London Anarchist bookfair 2020

[Red Sky]

absolutely - that's why I put 'trans position' in inverted commas. And, yes, there are a small number of individual trans women who support WPUK. But there were always small numbers of non-white people speaking on EDL demos as well.

No trans organisation supports the idea that trans womens experiences must be considered exactly the same as cis-women's experiences though. It's a false position promoted so as to create a demand that can never be met.

That's certainly a far less militant position than I've been confronted with in my local movement (although the casual elision of "Terfs" with fascists or nationalists is always irritating)

What do you think of this?

Letter to my feminist friends

lettertofeministfriends.wordpress.com

 

[smokedout]

That's certainly a far less militant position than I've been confronted with in my local movement (although the casual elision of "Terfs" with fascists or nationalists is always irritating)

What do you think of this?

Letter to my feminist friends

lettertofeministfriends.wordpress.com

Well it links to Fair Play For Women (FPFW) for a start who have called for shop assistants to ask to see the birth certificates of those whose sex at birth is unclear before admitting them to changing rooms.

I think it's really important to understand that FPFW, Womans Place and others are not just campaigning against Self ID. They are campaigning for bathroom bills of some sort and removal of the rights trans people have had for decades. Rights which have not be shown to harm women and which are vital for trans people to participate in society in safety and dignity. This is the moderate position that trans people are being asked to accept without protest or complaint. No-one, or barely anyone, gives a shit whether gender critical feminists think trans women are women or not, or whether they believe humans can change sex. Trans people are pissed off at an attack on rights which have been shown to cause no harm being mounted on the left alongside the continual drip of misinformation which is generating very real hatred of trans people in society. Perhaps if gender critical anarchists and radicals at least accepted what this fight is about instead of loading it with GC straw men then this conversation would be less fraught.

 

[belboid]

That's certainly a far less militant position than I've been confronted with in my local movement (although the casual elision of "Terfs" with fascists or nationalists is always irritating)

What do you think of this?

Letter to my feminist friends

lettertofeministfriends.wordpress.com

I totally get that the Terfs/fascists elision is annoying. But I also totally get why it is made. When trans women are denied their womanhood, of course they will feel they are being denied their very essence, their very selves, and will see that position as specifically anti-them, as wanting them destroyed - and in a few cases, they are quite right.

IN terms of that piece, well It's full of rubbish, putting forward the false positions that no one really makes.

In 1 it says ' no circumstances where a distinction could be drawn between natal women and trans women ' - but that is just plain false. See not just the Serrano piece I mentioned above, but the very existence of the terms trans and cis. They are there because of the recognition that of course there are some differences between trans and cis women (as their are amongst cis women). It is not denying any difference at all. Likewise the supposed argument that gender isn't a social construct. I have never heard anyone say such a thing, in fact it is the opposite argument that is normally made - the 'sex; is still a social construct! You may well disagree with tat, m but it is a completely different argument.

In 2, she says 'For some though – it could be a product of a patriarchal culture that is leading her to hate her body. Or it could be other issues such as trauma, mental health issues leading to body dysphoria interpreted by the girl as gender dysphoria, it could have some of the same roots as cutting does.' - but no one disagrees with that. These thinsg must be discussed with young people, openly and without prejudice in either direction. The idea that GIDS clinics tell people 'yes you are definitely a trans, no other possibilities exist' just isn't true.

3 - while there might (as it well accepted within current law, and within the parameters of the GRA) well be circumstances in which pre-op trans women are excluded from some women's support groups, it should not be a default position of any group. Where would the trans women who have suffered from sexual violence go for support? Figures indicate they are assaulted at roughly the same rates as cis-women, so they need support. But in most places, certainly outside of major cities, they aren't going to be enough people to actually run a group. So should they be left out? And, looking back, some women have had issues with lesbians joining such groups, how would you deal with them? Or with racist women who thought 'all blacks behave like that'?

4 - yes, reproduction is/was the basis of women's oppression, but it by no means restricted by that. That is also the root of gay oppression, condemning those who do not fit into the 'appropriate' categories. Much of it is about assumptions about sex/gender/reproduction. Women don't become unoppressed when they aren't able to have children.

