Is this woman a transphobe?

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

As another middle aged cis man who has managed to keep out of this debate up to now, and will probably go straight back to that, it seems to me that the other side of the 'it's all cis men going on about this' is the persistent ignoring of any trans-supportive cis women who post on here. There are plenty but it seems no-one has anything to say to them.

 

[Sue]

I don't think there really is a "general view"; I think there is a variety of points of view, a variety of genuine and valid interests which aren't entirely compatible and a variety of what I'll call philosophical approaches.

And to pick up on your reference to "what they should have access to, or what protections they should be offered", I think those two things are at least potentially different.

I think, for example, that it's possible to argue that trans women should be afforded every necessary protection from gendered violence and sexual assault, but that they shouldn't automatically have access to compete in women's sports, like in the example you referred to from (I think) LDC.

Exactly. What are the things we can all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree that no-one should be be sexually assaulted or physically attacked whether they're female/male/cis/trans and whether the attacker is female/male/cis/trans.

How do we make sure those who have been assaulted or attacked in the past continue to feel safe in those places they currently do feel safe? How do we make sure that people who haven't got a safe place to be have one or that those who haven't been well protected in the past can be? (Those things could easily apply to both 'sides'.) Does provision for one lot of people make provision for other people worse or make them feel or actually be less safe? What would those provisions look like? What would make people who don't feel safe actually feel safe?

It's not at all straightforward but dismissing the concerns of either group is completely counterproductive. (And the 'women should just suck it up' thing which has come across on here at times is really, really not helpful.)

 

[Athos]

Refuges always accept male children and most any male with care needs.

This simply isn't true. See, for example, this quote from women's aid:

"Can I bring my teenage sons with me?
This depends upon the individual refuge. Some allow sons up to the age of 16, while others cannot take boys over the age of 13 or 14. Very few refuges will accept male children up to the age of 18. Talk to the National Domestic Violence Helpline about other options you may have."

I want to leave my relationship safely - Women’s Aid

The Survivor’s Handbook provides practical support and information for women experiencing domestic abuse, with simple guidance on every aspect of seeking support.

www.womensaid.org.uk

 

[elbows]

Also I am not going to make

As another middle aged cis man who has managed to keep out of this debate up to now, and will probably go straight back to that, it seems to me that the other side of the 'it's all cis men going on about this' is the persistent ignoring of any trans-supportive cis women who post on here. There are plenty but it seems no-one has anything to say to them.

Often what happens is one side of the debate pretends they dont exist or are traitors to women. Until some of them get so infuriated by that shit that they speak up to demonstrate that they exist and are not going to let the transphobes piggyback off the discrimination and abuse they face as women to serve a crude transphobic agenda. And then I try to thank them for making their voice and their opposition to transphobia heard. Or at least I did when I wasnt busy trying to keep my gob shut.

edit - Even if this description is a fair reflection, its probably a good example of why I need to try harder to keep out of this debate because of the way I phrase things, and so serves as a reminder to myself of why I need to shut up again right now.

 

[andysays]

Exactly. What are the things we can all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree that no-one should be be sexually assaulted or physically attacked whether they're female/male/cis/trans and whether the attacker is female/male/cis/trans.

How do we make sure those who have been assaulted or attacked in the past continue to feel safe in those places they currently do feel safe? How do we make sure that people who haven't got a safe place to be have one or that those who haven't been well protected in the past can be? (Those things could easily apply to both 'sides'.) Does provision for one lot of people make provision for other people worse or make them feel or actually be less safe? What would those provisions look like? What would make people who don't feel safe actually feel safe?

It's not at all straightforward but dismissing the concerns of either group is completely counterproductive. (And the 'women should just suck it up' thing which has come across on here at times is really, really not helpful.)

All of those issues are things we should be able to agree on, even though we might not agree on how they are best to be achieved.

And nobody should have their concerns dismissed or be expected to "just suck it up". It's a great shame that this has happened on this thread and previously.

