as second-class citizens. Second, transphobia disproportionately harms women. [my italics]" Huh? Not if you don't 'believe' trans women are women, you know, because they aren't (see irrational belief above). If you 'believe' they are male (biologically) then transgender women make feminism irrelevant, the whole history of women's rights then is irrelevant, in fact the trans movement does exactly the opposite, transgender makes women second class citizens (or is that third after trans women?). The argument that transphobia harms women is nonsensical, it's recognition of transgender that harms women. The piece is mostly about how Black American transgender women are much more likely to be murdered than actual white women, which, of course has nothing to do with being African Americans who make up around 50% of homicides in the US. It's a typical conflation of race, ethnicity (sexuality as well) and transgender. Weird that this kind of nonsense is taken seriously and not critically analyzed.
Famous Scotsman and vocal supporter of Trans rights Sean Connery: "Those bloody feminists deserve a good slapping. If you've tried everything else and they can't leave it alone, they want the last word and you give them the last word and they're not happy with the last word. Slap 'em, slap'em good." Imagine if Sean had had Facebook back in the 70s.
So, like other, better, wiser, and most importantly, female, activists have argued, anyone is free to self identify as a woman but a law giving people who self identify as a woman the same rights as a woman makes no rational sense.Some questions then (though I've never felt the need to ask these of biological females I have been acquainted with):
How will safe spaces for females be protected?
Having read/viewed numerous ( I mean, loads and loads of) pieces by trans women the general argument appears to be, the same way they are now. Except, if anyone can self identify as a woman and women, say, have a legal right to access certain services open only to women...how does that work? Obvious examples are prisons, refuges, well women centres, changing rooms, etc. If I can legally self identify as a woman (without a lengthy psychological assessment) do I have access to these areas? If I don't then I'm not a woman, am I? I mean, you can't have an act where I can change my birth certificate to "Female" yet I can't access all the same spaces that females can. That makes no sense. But then, allowing me, self identified woman (remembering that the vast majority of trans women are not transitioned) into these spaces is insanity and makes a mockery of the concept of safety. I'll keep coming back to this because it has so many angles and ramifications.
If self identifying via signing a form, and if wishing to, changing one's documentation to female, is enacted then there is no need for psychiatric verification of gender dysphoria. In fact this is the rationale for the act, as at present trans women (and men, though that's relatively rare) have to go through two years of psychiatric intervention, have two doctors sign as evidence of their dysphoria. But without this psychological assessment gender dysphoria is a meaningless term. Gender dysphoria will no longer exist as a discrete psychological concept. So what is this "feeling like I was always a woman" then, if not a psychological condition? A biological one? What are the biological markers for it? How? What? I'm bemused. If it's not a psychological feeling you were born the wrong sex (even though we're really talking gender) then what is it? I'll come back to this too.
Caitlyn Jenner is a famous transgender woman who was once a man but is now a woman, is this her?
For me, the most important concept in the whole argument is: What does it feel like to be a woman?Is it more than make up and dresses? What then?
Why does it appear that so many trans women then focus on appearance?
At least, the high profile trans women seem to head straight for the salon to get their hair sorted and down to the women's section of Primark. But this is odd as the argument from Trans rights groups and individuals is that transgender goes far beyond cosmetic socialized gender roles but is a deeper feeling of being not only the wrong socialized gender but the wrong sex. But how is this belief conceptualized beyond dresses and hair? What is it that trans women are experiencing as women that I'm not (being a non-trans man)? All I see is hair, dresses and make up and no one can ever explain what trans 'feelings' are beyond these cosmetic changes.
This isn't the first viral psychological condition affecting young people (it appears from the outside that it disproportionately affects those under 30, with a specific stress on Millenials and is fed by social media). ADHD became a de rigueur psychological condition in the late 90s and then the 'Autism epidemic' that has great similarities with the prevalence of Trans people now. Autism originally had biological (neurological) markers such as differences in eye contact, in ways of thinking (Theory of Mind), neurological manifestations (prosopagnosia, alexithymia, dyspraxia) but these were all jettisoned as masses of people self diagnosed using online tests. I have myriad examples of people saying that once they heard of Autism and were diagnosed "everything made sense, I could finally be me." Sound familiar? And, of course, transgender crosses over with this new Autism that has no recognizable features beyond anxiety.
Can it be a fact that trans women are women but also that the definition of woman is adult female? That's surely a paradox? Do we then have to redefine what a woman is? What meaning does it then have if I (a big hulking red blooded macho masculine full bodied yet mellow with a hint of raspberries...um, lost it there...man) can be a woman?
CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES
Is it ethical to use facts like women are adult biological females to make a political point? See Keen-Minshull and Adrian Harrop 'debate' over the poster on Sky News; it's worth watching as Harrop's argument is not irrational, the way he argues it certainly is though:
On one side, Harrop's, one can see that the purpose could be seen to be divisive. Yes, the statement in the poster might be a fact but it's purpose is clearly ideological. The Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins bus campaign is another example of this:
Sherine (right...no left) and Dawkins (coaty glove man, he's old, he feels the cold)
It's worth watching the Sky piece because it's pretty heated. Harrop is a very angry young man right from the start, he's like The Hulk if he never ever transformed back to Bruce Banner,; "don't make me pleasantly mild, I don't know what it's like to be pleasantly mild." Whilst his argument that the words on the poster might be true but that the intention is ideological is perhaps fair (though of course a poster showing, say, transgender diversity would also be ideological, everything is), it is rather undermined almost immediately by his delivery. He's apoplectic with rage from the get go:
"It was put up by a campaign group lead by Miss Keen Minshull [he stresses the 'miss' but then he stresses a lot, he really needs to de-stress] who has spearheaded a campaign against trans people, particularly against trans women...where she's sought to demonize trans women and to highlight them as dangerous sexual predators, this poster is a symbol of that campaign...and for transgender people...it is a reminder for them that they are under such immense public scrutiny for every single aspect of their identity, their behaviour, their body shape, their appearance and that campaign is lead by this woman, Miss Keen-Minshull [stressed again] AKA Posie Parker..."
"I'm Mrs,"she points out
"I'm Doctor," he retorts.
Harrop is arguing, effectively, that even facts are loaded with ideology, in this case, the fact that women are adult females is pointedly aimed at the trans community.
However, his angry argument is barbed with numerous ideological accusations and inferences that he seems blithely ignorant of. Keen-Minshull points out she's Mrs. Harrop's stress on "Miss" (twice) could easily be construed as an ideological attack (what does it conjure in your mind? why use Miss explicitly, especially as he seems so well informed of her campaign?). His reiteration that he is a doctor (a male one at that) has huge ideological implications, particularly around power relations.
His argument that she spearheads a campaign against trans women is also loaded ideological language, as she clearly argues that her belief is that trans women are not women, as discussed above (is that spearheading a campaign against trans people or stating an argument, let alone a fact?). I'm not aware of her attacking trans women, unless denying a trans woman being women is "an attack", judging by the articles and reports I've read on the subject that's exactly how it's viewed. If that's not ideological language I don't know what is. She "demonizes" women? I'd like examples of this demonization. It does appear to be the case that denying trans women are women in individual cases equals demonizing, suggesting the GRA could lead to sexual predators having access to female only spaces is demonizing trans women, suggesting that a trans woman could indeed violate biological women in said safe spaces is demonizing. Apparently.
He's right in arguing that the poster is the "campaign made flesh" and I can see the reason for the call to take it down.
His point that it reminds trans women that "they are under such immense public scrutiny for every single aspect of their identity, their behaviour, their body shape, their appearance" is a peculiar one. Isn't that what trans women want? To be women. To be objectified, to be judged on their appearance, body, dress? To be continually harassed. Scrutinized, observed and molested and abused? That's what it's like for females all the time. Judging by every trans woman I've seen in the media, vlogs, posts etc. that's exactly what the whole point of the trans movement is, to identify as a woman so that you are (visibly, visually) judged as a woman, to be seen as a woman, it seems to be about that as what is there beyond the physical? I'm damned if I know what else it's about. I'm being slightly flippant but it is odd that he's arguing that the campaign would lead to scrutiny of the very thing he's campaigning on.
I am, of course, aware he's arguing that the poster stirs up hatred of trans women and they'll be publicly vilified and attacked because of it but how is his continual shutting down of debate as hate speech or transphobia any different? Surely if you publicly call someone a transphobe or that they use hate speech you're then subjecting that person to "immense public scrutiny?" It makes no sense to put forward an argument whose ramifications for your opposition are exactly the same as the argument.
His "AKA Posie Parker" is deeply ideological, clearly a suggestion that she's underhand in someway by going under an alias, but who wouldn't with the attacks that people receive on both sides of the divide?
He highlights her twitter feed but Harrop's seems rather unpleasant too, it seems to go with the heated territory (why can't we all just get along?...oh yeah...). Here advising Caroline Lucas of the Green Party not to enter dialogue with those he doesn't agree with:
Enough of Mr Harrop.
BOYS DON'T CRY
Back to the questions...
If not giving trans people equal rights is a human rights violation but not recognizing that biological females are a separate sex and gender is also a human rights violation then how do you square the two?
51% of the UK are biologically female. Less than 1% are trans. Is it fair to impact on biological females for such a small minority?
How do you stop men who wish to use the law to access female only spaces? I think I might have mentioned this. And I probably will again.
A common argument is that biological sex in the animal world isn't always clear cut. Frogs don't have penises (like human biological women and about 2-5% of trans women) but still, the male produces many gametes (sperm) which he shares with the female frog (who produces one, an egg) in a loving and intimate manner
In many loving and intimate manners
What is the difference between me, Arkady, a male, entering a female space, say a women's refuge, and me, Arkady, self identified woman entering the same space? It's merely then linguistics and faith.
It also appears the same problem occurs with the transgender debate. Stating facts like trans women are not women or that they are not biological females or seeing that the GRA means effacing the concept of woman is considered transphobic.
The blog writer argues: "This second cover featured an obvious mistake. They had identified both Transgender females as “Transgender Female” but had referred to the Cis male only as “Male”.
This omission reinforces the idea that being cis is the default, while trans individuals require a qualifying prefix. It should be said however, that this mistake was made without wilful malice by a publication attempting to spread awareness and tolerance."
No, it made the mistake of identifying a transgender woman as a female. That's just biologically impossible. You cannot change your chromosomes or number of gametes. Male and Female is the default. It's illogical to argue otherwise, as if they weren't we wouldn't be having this debate. And anyway, why should I be labelled Cis male. I'm me. Oh no, wait, you can only use that illogical argument if you're trans. I also refuse to acknowledge this Cis nonsense. When did I become a Cis male? Who decided this? Did I miss the vote on changing the term for a male?