I'm afraid i think it is one of those articles which is trying to look all supportive, but actually repeats a lot of those old lies.

 

[Athos]

I think it's really important to understand that FPFW, Womans Place and others are not just campaigning against Self ID. They are campaigning for bathroom bills of some sort and removal of the rights trans people have had for decades.

Are they? Because that doesn't appear to be one of their campaign goals from the website of either organisation.

 

[smokedout]

“The law must be strengthened to ensure that all women who want or need single sex spaces (including toilets, health provision accommodation, prisons, sports, sexual and domestic violence services) are able to access them without resorting to extraordinary measures. “

“The law needs to be tightened up and it needs to be enforced; enforced to ensure that female-only spaces and services in this country are protected. Business and organisations should face fines or legal action if they knowingly, and deliberately flout the law.”

The law must work for women - Woman's Place UK

Violence against women and sex discrimination still exist. Women need reserved places, separate spaces and distinct services.

womansplaceuk.org

To uphold your single-sex changing room policy you can reserve the right for staff to discreetly ask for additional information before using the service you are providing. The only legal document that confirms someones legal sex is a birth certificate. All other common forms of ID, including passport and driving licence, can now be updated on request to show someone’s self-declared gender identity so can no longer be used for the purposes of confirming legal sex class.

In a tiny number of cases (less than 5000 in the UK) a transgender person may have changed the sex classification on their birth certificate. Whilst it is lawful to exclude this person from a female-only changing room on the grounds of gender reassignment (part 7 Section 28) it is virtually impossible to implement this legal exception in practice. This is because the birth certificate of someone who has legally reassigned their sex to female is indistinguishable from the birth certificate of someone who was born female. There is nothing additional that staff can ask to see that would confirm someone was actually born the sex written on their birth certificate and thus confirm their eligibility to enter a female-only changing room.

Make sure staff know to only ask to see a birth certificate to confirm someones legal sex and never to ask to see a Gender Recognition Certificate. When someone has acquired a GRC the fact that they have legally reassigned their sex is considered ‘protected information’. This means that while it is perfectly lawful for staff to ask to see a GRC, as soon as this information is revealed to staff it then becomes a offence for that staff member to disclose this to any other person. It is best to avoid this particular litigation risk by simply never asking to see the GRC.

In summary, admission to female-only changing rooms should be based first on a visual assessment of someones sex, followed by a request to see a female birth certificate in circumstances where staff reasonably suspects that the person was born male. In that instance, if a female birth certificate cannot be produced then in order to uphold your lawful policy of providing women with a female-only changing space it is reasonable to tell that individual they are not permitted to the use the female-only facilities. They should be offered mixed-sex provision instead.

Advice to service providers about female-only changing rooms • Fair Play For Women

Female-only changing rooms are lawful This guidance highlights the relevant sections in UK law to help service providers who offer changing room facilities to their customers. There is little in the way of established case law for businesses to rely on, so instead this guide sets out the legal...

fairplayforwomen.com

 

[belboid]

Are they? Because that doesn't appear to be one of their campaign goals from the website of either organisation.

completely untrue - 'Prisons, domestic violence refuges, healthcare, dormitories, changing rooms, toilets, sport. We need to keep them single-sex.' Our beliefs • Fair Play For Women

Or we can just hear from Nicola Williams, their current head (who replaced someone who even FPFW thought was too transphobic) who said at one FPFW meeting - “Tear [the trans rights] movement to pieces, pull it apart, vandalise it, destabilise it. FUCK. IT. UP.”

 

[belboid]

On toilets, I am amazed they cannot see how such a move would be bad for (cis) women, especially the butch lesbians they say are being erased. My fairly flat chested and asexual looking, sister has been challenged several times already. It always happened to a certain extent, but has grown significantly over the last couple of years. And I am sure we can all imagine the scenarios in all sorts of places where women are told to prove their sex by groups of arsehole men before being allowed to piss.