 

[belboid]

This simply isn't true. See, for example, this quote from women's aid:

"Can I bring my teenage sons with me?
This depends upon the individual refuge. Some allow sons up to the age of 16, while others cannot take boys over the age of 13 or 14. Very few refuges will accept male children up to the age of 18. Talk to the National Domestic Violence Helpline about other options you may have."

I want to leave my relationship safely - Women’s Aid

The Survivor’s Handbook provides practical support and information for women experiencing domestic abuse, with simple guidance on every aspect of seeking support.

www.womensaid.org.uk

So all refuges accept male children and a significant (at least) accept up to 16. The only thing ‘wrong’ was whether older males with care needs are accommodated by the majority, which isn’t specifically addressed.

 

[Athos]

So all refuges accept male children and a significant (at least) accept up to 16. The only thing ‘wrong’ was whether older males with care needs are accommodated by the majority, which isn’t specifically addressed.

The 'only' thing that was wrong is that you said "refuges always accept male children", whereas, in fact, they don't always do so e.g. when those male children are over a certain age.

 

[belboid]

The 'only' thing that was wrong is that you said "refuges always accept male children", whereas, in fact, they don't always do so e.g. when those male children are over a certain age.

True, they won’t take thirty years olds, thank you for your amazingly insightful comment. But you confirm that all refuges accept males, and many do so up to eighteen or beyond. And it is quite right that they do so.

 

[Athos]

True, they won’t take thirty years olds, thank you for your amazingly insightful comment. But you confirm that all refuges accept males, and many do so up to eighteen or beyond. And it is quite right that they do so.

What on earth are you talking about? Some refuges won't take boys over 13. Meaning you're claim that "refuges always accept male children" is demonstrably false.

Even if it were true that all refuges accept boys under 13 (which proposition you've yet to prove, by the way), that's not the same thing as "refuges always accept male children."

 

[smokedout]

Exactly. What are the things we can all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree that no-one should be be sexually assaulted or physically attacked whether they're female/male/cis/trans and whether the attacker is female/male/cis/trans.

How do we make sure those who have been assaulted or attacked in the past continue to feel safe in those places they currently do feel safe? How do we make sure that people who haven't got a safe place to be have one or that those who haven't been well protected in the past can be? (Those things could easily apply to both 'sides'.) Does provision for one lot of people make provision for other people worse or make them feel or actually be less safe? What would those provisions look like? What would make people who don't feel safe actually feel safe?

It's not at all straightforward but dismissing the concerns of either group is completely counterproductive. (And the 'women should just suck it up' thing which has come across on here at times is really, really not helpful.)

Agree again. And I really think that things like a properly funded VAWG sector, with a range of provision, would take a lot of the heat out of ths debate. I'd also support things like changing building regs to ensure all toilets/changing rooms are properly self contained, and that businesses were required to maintain safety, ensure locks work properly, check for hidden cameras etc. Everyone's walking round with a video camera in their pocket, that's a significant change and a large number of sexual offences committed in those spaces involve voyeurism using cameras. There are lots of existing pragmatic solutions to a lot of these problems and almost certainly more that could be found through debate taking place in the spirit of solidarity and mutual aid.

I think one of the things preventing that however is that there is a significant minority of influential gender critical activists who are really not interested in solutions. They are ideologically opposed to the existence of trans people and recognise that whipping up fears about trans women in toilets and refuges is far more useful to that aim then providing any actual solutions or compromises. There are also people now whose jobs and reputations depend on this debate, the various gender critical organisatons are all desperately trying to secure salaries for themselves, and the likes of Glinner and Posie Parker are having way too much fun to want to see any kind of resolution. In addition to this the global far right has pretty much unanimously decided to set their sights on trans people, often using gender critical rhetoric as cover and they don't want to see a solution either - well they do, but not one that trans people or women would want.

