Is this woman a transphobe?

[littlebabyjesus]

We are all being-with-others.

Don't bring Heidegger into this. It's confused enough as it is.

 

[Santino]

I think Heidegger is an extremely useful reference point actually. A lot of the heat generated by debates involving gender rests on the human propensity to imagine ourselves as having a fixed (or even flexible) essential nature, a thing rather than a process.

 

[Athos]

Having read the actual words she used I note that she claims that she supports the "single sex exemptions" in the law. With one small exception there are no single sex exemptions that do not apply to persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There is also an understanding that people transitioning have access to female places if they are fulfilling the requirement to live in the target gender for two years.

Whether unwittingly or not she is refusing to recognise the clear legal rights of certain persons with a Y chromosome to occupy female areas. This is unlawful; as unlawful as excluding people on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality.

You're citing her support for lawful exemptions as evidence of a failure to recognise lawful rights?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think Heidegger is an extremely useful reference point actually. A lot of the heat generated by debates involving gender rests on the human propensity to imagine ourselves as having a fixed (or even flexible) essential nature, a thing rather than a process.

Fair enough. I agree with that last bit about things/processes. I nearly posted something along those lines earlier, but I'm not sure how fruitful the engagement can be and sometimes it is wisest just to stop. Contemporary ideas about physics also stress that the universe should be understood as processes, as interactions, rather than as a collection of things.

 

[Border Reiver]

Phil?

Sorry. "Phil"?

 

[Border Reiver]

You're citing her support for lawful exemptions as evidence of a failure to recognise lawful rights?

She potentially implies that those rights are applicable to only cis-women; they are not in law. The rights and exemptions apply to all legal women, cis- as well as trans- (with or without a GRC).

It is necessary when arguing such rights to ascertain whether the person is inclusive of tran-women when defending "women's rights". Hence the toxic "trans- exclusionary".

 

[Athos]

She potentially implies that those rights are applicable to only cis-women; they are not in law. The rights and exemptions apply to all legal women, cis- as well as trans- (with or without a GRC).

It is necessary when arguing such rights to ascertain whether the person is inclusive of tran-women when defending "women's rights". Hence the toxic "trans- exclusionary".

Many of the exemptions specifically allow trans women to be treated differently from cis women.

 

[xenon]

There's a scientific, philosophical and mathematical debate about natural sets. I don't understand it, but that's not really what's being talked about here, which is the idea that there's a natural order to things and when we choose to put them into groups it isn't just a whim, it's their proper place in "nature."

The problem is that nature isn't just black and white, there are shades of grey and exceptions.

To recap, you were taught there are two distinct and immutable sexes determined by chromosomes. Yes?

And yet there exist men with XX chromosomes and women with XY. Then there are intersex people. There are also animals that can switch between male and female. Clearly, the world is more complex than you were taught. Maybe time for a readjustment.

And where does this readjustment aid you in describing, mitigating, addressing, the repressions, prejudices faced by females?

It's all very clever to argue sex isn't a concrete category because salamanders change sex or there's intersex (what are these things defined against then.) But so what.

Trans women and natal women, clearly share, can be subject to, a lot of the same oppression, misogyny. But quite obviously, not all. Transmen and natal women share others.

 

[co-op]

Having read the actual words she used I note that she claims that she supports the "single sex exemptions" in the law. With one small exception there are no single sex exemptions that do not apply to persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There is also an understanding that people transitioning have access to female places if they are fulfilling the requirement to live in the target gender for two years.

Whether unwittingly or not she is refusing to recognise the clear legal rights of certain persons with a Y chromosome to occupy female areas. This is unlawful; as unlawful as excluding people on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality.

As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc.

Both of those are genuinely problematic issues for many many women - I think for obvious reasons.

So "preserving single sex exemptions" is about maintaining the status quo pre-self-ID, not about removing the protections currently given to tw with a GRC. But I'm sure there will be different strands of thought about this, but this ^^ is what I see most often.

 

[Border Reiver]

Many of the exemptions specifically allow trans women to be treated differently from cis women.

Please give an example in law for a person with a GRC. The only exemption I remember (I am now retired) is for women's refuges. Social groups are free to

Many of the exemptions specifically allow trans women to be treated differently from cis women.