 

[Athos]

The law must work for women - Woman's Place UK

Violence against women and sex discrimination still exist. Women need reserved places, separate spaces and distinct services.

womansplaceuk.org

Advice to service providers about female-only changing rooms • Fair Play For Women

Female-only changing rooms are lawful This guidance highlights the relevant sections in UK law to help service providers who offer changing room facilities to their customers. There is little in the way of established case law for businesses to rely on, so instead this guide sets out the legal...

fairplayforwomen.com

Ensuring that women with a genuine need for single-sex spaces continue to have access to them doesn't seem unreasonable, or to be a significant change from the current situation (through the exemption in the Equality Act). I think you're exaggerating.

 

[smokedout]

completely untrue - 'Prisons, domestic violence refuges, healthcare, dormitories, changing rooms, toilets, sport. We need to keep them single-sex.' Our beliefs • Fair Play For Women

Or we can just hear from Nicola Williams, their current head (who replaced someone who even FPFW thought was too transphobic) who said at one FPFW meeting - “Tear [the trans rights] movement to pieces, pull it apart, vandalise it, destabilise it. FUCK. IT. UP.”

To be fair it was Miranda Yardley who said that. Nic Williams just applauded:

 

[belboid]

To be fair it was Miranda Yardley who said that. Nic Williams just applauded:

aah, my deepest apologies to the applauder.

 

[Athos]

Or we can just hear from Nicola Williams, their current head (who replaced someone who even FPFW thought was too transphobic) who said at one FPFW meeting - “Tear [the trans rights] movement to pieces, pull it apart, vandalise it, destabilise it. FUCK. IT. UP.”

Can you provide a source for this, please (preferably one that shows us the original wording you've substituted in the square brackets, please?

 

[belboid]

see above

 

[Athos]

To be fair it was Miranda Yardley who said that. Nic Williams just applauded:

Why replace 'this movement' with 'the trans rights movement'? Without any context, it's not possible to tell what movement Yardley was speaking about; whether it was, say, trans rights generally (unlikely from a trans woman), or the movement which tries to silence women with violence and threats of violence. There's a significant difference. Do you have the rest of Yardley's speech?

 

[RTWL]

It would be appropriate to hear what is said within context before making a judgment especially concerning the accusation that this is evidence of violence against trans people... not the organization .

 

[smokedout]

On toilets, I am amazed they cannot see how such a move would be bad for (cis) women, especially the butch lesbians they say are being erased. My fairly flat chested and asexual looking, sister has been challenged several times already. It always happened to a certain extent, but has grown significantly over the last couple of years. And I am sure we can all imagine the scenarios in all sorts of places where women are told to prove their sex by groups of arsehole men before being allowed to piss.

The potential for homophobic bullying and harassment is shocking. As is the burden on shop workers who will be expected to guess what genitals someone was born with or their employer's could face a fine should WPUK get their way. So hyper-vigilence is likely to be encouraged. It's breath-takingly authoritarian and will only serve to socially punish gender non-conformity. I find it astonishing that people on the left support the kind of laws that go beyond even those the most right wing bible belt republicans wanted and which would make life a misery for not just trans women, but trans men, intersex people and anyone gender non-conforming. And for what, to stop problems that don't exist, and haven't happened even in countries where full Self ID has been introduced.

 

[Red Sky]

I totally get that the Terfs/fascists elision is annoying. But I also totally get why it is made. When trans women are denied their womanhood, of course they will feel they are being denied their very essence, their very selves, and will see that position as specifically anti-them, as wanting them destroyed - and in a few cases, they are quite right.

IN terms of that piece, well It's full of rubbish, putting forward the false positions that no one really makes.

In 1 it says ' no circumstances where a distinction could be drawn between natal women and trans women ' - but that is just plain false. See not just the Serrano piece I mentioned above, but the very existence of the terms trans and cis. They are there because of the recognition that of course there are some differences between trans and cis women (as their are amongst cis women). It is not denying any difference at all. Likewise the supposed argument that gender isn't a social construct. I have never heard anyone say such a thing, in fact it is the opposite argument that is normally made - the 'sex; is still a social construct! You may well disagree with tat, m but it is a completely different argument.