I think this is where a lot of the tension comes from on the trans side. At face value the Sex Based Rights Declaration I linked to doesn't look that bad, or at least it just looks like a protection of single sex spaces and not a manifesto for elimination. But if you read the work of the person who wrote it, or listen to her speak, or know anything about the history of anti-trans feminism then it's immediately apparent that's exactly what it's intended as. And it's difficult, to see people you know who support the idea that the 'practice of transgenderism' should be eliminated being presented as perfectly reasonable people with reasonable views and we should all have a big debate about the talking points they have deliberately seeded into this conflict - with ample help from the conservative right it should be said. Trans people are really suffering because of this endless debate, and to some that is the purpose of the debate and that's something that rarely seems to be acknowledged.

 

[andysays]

The spectacle of two cis blokes arguing about whether women's refuges accept male children or not is just what this thread needs right now...

 

[Athos]

The spectacle of two cis blokes arguing about whether women's refuges accept male children or not is just what this thread needs right now...

Especially when one of them linked to a source that proves they don't always do so, and the other is just desperately trying to save face.

 

[bimble]

i've been doing my best for a couple of years now to just keep away from this subject, or at least to not engage with it unless someone else (in real life) wants to talk of it, and i've found that pretty easy and definitely much better for me.

One thing it took me a while to see is that so many people, 'on both sides', come to this conversation carrying such deep wells of pain and anger and fear, from personal histories and past experience, and you're not going to be able to engage in some coolheaded rational way when you feel like you're fighting for your life because you're full of grief and rage and terror, & those also will be the people who can't very easily just choose to leave it alone. Increasingly it just makes me feel very sad, but i am optimistic about things when i zoom right out, I think in a generation or so things will look very different and a lot better.

 

[belboid]

The spectacle of two cis blokes arguing about whether women's refuges accept male children or not is just what this thread needs right now...

for sure, but the fact that all refuges accept children is important to recognise.

"Any woman who has experienced domestic violence – emotional or physical – can go to a refuge, with or without children."
"Over a third of our residents are children" - both from Refuge

 

[Sue]

Agree again. And I really think that things like a properly funded VAWG sector, with a range of provision, would take a lot of the heat out of ths debate. I'd also support things like changing building regs to ensure all toilets/changing rooms are properly self contained, and that businesses were required to maintain safety, ensure locks work properly, check for hidden cameras etc. Everyone's walking round with a video camera in their pocket, that's a significant change and a large number of sexual offences committed in those spaces involve voyeurism using cameras. There are lots of existing pragmatic solutions to a lot of these problems and almost certainly more that could be found through debate taking place in the spirit of solidarity and mutual aid.

I think one of the things preventing that however is that there is a significant minority of influential gender critical activists who are really not interested in solutions. They are ideologically opposed to the existence of trans people and recognise that whipping up fears about trans women in toilets and refuges is far more useful to that aim then providing any actual solutions or compromises. There are also people now whose jobs and reputations depend on this debate, the various gender critical organisatons are all desperately trying to secure salaries for themselves, and the likes of Glinner and Posie Parker are having way too much fun to want to see any kind of resolution. In addition to this the global far right has pretty much unanimously decided to set their sights on trans people, often using gender critical rhetoric as cover and they don't want to see a solution either - well they do, but not one that trans people or women would want.

I think this is where a lot of the tension comes from on the trans side. At face value the Sex Based Rights Declaration I linked to doesn't look that bad, or at least it just looks like a protection of single sex spaces and not a manifesto for elimination. But if you read the work of the person who wrote it, or listen to her speak, or know anything about the history of anti-trans feminism then it's immediately apparent that's exactly what it's intended as. And it's difficult, to see people you know who support the idea that the 'practice of transgenderism' should be eliminated being presented as perfectly reasonable people with reasonable views and we should all have a big debate about the talking points they have deliberately seeded into this conflict - with ample help from the conservative right it should be said. Trans people are really suffering because of this endless debate, and to some that is the purpose of the debate and that's something that rarely seems to be acknowledged.

Absolutely. I think there are definitely people on both 'sides' who are whipping things up and making this whole debate really poisonous. I also think funding things properly would really help.

But then look at the inadequate funding and pressures on things like refuge provision in general. I guess a lot of women are concerned that adding more people into the mix will put even more strain on that provision as funding is unlikely to increase. (And those fears seem very well founded tbh.) But then that obviously means those people who should be in the mix but currently aren't are in a terrible position.

