In a TedX Talk from January of this year journalist, Amelia Abraham, argues that "Feminists Should Support Transgender Rights."
The video blurb states: "Can you call yourself a feminist if you don’t support the rights of transgender people? Amelia Abraham doesn’t think so. As someone who identifies as the ‘L’ in LGBT, Amelia has always felt empathetic towards the societal prejudice trans people face, but, on speaking with her friends, she was shocked to discover how many of them struggle to reconcile their feminism with transgender rights. Amelia addresses the common concerns listed by some about trans people - principally the risk to women’s safety. She demonstrates why conflating sexual violence with transgender rights denies the reality of rape culture and its actual perpetrators, whilst also unjustly demonising the trans community and increasing the prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards trans people."
Amelia Abraham is a good speaker but unfortunately her talk is complete gobbledegook. It's important to remember throughout the talk that it is addressed to feminists, specifically feminists who do not support transgender rights.
She begins with a personal anecdote (get ready for many more) about a friend who is transgender and has mental health problems. Well, transgender is a mental illness (gender dysphoria is still the DSM/ICD 10 diagnosis). ICD 10 definition here
"In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at least two of the following:
A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
A strong desire to be of the other gender
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender."
DSM V
Abraham's friend's mental health problems, though, are caused by her not being able to use women's bathrooms. When did this particular mental health problem start? Before her gender dysphoria? They presumably were ok at one point using male bathrooms or is this a new problem? This is important as later in her talk Abraham completely contradicts this anecdote*. I'm perplexed.
Her friend is scared to leave the house, says Abraham. Why is that? Presumably she fears attacks? Is this from feminists? Is she then suggesting that because trans people fear attacks feminists should thus put aside all their own fears and support trans people? There is a difference between empathy or support and assent. One can empathize with trans people and deplore any abuse of them whilst still completely disagreeing with their belief. I'm really perplexed what this thin emotive anecdote has to do with the talk's focus. I think everyone, including feminists who disagree that trans women are women, agree that if you have a mental illness based on believing you have been born in the wrong sexed body that will be very difficult emotionally, I expect religious people feel something similar when they experience traumatic events and it seems like God isn't listening.
"We are living in a climate of increasing confusion and hatred towards Trans people," says Abraham. She doesn't offer a shred of evidence for this sweeping statement. Surely the opposite is true?
If you're a Radical Feminist who critiques Transgender then you lose your job on sports councils, for instance. One of the greatest female tennis players of all time, Martina Navratilova, has argued that there is "a growing tendency among transgender activists to denounce anyone who argues against them and to label them all as 'transphobes.'" Following an article on the subject that Navratilova wrote for The Times in February 2019, Athlete Ally, an LGBTQ athlete advocacy group, removed Navratilova from their advisory board, stating her comments "are transphobic [and] based on a false understanding of science and data"." Navratilova
I particularly love "a false understanding of science..." You have to laugh. Or cry.
The Labour Party have stripped many radical feminists of their party membership for protesting against the inclusion of trans women on Women Only Shortlists because they irrationally (and transphobically) argue that only women should be on Women Only Shortlists, not men who believe they are women.
Even Doctor Who writers aren't exempt from losing their jobs for the scourge of transphobia. You get the boot now for writing two tweets that are deemed transphobic and hounded out of your job by a small vocal group wielding pitchforks and lit torches. The Guardian
Why not just burn these heretical transphobes on pyres and have done with it?
Gareth Roberts, the said writer, posted on Twitter "I love how trannies choose names like Munroe, Paris and Chelsea. It’s never Julie or Bev is it?”
Amelia Abraham's 'influential transgender women' powerpoint at the end of the piece ** proves his point (Munroe and Paris are there, Chelsea were obviously playing away, that's a football reference rather than a sexual euphemism). Or is it the use of the word "trannie"? Who knows? Whatever the case, Gareth Roberts is a terrible transphobe for stating an opinion that holds water.
TERF has become a common and seemingly accepted insult used against anyone critiquing Transgender equality. People have been cautioned by the police for "misgendering"(it's not a legal term, simply an invented concept by trans lobbyists) and suggesting trans women aren't women on social media (Graham Linehan, Posie Parker). Discussions on popular media outlets (see the 'debates' between Adrian Harrop and Posie Parker or Parker and India Willoughby) automatically place feminist debaters as the ones who should prove their point (that females are females and trans women aren't). On social media all the truly vile abuse I've ever seen has come from trans lobbyists and 'mennist' Jordan Peterson right wingers not from radical feminists (happy to see evidence).
Adrian Harrop and Posie Parker. In the crazy Alice in Wonderland world of transgender rights one of these T-shirts is considered a hate crime. Clue: It's the factual one.
Abraham argues that "as the L in LGBT it's easy to see why I should support Transgender rights." But homosexuality isn't a belief or even a self identity, it's a sexuality that I presume we all agree is not a lifestyle choice but a neurological difference. Why does she feel particularly empathetic towards trans people as compared to others of a belief without any material evidence that has nothing to do with her sexuality, say, Sikhs or flat earthers? Is Abraham saying Trans is a neurological difference?
She says she knows what it's like to be stared at or to be yelled at or (cryptically) to have ulterior motives (do lesbians have ulterior motives?). Well, I'm a male who gets stared and shouted at, am I a protected species too? (I live in Greater Manchester, anyone a bit different in any way gets this). She says she can empathize with trans people and I've not heard any rad fems disagree with that statement. I empathize with anyone with mental illness. She argues that LGBT are stronger together but that makes no sense as how does sexual orientation have anything to do with what gender one feels? I'm utterly perplexed by the joining together of LGB and the T and I'm happy to have it explained.
It's especially ironic that Abraham feels a kinship with trans people because she's the L in LGBT because Doctor Who writer, Gareth Roberts is the G in LGBT yet he doesn't. I think that probably makes him doubly evil. Like a Dalek welded to a Cyberman.
"We hear people who describe themselves as feminists taking issue with trans people." Shouldn't that be "people who describes themselves as trans?" After all, feminism is a logical response to patriarchy by females (the "fem" bit) and by extension, in theory, all females are feminist (assuming that all females want not just equality but control over their body and their-selves within society etc.). But trans people are people with a classifiable mental illness who believe they have been "assigned" the wrong body at birth. Put that way you do begin to see that actually Abraham's argument makes complete rational sense. Feminism is a political position based on society, culture & politics whereas trans is a personal identity belief that is synonymous with a religion. So yes, feminists take issue with trans people because it makes no scientific, rational or cultural sense, like atheists taking issue with theists.
"Sometimes they [feminists] target transgender men." No evidence offered for this. I've never heard of that. Why would feminists (rad or otherwise) care if a woman self identified as a man? It makes absolutely no difference to the life lived by women per se. Those trans men aren't suddenly going to become a patriarchal or physical threat are they? I don't imagine that feminists would be up in arms about a trans man standing as a Labour MP. You could even argue that it might be healthy because the trans man has the experience of being a woman.
"They [feminists] seem to focus on transgender women." Well that's because feminists (fem) have the interests of females (fem) as the base of their political beliefs and transgender women believe by dressing a certain way or having their bodies cosmetically changed they can become not only women (gender) but females (sex). That is naturally a threat to feminists and the terms woman and female. If anyone can self identify as a woman or female then the terms are by extension meaningless and thus FEMinism becomes meaningless.
"Arguing over whether trans women are real women or labelling them as dangerous," argues Abraham. Two points. First, Rad fems don't only argue that trans women aren't women (gendered), real or otherwise, but more crucially argue they aren't female (sex) and that's where the "real" bit comes in, a woman is defined as an adult female. That does not mean that trans women cannot self identify as women, it just means that they should not be legally recognized as women, like it's cool if someone believes in angels but you would not expect it enshrined in law that angels exist.
Trans groups have pushed for self identification models like those in Ireland etc. that Abraham acknowledges. Crucially, trans people are then able to legally identify as that sex (i.e. trans women can have 'female' on their passport, be legally identified as a female, they can now but only after 2 years psychological assessment (see gender dysphoria)). From a science viewpoint this makes no sense as females and males are assigned different sex organs and cosmetically changing them does not change one's sex. If you want to go further, then all animals are assigned sex via gametes, the amount of egg/sperm they produce. Males produce many, females one. That's the science bit. More importantly, if you allow people to freely choose not only their gender but also their sex then yes, that does make the safety of single sex spaces open to abuse.