In 2, she says 'For some though – it could be a product of a patriarchal culture that is leading her to hate her body. Or it could be other issues such as trauma, mental health issues leading to body dysphoria interpreted by the girl as gender dysphoria, it could have some of the same roots as cutting does.' - but no one disagrees with that. These thinsg must be discussed with young people, openly and without prejudice in either direction. The idea that GIDS clinics tell people 'yes you are definitely a trans, no other possibilities exist' just isn't true.

3 - while there might (as it well accepted within current law, and within the parameters of the GRA) well be circumstances in which pre-op trans women are excluded from some women's support groups, it should not be a default position of any group. Where would the trans women who have suffered from sexual violence go for support? Figures indicate they are assaulted at roughly the same rates as cis-women, so they need support. But in most places, certainly outside of major cities, they aren't going to be enough people to actually run a group. So should they be left out? And, looking back, some women have had issues with lesbians joining such groups, how would you deal with them? Or with racist women who thought 'all blacks behave like that'?

4 - yes, reproduction is/was the basis of women's oppression, but it by no means restricted by that. That is also the root of gay oppression, condemning those who do not fit into the 'appropriate' categories. Much of it is about assumptions about sex/gender/reproduction. Women don't become unoppressed when they aren't able to have children.

I'm afraid i think it is one of those articles which is trying to look all supportive, but actually repeats a lot of those old lies.

Really? I thought it was a pretty reasonable olive branch and perhaps the basis for the beginning of a reasonable conversation on the subject.

 

[Athos]

The potential for homophobic bullying and harassment is shocking. As is the burden on shop workers who will be expected to guess what genitals someone was born with or their employer's could face a fine should WPUK get their way. So hyper-vigilence is likely to be encouraged. It's breath-takingly authoritarian and will only serve to socially punish gender non-conformity. I find it astonishing that people on the left support the kind of laws that go beyond even those the most right wing bible belt republicans wanted and which would make life a misery for not just trans women, but trans men, intersex people and anyone gender non-conforming. And for what, to stop problems that don't exist, and haven't happened even in countries where full Self ID has been introduced.

I would tend to agree with this. But, the problem is, if you accept that in some circumstances women are entitled to single-sex spaces*, how do you practically bring that about.

* Do you, by the way?

 

[belboid]

Really? I thought it was a pretty reasonable olive branch and perhaps the basis for the beginning of a reasonable conversation on the subject.

well, we can use it as a starting point, for sure. But that means pointing out the things, in every section, which are palpably false. Maybe the author is entirely genuine and doesn't realise these points are false, many of them have been repeated as such for so long, but at this juncture in the debate it is a bit hard to believe. I mean, on that first point especially, I can't believe that there are many trans rights proponents who argues such a thing (that gender isn't a social construct) at all. And that's her starting point.

 

[belboid]

I would tend to agree with this. But, the problem is, if you accept that in some circumstances women are entitled to single-sex spaces*, how do you practically bring that about.

* Do you, by the way?

When? There might be cases where, in order to get the support they need, individual women need a space without anyone with penises (I'm assuming you're allowing post-operative trans women into single sex spaces) for a certain time. But when could that be extended to a general policy? In a way that doesn't exclude cis-women with, say, male children they support.

 

[Athos]

I can't believe that there are many trans rights proponents who argues such a thing (that gender isn't a social construct) at all.

Insofar as they suggest 'gender identity' is innate, surely that is saying that gender isn't entirely socially constructed?

 

[belboid]

I see you added the word 'entirely' there (amongst other things)

 

[Red Sky]

well, we can use it as a starting point, for sure. But that means pointing out the things, in every section, which are palpably false. Maybe the author is entirely genuine and doesn't realise these points are false, many of them have been repeated as such for so long, but at this juncture in the debate it is a bit hard to believe. I mean, on that first point especially, I can't believe that there are many trans rights proponents who argues such a thing (that gender isn't a social construct) at all. And that's her starting point.