The blogger argues: "The same cannot be said for some of the people who reacted to the cover.
Glad to see we are finally getting rid of women in this glorious Gender Revolution. Don't worry though, male people will still exist!
— @boodleoops
@Boodleoops is Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, a notorious TERF (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist) who has written extensively about her fear of trans women being allowed into cis women’s spaces. Her conclusion that “we are finally getting rid of women” is based on her belief that the two women on the cover aren’t really women. There’s nothing particularly interesting about that (TERFs gonna TERF). What’s interesting is who decided to signal-boost her bigotry.
Fucking perfect example of how misogyny is internalised and now commercialised - Erasure of women now "a transphobic position" evidently - Graham Linehan @Glinner"
You vile abusive cad, Linehan.
"The issue had two covers. One featuring Avery Jackson, a 9 year-old transgender girl from Kansas City and another featuring a diverse group of young people, each with a label displaying their gender identity."
Doesn't anyone find this disturbing on more levels than the transgender debate?
Was that on purpose?
If you want to know how bonkers and how completely lacking in anything even vaguely smelling like science this transgender argument is then check out the National Geographic magazine's piece on the subject:
"In a story from our issue, Robin Marantz Henig writes that we are surrounded by “evolving notions about what it means to be a woman or a man and the meanings of transgender, cisgender, gender nonconforming, genderqueer, agender, or any of the more than 50 terms Facebook offers users for their profiles. At the same time, scientists are uncovering new complexities in the biological understanding of sex. Many of us learned in high school biology that sex chromosomes determine a baby’s sex, full stop: XX means it’s a girl; XY means it’s a boy. But on occasion, XX and XY don’t tell the whole story.”"
Where to start. Yes XX means female (girl is socialized gender) and XY is male. There are extraordinarily rare examples of the chromosomes crossing but I haven't heard anyone actually argue that trans women have 'muddled' chromosomes. Another dubious argument is that some other animals do not have clear sex differences, say frogs who don't have penises (see above). But then we aren't frogs, we're human mammals. And even if one wants to go down that dubious route you still come face to face with the gamete argument, that male animals produce many gametes (sperm) and females produce typically one (egg). What Marantz Henig is doing there is typical of the pro transgender argument, muddle in some pseudo science (XX XY don't tell the whole story, and XX means female, girl is social gender, what a dick (is that transphobic using the word dick?)) with "evolving notions" or beliefs or delusions, depending on your take. All these labels have been defined by the trans or queer community, there's not been any debate about whether I can be labelled straight (I don't mind) or Cis (I do, because of the implications). You coul replace "evolving notions" of trans, Cis etc. with evolving notions of religious sects; Judaism, Christian, Catholic, Islam, Sikh, Church of England, Mormon, etc. It doesn't make them any more rational. We're still all born without a faith and of a given biological sex.
Bit obvious I know invoking Monty Python but hey, they were ahead of the game
And little 9 year old Avery clarifies his/her gender dysphoria issues (to be fair it's just as good as any adult trans explanation):
"What’s the best thing about being a girl?
Avery Jackson swipes a rainbow-streaked wisp of hair from her eyes and considers the question. “Everything about being a girl is good!”
What’s the worst thing about being a girl?
“How boys always say, ‘That stuff isn’t girl stuff—it’s boy stuff.’ Like when I first did parkour,” an obstacle-course sport."
Avery spent the first four years of her life as a boy, and was miserable; she still smarts recalling how she lost her preschool friends because “their moms did not like me.”"
There we are. Transgender.
I can't understand why we can't agree on a third space or gender. As far as I'm aware, no one is arguing that Avery Jackson can't identify as a trans woman (despite being 9, or recognizing her gender dysphoria aged 4...4? really, how can anyone take this seriously? 4? What understanding of biology beyond poo and front bottom can a 4 year old have, what understanding of social gender?). If transition were free to everyone would the 80-98% (dependent on source) of trans women not transitioned automatically take that option? Should we allow 9 year olds (or indeed 4 year olds?) to transition? Are we completely mad?
Is this upsurge in young men identifying as women in the same historical time period as the rise of men's movements orchestrated by postmodern comedic acts like Jordan Peterson alongside an age of social media truthiness just a coincidence? Is it the so called crisis of masculinity in which men recognize the underpinning of patriarchial discourse, economic independence and control is under threat (by machines, not women, ironically) and simply either try to reinforce their masculinity by denouncing feminism or retreating from masculine norms by pretending to be women?
If ever the metaphor of The Emperor's New Clothes was applicable then this debate is it. Everyone is either hypnotized by the logical fallacy that if a person says they're something they therefore must be something or simply terrified of denying trans' rights for fear of being branded a TERF or transphobe, lumped in with racists, homophobes, and, ironically, misogynists.
The Emperor's New Clothes. Is this where it all began?
THE LOVECATS
One of the most vocal campaign groups for trans rights is Mermaids UK (supporting those who self identify as a bit of a fish). Their mission statement shows the paradox at the heart of the GRA:
"Mermaids is passionate about supporting children, young people, and their families to achieve a happier life in the face of great adversity. We work to raise awareness about gender nonconformity in children and young people amongst professionals and the general public. We campaign for the recognition of gender dysphoria in young people and lobby for improvements in professional services."
But if the GRA were passed then gender dysphoria would have no meaning and would no longer be diagnosed. Or would it in those under 16, for legal reasons? It's utterly baffling. If transgender were 'normalized' by the GRA then it would be 'normal'....oh no, let it go man, this is impossible to understand, like the immensity of the universe, or the popularity of Will Smith.
Apparently Will smith's son, Jaden, likes to wear dresses, good for him. If he starts identifying as a woman it goes without saying that I shall heap vile abuse (see below) on him.
What's the purpose of gender statistics?
What's the purpose of gender? Or biological sex at all?
THE PERFECT BOY
The Labour Party was under fire from
They report it utterly evenhandedly: "despite pressure from TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) within Labour, the party has clarified its position at a meeting of the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC)." Right on sisters. Brothers. Cisters. I'm utterly bamboozled.
It focuses on transwoman Labour MP Sophie Cook.
Quite literally
Cook with a sad faced Corbyn.
The point of the all woman shortlist was to both bolster the number of female MPs and in turn for British politics to be more informed about issues relating specifically to women. The problem with including trans women in the process is precisely the same problems as recognizing trans women legally as women. Sophie Cook, as an example, has never experienced what it is like to be a woman. The socialized roles, discrimination, sexual and psychological harassment, the restrictions of opportunities of being a woman. Cook never will. She'll only experience any discrimination as a transgender woman. Look at her, a “22-stone bald bloke” as she described herself before becoming a 22 stone woman with hair transplants. What exactly has changed (other than the hair)? This isn't a ridiculing of her appearance but the very real point that because she looks like what she is, a large man in a dress, she won't experience the everyday harassment and discrimination meted out to biological women. She has not experienced what it is like being a woman and never will.
Cook helpfully pens an article on her site covering this very topic: Equality for trans people doesn’t take away anyone else’s rights. So being a high profile trans campaigner I'm seriously hoping that she can explain what transgender is and just how it won't impact on biological women.
It doesn't bode well when she argues: " If being transgender is trendy then I’ve never been trendier. But there’s nothing new about being trans, transgender people have always existed throughout human history — the hijra or two spirit people."
The hijra in the Indian subcontinent are recognized as a third gender/sex rather than as women, so that kind of goes against the whole GRA argument, as most TERFs like me are perfectly accepting of that notion. Two spirit people are not transgender, and that smacks of cultural appropriation. Two Spirit people were rather like shaman or historically were simply gay men who were allowed to opt out of traditional male pursuits like hunting and stay in camp doing women's chores.
Just supplying learning sprinkles for your brain donut.
Cook then redesigns our whole sex history by suggesting "We all exist somewhere on the gender identity and sexuality spectrums, straight-gay, male-female, and growing up we all come to a realisation about who we are, it’s just that if you’re straight and cisgender, you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth, then no-one notices. It only becomes an issue if you’re LGBT+."
Male and female are sex. Is there a sex spectrum? Male, female, intersex. That's not exactly a spectrum is it? Growing up and realizing who you are is a sociological phenomena. Being a female is a biological phenomena. I don't think Cook has any idea what any of this means. I fear I'm not going to get any answers to my questions here either.
No, sadly, Cook just reiterates the same ideas about trans women not being a threat by pointing out the "jarring echoes for those of us old enough to remember the same child safety concerns being used to justify anti-LGBT [except there was no T in that acronym back then] laws like Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned the “promotion of homosexuality” on the grounds that it was a direct threat to our children. The connection between homosexuality and child abuse was as disgusting and incorrect as the current attempts to link transgender people and child abuse or sexual violence."
Unfortunately the two situations are totally different. The right wingers who claimed homosexuals abused children (and they do, let's not forget, precisely because they are men, oh god, do I have to point out not all homosexuals) did not base their arguments on any concrete concerns but just plain old bigotry. We had the same rubbish in 1967 when the Sexual Offences Act was passed and homosexuality was legalized but I don't remember feminists en masse arguing against it. You know why? Because it didn't bloody affect them.
What a stupid argument.
"They claim to want debate around the issues, yet their language continually denies the identities of those they seek to debate with..." Well, reverse that logic Sophie Cook.
"There is no hierarchy of oppression. Human rights are not a nil-sum equation. To grant one group equal rights does not diminish the rights of others. Black rights do not come at the expense of white rights, women’s rights do not come at the expense of men’s rights, and trans rights do not come at the expense of women’s rights."
That's her argument. Don't bother with facts or data or anything like possible ramifications, just do that thing where you argue the GRA is just like The Race Relations Act of 1965 or The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 (or indeed the change in abortion law and contraceptives in 1967). Except it isn't is it? Race and sex are biological facts and no, equal rights for non-white people or women had no impact on white people or men. But the GRA clearly does impact on women. Women keep saying so, why would they lie? Likening other campaigns to this is nonsensical, and more importantly just evades the very real concerns of women. You feminist women are wanting to hold back equality! In fact, Cook dares to actually spout this nonsense:
"There’s a clue in the word, equality: equal. You cannot demand equality for yourself but not for others — for that is not equality, that is privilege."
Right I want equality for every belief I hold to. It's gibberish.
The piece in Pink News focuses on the confusion over Labour's position and how "Labour MP Stella Creasy was barraged with abuse earlier this month when she spoke out in favour of transgender equality."