So we go back to the general principle (which again I think we can all agree on) of 'no-one should experience domestic violence but anyone who does should have somewhere safe to go to'. How that's done and where that funding comes from is where the issue lies I reckon.

 

[belboid]

Absolutely. I think there are definitely people on both 'sides' who are whipping things up and making this whole debate really poisonous. I also think funding things properly would really help.

But then look at the inadequate funding and pressures on things like refuge provision in general. I guess a lot of women are concerned that adding more people into the mix will put even more strain on that provision as funding is unlikely to increase. (And those fears seem very well founded tbh.) But then that obviously means those people who should be in the mix but currently aren't are in a terrible position.

So we go back to the general principle (which again I think we can all agree on) of 'no-one should experience domestic violence but anyone who does should have somewhere safe to go to'. How that's done and where that funding comes from is where the issue lies I reckon.

actually funding has increased over the last few years for action against violence against women and girls. May introduced various statutory provisions to enforce a new domestic abuse protection notice and domestic abuse protection order and placing a new duty on Tier One local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation. There is a lot more emphasis being placed on support other than refuges - because women and children should not have to be forced out of their homes - and services are becoming more centralised (particularly big HA's coming in to provide services that were previously done by local women's aids, refuge, or small local providers), but funding has generally gone up. None of which is 'unproblematic' but it isn't quite as straightforward as often made out.

 

[smokedout]

Absolutely. I think there are definitely people on both 'sides' who are whipping things up and making this whole debate really poisonous. I also think funding things properly would really help.

But then look at the inadequate funding and pressures on things like refuge provision in general. I guess a lot of women are concerned that adding more people into the mix will put even more strain on that provision as funding is unlikely to increase. (And those fears seem very well founded tbh.) But then that obviously means those people who should be in the mix but currently aren't are in a terrible position.

So we go back to the general principle (which again I think we can all agree on) of 'no-one should experience domestic violence but anyone who does should have somewhere safe to go to'. How that's done and where that funding comes from is where the issue lies I reckon.

Yes and it's not just refuge funding that's the problem, it's the entire system. You could have the best funded refuge system in the world but if there's no social housing for people to move onto, or benefits and wages aren't adequate to meet private rents, then you just have people taking up space in refuges who no longer need or want to be there, but there's nowhere else for them to go. This is another reason why third spaces are not the panacea that is claimed under current conditions. I suspect there would be outrage if a trans or queer refuge was given a load of funding at a time when other VAWG services are being cut back. I think many people would be furious if councils spent a fortune on building additional toilets for trans people when vital services are being stripped to the bone. Or if special hospital wards were being constructed for trans people at a time when maternity care was being cut. Or they spent millions building a trans prison at a time when prisoners are locked up 23 hours a day because of a lack of staff. This debate is not taking place in a vacuum, and even if trans people were minded to campaign for third spaces that would only activate a whole new layer of opposition and antagonism towards us from sections of society who are so far uninvolved in the conflict.

 

[andysays]

Especially when one of them linked to a source that proves they don't always do so, and the other is just desperately trying to save face.

for sure, but the fact that all refuges accept children is important to recognise.

"Any woman who has experienced domestic violence – emotional or physical – can go to a refuge, with or without children."
"Over a third of our residents are children" - both from Refuge

Keep going, boys

 

[Orang Utan]

 

[Sue]

actually funding has increased over the last few years for action against violence against women and girls. May introduced various statutory provisions to enforce a new domestic abuse protection notice and domestic abuse protection order and placing a new duty on Tier One local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation. There is a lot more emphasis being placed on support other than refuges - because women and children should not have to be forced out of their homes - and services are becoming more centralised (particularly big HA's coming in to provide services that were previously done by local women's aids, refuge, or small local providers), but funding has generally gone up. None of which is 'unproblematic' but it isn't quite as straightforward as often made out.

And of course victims shouldn't be forced out of their homes but unfortunately that's sometimes the best solution at least in the short term.