As I understand it the piece was written three years ago in anticipation of the oncoming shit storm.

But doesn't the idea of innate gender identity directly contradict the idea of gender as a social construct?

Underneath all the stuff about prisons and toilets I've found (in conversation) a deep disturbance in cis women at the idea of the existence of the female brain..

 

[Athos]

When? There might be cases where, in order to get the support they need, individual women need a space without anyone with penises (I'm assuming you're allowing post-operative trans women into single sex spaces) for a certain time. But when could that be extended to a general policy? In a way that doesn't exclude cis-women with, say, male children they support.

So, in that situation when an individual women needs a 'penis free' space, how would you achieve that in practice?

I'm not arguing for a wide, general application, btw.

 

[Athos]

I see you added the word 'entirely' there (amongst other things)

The point remains. If you believe in innate gender, you're saying it isn't socially constructed. It can't be both.

 

[belboid]

As I understand it the piece was written three years ago in anticipation of the oncoming shit storm.

But doesn't the idea of innate gender identity directly contradict the idea of gender as a social construct?

Underneath all the stuff about prisons and toilets I've found (in conversation) a deep disturbance in cis women at the idea of the existence of the female brain..

Fair enough, re the first para. On the second, I think that, despite the term - a term not created by trans people - transwomen think of themselves as female and women. Saying it is innate may sometimes be seen as a useful shorthand, a way of explaining complex experiences in a single soundbitey way, but its an overly simplistic and reductionist one. Partly is there because 'sexual identity' isn't related to how you feel about your genitals. As an argument, I think it's mere sophistry.

As for 'female brain' argument, again I think it is sometimes a simplification to get a general idea across, but there are also sexually dimorphic brain regions, and there is some evidence that in those regions trans women more closely resemble cis women than cis men. But it is far from clear. It isn't (there will be a few odd exceptions, no doubt) that there is an argument that the two are completely and fundamentally different.

 

[belboid]

So, in that situation when an individual women needs a 'penis free' space, how would you achieve that in practice?

I'm not arguing for a wide, general application, btw.

On a case by case basis depending upon the needs of the individuals involved. Just like happens now in all sorts of ways, not just relating to trans people.

 

[Red Sky]

Fair enough, re the first para. On the second, I think that, despite the term - a term not created by trans people - transwomen think of themselves as female and women. Saying it is innate may sometimes be seen as a useful shorthand, a way of explaining complex experiences in a single soundbitey way, but its an overly simplistic and reductionist one. Partly is there because 'sexual identity' isn't related to how you feel about your genitals. As an argument, I think it's mere sophistry.

As for 'female brain' argument, again I think it is sometimes a simplification to get a general idea across, but there are also sexually dimorphic brain regions, and there is some evidence that in those regions trans women more closely resemble cis women than cis men. But it is far from clear. It isn't (there will be a few odd exceptions, no doubt) that there is an argument that the two are completely and fundamentally different.

The idea of sex based differences in brain structure (and therefore capacity and aptitude) is obviously a challenge to feminism's primary argument, that there could and should be equality between the sexes.

 

[Athos]

On a case by case basis depending upon the needs of the individuals involved. Just like happens now in all sorts of ways, not just relating to trans people.

So, in the individual case of a particular woman who has a legitimate need to be in a single-sex space, how would you guarantee the sex of the other users of that space? I don't like the idea of checking birth certificates, but it's hard to see any other way, without effectively abandoning the single-sex exemption.

 

[belboid]

The idea of sex based differences in brain structure (and therefore capacity and aptitude) is obviously a challenge to feminism's primary argument, that there could and should be equality between the sexes.

not really. You would also have to show that any differences made any difference. All humans' brains are slightly different, that doesn't affect the notion that we could and should be treated equally.

 

[Athos]

Saying it is innate may sometimes be seen as a useful shorthand, a way of explaining complex experiences in a single soundbitey way, but its an overly simplistic and reductionist one.

Then set out in terms as complex and non-reductionist as you like whether gender is innate or socially constructed.