Abraham doesn't mention, for instance, that though in Ireland a trans woman can use a women's bathroom they aren't assigned to female prisons if convicted of something (see her discussion of sexual violence below), because anyone with any critical faculty can see the possibility of a rapist or violent abuser who self identifies as a woman being placed in a secure environment of a prison with 'real' women and that would, I'm sure we all agree, be insane. It shows that even in countries seemingly more relaxed about trans rights there is still the acknowledgement of that danger. But I repeat, this isn't just about the existential physical dangers of allowing self identified women who are males biologically into safe female only spaces it's about what it means to allow biological males to self identify and legally be recognized as women and females. If I, a male, can self identify as female then what does that mean for such areas of feminism as wage equality or representation in public (or private) office? What does it mean for feminism? Is feminism then supposed to have an addendum as with LGB, feminismT? What does that mean for the historical struggle for women's rights? What does it mean for feminism if I, a male, can self identify and then speak for women (even though previous to this moment I was a man and male and had not experienced life as a woman, and more importantly still don't)?
“I first noticed this a year and a half ago,” says Abraham about what she perceives as terrible transphobia. I'd flip that on its head and ask why is it that suddenly in that year and a half that transgender is 'an issue'? One might argue that only now can men who feel they're women be free to recognize this but then why are the vast majority (and Abraham's talking about the media) of trans women so young? Why is the debate overwhelmingly dominated by young (white, middle class?) trans people (particularly on university campuses). Why now? Why now in a world dominated by identity politics and social media might there be an explosion of young people having gender identity issues or feelings?
Abraham uses newspapers she's written for to show this rampant transphobia. Those bastions of feminism; The Sun, The Mail, The Economist, The Times are present. If you pop transgender and Guardian into google then you're bombarded by pro trans pieces by trans women. This is pretty typical of beliefs (rather than scientific understanding or political ideology) that there's always a certain paranoia; they're all out to get us.
I don't see how lumping together some right wing press pieces and considered articles by Hadley Freeman in The Guardian and Sarah Ditum in The New Statesman helps her argument. "Even writers I liked [sic] in papers I read were joining in the conversation," she says.
How. Dare. They. Join. The. Conversation.
We shouldn't be conversing we should just all blindly accept the one true faith.
Has Abraham actually read these pieces?
"You might have thought that the #MeToo campaign, in which women have been speaking out about the universality of sexual assault and rape, would make people more sympathetic to concerns about female safety. You would be wrong: nothing makes you look more liberal these days than shouting at women who express anxiety based on their experiences," converses Freeman.
She continues: "On the day of this year’s Women’s March, trans model Munroe Bergdorf tweeted that to “center reproductive systems” at the demonstrations was “reductive and exclusionary”.
I’m trying to think of anything more patriarchal than telling women to stop fussing about vaginas at a Women’s March... Gender is a feeling and biology is a physical fact, and the reason women-only spaces exist is not to protect some special inner feminine essence, but because there are significant physical differences between male-born bodies and female-born ones, and the latter have long been at a disadvantage."
Crazy talk there from Freeman huh? Why isn't she thinking about trans women's feelings?
Abraham points out that “well known writers” claim trans people are indoctrinating kids to change their gender. The article is in The Mail about the NHS but I would point you to the troubling material on Mermaids UK for something that does smell of indoctrination.
Take, for instance, their link in their "Young People Resources" to What is Gender: The video
In which we learn you're "labelled" (!) at birth male or female but you can choose whatever gender you want to be. In one sense this is correct. Gender is sociological but it does also carry with it sex differences based on biology, physical strength being the obvious one which can tie into sexual violence. However, if you simply choose whatever gender you wish to be then you aren't challenging gender roles, you're simply opting for a different enforced role. Doing away with gender roles is a cornerstone of feminism but simply opting to have testosterone pumped into you to grow a beard or wearing a dress and changing your name from Keith to Paris is not empowering or challenging gender assumptions, it's reinforcing those gender assumptions and thus it's anti-feminist. Further, I only watched the first 1 min and 22 seconds of the video but that was enough to see how confusion around gender and sex abounds. Sex isn't simply a "label." It's science, it's a biological fact (which the video does then acknowledge) based on sex differences, chromosomes, gametes. But then it simply muddies all this by the first speaker (at 1:22) saying "you don't just have male and female there's so many inbetween, there's non-binary, or gender fluid." There you go, conflating sex and gender in one easy sentence. No, there is no inbetween male and female (except the tired old example of intersex). Non-binary is self definition, you can't self define your sex. That's madness. Are we going to self define our race?
Or how about their link to Transexual Teen, Beauty Queen.
Inspiring.
Mermaids Resources for Young People
Abraham: “In other cases they were comparing Trans to having a mental illness,” argues Abraham. It is. That's a fact. In the UK if you want a Female passport, if you want surgery, you have to see a psychiatrist to confirm you have gender dysphoria, which IS a mental illness. This is just wilful dissonance.
“When a young trans girl was elected as a women's officer for the labour party she was vilified...” How exactly does someone born a male who lived as a man but now identifies themselves as a woman represent females in a major political party? I mean, I know I'm being transphobic but wouldn't it be better to have a woman who had grown up a woman and was born a female represent women's interests? You know, otherwise it kind of does away with the whole notion of a women's leader, someone representing women, because we live in a patriarchal society. If Lily Madigan in shedding her male clothes and self identifying as a woman also sheds her maleness, her patriarchal position and history does that mean that women who become men take on patriarchal roles? It doesn't make any sense. I assume that Abraham is alluding to Hadley Freeman's piece:
"But then, as with experts, apparently we’ve all had enough of lived experience now. When a 19-year-old trans woman was elected a Labour woman’s officer last year, a Labour councillor explained that “lived experience as a woman” was not a pre-requisite to be a woman’s officer. Biology, too, has been deemed terribly passe. “Inclusive feminism,” Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Wood wrote when considering why self-identifying trans women should be allowed into women’s refuges, understands that “gender is a complex and deeply personal thing, and is about so much more than outdated ideas of biology.”"
Vilification? Or fearing stepping back into the pre-enlightenment 17th Century?
“When a young non-binary person used the girl's changing room in Top Shop they were held up as a threat to kids across Britain,” argues Abraham. I presume this refers to “performance artist” Travis Alabanza, as it's the one story that's repeated on google And despite us living in this terrible transphobic society Top Shop have done away with women only changing rooms in the women's clothes shop on the basis of a trans performer's complaint and 55 others. All aboard the transphobia express.
We'll be returning to this in Abraham's talk (newspaper articles and safety in female only spaces) in a little while.
Abraham's trans friends feel “afraid, persecuted, apathetic.” Funnily enough you'll never guess what feminists and women who do not agree that trans women are real women say they feel, yeah; "afraid, persecuted, apathetic.”
“They show me the tweets they receive as the situation worsens....” From whom? Why would right wing (male?) crazies tweeting death threats to men who believe they are women have anything to do with feminism? Why should that stir feminists to throw away their feminism and invite in men who believe they are women? There's no cause and effect in this argument. Misgendering is a concept invented by the trans lobby. I think we are all happy to call someone whatever they wish us to in conversation but if I call someone he because they look like a man is that transphobic misgendering?
Perhaps the key line here by Abraham is: “people arguing over their very right to exist.” Obviously Abraham is talking about trans women but if she got her way and any man can self identify not only as a woman but as a female then both those terms, man, woman, and consequently, male, female, and of course, feminism itself, cease to exist. Everyone can be female if they feel it.
She talks to her cis gendered friends, says Abraham. Hang on there. Cis? Did I agree to be given this made up label by transgender lobbyists? At least he and she already were pronouns in the English language. Cis isn't a term I choose to recognize. Mispronouning me. It's petty as it doesn't actually affect me but such concepts creep into everyday speech and ideologically reinforce the idea that transgender people are right and I and feminists, of course, must play along.
Talking of her feminist friends, Abraham says, “privately these...women tell me they find it difficult to reconcile their feminism with transgender rights.” The fact that they only feel safe saying this privately speaks very loudly. And, of course, the two, feminism and complete trans rights are irreconcilable, like theism and atheism. As an atheist I happily accept everyone's right to believe what they choose, if that belief, however, impinges on my life then I have the freedom to point out that they are deluded, believing in supernatural beings, or in this case, that anyone can randomly choose not only their gender but their sex too. You have the right to be who you are but that does not mean I have to accept it or not believe it's complete woo woo.
To appease religious people by going along with their delusion would be madness, what's the difference with the transgender debate?
“If anyone can become a woman doesn't that undermine the very idea of what a woman is, doesn't that mean a woman can be anything?” asks Abraham's friends in a moment of sane scientific clarity.
So what does Abraham answer to this healthy dose of scientific, evidential fact? “I say, yes, a woman can be anything. Show me two women who look the same, have the same experiences or the same biological make up.”
Yeah, ha, ha, ha. Oh no, she's serious. Is she trying to suggest that this is about personality rather than social gender and sex, that it's about what you did on holiday or your taste in films or how big or small your boobs are? Uh, yes women do have the same experiences (it's what feminism's purpose is) within the framework of being a woman. No two women look the same (that's genetics, this is pretty basic stuff), have the same experiences (I kayaked in Nepal you spent two weeks in Marbella), or have the same biological make up (this woman is size 14 and has 38 boobs, this woman is size 8 and 32 boobs, this trans woman has a penis...no wait, women have vaginas, she's very wrong on that one). They, women with vaginas, will experience patriarchy in very similar ways, even if they come from extremely different backgrounds. Theresa May will have experienced patriarchy (it's a constant, like gravity) in much the same way as a working class black disabled lesbian woman on benefits. Their lives are very different but patriarchy isn't. Their social circumstances merely mitigate the effect. What is Abraham talking about?
Abraham then deals with the threat of sexual violence that is a constant for females but relatively rare for males: "If anyone can change their gender, doesn't that mean that men can identify as women and come into spaces like domestic violence shelters or public toilets and do us harm?"
Yes.
Oh right, it wasn't a general question. But still, the answer is yes.
"Today I want to focus on this question because I believe that those of us who exist in the grey area [no idea what that means?] can be made to see this way of thinking is harmful we might genuinely help to save people's lives [we never find out how exactly]."
I have no idea what she means at all by this but she continues by saying she is a feminist, has written on women's rights, has experienced sexual violence and "I get the concern of who can use gendered facilities but trans people are not the problem. And to act like they are doesn't make a great deal of sense."
The problem to what? I genuinely don't think she gets the concern at all and we'll see why in a moment.
She argues that she wants to deal with this issue via three concepts. Firstly:
"Who's checking?" As in, who is checking what gender or sex someone is. Well, at present because men cannot self identify their sex you can check via documentation; passport, birth certificate, (in prisons, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis, etc.) but that's done away with with a GRA. Also, of course, however much trans people might not like the argument, trans women are often easily spotted visibly. And if one was suspicious then you go back to point one; check passport etc.
Abraham, of course, brings up the “there was a similar panic about gay people” argument beloved of trans activists. But this is a logical fallacy; an objection to a group of people in some way is not necessarily the same as any other objection to a group of people. The hysteria around homosexuality was primarily religious, right wing and male driven. How does that compare to women fearing the erosion of feminism and the concept of female? Rhetorical, it doesn't because the two are completely incomparable.
That was homophobia so ergo, logical fallacy, if you disagree with Trans rights you must be transphobic. There was a similar panic about the proliferation of guns in the US after school shootings. There was a similar panic about the election of Donald Trump. There, see, it's not the same thing just saying there was a moral panic about one thing so any other moral panic has to be the same. One person's panic is another person's rational response.
"You can't necessarily tell who is gay just by looking at them. Sexuality is on a spectrum. The same is true of gender. We can't necessarily tell who is trans and lots of cis people do not conform to typical understandings of gender. Butch women, effeminate men, how would we police them. Would we have assigned gender checkers, facial recognition scanning or required recognition certificates on entries to toilets? The problem with policing gender like this is that we all need to look convincingly cis gender but this is difficult and expensive for trans people,you might not want to get surgery, should you have to? "
So, so much to unpick from Abraham's argument. If I was being horrid I'd say she's being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's assume she has a big old mental blind spot instead.
Sexuality is innate, I assume we all agree. You know you find the same sex attractive from the moment you feel sexual feelings (dependent on sources this can be from consciousness, see Freud, through to puberty, see developmental theory). Is this always the same with transgender? Is transgender then not a mental illness at all but a neurological difference? The problem with this argument, likening homosexuality to transgender, is that homosexuality is verifiable, you know, if someone were actually checking. I presume as a lesbian, Abraham digs chicks, see, she's a lesbian, visibly. Someone claiming they are transgender is just that, like someone claiming they hear the voice of god.
It's true, we can't always tell who is trans and, yes, we don't all gender conform, I myself have always been hit on by other gay men...no, I mean, by gay men...because a lot of people think I'm gay, mixing up not being manly with queerness. And this is all fine and dandy if you completely forget what Abraham is arguing about here. Let me just lead you back to the point of this argument.
"If anyone can change their gender, doesn't that mean that men can identify as women and come into spaces like domestic violence shelters or public toilets and do us harm."
Yep, the whole purpose of this part of her talk is to deal with the perceived threat of trans women entering female only spaces. So what has that got to do with gender or camp men and butch women, policing gender norms? Because we aren't talking about gender here are we? Well, Abraham is, conflating sex and gender, as such debates always do. The "policing" aspect of safe spaces is not about gender, it's about sex. No one polices whether males can enter a female toilet now. It's accepted by all in the social contract that we don't violate that social rule. If you do away with that rule then not only is gender negotiable but so is biological sex. Feminists are not concerned that trans women might enter female only safe spaces when they identify as women, they're concerned that if, in this brave new world of trans rights that Abraham is advocating, you identify as a woman then you can enter female only spaces. It would be legal. Policing schmeesing. We self police at present. I, as a male, know that a women's toilet is for women but if you do away with spaces defined by sex or gender then by definition anyone can enter those spaces. In legally reinforced areas like prisons the very policing that Abraham is talking about would still have to be there. I'm assuming, as a feminist, she would not advocate the right of a male sexual predator to be sentenced to a woman's prison because they self identified as a woman?
As a Cister I'm perplexed by anyone self identifying as the opposite sex and not wanting to change their body. If you feel you're in the wrong body why would you not want to be castrated (yeah, Posie Parker got cautioned for using that term even though it's a fact) and grow boobs? Surely that goes with the territory? Why would you feel like a female but still retain your visibly male body? Unless...no that's transphobic thinking. So, if it's not about changing your biological body thing to a woman/female, what is it? Wearing dresses? Feeling like a woman, whatever that is beyond wearing dresses? It makes absolutely no sense.
“Doesn't policing gender like this go against what feminists have historically fought for? To free women from the expectation of having to look feminine,” argues Abraham.
After I stopped laughing.
And laughing.
Guffawing out loud...
I laughed once more then sat down to write a resonse.
That's right, trans women are actually doing what feminists have always wanted, breaking down gender divides, we're just a step away from destroying patriarchy. Is Abraham believing this nonsense? Ok, taking it at face value, why then do trans women immediately on 'coming out' head straight for the hair extensions, wigs, make up and dresses? (see final slide in her show, see Gareth Roberts transphobic point above) As far as I've been able to discern this IS what transgender women are all about. The feeling like a woman inside is wanting to wear dresses, slap on clown make up and carry a handbag. Feel free to tell me what it is if it's not that.
I don't think policing or un-policing gender is what feminism's about. Equality with men? Safety? Destroying patriarchy? Gender might be the police force of patriarchy but simply stepping over its line by dressing hyper-feminine is hardly gonna bring down patriarchy. In fact it's reinforcing it by reinforcing the very gender stereotypes this is supposed to be freeing my sisters from. However pretty they look.
Abraham argues: “Deciding who is or isn't female enough to enter a space. Well, that just reinforces gender norms...”
Points to any kids who can spot what she's done there again? Yes you at the back. Correct. Female is not a gender. It is a sex. She's broken the confusing gender and sex rule. Yet again. There is nothing female about wearing dresses. But females do have vaginas. The fact that she continually conflates gender and sex shows that she's tying herself in knots trying to make something irrational seem coherent. Oh, if only this whole argument were about feminists deciding who is female enough. You can't be female enough, you either are female or you aren't (yeah, yeah, interesex blah blah nothing to do with transgender etc.). You can be feminine or not. God, this is tedious.
* Her second point is that trans people have been using gendered spaces for a long time. “Trans friends tell me they've been using the bathroom of their choice for years.” Uh, but not the friend you used as an example at the beginning of your talk about how transphobic it is that she couldn't use the Ladies, right? How confusing.
I wish she'd referenced the survey of rape and DV shelters that accommodate trans people. I'd like to know how that works. What accommodate means? I could not find a reference for it on google.
Abraham uses the argument that legalization of GRAs does not increase sexual violence, again no reference for this. How would you know? How would you extrapolate sexual violence carried out by men and carried out by self defining men or women? She actually says that "people can legally self determine their gender in Malta, Belgium, etc. where this is already the case. Rates of sexual violence have not directly increased."
I'm not sure what "directly" means here. But because some men are now identifying as women in those countries and overall sexual violence rates have not increased that does not follow that GRAs do not pose a threat to females/biological women. In fact, by her own argument that sexual predators will find ways to sexually abuse women you would expect rates to stay stable after a GRA. No one, I have to keep repeating, is saying that trans people are more likely to be sexual predators but simply that GRAs offer sexual predators a way into female only safe spaces.
I'll now point you back to those writers of transphobic pieces in the newspapers that Abraham cites earlier to highlight this point. One of the pieces Abraham cites is by Sarah Ditum in The New Statesman: "What’s missing from the transgender debate? Any discussion of male violence: If we treat gender purely as a matter of self-declaration, the system is open to abuse. "
"One of those things that supposedly never happens, happened. Luke Mallaband was convicted of six voyeurism offences after a female student at the University of East Anglia found his phone hidden in the university library’s gender-neutral toilets. The probation report described him as “high risk of posing serious harm to females”," writes Ditum.
Ditum rightly points at the paradox at the heart of the transgender debate: "The advantage of gender-neutral toilets is that they’re accessible to all. The disadvantage is that, by being accessible to all, they can become unsafe to some – which means they’re not really accessible to all in practice."
You can extrapolate this to all female safe spaces.
"In case you’re tempted to write Mallaband off as a rogue male, the University of Toronto last year rolled back some of its gender-neutral bathrooms in halls of residence after two female students reported being filmed in the showers; in Toronto in 2014, serial rapist Christopher Hambrook was convicted of entering women’s refuges under the name Jessica and assaulting two vulnerable women; and in 2013, transwoman prisoner Paris Green was moved out of Cornton Vale women’s prison near Stirling after having sexual relationships with female inmates. (Green still had full male genitalia.)."
Ditum points out that: "For trans people, moving to a system of self-declaration and privileging identity over reassignment means moving away from a system that makes doctors and lawyers the arbiters of their identity. The process of acquiring formal recognition for one’s gender should be as unintrusive and simple as possible, but making legal sex contingent only on the individual’s account of themselves means there’s no way to tell the difference between a good-faith claim that reflects a genuine subjective experience, and the kind of claim made by Hambrook, who said he was a woman so he could rape women."
You see. Hambrook and Mallaband were already offenders. No one is suggesting that a trans person becomes a sexual predator once they don a wig but that opening up safe spaces allows sexual predators to manipulate the law and puts females in danger. Thus, Abraham suggesting that countries with a GRA do not see an increase in sexual violence is, oddly for a feminist, completely missing the point that it's not necessarily about increasing sexual violence but increasing the opportunity of sexual violence. Why do that to appease a tiny minority of people who believe they are something they are not or vice versa?
"The upsetting fact is that if someone was a sexual predator and wanted to commit a sexual crime they would probably do so anyway without legally changing their gender or infiltrating the safe space first," argues Abraham and rightly points out that most sexual violence happens in supposedly safe spaces of the home and 'stranger rape' is relatively rare. But by that logic women should not assess risk when out in public at any time because the risk is minimal. Whereas we all know that women have to assess that risk all the time. Adding another risk factor of allowing self identifying women into female safe spaces makes no sense. Why not simply have safe spaces for trans people? DV shelters or rape crisis centres separately, as you do for recognized genders; men and women? Why would it be so very important for trans women to be recognized legally as females? Surely if this is really about self definition then self defining would be enough?
“They [rape/sexual assault] are certainly not committed by innocent transgender people like my friend...” argues Abraham emphatically. Well, no, that is a reasonable assumption that an innocent person is not guilty of a crime. Is Abraham, by proxy, suggesting that if you're trans you must be innocent? I'm confused by her point. Her innocent trans friends aren't sexual predators ergo...ergo what?
Her earlier point: "I get the concern of who can use gendered facilities but trans people are not the problem. And to act like they are doesn't make a great deal of sense" is exactly missing this point. I don't think she does get the concern because she appears to assume that because her trans friends are lovely then trans people per se offer no threat and consequently opening up female only spaces will offer no threat to females. Sexual predators will find a way to assault women anyway. It's a bizarrely blinkered argument. In effect the argument is that the desires of trans women should take precedent over the safety and needs of biological women. If she got the concern then why would she not understand the illogical premise of putting aside the safety of 50% of the population in order to not hurt the feelings of a tiny yet vocal minority. It's just weird.
“If we want to reduce sex crimes we need to police rapists not trans people.” So, trans people aren't rapists? And I suppose I should clarify that by saying...so trans people CAN'T BE rapists? While I see Abraham's point that rape is committed by rapists that doesn't actually follow that trans people can't be rapists (logical fallacy) so we should therefore also be policing trans women rapists right?
“We're conflating sexual violence with trans gender rights.” No, Abraham is. Abraham is misunderstanding a central tenet of radical feminism. All men are rapists. That doesn't mean that literally all men are rapists but rather that all men have the potential to be a rapist (male, male genitalia, patriarchy, misogyny, etc.). Just because a man wears a dress (or indeed is transitioned) that does not mean he is not a potential threat to women. And vice versa, this is why trans men aren't an issue to rad fems because they aren't male and they don't have the whole history of patriarchy and misogyny behind them. Or to put it another way, becoming a trans woman doesn't suddenly make you safe around women. Does it? I repeat, Abraham seems to be arguing that because her innocent trans friends aren't rapists then all trans people must be innocent. What a bizarre argument. Becoming a trans woman does not heighten your potential for sexual violence, that's absolutely fair. But to ignore that potential is naïve at best, just stupid at worst.
I don't think rad fems do talk about trans women (specifically) as the thin wedge of rape culture, as Abraham suggests. The point is that putting on a dress does not make you female and does not nullify your patriarchial history or your threat.
“Trans people are at higher risk of violence than most of us.” Evidence please? I've not seen this. There's no reliable figures for trans people per se population wise so I can't see how that data could exist. And how would you extrapolate other factors from the risk? Sexuality? Ethnicity/race? dis/ability? That doesn't make any sense.
“The average life expectancy of a trans woman in the Americas is between 30 and 35 years old,” argues Abraham disingenuously. This is a sneaky statistic I've seen wielded out before. You see, you think the USA when you say Americas. However, the report here includes those bastions of enlightenment; Brazil, Panama, Mexico and all those other Latin American countries where murder rates are off the scale. The report was, also, for one year only. And the report acknowledges that trans people are at risk in those countries through “involvement in occupations that puts them at higher risk for violence and high criminilization.” I think that might be a euphemism for prostitution.
I found another site that lists the data. Most are in Brazil and Mexico (again) and 62% were sex workers (where it was possible to ascertain their profession). In the US it's almost exclusively black trans women (21) and there's no mention of whether their deaths were a result of them being Trans.
The video blurb states: "Can you call yourself a feminist if you don’t support the rights of transgender people? Amelia Abraham doesn’t think so. As someone who identifies as the ‘L’ in LGBT, Amelia has always felt empathetic towards the societal prejudice trans people face, but, on speaking with her friends, she was shocked to discover how many of them struggle to reconcile their feminism with transgender rights. Amelia addresses the common concerns listed by some about trans people - principally the risk to women’s safety. She demonstrates why conflating sexual violence with transgender rights denies the reality of rape culture and its actual perpetrators, whilst also unjustly demonising the trans community and increasing the prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards trans people."
Amelia Abraham is a good speaker but unfortunately her talk is complete gobbledegook. It's important to remember throughout the talk that it is addressed to feminists, specifically feminists who do not support transgender rights.
She begins with a personal anecdote (get ready for many more) about a friend who is transgender and has mental health problems. Well, transgender is a mental illness (gender dysphoria is still the DSM/ICD 10 diagnosis). ICD 10 definition here
"In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at least two of the following:
A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
A strong desire to be of the other gender
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender."
DSM V
Abraham's friend's mental health problems, though, are caused by her not being able to use women's bathrooms. When did this particular mental health problem start? Before her gender dysphoria? They presumably were ok at one point using male bathrooms or is this a new problem? This is important as later in her talk Abraham completely contradicts this anecdote*. I'm perplexed.
Her friend is scared to leave the house, says Abraham. Why is that? Presumably she fears attacks? Is this from feminists? Is she then suggesting that because trans people fear attacks feminists should thus put aside all their own fears and support trans people? There is a difference between empathy or support and assent. One can empathize with trans people and deplore any abuse of them whilst still completely disagreeing with their belief. I'm really perplexed what this thin emotive anecdote has to do with the talk's focus. I think everyone, including feminists who disagree that trans women are women, agree that if you have a mental illness based on believing you have been born in the wrong sexed body that will be very difficult emotionally, I expect religious people feel something similar when they experience traumatic events and it seems like God isn't listening.
...when you've glued your fingers to your face
If you're a Radical Feminist who critiques Transgender then you lose your job on sports councils, for instance. One of the greatest female tennis players of all time, Martina Navratilova, has argued that there is "a growing tendency among transgender activists to denounce anyone who argues against them and to label them all as 'transphobes.'" Following an article on the subject that Navratilova wrote for The Times in February 2019, Athlete Ally, an LGBTQ athlete advocacy group, removed Navratilova from their advisory board, stating her comments "are transphobic [and] based on a false understanding of science and data"." Navratilova
I particularly love "a false understanding of science..." You have to laugh. Or cry.
Martina N spouting nonsense about facts
The Labour Party have stripped many radical feminists of their party membership for protesting against the inclusion of trans women on Women Only Shortlists because they irrationally (and transphobically) argue that only women should be on Women Only Shortlists, not men who believe they are women.
Even Doctor Who writers aren't exempt from losing their jobs for the scourge of transphobia. You get the boot now for writing two tweets that are deemed transphobic and hounded out of your job by a small vocal group wielding pitchforks and lit torches. The Guardian
Why not just burn these heretical transphobes on pyres and have done with it?
Gareth Roberts, Doctor Who writer, who looks a bit like Emperor Ming the Merciless if Ming had discovered KFC...now that actually is cruel because he can't do anything about his weight, can he?
Amelia Abraham's 'influential transgender women' powerpoint at the end of the piece ** proves his point (Munroe and Paris are there, Chelsea were obviously playing away, that's a football reference rather than a sexual euphemism). Or is it the use of the word "trannie"? Who knows? Whatever the case, Gareth Roberts is a terrible transphobe for stating an opinion that holds water.
TERF has become a common and seemingly accepted insult used against anyone critiquing Transgender equality. People have been cautioned by the police for "misgendering"(it's not a legal term, simply an invented concept by trans lobbyists) and suggesting trans women aren't women on social media (Graham Linehan, Posie Parker). Discussions on popular media outlets (see the 'debates' between Adrian Harrop and Posie Parker or Parker and India Willoughby) automatically place feminist debaters as the ones who should prove their point (that females are females and trans women aren't). On social media all the truly vile abuse I've ever seen has come from trans lobbyists and 'mennist' Jordan Peterson right wingers not from radical feminists (happy to see evidence).
Adrian Harrop and Posie Parker. In the crazy Alice in Wonderland world of transgender rights one of these T-shirts is considered a hate crime. Clue: It's the factual one.
Abraham argues that "as the L in LGBT it's easy to see why I should support Transgender rights." But homosexuality isn't a belief or even a self identity, it's a sexuality that I presume we all agree is not a lifestyle choice but a neurological difference. Why does she feel particularly empathetic towards trans people as compared to others of a belief without any material evidence that has nothing to do with her sexuality, say, Sikhs or flat earthers? Is Abraham saying Trans is a neurological difference?
She says she knows what it's like to be stared at or to be yelled at or (cryptically) to have ulterior motives (do lesbians have ulterior motives?). Well, I'm a male who gets stared and shouted at, am I a protected species too? (I live in Greater Manchester, anyone a bit different in any way gets this). She says she can empathize with trans people and I've not heard any rad fems disagree with that statement. I empathize with anyone with mental illness. She argues that LGBT are stronger together but that makes no sense as how does sexual orientation have anything to do with what gender one feels? I'm utterly perplexed by the joining together of LGB and the T and I'm happy to have it explained.
It's especially ironic that Abraham feels a kinship with trans people because she's the L in LGBT because Doctor Who writer, Gareth Roberts is the G in LGBT yet he doesn't. I think that probably makes him doubly evil. Like a Dalek welded to a Cyberman.
"We hear people who describe themselves as feminists taking issue with trans people." Shouldn't that be "people who describes themselves as trans?" After all, feminism is a logical response to patriarchy by females (the "fem" bit) and by extension, in theory, all females are feminist (assuming that all females want not just equality but control over their body and their-selves within society etc.). But trans people are people with a classifiable mental illness who believe they have been "assigned" the wrong body at birth. Put that way you do begin to see that actually Abraham's argument makes complete rational sense. Feminism is a political position based on society, culture & politics whereas trans is a personal identity belief that is synonymous with a religion. So yes, feminists take issue with trans people because it makes no scientific, rational or cultural sense, like atheists taking issue with theists.
"Sometimes they [feminists] target transgender men." No evidence offered for this. I've never heard of that. Why would feminists (rad or otherwise) care if a woman self identified as a man? It makes absolutely no difference to the life lived by women per se. Those trans men aren't suddenly going to become a patriarchal or physical threat are they? I don't imagine that feminists would be up in arms about a trans man standing as a Labour MP. You could even argue that it might be healthy because the trans man has the experience of being a woman.
"They [feminists] seem to focus on transgender women." Well that's because feminists (fem) have the interests of females (fem) as the base of their political beliefs and transgender women believe by dressing a certain way or having their bodies cosmetically changed they can become not only women (gender) but females (sex). That is naturally a threat to feminists and the terms woman and female. If anyone can self identify as a woman or female then the terms are by extension meaningless and thus FEMinism becomes meaningless.
"Arguing over whether trans women are real women or labelling them as dangerous," argues Abraham. Two points. First, Rad fems don't only argue that trans women aren't women (gendered), real or otherwise, but more crucially argue they aren't female (sex) and that's where the "real" bit comes in, a woman is defined as an adult female. That does not mean that trans women cannot self identify as women, it just means that they should not be legally recognized as women, like it's cool if someone believes in angels but you would not expect it enshrined in law that angels exist.
Trans groups have pushed for self identification models like those in Ireland etc. that Abraham acknowledges. Crucially, trans people are then able to legally identify as that sex (i.e. trans women can have 'female' on their passport, be legally identified as a female, they can now but only after 2 years psychological assessment (see gender dysphoria)). From a science viewpoint this makes no sense as females and males are assigned different sex organs and cosmetically changing them does not change one's sex. If you want to go further, then all animals are assigned sex via gametes, the amount of egg/sperm they produce. Males produce many, females one. That's the science bit. More importantly, if you allow people to freely choose not only their gender but also their sex then yes, that does make the safety of single sex spaces open to abuse.
Abraham doesn't mention, for instance, that though in Ireland a trans woman can use a women's bathroom they aren't assigned to female prisons if convicted of something (see her discussion of sexual violence below), because anyone with any critical faculty can see the possibility of a rapist or violent abuser who self identifies as a woman being placed in a secure environment of a prison with 'real' women and that would, I'm sure we all agree, be insane. It shows that even in countries seemingly more relaxed about trans rights there is still the acknowledgement of that danger. But I repeat, this isn't just about the existential physical dangers of allowing self identified women who are males biologically into safe female only spaces it's about what it means to allow biological males to self identify and legally be recognized as women and females. If I, a male, can self identify as female then what does that mean for such areas of feminism as wage equality or representation in public (or private) office? What does it mean for feminism? Is feminism then supposed to have an addendum as with LGB, feminismT? What does that mean for the historical struggle for women's rights? What does it mean for feminism if I, a male, can self identify and then speak for women (even though previous to this moment I was a man and male and had not experienced life as a woman, and more importantly still don't)?
“I first noticed this a year and a half ago,” says Abraham about what she perceives as terrible transphobia. I'd flip that on its head and ask why is it that suddenly in that year and a half that transgender is 'an issue'? One might argue that only now can men who feel they're women be free to recognize this but then why are the vast majority (and Abraham's talking about the media) of trans women so young? Why is the debate overwhelmingly dominated by young (white, middle class?) trans people (particularly on university campuses). Why now? Why now in a world dominated by identity politics and social media might there be an explosion of young people having gender identity issues or feelings?
Abraham uses newspapers she's written for to show this rampant transphobia. Those bastions of feminism; The Sun, The Mail, The Economist, The Times are present. If you pop transgender and Guardian into google then you're bombarded by pro trans pieces by trans women. This is pretty typical of beliefs (rather than scientific understanding or political ideology) that there's always a certain paranoia; they're all out to get us.
Abraham's examples of media coverage of transgender has little to do with feminists (excepting Hadley Freeman in the Guardian, who is a feminist and voices the concerns I'm voicing here)
How. Dare. They. Join. The. Conversation.
We shouldn't be conversing we should just all blindly accept the one true faith.
Has Abraham actually read these pieces?
"You might have thought that the #MeToo campaign, in which women have been speaking out about the universality of sexual assault and rape, would make people more sympathetic to concerns about female safety. You would be wrong: nothing makes you look more liberal these days than shouting at women who express anxiety based on their experiences," converses Freeman.
She continues: "On the day of this year’s Women’s March, trans model Munroe Bergdorf tweeted that to “center reproductive systems” at the demonstrations was “reductive and exclusionary”.
I’m trying to think of anything more patriarchal than telling women to stop fussing about vaginas at a Women’s March... Gender is a feeling and biology is a physical fact, and the reason women-only spaces exist is not to protect some special inner feminine essence, but because there are significant physical differences between male-born bodies and female-born ones, and the latter have long been at a disadvantage."
Crazy talk there from Freeman huh? Why isn't she thinking about trans women's feelings?
Abraham points out that “well known writers” claim trans people are indoctrinating kids to change their gender. The article is in The Mail about the NHS but I would point you to the troubling material on Mermaids UK for something that does smell of indoctrination.
Take, for instance, their link in their "Young People Resources" to What is Gender: The video
Or how about their link to Transexual Teen, Beauty Queen.
Inspiring.
Mermaids Resources for Young People
Abraham: “In other cases they were comparing Trans to having a mental illness,” argues Abraham. It is. That's a fact. In the UK if you want a Female passport, if you want surgery, you have to see a psychiatrist to confirm you have gender dysphoria, which IS a mental illness. This is just wilful dissonance.
“When a young trans girl was elected as a women's officer for the labour party she was vilified...” How exactly does someone born a male who lived as a man but now identifies themselves as a woman represent females in a major political party? I mean, I know I'm being transphobic but wouldn't it be better to have a woman who had grown up a woman and was born a female represent women's interests? You know, otherwise it kind of does away with the whole notion of a women's leader, someone representing women, because we live in a patriarchal society. If Lily Madigan in shedding her male clothes and self identifying as a woman also sheds her maleness, her patriarchal position and history does that mean that women who become men take on patriarchal roles? It doesn't make any sense. I assume that Abraham is alluding to Hadley Freeman's piece:
"But then, as with experts, apparently we’ve all had enough of lived experience now. When a 19-year-old trans woman was elected a Labour woman’s officer last year, a Labour councillor explained that “lived experience as a woman” was not a pre-requisite to be a woman’s officer. Biology, too, has been deemed terribly passe. “Inclusive feminism,” Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Wood wrote when considering why self-identifying trans women should be allowed into women’s refuges, understands that “gender is a complex and deeply personal thing, and is about so much more than outdated ideas of biology.”"
Vilification? Or fearing stepping back into the pre-enlightenment 17th Century?
“When a young non-binary person used the girl's changing room in Top Shop they were held up as a threat to kids across Britain,” argues Abraham. I presume this refers to “performance artist” Travis Alabanza, as it's the one story that's repeated on google And despite us living in this terrible transphobic society Top Shop have done away with women only changing rooms in the women's clothes shop on the basis of a trans performer's complaint and 55 others. All aboard the transphobia express.
Is it transphobic of me to be concerned that a biological male who self identifies as a woman can enter spaces where females are undressing?
We'll be returning to this in Abraham's talk (newspaper articles and safety in female only spaces) in a little while.
Abraham's trans friends feel “afraid, persecuted, apathetic.” Funnily enough you'll never guess what feminists and women who do not agree that trans women are real women say they feel, yeah; "afraid, persecuted, apathetic.”
“They show me the tweets they receive as the situation worsens....” From whom? Why would right wing (male?) crazies tweeting death threats to men who believe they are women have anything to do with feminism? Why should that stir feminists to throw away their feminism and invite in men who believe they are women? There's no cause and effect in this argument. Misgendering is a concept invented by the trans lobby. I think we are all happy to call someone whatever they wish us to in conversation but if I call someone he because they look like a man is that transphobic misgendering?
Perhaps the key line here by Abraham is: “people arguing over their very right to exist.” Obviously Abraham is talking about trans women but if she got her way and any man can self identify not only as a woman but as a female then both those terms, man, woman, and consequently, male, female, and of course, feminism itself, cease to exist. Everyone can be female if they feel it.
She talks to her cis gendered friends, says Abraham. Hang on there. Cis? Did I agree to be given this made up label by transgender lobbyists? At least he and she already were pronouns in the English language. Cis isn't a term I choose to recognize. Mispronouning me. It's petty as it doesn't actually affect me but such concepts creep into everyday speech and ideologically reinforce the idea that transgender people are right and I and feminists, of course, must play along.
Talking of her feminist friends, Abraham says, “privately these...women tell me they find it difficult to reconcile their feminism with transgender rights.” The fact that they only feel safe saying this privately speaks very loudly. And, of course, the two, feminism and complete trans rights are irreconcilable, like theism and atheism. As an atheist I happily accept everyone's right to believe what they choose, if that belief, however, impinges on my life then I have the freedom to point out that they are deluded, believing in supernatural beings, or in this case, that anyone can randomly choose not only their gender but their sex too. You have the right to be who you are but that does not mean I have to accept it or not believe it's complete woo woo.
To appease religious people by going along with their delusion would be madness, what's the difference with the transgender debate?
“If anyone can become a woman doesn't that undermine the very idea of what a woman is, doesn't that mean a woman can be anything?” asks Abraham's friends in a moment of sane scientific clarity.
So what does Abraham answer to this healthy dose of scientific, evidential fact? “I say, yes, a woman can be anything. Show me two women who look the same, have the same experiences or the same biological make up.”
Yeah, ha, ha, ha. Oh no, she's serious. Is she trying to suggest that this is about personality rather than social gender and sex, that it's about what you did on holiday or your taste in films or how big or small your boobs are? Uh, yes women do have the same experiences (it's what feminism's purpose is) within the framework of being a woman. No two women look the same (that's genetics, this is pretty basic stuff), have the same experiences (I kayaked in Nepal you spent two weeks in Marbella), or have the same biological make up (this woman is size 14 and has 38 boobs, this woman is size 8 and 32 boobs, this trans woman has a penis...no wait, women have vaginas, she's very wrong on that one). They, women with vaginas, will experience patriarchy in very similar ways, even if they come from extremely different backgrounds. Theresa May will have experienced patriarchy (it's a constant, like gravity) in much the same way as a working class black disabled lesbian woman on benefits. Their lives are very different but patriarchy isn't. Their social circumstances merely mitigate the effect. What is Abraham talking about?
Abraham then deals with the threat of sexual violence that is a constant for females but relatively rare for males: "If anyone can change their gender, doesn't that mean that men can identify as women and come into spaces like domestic violence shelters or public toilets and do us harm?"
Yes.
Oh right, it wasn't a general question. But still, the answer is yes.
"Today I want to focus on this question because I believe that those of us who exist in the grey area [no idea what that means?] can be made to see this way of thinking is harmful we might genuinely help to save people's lives [we never find out how exactly]."
I have no idea what she means at all by this but she continues by saying she is a feminist, has written on women's rights, has experienced sexual violence and "I get the concern of who can use gendered facilities but trans people are not the problem. And to act like they are doesn't make a great deal of sense."
The problem to what? I genuinely don't think she gets the concern at all and we'll see why in a moment.
She argues that she wants to deal with this issue via three concepts. Firstly:
"Who's checking?" As in, who is checking what gender or sex someone is. Well, at present because men cannot self identify their sex you can check via documentation; passport, birth certificate, (in prisons, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis, etc.) but that's done away with with a GRA. Also, of course, however much trans people might not like the argument, trans women are often easily spotted visibly. And if one was suspicious then you go back to point one; check passport etc.
Abraham about to be beamed up to the mothership
That was homophobia so ergo, logical fallacy, if you disagree with Trans rights you must be transphobic. There was a similar panic about the proliferation of guns in the US after school shootings. There was a similar panic about the election of Donald Trump. There, see, it's not the same thing just saying there was a moral panic about one thing so any other moral panic has to be the same. One person's panic is another person's rational response.
"You can't necessarily tell who is gay just by looking at them. Sexuality is on a spectrum. The same is true of gender. We can't necessarily tell who is trans and lots of cis people do not conform to typical understandings of gender. Butch women, effeminate men, how would we police them. Would we have assigned gender checkers, facial recognition scanning or required recognition certificates on entries to toilets? The problem with policing gender like this is that we all need to look convincingly cis gender but this is difficult and expensive for trans people,you might not want to get surgery, should you have to? "
So, so much to unpick from Abraham's argument. If I was being horrid I'd say she's being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's assume she has a big old mental blind spot instead.
Sexuality is innate, I assume we all agree. You know you find the same sex attractive from the moment you feel sexual feelings (dependent on sources this can be from consciousness, see Freud, through to puberty, see developmental theory). Is this always the same with transgender? Is transgender then not a mental illness at all but a neurological difference? The problem with this argument, likening homosexuality to transgender, is that homosexuality is verifiable, you know, if someone were actually checking. I presume as a lesbian, Abraham digs chicks, see, she's a lesbian, visibly. Someone claiming they are transgender is just that, like someone claiming they hear the voice of god.
It's true, we can't always tell who is trans and, yes, we don't all gender conform, I myself have always been hit on by other gay men...no, I mean, by gay men...because a lot of people think I'm gay, mixing up not being manly with queerness. And this is all fine and dandy if you completely forget what Abraham is arguing about here. Let me just lead you back to the point of this argument.
"If anyone can change their gender, doesn't that mean that men can identify as women and come into spaces like domestic violence shelters or public toilets and do us harm."
Yep, the whole purpose of this part of her talk is to deal with the perceived threat of trans women entering female only spaces. So what has that got to do with gender or camp men and butch women, policing gender norms? Because we aren't talking about gender here are we? Well, Abraham is, conflating sex and gender, as such debates always do. The "policing" aspect of safe spaces is not about gender, it's about sex. No one polices whether males can enter a female toilet now. It's accepted by all in the social contract that we don't violate that social rule. If you do away with that rule then not only is gender negotiable but so is biological sex. Feminists are not concerned that trans women might enter female only safe spaces when they identify as women, they're concerned that if, in this brave new world of trans rights that Abraham is advocating, you identify as a woman then you can enter female only spaces. It would be legal. Policing schmeesing. We self police at present. I, as a male, know that a women's toilet is for women but if you do away with spaces defined by sex or gender then by definition anyone can enter those spaces. In legally reinforced areas like prisons the very policing that Abraham is talking about would still have to be there. I'm assuming, as a feminist, she would not advocate the right of a male sexual predator to be sentenced to a woman's prison because they self identified as a woman?
As a Cister I'm perplexed by anyone self identifying as the opposite sex and not wanting to change their body. If you feel you're in the wrong body why would you not want to be castrated (yeah, Posie Parker got cautioned for using that term even though it's a fact) and grow boobs? Surely that goes with the territory? Why would you feel like a female but still retain your visibly male body? Unless...no that's transphobic thinking. So, if it's not about changing your biological body thing to a woman/female, what is it? Wearing dresses? Feeling like a woman, whatever that is beyond wearing dresses? It makes absolutely no sense.
There's the problem in a nutshell. If all men can self identify as women what's the point of a TEDx London Women section?
“Doesn't policing gender like this go against what feminists have historically fought for? To free women from the expectation of having to look feminine,” argues Abraham.
After I stopped laughing.
And laughing.
Guffawing out loud...
I laughed once more then sat down to write a resonse.
That's right, trans women are actually doing what feminists have always wanted, breaking down gender divides, we're just a step away from destroying patriarchy. Is Abraham believing this nonsense? Ok, taking it at face value, why then do trans women immediately on 'coming out' head straight for the hair extensions, wigs, make up and dresses? (see final slide in her show, see Gareth Roberts transphobic point above) As far as I've been able to discern this IS what transgender women are all about. The feeling like a woman inside is wanting to wear dresses, slap on clown make up and carry a handbag. Feel free to tell me what it is if it's not that.
Freeing women from those gender expectations at the wig shop. The wig shop boosting transgender women's confidence If transgender goes beyond the cosmetic and is about males feeling they are the wrong sex then why would they feel the need or desire to conform to gender stereotypes? It makes no sense.
Abraham argues: “Deciding who is or isn't female enough to enter a space. Well, that just reinforces gender norms...”
Points to any kids who can spot what she's done there again? Yes you at the back. Correct. Female is not a gender. It is a sex. She's broken the confusing gender and sex rule. Yet again. There is nothing female about wearing dresses. But females do have vaginas. The fact that she continually conflates gender and sex shows that she's tying herself in knots trying to make something irrational seem coherent. Oh, if only this whole argument were about feminists deciding who is female enough. You can't be female enough, you either are female or you aren't (yeah, yeah, interesex blah blah nothing to do with transgender etc.). You can be feminine or not. God, this is tedious.
* Her second point is that trans people have been using gendered spaces for a long time. “Trans friends tell me they've been using the bathroom of their choice for years.” Uh, but not the friend you used as an example at the beginning of your talk about how transphobic it is that she couldn't use the Ladies, right? How confusing.
I wish she'd referenced the survey of rape and DV shelters that accommodate trans people. I'd like to know how that works. What accommodate means? I could not find a reference for it on google.
Abraham uses the argument that legalization of GRAs does not increase sexual violence, again no reference for this. How would you know? How would you extrapolate sexual violence carried out by men and carried out by self defining men or women? She actually says that "people can legally self determine their gender in Malta, Belgium, etc. where this is already the case. Rates of sexual violence have not directly increased."
I'm not sure what "directly" means here. But because some men are now identifying as women in those countries and overall sexual violence rates have not increased that does not follow that GRAs do not pose a threat to females/biological women. In fact, by her own argument that sexual predators will find ways to sexually abuse women you would expect rates to stay stable after a GRA. No one, I have to keep repeating, is saying that trans people are more likely to be sexual predators but simply that GRAs offer sexual predators a way into female only safe spaces.
I'll now point you back to those writers of transphobic pieces in the newspapers that Abraham cites earlier to highlight this point. One of the pieces Abraham cites is by Sarah Ditum in The New Statesman: "What’s missing from the transgender debate? Any discussion of male violence: If we treat gender purely as a matter of self-declaration, the system is open to abuse. "
"One of those things that supposedly never happens, happened. Luke Mallaband was convicted of six voyeurism offences after a female student at the University of East Anglia found his phone hidden in the university library’s gender-neutral toilets. The probation report described him as “high risk of posing serious harm to females”," writes Ditum.
Ditum rightly points at the paradox at the heart of the transgender debate: "The advantage of gender-neutral toilets is that they’re accessible to all. The disadvantage is that, by being accessible to all, they can become unsafe to some – which means they’re not really accessible to all in practice."
You can extrapolate this to all female safe spaces.
"In case you’re tempted to write Mallaband off as a rogue male, the University of Toronto last year rolled back some of its gender-neutral bathrooms in halls of residence after two female students reported being filmed in the showers; in Toronto in 2014, serial rapist Christopher Hambrook was convicted of entering women’s refuges under the name Jessica and assaulting two vulnerable women; and in 2013, transwoman prisoner Paris Green was moved out of Cornton Vale women’s prison near Stirling after having sexual relationships with female inmates. (Green still had full male genitalia.)."
Ditum points out that: "For trans people, moving to a system of self-declaration and privileging identity over reassignment means moving away from a system that makes doctors and lawyers the arbiters of their identity. The process of acquiring formal recognition for one’s gender should be as unintrusive and simple as possible, but making legal sex contingent only on the individual’s account of themselves means there’s no way to tell the difference between a good-faith claim that reflects a genuine subjective experience, and the kind of claim made by Hambrook, who said he was a woman so he could rape women."
You see. Hambrook and Mallaband were already offenders. No one is suggesting that a trans person becomes a sexual predator once they don a wig but that opening up safe spaces allows sexual predators to manipulate the law and puts females in danger. Thus, Abraham suggesting that countries with a GRA do not see an increase in sexual violence is, oddly for a feminist, completely missing the point that it's not necessarily about increasing sexual violence but increasing the opportunity of sexual violence. Why do that to appease a tiny minority of people who believe they are something they are not or vice versa?
"The upsetting fact is that if someone was a sexual predator and wanted to commit a sexual crime they would probably do so anyway without legally changing their gender or infiltrating the safe space first," argues Abraham and rightly points out that most sexual violence happens in supposedly safe spaces of the home and 'stranger rape' is relatively rare. But by that logic women should not assess risk when out in public at any time because the risk is minimal. Whereas we all know that women have to assess that risk all the time. Adding another risk factor of allowing self identifying women into female safe spaces makes no sense. Why not simply have safe spaces for trans people? DV shelters or rape crisis centres separately, as you do for recognized genders; men and women? Why would it be so very important for trans women to be recognized legally as females? Surely if this is really about self definition then self defining would be enough?
“They [rape/sexual assault] are certainly not committed by innocent transgender people like my friend...” argues Abraham emphatically. Well, no, that is a reasonable assumption that an innocent person is not guilty of a crime. Is Abraham, by proxy, suggesting that if you're trans you must be innocent? I'm confused by her point. Her innocent trans friends aren't sexual predators ergo...ergo what?
Her earlier point: "I get the concern of who can use gendered facilities but trans people are not the problem. And to act like they are doesn't make a great deal of sense" is exactly missing this point. I don't think she does get the concern because she appears to assume that because her trans friends are lovely then trans people per se offer no threat and consequently opening up female only spaces will offer no threat to females. Sexual predators will find a way to assault women anyway. It's a bizarrely blinkered argument. In effect the argument is that the desires of trans women should take precedent over the safety and needs of biological women. If she got the concern then why would she not understand the illogical premise of putting aside the safety of 50% of the population in order to not hurt the feelings of a tiny yet vocal minority. It's just weird.
If they aren't the problem what's the answer? And what was the question again?
“We're conflating sexual violence with trans gender rights.” No, Abraham is. Abraham is misunderstanding a central tenet of radical feminism. All men are rapists. That doesn't mean that literally all men are rapists but rather that all men have the potential to be a rapist (male, male genitalia, patriarchy, misogyny, etc.). Just because a man wears a dress (or indeed is transitioned) that does not mean he is not a potential threat to women. And vice versa, this is why trans men aren't an issue to rad fems because they aren't male and they don't have the whole history of patriarchy and misogyny behind them. Or to put it another way, becoming a trans woman doesn't suddenly make you safe around women. Does it? I repeat, Abraham seems to be arguing that because her innocent trans friends aren't rapists then all trans people must be innocent. What a bizarre argument. Becoming a trans woman does not heighten your potential for sexual violence, that's absolutely fair. But to ignore that potential is naïve at best, just stupid at worst.
I don't think rad fems do talk about trans women (specifically) as the thin wedge of rape culture, as Abraham suggests. The point is that putting on a dress does not make you female and does not nullify your patriarchial history or your threat.
“Trans people are at higher risk of violence than most of us.” Evidence please? I've not seen this. There's no reliable figures for trans people per se population wise so I can't see how that data could exist. And how would you extrapolate other factors from the risk? Sexuality? Ethnicity/race? dis/ability? That doesn't make any sense.
“The average life expectancy of a trans woman in the Americas is between 30 and 35 years old,” argues Abraham disingenuously. This is a sneaky statistic I've seen wielded out before. You see, you think the USA when you say Americas. However, the report here includes those bastions of enlightenment; Brazil, Panama, Mexico and all those other Latin American countries where murder rates are off the scale. The report was, also, for one year only. And the report acknowledges that trans people are at risk in those countries through “involvement in occupations that puts them at higher risk for violence and high criminilization.” I think that might be a euphemism for prostitution.
Abraham includes the separate data for US trans black women. There's absolutely zero context though. As measured against per capita homicides? Were the murders directly linked to them being trans? I'm sure you could do similar data for garage forecourt attendants in the US but that wouldn't mean garage forecourt attendants are being targeted because they are garage forecourt attendants would it?
“If you go on the Transgender Day of Remembrance Project which tracks the murder of people globally for 2018 there are already 300 entries.” There doesn't seem to be a website anymore. Are those 300 murders directly linked to the people being trans? Were they because of criminality or sex work risks? How does it compare to other marginalized groups? Can we have context?
I found another site that lists the data. Most are in Brazil and Mexico (again) and 62% were sex workers (where it was possible to ascertain their profession). In the US it's almost exclusively black trans women (21) and there's no mention of whether their deaths were a result of them being Trans.
“Trans women and trans women of colour are of higher risk of domestic abuse and sexual assault.” Really? She doesn't cite a source for this. Higher risk than who? Than biological females and black biological females? If that were true it could be a statistical anomaly.
Again we have the claim “trans people suffer disproportionately from mental health problems.” Considering gender dysphoria IS a mental health problem that's sort of a nonsensical statistic.
Abraham goes into detail with a graph about hate crimes against African American trans women (above). The problem with this data is that black people make up around 11% of US population yet commit and experience around 50% of homicides. This isn't something racial but clearly down to social and cultural problems endemic in US society. How does one show that a murder or hate crime was specific to a black trans woman in the US without that context? The website details each death but there's absolutely no way you could tell whether the deaths were related to them being women, trans or black beyond the fact that women predominantly experience DV and black Americans are far more likely to die in a homicide and carry out a homicide. Put simply, how sure can you be that someone who is trans was murdered BECAUSE they were trans?
Abraham finishes with the rallying call that hey, we're all sisters (cisters?) under the skin. Completely ignoring the objections of radical feminists that males and females are biologically different and men and women are different because of social gender and all that that entails and a person just saying they feel a certain way does not wipe any of this away.
** Abraham says there are lots of transgender people that are "great to listen to." That's great but do they listen too? And why, if these trans women are breaking down gender barriers do they all look so very very hyper-feminine? This IS a debate, however much trans people might have their feelings hurt this needs to be debated rather than throwing around unverifiable figures, conflating radical feminists with right wing misogynists, calling out or no platforming anyone who disagrees, that smells badly of fascism.
Inspiring trans voices freeing women from the expectation of having to look feminine
The rallying call is:
“Not are trans women really women but is feminism really feminism if it oppresses people.”
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. If oppression is disagreeing with your viewpoint then yes, feminism is still feminism. In her talk she hasn't given any evidence of feminists oppressing anyone. How are feminists oppressing anyone? It makes no sense.
And yet again, if anyone can self identify not only as a woman but also as a female then it doesn't matter if Abraham believes feminism oppresses people because feminism will be a redundant term. Everyone has the right to believe they are whatever they are; trans woman, made in god's image, an alien from planet X-2-Zero or other things they feel inside them but just not legally. Abraham's arguments are purely emotive like the whole 'trans debate' rather than a discussion of sociology, science and rationality.
“Not are trans women really women but is feminism really feminism if it oppresses people.”
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. If oppression is disagreeing with your viewpoint then yes, feminism is still feminism. In her talk she hasn't given any evidence of feminists oppressing anyone. How are feminists oppressing anyone? It makes no sense.
And yet again, if anyone can self identify not only as a woman but also as a female then it doesn't matter if Abraham believes feminism oppresses people because feminism will be a redundant term. Everyone has the right to believe they are whatever they are; trans woman, made in god's image, an alien from planet X-2-Zero or other things they feel inside them but just not legally. Abraham's arguments are purely emotive like the whole 'trans debate' rather than a discussion of sociology, science and rationality.
Comments
Post a Comment