Please give an example for interactions involving goods,services,employment etc other than social groups.

The only legal exception I remember (I am now retired) is women's refuges.

 

[Border Reiver]

As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc.

Both of those are genuinely problematic issues for many many women - I think for obvious reasons.

So "preserving single sex exemptions" is about maintaining the status quo pre-self-ID, not about removing the protections currently given to tw with a GRC. But I'm sure there will be different strands of thought about this, but this ^^ is what I see most often.

I have found that when questioned some people are unwilling to accept the rights of people with a GRC or current common law exemptions.

Genitalia is not an issue in law.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

Has anyone here had first hand experience of feeling threatened or inconvenienced by a trans person using a single sex space?

There is a lot of heresay, and talk in the tabloids of what may or may not be happening in prisons, but I suspect this really is pretty much entirely a theoretical problem. I'm not sure there are hoards of men "self-identifying" as female in order to invade the ladies' changing rooms. The (few) trans people I know would do anything to avoid a scene in a restroom.

 

[Edie]

Has anyone here had first hand experience of feeling threatened or inconvenienced by a trans person using a single sex space?

There is a lot of heresay, and talk in the tabloids of what may or may not be happening in prisons, but I suspect this really is pretty much entirely a theoretical problem. I'm not sure there are hoards of men "self-identifying" as female in order to invade the ladies' changing rooms. The (few) trans people I know would do anything to avoid a scene in a restroom.

I think there’s a lot of fear on both sides.

 

[Athos]

Please give an example in law for a person with a GRC. The only exemption I remember (I am now retired) is for women's refuges. Social groups are free to


Please give an example for interactions involving goods,services,employment etc other than social groups.

The only legal exception I remember (I am now retired) is women's refuges.

Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"It also makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise."


For occupational requirements, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work, and the person whom it is applied to does not meet it (or, except in the case of sex, does not meet it to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who applied it)."


For accommodation, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."


For single sex services, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Well by that criteria the whole thread gets us nowhere, because the purpose of the thread is simply to restate the disagreement by repeating that trans women are not women and that biological sex is all that matters as often as possible, no matter the level of tedium and annoyance caused.

"Some would say" is an interesting phrase by the way. "Some might say". No one on this thread has actually claimed you can identify as both genders, or 'whatever' but don't let that stop you. Are you going to ask every woman if their claim to womanhood is valid by the way, or just those you suspect might be trans?

Unfortunately I think you probably are right and this whole thread will get us nowhere.

As for what people say on this thread, I think it is more than reasonable to talk about what others may think, even those not on urban at all. Otherwise we would never get anywhere at all on any subject.

 

[Knotted]

And where does this readjustment aid you in describing, mitigating, addressing, the repressions, prejudices faced by females?

It's all very clever to argue sex isn't a concrete category because salamanders change sex or there's intersex (what are these things defined against then.) But so what.

Trans women and natal women, clearly share, can be subject to, a lot of the same oppression, misogyny. But quite obviously, not all. Transmen and natal women share others.

I think that succinctly summaries where we should all be on this. I wonder if there's anybody who disagrees with this and if not, I think we're done.

/thread

 

[pseudonarcissus]

I think there’s a lot of fear on both sides.

I'm not disputing that, based on the what the Daily Mail says, I'd be terrified, particularly if I had a young child. It just strikes my that the extreme polarisation that has taken place in the debate about trans rights perpetrates the fear, where as most of us confronted with a real life situation would do little more than raise an eyebrow and carry on.
Sexual offences, including voyeurism, can, and should, be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Looby]

Has anyone here had first hand experience of feeling threatened or inconvenienced by a trans person using a single sex space?

There is a lot of heresay, and talk in the tabloids of what may or may not be happening in prisons, but I suspect this really is pretty much entirely a theoretical problem. I'm not sure there are hoards of men "self-identifying" as female in order to invade the ladies' changing rooms. The (few) trans people I know would do anything to avoid a scene in a restroom.

Never, in a personal or professional capacity where I have worked with trans people in accommodation projects. I have dealt with a vulnerable trans person being placed at risk in their accommodation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"It also makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise."


For occupational requirements, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work, and the person whom it is applied to does not meet it (or, except in the case of sex, does not meet it to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who applied it)."