They helpfully link to their page highlighting the barrage of vile abuse that I feel personally grubbily complicit in repeating here:
“However hard the road ahead know we can do it…even in overly high heels,” said Creasy.
Trans-exclusionary radical feminists then took aim at Creasy, attacking her for her support for trans rights."
Come on, what was this abuse?
"The vile abuse misgendered Lees and claimed that Creasy’s support for trans people went against the fight for women’s rights."
Oh my god. Vile facts.
"One person wrote: “So, Ms Creasy … you think a male pretending to be a female is appropriate for associating with the history of the Suffragettes?”
“Absolutely shameful abandonment and insulting of women by @stellacreasy. Labour really doesn’t give a sh*t,” another added."
You can see what they've done there, the same as many trans campaigners, they mix up vile abuse with opinions that differ from them.
DRESSING UP
Well our old friends Sky News reported on the Labour All Woman Shortlist with an in depth deep depthly discussion quoting two opposing views from Twitter. One voicing said concerns about women and another:
"Bronwyn Amelia Driver wrote: "So, apparently 300 feminists intend to resign for Labour tomorrow as a protest over all women shortlists being open to trans women without gender recognition certificates.
"As a counter protest against said feminists me and my partner intend to join."
Bronwyn is (of course) a trans woman who helpfully gives me answers to many of my questions, like when do you know you're a different sex or gender, what does it feel like, is it more than just dresses and hair? She gets to the heart of the issue and explains it all:
"The filing clerk from Manchester had spent 33 years feeling trapped in the wrong body.
But after his mum, Mary, lost her battle to lung cancer in January 2012, Brian revealed everything to his family and started living full-time as Bronwyn.
“I suddenly realised life’s too short to be unhappy,” she says. “I had to be honest with myself and everyone else. I wanted to be a woman.”
Growing up as a boy, Bronwyn was bullied at school for not liking football.
She’d feel envious when her sisters, Sharon, Karen and Gail, wore pretty dresses, although at the time, she didn’t understand why.
“One day, I sneaked into Karen’s room and stole one,” the 35-year-old confesses. “Slipping it on once everyone was asleep, I admired how I looked, finally feeling beautiful.”"
Hang on. She's 35 and has spent 33 years as the wrong gender. Two year old Brian knew he was the wrong gender? What? Was he even conscious? That makes no sense.
And as to the football, what kind of man doesn't like football? Oh yeah, I remember the point of the piece now. But this is sounding suspiciously like it's about dresses.
A Bronwyn. But perhaps not the Bronwyn, a 35 year old transgender filing clerk
A filing clerk. Though probably not Bronwyn
What is this deep longing? Is it just wearing dresses?
"But it didn’t go away and when she was 19 she came across a programme about a man who dressed as a woman.
“I’d never seen anything like it, but suddenly everything made sense. I had gender dysphoria. I was meant to be a woman.”"
Hang on, so are you saying Bronwyn, that's it is just about the dresses?
"Scared that no-one would accept her, Bronwyn continued to hide her true feelings.
“While other people my age were out on the town, I stayed in alone,” she says. “I felt safe in my bubble. But years passed and I grew miserable and lonely."
Yes, yes, Bronwyn but what is this feeling, this gender dysphoria? Is it more than just the dresses?
"“I would eye up women’s outfits, wishing I could wear them. Occasionally it got the better of me and I’d buy a silky blouse, flustering to the shop assistant that it was for my sister.”"
There we are, the answers. For Bronwyn, at least, transgender is about pretty dresses. To be honest, I have asked my girlfriend "What makes you a woman?" And she immediately, unhesitatingly replied: "The dresses, definitely the dresses."
FOXY LADY
Questions continued...
Pointing out the very real possibilities of sexual violence if men were free to self identify as women and access female only safe spaces means being branded as believing that all trans women are sexual predators rather than that such a change in the law makes those real possibilities more likely. Not all men are necessarily sexual predators but being a man there is the very real possibility that you have the potential to be a sexual predator. Self identifying as a woman does not defer that threat.
You get the same misunderstanding of sexual violence among non-trans men, this is partly why many questioning the act argue that it's a kind of backdoor misogyny
What kind of idiot would put themselves on the internet like this?
BUT why would the 'oppresser' male want to be the 'oppressed' female? Yes, yes, other than dresses. Is this simply a sociological idealizing of what 'woman' means (dresses (ok), hair, watching Loose Women without someone calling you a fucking idiot?)? Why can no one tell me what it feels like to not feel like you are your born sex? Again, what does it feel like to be the 'right' sex? I've no idea. If I can't tell you that and trans people can't say what this feeling is then...dare I say it...it's a delusion.
That isn't to say that trans people don't believe they are the wrongly assigned gender or that the feelings they experience are not very real but that is all that they are, feelings and beliefs, and we don't want to go back to pre-enlightenment times basing our laws on feelings and beliefs do we?
Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop, AKA The Jesus of Siberia. Why can't we just accept he is the reincarnation of an imaginary mangod? I never imagined Jesus looking like Ricky Gervais though somehow.
It might seem flippant but it has a real point. What's the difference between enshrining in law that men can self identify as women, wear their hair long and wear dresses, be addressed as she, change their birth certificates to female and enshrining in law that men can self identify as Jesus, wear their hair long and wear dresses, be addressed as Lord, change their birth certificates to son of god, born of virgin*?
Both are based on an irrational belief that they are something other than what they are rather than anything evidence based or scientific.
* Actually, in the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isiah, the prophet uses the hebrew term "almah" which means young woman. The gospel of Matthew, possibly written in Greek or translated into Greek use the Greek word "parthenos" which specifically means virgin. This is how nonsensical arguments start, with some inspired linguistic word play.
I aim to spoon maple syrup wisdom on your mental pancakes.
JUMPING SOMEONE ELSE'S TRAIN
Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, has argued it's about sticking up for the marginalized minority: "I always stand with the oppressed. Trans women and men are certainly some of the most vulnerable and oppressed people. They deserve our support..." he argues irrationally in The Guardian.
But Tatchell's argument makes no sense (are you seeing a pattern?). He criticizes an open letter to The Observer signed by various Councillors and academics claiming that women are not getting a fair voice in the GRA debate. He argues that the letter is "“one-sided” and “totally devoid of compassion for the suffering of trans women and men...It does not acknowledge and condemn the abuse, threats and intimidation by some feminists against trans people and their supporters, including really vile abuse directed against me personally because of my support for trans human rights.”"
Well, no, because it's about the abuse suffered by women campaigning against the GRA, that's the point of the letter. I note in his arguments that he doesn't mention the really vile abuse that campaigners against the GRA receive. You see, you can do this for any argument and effectively shut it down. His point is now completely invalid as he's clearly showing no compassion for those women. I'm sure if anyone read my blog I'd get some vile abuse too. Lucky I'm so unpopular, huh? Why doesn't Tatchell offer me compassion for my suffering?
Now, if the open letter had ended "and trans people get lots of abuse too, which is also bad" would he then have agreed with its remit? It's a bizarre argument. If one acknowledges that it must be dreadful to not feel like you are your given sex but then maintain that that still does not mean we should change the law to accommodate said people are you still devoid of compassion? It's a completely irrational argument (from someone who is usually relied on for rational arguments) to suggest that because trans women (it is women) are vulnerable and oppressed we must assume their right to be not only women but legal females, in the face of science and the myriad counter arguments that could lead to further oppression and vulnerability on the part of biological women. Hang on, aren't women oppressed and vulnerable? Shouldn't he be supporting the women's rights groups opposing this law? That's how nonsensical such an argument is. That his belief is equally valid for both sides of the debate.
Tatchell has form on cognitive dissonance. Islam and homosexuality? Really? Oddly, the wiki page on the subject is "LGBT in Islam." The 9th Century Q'ran has a position on transgender apparently. It surely does on homosexuality.
The fact that some pro GRAers use emotive arguments likening trans issues to the civil rights movement or gay movement or suggesting a 'third space' for trans people "smacks of segregation"as Helen Belcher, a high profile trans campaigner argues in the Newsnight piece above is depressing. Of course it's segregation, that's the point of female only spaces. In an ideal world these would not exist at all.
ALT. END
"Last Tuesday morning, an angry student shouted at Prof Rosa Freedman outside the students’ union at Reading University. She was a “transphobic Nazi who should get raped”, he yelled."
There are so many mixed messages in that cry from the heart.
Somehow I imagine all Nazis are a bit transphobic, it's kind of in the job description.
"A fortnight ago, Freedman and 53 other academics wrote a letter to the Guardian questioning the proposed introduction of self-identification for gender reassignment. They said that critical academic analysis of transgenderism is being suppressed."
The letter in The Guardian was signed by a group of academics who argued there is a closing down of any debate and the frankly mad idea that trans activists are stopping "the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism, and its multiple causes and effects."
No, no, no, trans activists want to be understood. Don't they?
"Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work."
Ah yes, "training." Isn't that transphobic, questioning the definitions of transphobia? Ah yes, well you might throw academic analysis behind your argument but we have feelings.
"...We maintain that it is not transphobic to investigate and analyse this area from a range of critical academic perspectives. We think this research is sorely needed, and urge the government to take the lead in protecting any such research from ideologically driven attack."
Ah, Prof, you used the 'c' word and that's why you're a hateful Nazi transphobe TERF person. You can't critically analyze, you can analyze transgenderism, but only if your aim is to prove that it's magically natural and right in some obscure subjective way (see the academic's letter below).
"Our subject areas include: sociology, philosophy, law, criminology, evidence-informed policy, medicine, psychology, education, history, English, social work, computer science, cognitive science, anthropology, political science, economics, and history of art."
That's all very well being respected academics in the social sciences but they know nothing about what it feels like to believe you're the wrong gender.
I accidentally typed in trainsphobia and got a page on Latvian train safety cartoons. The internet huh? To be fair, the arguments in it made far more sense than anything I've read on transgender rights.
Yes, why? Why now? Why are there now huge amounts of young people self identifying (ahem, the internet, social media)? Were there the same number when I was a youth in the 1970s but they were all zealously hiding their different gendered orientation? Why aren't they all coming out now they are free of this gendered yoke? Sadly, figures for transgender in any form are hard to come by. In a freedom of information request back in 2015 asking:
"Approximately how many transgender people are thought to live in the United Kingdom at present?
How many gender reassignment surgery procedures were carried out in the UK in each of the last five years?
How many people identifying as transgender committed suicide in the UK in each of the last five years?"
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) answered "ONS do not produce estimates of the number of transgender people living in the UK."
