Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

A Woman's Place is Speaking Up in Wales

Men and women are invited to attend. What made you think it was women onl? The speakers are women, and I believe two of the WPUK events had trans-women on the panel.
He could attend but according to the rules he would have to remain silent unless it was determined (by who yet no one has clarified) that he was speaking with a women's voice. Which means as far as I can tell means agreeing with the organiser's already established viewpoints.
 
Men and women are invited to attend. What made you think it was women onl? The speakers are women, and I believe two of the WPUK events had trans-women on the panel.
Let's be clear - trans women who agree with you, and identify as men.
 
Since 'cis' is effectively barred as a useful word in these discussions I hereby ban "trans" as a word too and propose that all women - trans and cis - now be referred to only as women.
 
Also, just saying that men use trans rights to attack or abuse women isn't enough. You have to prove that it is a significant risk if you're using that argument to remove rights from trans people.

I agree that the risks of trans inclusion are often overstated, and rarely supported by evidence. But, in your view, hypothetically, could there be a point at which the risk to cis women would be sufficient to justify cis women legitimately insisting upon spaces for cis women? Or, could the risk to cis women (however high) never be a legitimate basis for such discrimination, on principle?
 
Yes, transwomen who identify as transwomen and accept that biologically, they are men. Or if they have transitioned, they accept they do not have the lived experience of natal women and girls who have been oppressed for millenia because they were born with vaginas.
Ok. Well, I've established that as far as you're concerned at least, some women arent woman, and this isn't a debate.
 
I agree that the risks of trans inclusion are often overstated, and rarely supported by evidence. But, in your view, hypothetically, could there be a point at which the risk to cis women would be sufficient to justify cis women legitimately insisting upon spaces for cis women? Or, could the risk to cis women (however high) never be a legitimate basis for such discrimination, on principle?
Sorry, not arguing hypotheticals here. That just muddies the water. Start a new thread.
 
Men are allowed. Why don't you come along and listen to the speakers?
not really interested in a closed shop "down with this kind of thing" non public event broadcasting to the allowed audience with no real debate possible
and i'm dole scum atm so have to choose which events that charge that I really want to go to
 
well, that's not what transitioning means. Also, does that mean she sanctions checking genitals at the door? Or maybe birth certificates. Sounds draconian.
I think this needs answering. This isn't a hypothetical, this is an issue that needs sorting out. Far from silencing some women, I'm actually asking for input and opinions.
 
Can I re-iterate an earlier post I made in this thread - I created it in order to advertise a meeting in Cardiff. I'm aware of the huge thread on these issues that was closed recently, not least because it caused distress to people on both sides of the argument. It was not my intention to start a new debate, but I don't feel it would have been right to ignore questions people had about the event.

I hear arguments, and accept them, that these debates can distress trans-people and in an ideal world I don't want that to happen. Are you aware of how distressing it is for women like myself to be called names, shouted down, given labels (cis) we don't accept, to know that guidance given to schools on trans inclusion says that if girls aren't comfortable with trans girls in their private spaces, then they should be educated or move to another space? Even if you can't or aren't interested in imagining our distress, let me tell you it's real. We are taking risks with our jobs, friends, and emotional well-being in asking for debate, raising concerns, etc, it's not something we're doing for fun. There's days I feel so stressed with it, I have to stay away from social media. But I feel I have to do something in order to protect the rights women have fought for.
 
Is there anyone speaking from a trans-inclusionary feminist viewpoint?

Don't you have The Guardian (which doesn't allow comments on trannsgeder articles and when it does it invokes "rules" to delete dissenting voices) and the Indy already? It's a meeting to give voice to the usually no-platformed on this subject.
 
Don't you have The Guardian (which doesn't allow comments on trannsgeder articles and when it does it invokes "rules" to delete dissenting voices) and the Indy already? It's a meeting to give voice to the usually no-platformed on this subject.
Considering the articles are almost always transphobic, I feel that this is more about silencing trans voices than cis anti trans voices.

Why don't you just book yourself a slot in the radio four TERF slot?
 
Sorry, not arguing hypotheticals here. That just muddies the water. Start a new thread.