For accommodation, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."


For single sex services, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."

I've had to refer to this act a couple of times in the last few years, and generally speaking I think it's well framed and thought through, and does its job pretty well. These exemptions are well defined and sensible, seems to me. The act provides considerable protection to trans people - far more than existed before it - while retaining an acknowledgement of the areas in which sex differences need to be recognised.

 

[Santino]

I think that succinctly summaries where we should all be on this. I wonder if there's anybody who disagrees with this and if not, I think we're done.

/thread

You're incredibly disingenuous. You've completely misunderstood the 'Gender Critical' position, and used a silly name for people with that position, and then insisted that in fact they don't have a position, and then got cross because people aren't being kind enough.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Suppose we discover a long lost tribe whose hermaphrodite tendencies blow apart all fixed notions of sex.

That would indeed start some interesting discussions. I would suggest we start those conversations intently after you have discovered this long lost tribe. We might then find out even more about them, such as their predilection for pickled onions.

 

[Border Reiver]

Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"It also makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise."


For occupational requirements, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work, and the person whom it is applied to does not meet it (or, except in the case of sex, does not meet it to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who applied it)."


For accommodation, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."


For single sex services, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."

So what do those exceptions mean for say toilets and changing rooms which is the major bone of contention.

 

[iveivan]

If a man is intent on harassing or assaulting a woman, what’s stopping him just invading the single sex space? No need to pretend to be a woman.

The whole argument that self identifying people should not be allowed in single sex spaces because there are bad people out there is so insulting to all trans people.

 

[hitmouse]

The reason for starting this thread wasn't to lecture anyone about feminism and how to do it properly but a rush of blood to the head at seeing that Vicky Hubble had been banned off twitter for "transphobia" for the saying what's quoted in the OP and just being completely baffled at how large sections of the left can look at what she wrote and think "ah yes, that's the enemy, she's obviously motivated by hatred and bigotry".

I am just baffled and depressed more than I can say about this. I know serious left wing people who are seriously talking about voting tory over this. WTAF?

Maybe take it up with the people who are talking about voting tory, rather than the people who aren't?

And if we're going back to the quote discussed in the OP, I still think you're using a really unhelpful set of criteria. There are some statements that are obviously motivated by hatred or a desire to restrict people's legal rights, "gas the kikes, race war now", "send them back", "get back in the kitchen", whatever. I don't think the stuff in the OP is comparable to that, but I don't think that's a good standard to use.

Think about these statements instead: "calm down dear, don't get so emotional", "go on love, give us a smile", "do you think that maybe you just haven't met the right man yet?", "oh, I thought you were really surprisingly articulate, considering". And so on. These statements are not "obviously motivated by hatred and bigotry", as you put it. But they're all shitty things to say and you shouldn't say them. I think the stuff in the OP is on a par with most of those.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Does it matter politically? Suppose we discover a long lost tribe whose hermaphrodite tendencies blow apart all fixed notions of sex.

This post shows me that you haven't understood a thing I've been saying on this matter.

But I'll answer your initial question. Yes, sadly the statement 'sex and gender are both constructs' does matter politically. The attempt to place sex and gender on the same level as socially constructed ideas is done to a particular end.

 

[Athos]

If a man is intent on harassing or assaulting a woman, what’s stopping him just invading the single sex space? No need to pretend to be a woman.

By that logic, why not do away with them altogether?

 

[Border Reiver]

Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"It also makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise."


For occupational requirements, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work, and the person whom it is applied to does not meet it (or, except in the case of sex, does not meet it to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who applied it)."


For accommodation, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."


For single sex services, see here: Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and gender reassignment discrimination."

The killer question is: "If a person with male genitalia and a GRC is using a women's changing room, what are your rights over hers?"

 

[iveivan]

By that logic, why not do away with them altogether?

I’d rather we got rid of bigots

 

[pseudonarcissus]

I think the stuff in the OP is on a par with most of those.

"I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls"
I can see this as being problematic. This person does not "subscribe to the notion" of transgender people, and then claims that such a notion would ("necessarily" is implied here) damage cis-genedered women and girls.

 

[Border Reiver]

By that logic, why not do away with them altogether?

That is the point. Trans sexuality is not the point. Male violence is.