So any figures bandied around, including those I've alluded to or quoted are completely unreliable. There may only be one transgender person out there posting all these angry tweets. One very vocal trans person. Who knows?
There's some interesting data on homicides at fairplaywomen that suggests "the transgender murder rate is in fact significantly lower than for the average person" based on self identifying data. Though how one decides on whether someone was murdered because they were transgender or because they were a prostitute or both, who knows?
"Important questions of personal identity are at stake, but also legal rights and protections. (The rights of trans men are far less controversial because they do not, while transitioning, gain access to spaces designed to protect a disadvantaged group.) While campaigners for trans rights are entitled to push for laws that they believe advance equality, feminists are entitled to question whether such changes could adversely affect other women. Neither group is a homogeneous bloc and there are more than two points of view.[my italics]"
It highlights spaces such as prisons being a key ideological ground. Interestingly, though Ireland have passed a similar law, and this is often used by trans activists to point out that there has not been the problems that anti GRAers have argued may come to pass, Ireland still segregates prisoners by natal sex (i.e. even if you're trans and have changed your birth certificate that doesn't entitle you to a place in a woman's prison).
"Trans organisations say such fears are exaggerated and born of prejudice and hatred. Transphobia must be opposed. But misogyny too must be challenged. Gender identity does not cancel out sex. Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake. The struggle for women’s empowerment is ongoing. Reproductive freedoms are under threat and the #MeToo campaign faces a backlash. Women’s concerns about sharing dormitories or changing rooms with “male-bodied” people must be taken seriously. These are not just questions of safety but of dignity and fairness. [my itaics]"
"The consultation has stirred up questions that go beyond the proposed change in the law. The UK may be moving towards a situation where the default is single-gender spaces rather than single-sex spaces, with organisations such as the Girl Guides amending their practices. The implications of this shift should not be underestimated. The public needs to be better informed, and safeguarding considered....This is a complex issue that society needs to consider thoughtfully. Further research into the rise in referrals of children to gender identity services would be helpful, for example."
Transphobic Nazis. They're going to be in for some abuse for arguing with the use of science...
A pleasant example of social media anger. I literally do not understand a word of this beyond the gulag/Nazi references. Ironically most of those in the gulags weren't Nazis but merely dissidents who disagreed with the prevailing ideology. Bowl of rice? In Siberia? Cassandra does mix up her geopolitical history. However, I understand that it's rather angry
One person suggests "Where is the evidence that trans women transition so we can have access to rape centres or prisons in order to commit crimes against women? Where is the evidence that trans women transition to abuse girl guides? All sectors of society contain a criminal element, and I don’t imagine transgender people are different in that respect."
Clearly not understanding the concepts of future threat or risk. Yep, all sectors of society contain a cr...woah, hang on. What different sectors of society are you talking about? What other sectors are there other than transgender? Male and female, right? And males are the only risk in this particular "criminal element" as women already have access to "rape centres" (there are rape centres?) and women only prisons. That's the point. If men self reporting as women are allowed access to said women only spaces then...God, isn't this so obvious a 5 year old could grasp it?
"You made no reference to the vulnerability of the trans community. No reference that among us there is a frighteningly high level of bad mental health, with a dreadfully high incidence of attempted suicide, or that we are subjected to hate crimes in the streets and that many have to deal with ostracisation from our families and friends."
Yes, that's why it's considered a psychiatric condition. Psychiatric conditions are not considered normal or rational that's why they're a psychiatric condition and not just a lifestyle choice. We don't change laws to accommodate the mad do we? Should we outlaw white vans so schizophrenic people won't feel like they're being followed anywhere?
An academic starts his argument (oh he signs it, so he's Dr Luke McGuire of Goldsmiths) with little more than an ad hominem attack:
"The authors claim to be concerned with how reform to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) will impact research programmes related to transgender people. The letter raises issues that I believe the authors ought to consider beyond their desire to publish or receive grants.[my italics]"
Ouch. That's not a good start. But there's more...
"Proposed changes to the GRA will make it more straightforward for trans people to self-identify without having to go through the invasive process of “proving” their gender identity to authorities. Extensive literature has established the consequences of threats to self-identity. Recent groundbreaking work has shown that transgender children respond to gender identity measures in line with their identified gender, not their natal sex. The idea that these people should then face a burden of proof is deeply upsetting."
Sadly he does not link to this groundbreaking work. But there are a number of such "studies" out there such as the 2017 Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations by Bauer et al, which might even be the groundbreaking research itself. "Transgender children respond to gender identity measures in line with their identified gender, not their natal sex" is merely a pseudo science speak for asking children how they identify to gendered questions. The questionnaire was online, open to over 14s and advertised through Facebook. Questions are supplied in the link. "What gender do you think you are?" etc. Somehow I don't think this kind of drivel is what the academics were talking about when they were discussing transgender research. This research piece is obviously heavily loaded to prove its point. What does it tell us beyond transgender people identify as transgender and not trans people identify their gender as reflecting their natal sex? Wow!
I twitter stalked McGuire to see if he links the groundbreaking research on his feed but sadly he just spouts nonsense like "Claiming to be concerned or interested in working with the Trans community and then disregarding said community's basic right to self-identity is a pretty bad look for a lot of well-educated people."
Basic right? When did it become a basic right to self identify as anything? Is it a basic right for me to self identify as Native American? That's how nonsensical such an argument is.
And intriguingly (and illegally?) McGuire signs his letter to the Guardian as Dr Luke McGuire but he's actually a postdoctoral research fellow, i.e studying for a doctorate. Isn't that naughty, young Luke?
It's my right to self identify
"I do not think the letter’s authors are unaware of this research, but I believe they have set it aside in favour of self-interest. [my italics]"
It smacks of the same logic of climate change deniers who believe climate scientists argue their case to get grants. Woo woo.
But disentangle McGuire's argument here:
"Academics have a basic duty to design research with empathy for those in our society who are victims of discrimination [do they?]. We must face the possibility of protest from marginalised groups who disagree with research proposals. It is a fallacy to claim that “disagreement is reasonable” while simultaneously arguing that protest movements are unfair. I agree with the authors that furthering research programmes related to transgender people is important, especially in building an equitable society for people of all gender identities. But I believe this goes hand in hand with challenging antiquated systems for gender recognition in the UK. Researchers ought to work with those who are discriminated against, show empathy, and put others before themselves."
His argument goes: If you're going to research this subject, don't try to prove that trans people are wrong or deluded. Accept that others will disagree with you. But you can't say that that's ok whilst disagreeing with them. Research is good, as long is it's done to prove trans people are correct. Gender's old news, get on board people. If you're going to research this area then make sure you're researching it for the good of trans people.
What absolute nonsense. That makes absolutely no sense.
And the final letter is the usual, we want frank and open discussion as long as it's not about us and isn't critical or analytical in any way: "We appreciate the need for open discussion and do not want to stifle a frank exchange of views. However, we know of no other topic in which it is considered acceptable for a minority group, known to be at heightened risk of self-harm and suicide, to be discussed in such insulting terms, including crude references to particular body parts, to be linked to violent sex offences and paedophilia and a risk to women’s safety simply by virtue of being who they are, rather than how they behave.
...We also want to make very clear that neither we nor our children chose the transgender identity. It is a fact, not a choice, albeit one of which we are all very proud."
It's a fact that they believe they are a different sex/gender but that doesn't make their belief a fact. Wow, this is pretty basic stuff, n'est pas?
No one is saying that trans people are sexual offenders/paedophiles. They are saying that this law would give the potential for sex offenders/paedophiles lawful access to safe spaces. This isn't tough to understand is it? Apparently, it seems it is. But then, that's the level of the debate. You can't mention this potential in the law without an emotive outrage on the part of trans people, and when I say people, I mean women. Trans women, that is.
The whole debate (it is a debate because it's precisely (possibly) going to debate in the Commons and then as a bill and into law) is flawed by the assumption that gender and sex ARE somehow interchangeable and just a matter of personal opinion. It's enlightened to accept difference and to offer spaces for difference in a liberal democracy but denying science and sociology flouts enlightenment thinking.
The whole argument around transgender law is reminiscent of that between a recalcitrant teenager and a supervisory adult.
"Why can't I go to the party and self identify as a woman?"
"Because you aren't so you can't."
"Everyone else is allowed, mum, you're such a transphobe. Nazi."
THE END OF THE WORLD
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) in which people begin to believe they aren't what they used to be. Our hero, Dr Bennell fights the ensuing madness:
Bennell: What's the matter with them?
Dr. Kauffman: A strange neurosis, evidently contagious, an epidemic mass hysteria. In two weeks, it spread all over town.
Miles: What causes it?
Dr. Kauffman: Worry about what's going on in the world probably.
Miles: This is the oddest thing I've ever heard of. Let's hope we don't catch it. I'd hate to wake up some morning and find out that you weren't you.
Why is it almost exclusively men identifying as women (the reverse is relatively rare)?
Why is it that nearly every trans woman I see in the media in the UK is white, is transgender specific to white (middle class) men/women?
On a sensationalist note. Again, what is there in place to stop sexual offenders accessing female only spaces by identifying as a woman? Say, let's call our hypothetical sexual offender Humbert Humbert.
I'm interested in how this could play out with religious groups. Say, a single sex religious school which only employs female staff for their female schools legally at the moment. What if they refused a trans woman employment based on her previously identifying as a man because they were one? Whose human rights win out in that one?
What about sport? Women's football, rugby, cricket, allowing trans women? How is this going to work?
Ultimately, of course, for those who who support the GRA this is about equality for transgender people. For those opposed to it it means that the concept of woman and biological female will be irrelevant and with that goes the whole history of feminism. For some the whole purpose is misogynistic. If there were one argument from the trans community beyond "it's how I feel" then there might be a reasonable debate but how can you reason with someone's gut instincts?
The litmus test is that if we who disagree on feminist grounds are TERFs or transphobic then we would be equally vocal about female to male transition. I can't speak for others, but personally I have no concerns about a woman who wishes to be recognized as a man. I'm sure there are concerns and questions. But if I'm a TERF, a transphobe, then surely I would be equally disquieted by women transitioning to men? Of course, you could not have a law just for women transitioning to men, or could you? It has far less impact than the other way around, and that is the unpalatable truth for trans campaigners, that this isn't about transphobia or some other imaginary discrimination but real concerns that aren't addressed by them and the GRA would be a giant step towards effacing sex differences legally altogether whilst paradoxically reinforcing a patriarchal if not misogynistic social order. Unlike the arguments for its introduction, our objections to the GRA are reasoned, reasonable, rational and (probably) right.
Comments
Post a Comment