I also recall purenarcotic talking about HAs providing such services and IIRC there seemed to be some problems with the quality of those services. (purenarcotic, completely understand if you don't want to get embroiled in this thread -- just tagging you as pretty sure this is your area of expertise. :smile.)

 

[purenarcotic]

belboid / Sue - there is a huge difference between what is announced etc, and what the reality is. DVPOs have a very poor uptake from the police (and they only last 28 days anyway), Tier 1 for housing is great until you live somewhere with no social housing and huge waiting lists, closing refuges places women at direct risk, it doesn’t keep them safer. It just means more women and children living in hotel rooms. Women shouldn’t have to leave their homes, but the solution isn’t cutting the specialist provision. HAs taking over is also shit. We’re losing experience and quality. It is so, so much more complicated than the headlines.

I’ve not read this thread for months so I have no idea what going on, I’m just responding to what I’ve been tagged in.

 

[purenarcotic]

It is also probably worth noting that quite a lot of women don’t want to be at home. They want somewhere new, safe, unknown to their abuser and without memories. It’s not for us to tell abused women what to do, or what’s best for them. The system should be such that they have a range of good options available to them, regardless of what they want.

 

[purenarcotic]

One last point; refuges aren’t just rooms in a safe house. In our refuges we do all sorts, from Halloween nights to Christmas parties, creative sessions, therapeutic gardening, cooking with the kids, 1-1 sessions with the kids… we’ve had kids put on plays for the mums, women take over the display boards to make art (one woman in particular I can think of who made a huge peacock with cut out paper because her abuser didn’t let her do art as it was something she enjoyed), staff help women with the washing up when they’re tired, speak to the benefit services, advocate to social services that they are good parents, sit with a woman who feels suicidal etc. Women arrive to a fully stocked flat with toiletry packs and goody bags for children. Of course some refuges are awful, that’s the nature of anything, but we put a lot of effort into making them as nice a place as possible. Women in hotel rooms don’t get any of that. We try but we simply don’t have those resources to provide that community support. Cutting refuges does nothing for women’s safety or wellbeing. You don’t protect abuse victims by cutting the support services, it’s an arse about face way of looking at it.

 

[l'Otters]

Disabled toilets are gender neutral, and most places have a disabled toilet.

No they don’t

 

[LDC]

No they don’t

I wasn't going to respond to that comment, but since you have, ffs suggesting trans people just use disabled toilets....

and

 

[spanglechick]

Yes. Disabled loos are (a)often non-existent (b)sometimes used as storerooms/inaccessible/out of order (c) for actual disabled people to use, often because of conditions that make it necessary to use the loo quickly - not after trans people, people with children and people who just didn’t fancy the queue elsewhere have finished.

Also. Hey! I’m here. Trans-inclusive feminist. Not a unicorn! Really quite a mainstream feminist position! Happy to share the ladies’ loos / changing rooms with trans women.

 

[Dystopiary]

Yeah people who routinely let their non-disabled kids use the disabled loos clearly think that their little darlings have a very advanced awareness of hygeine and tidiness. Either that or they just don't give a fuck about disabled people. So many of those places are utterly rank. But if a non-disabled trans person needs to in order to feel safe, that's not really the same, in my opinion, and I'm not going to be pissed of with them about that. Just at the society we live in making trans people feel unsafe, and disabled people treated like dead weight.

 

[Athos]

Happy to share the ladies’ loos / changing rooms with trans women.

Great. How about prison accommodation, secure psychiatric unit, post-rape facilities, domestic violence refuge, or hospital ward? And with anyone who says they're a trans woman?

 

[Sweet FA]

Yeh, what about that eh? EH?

Fucksake.

 

[Athos]

Yeh, what about that eh? EH?

Fucksake.

It's not some great 'gotcha', rather an interest in her position. It seems to me that the edge cases I gave are much more contentious than toilets. We've had a couple of women in the last few pages who wouldn't be described as trans inclusive say that toilets aren't really an issue for them. I'm curious as to what trans inclusive means; whether it's literally a case of treating cis and trans people identically in every situation.