It don't think it muddies anything. In fact, it cuts to the heart of the issue. Whether or not it can ever be legitimate for cis women to organise in the interests of cis women, when that necessarily means discriminating against trans women. And who decides that question of legitimacy; whether, given the history of oppression of those born female by those born male, the latter have any right to decide. Until those questions are addressed, it's just the same round-and- round.
 
Considering the articles are almost always transphobic, I feel that this is more about silencing trans voices than cis anti trans voices.

Why don't you just book yourself a slot in the radio four TERF slot?

If that was a "TERF" slot Munroe Bergdorf would have been invited as a transwoman and this issue would have been discussed there with gender critical feminists present. It hasn't. You've got it too and women are having to organise meetings in locations kept secret until the very day. I think it's revealing of the misogyny inherent in the whole thing that UKIP gets given a lot of air time in most media and women with a problem about trans-ideology don't. But I'm not woke enough to forget my own lived experiences. :oops:
 
This is a very interesting thread on the issue of self-id (self-id being the policy currently used as a tool to drum up hatred against trans people, specifically trans women, more widely):



I'll include it all below for those who don't want to scroll through on twitter:

--

The proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (2004) in order to allow trans people to self-identify, without the necessity for a medical diagnosis and two-years of treatment, has unsurprisingly been fodder for TERF trolls

But it also seems to have provoked a lot of anxiety among v. reasonable women who consider themselves allies to trans people, why?

Because, these people are worried that the proposed changes will mean that *anyone* could self-identify as “trans” and wander into women’s only spaces

So, here are some secrets (they’re not secret, this information is widely available, trans people are not hiding it from you) about being trans for cis people feeling concerned about the implications of this bill

1.We’re already allowed to use the spaces that align with our gender identity

The GRA is not the piece of law that protects a trans persons right to use spaces which align with their gender identity. That’s the Equality Act (2010). We've been here the whole time.

2. You do not need a Gender Recognition Certificate to be Trans*

In fact, a GRC is about the last thing any trans person will get as part of their transition. To get a GRC you have to have been “living in role” for 2 years, and be able to demonstrate this with official documentation, most commonly a name change.

What is “living in role”? Well, it’s bureaucracy speak for presenting in your preferred gender *to everyone*. That means not just coming out to a few friends, but changing your name by deed poll or statutory declaration, presenting full time in your preferred gender, etc.

So, that means, anyone obtaining a GRC will already have been known by their preferred name and pronouns for at least 2 years, they may also have been receiving medical treatment for that amount of time – sometimes longer

That’s right, you don’t necessarily need an official name change to begin medical intervention

So really, *and here’s the kicker*, to be a trans person in the UK, all you really have to do is *self-identify as trans*

Mostly, it goes a little bit like this: Me: I’m trans, I’ve been feeling this for a while and I’m finally ready to do something about it. Please refer me to a specialist. My GP: Okay.

*waits* *waits some more* GIC: So, you’re Trans* – tell me about your experience. Let’s check in in 6 months. *six months later* GIC: Still trans? Okay, if you want we’ll prescribe some hormones. Me: *starts hormones*

BUT, some trans people can’t or don’t want to take hormones, or receive medical interventions, that doesn’t make them any less trans, or make their gender identity any less valid.

Quick aside: I do wonder how cis people think trans people *become* trans if not by self-identifying. This isn’t Hogwarts, we don’t get picked out of a hat, or have a letter fall from the sky. My GRC didn’t just arrive in the post one day and then I sprouted a beard and was trans

For some people, myself included, it isn’t easy to get those official bits of paper the GRC needs you to have had for 2 years. Changing your name officially is very easy to do, but if you’re financially dependent on others, or have other things going on it can take a while

So many will have actually been “living in role” for a while before any of that official paperwork comes in, and may have started on treatment etc. too

Someone may have been taking hormones for several years before they get a GRC, where then do you draw the line and so, well you’re a *genuine* trans person?

3. The GRC doesn’t actually *do* very much.

It may have become apparent that I do not have a GRC, and I actually don’t need one to get by in my day-to-day life. I have a passport and driving licence both of which are in my preferred name and gender

You can apply for these as soon as your name change is official. To change the gender on your passport you also need a letter from your GP to confirm the change is likely to be permanent. Again, these are official documents you self-identify in order to get

The GRC itself really gets you very little. With a GRC you can apply to have your birth certificate changed. You also need it to change your gender with HMRC. Those are the only things I have not been able to change without a GRC

When was the last time anyone asked to see your birth certificate in daily life, let alone when you were trying to access a changing room or swim class? It doesn’t happen

It baffles me what people think they are asking for when they say trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s spaces. What is the test here? Are we going to have passport checks on the door?

Oh wait, I don’t need a GRC to get a passport.

The material difference this change will make to even trans peoples day-to-day existence is practically zero.

What it does make a difference to is the levels of bureaucracy, psychological stress, medicalization etc. we have to wade through, and time we have to wait, to bring all our paperwork into line and justify our existence.

4. Trans men exist.

I know its hard to believe that anyone would opt to be a man, I feel that way myself regularly, but it does happen

When cis women say they don’t want trans women in women's spaces – because the system might be abused, because they weren’t socialised along the same lines, etc. – I always wonder: does that mean they want me in there?

Or my bigger, hairier, more masculine trans brothers?

If the genitals maketh the gender then you are not just asking for trans women out, you are asking for trans men in, and in reality I don’t think that is what you want…

5. It’s much more dangerous for us than it is for you.

The first time I used the men’s room I was terrified: what if I was spotted? What if someone says something? What if I get hurt? The same fears exist for trans women.

According to Stonewall, over a third of trans people in the UK (41%) have been the victim of a hate crime in the last 12 months; more than a quarter have been the victim of domestic abuse; 1:4 have experienced homelessness.

Nearly half of all trans people (48%) avoid using public bathrooms for fear of harassment and discrimination. All these figures can be found in Stonewall’s comprehensive Trans Report

Entering a gendered space can be terrifying for a trans person, especially someone early in their transition. What they are doing is honest, and brave, and ultimately should not be a big deal. We all just want somewhere to pee.

6. Sexual harassment is illegal

That’s it really, this doesn’t need more explanation, changing the GRA will not change the fact that harassment is illegal.

--
 
If that was a "TERF" slot Munroe Bergdorf would have been invited as a transwoman and this issue would have been discussed there with gender critical feminists present. It hasn't. You've got it too and women are having to organise meetings in locations kept secret until the very day. I think it's revealing of the misogyny inherent in the whole thing that UKIP gets given a lot of air time in most media and women with a problem about trans-ideology don't. But I'm not woke enough to forget my own lived experiences. :oops:

Bit of a Fraudian there, comparing your treatment to fellow extremist reactionaries UKIP.

edit: I should say 'contrasting' rather than 'comparing' but I think my meaning was clear
 
Last edited:
Am I included?

It may come as a surprise to you but the meetings are open to all who get a ticket. The only thing people are not allowed to do is make trouble or shout out speakers and people who are given the mic at the end. So you actually get to say something if you find it in yourself to attend a meeting and see for yourself instead of just projecting your fears onto the organisation.
Last meeting I was in Sophie Walker was there and spoke and three transwomen spoke at the end too.
 
Bit of a Fraudian there, comparing your treatment to fellow extremist reactionaries UKIP.
I must admit. I couldn't see what the point was there. Media that gives too much time to UKIP also gives air time to TERFs, but not trans women. Hmmm
 
It may come as a surprise to you but the meetings are open to all who get a ticket. The only thing people are not allowed to do is make trouble or shout out speakers and people who are given the mic at the end. So you actually get to say something if you find it in yourself to attend a meeting and see for yourself instead of just projecting your fears onto the organisation.
Last meeting I was in Sophie Walker was there and spoke and three transwomen spoke at the end too.
But my point of view will not be given an equal platform and I will be attempting to make a point in what is an overwhelmingly hostile environment. After a whole meeting, the pro trans response is only going to be via a microphone, at the end, possibly, while being shouted down.

No thanks. Equal platform or nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom