-
I'm not going to insult both of us by multi quoting and going line by line, but a few points:
- by advocating that single sex spaces exclude trans women by default, you are arguing for discrimination as defined by the equality act - which you are welcome to do, we're all free to campaign for changes to the law. but by pretending that the EA already allows this and misgendering, Rosie Duffield crosses that line into misinformation and harassment
- the equality act already allows trans women to be excluded in SOME situations (because of course I realise in the case of Karen White et al, you do not want that person in a woman's prison - for the safety of cis AND trans women) - just not by default
- the concept of female as a biological term is NOT being erased - the equality act defines sex based protections and gender based protections separately, and it even defines what happens where those rights clash, quite reasonably imo
- the equality act was proposed in 2007 and the debate at the time was public and widely consulted - this isn't happening against the will of the public, it was enacted by the public and their representatives in parliament
- the evidence that trans women behave like cis women in women's spaces is in the fact that these inclusionary rules have been in place for over a decade in the UK, and trans women have been using these spaces for far longer, and no-one has really noticed. Look at Ireland!
- I'd love to believe trans women hadn't been murdered during the time period in question but I'm afraid they were deliberately excluded - here is the person who collates it explaining why she does so. Pointing this out is not 'trying to make it about trans women'
- here is Kurtis Tripp saying he thinks trans suicide is funny:
- and here he is accusing trans people of 'cosplaying as the opposite sex':
- Just to remind you, Rosie Duffield said of Kurtis Tripp: 'I am in touch with (him)...he finds this particular issue incredibly difficult...he has a valid right to talk about it without being cancelled'. This is unjustifiable. No matter where you stand.
This reminds me a lot of the antisemitism problem in Labour. Corbyn's commitment to the Palestinian people is not up for debate, but in arguing for them, he stood with open antisemites and racists, and damaged his whole platform in doing so. Those who defend Rosie Duffield run the same very real risk.
- by advocating that single sex spaces exclude trans women by default, you are arguing for discrimination as defined by the equality act - which you are welcome to do, we're all free to campaign for changes to the law. but by pretending that the EA already allows this and misgendering, Rosie Duffield crosses that line into misinformation and harassment
ReekBlefs
-
I do not accept the way you interpret the posts you have quoted but I've said I'm going to walk away because this topic is not safe for female people, so after this post I'm disconnecting for a while.
However, I hope I can bring you a bit of happiness..
I'd love to believe trans women hadn't been murdered during the time period in question
From the "counting dead women" site, as of April 2021
https://kareningalasmith.com/2021/04/21/counting-dead-trans-people/As far as I know, nine males who fall under the trans umbrella have
been killed in the UK since 2009. I don’t know which of them would
have described themselves as cross-dressers, transsexuals, transwomen,
trans women, or even say that they are women but using Stonewall’s
concept of the trans umbrella, there are nine. There have been over
1,800 women killed by men in the UK in the same time.The most recent being:
Amy Griffiths, 51, was killed by Martin Saberi, in Worcestershire in
January 2019. The two have been described as friends.So, on IWD 2021, when Rosie Duffield (correction: Not Duffield, Jess Phillips) read out the list of deaths in the UK since the last IWD (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-5636582), there had been no trans women murdered in the period.
Let's think about those numbers.
9 possibly trans women. Over 1,800 female people. 200 dead female people for every 1 trans women.
Now, to be fair Ms Karen Ingala Smith is not an official census. She builds her list from research and available sources. It's entirely possible she missed someone and that would be tragic. But I very much doubt she has missed hundred of killings of UK trans women, not least because such cases would be a significant topic of concern and discussion.
So yeah, make the argument the site should be called Counting Dead Female People, I'd agree with that. And make the argument that maybe IWD should be International Female Day - after all, no one is saying that Females can't exist as a meaningful social and political group, right? And a day to focus on the global challenges and progress of Female people would indeed be welcome. But don't take a list of murdered female people and make the most important thing about it whether it's using the "right" definition of woman. I'd say that is poor taste - in fact I'd say "poor taste" doesn't even come close.
brokenbetty
Trans women are biologically male (amab). That's literally the definition of a trans woman. If she wasn't male, she would not be trans. "Man", like "Woman", has been redefined as a mixed-sex single gender group but not everyone accepts that. I personally would have not issue with the redefinition - in fact I'd see it as positive - IF it was done in parallel with preserving pre-existing single-sex provisions. But that's not what is happening. Female people are simply being unnamed and disempowered, because the impact on us is considered unimportant. This is seen as purely a trans rights question but it is not, it is also a female rights question. Yet female people (by which I mean groups who speak for females of any gender rather than women of both sexes) are not at the table.
She wants to preserve the rights of female peple to exclude male in certain circumstances. I agree with her. It is not a gender issue, it is a sex issue. One of the most important engines of feminism was when female people started talking and realised that the problems they faced were not just individual to them but a systemic and structural devaluing and underpowering of fenale people in favour of male. That has got better but it has not in any way stopped. As a female, I feel the weight of male voices and male presence all the time. Males dominate spaces (literal and metaphorical). They talk over us. They reframe what we say to fit their own expectations. Sometimes they physically abuse us. They insert their sexualisation of us into everything we do.
Female-only spaces and conversations take that pressure off. The right to those spaces matters. to speak and have our voices heard as female is so important.
It simply comes down to, do you think female people should have the right to associate without males even when those males identify as women? Should we have the right to a female healthcare provider in intimate or triggering situations? When sleeping or undressing in accommodation or spaces that were not arranged by ourselves where we cannot personally chose who comes in, should we have the right to have a blanket exclusion of males? That doesn't in any way mean everything must always exclude tran women, just that it should be possible for female people to say "in this case, it's female-only" and for that to be seen as a reasonable and valid thing not a de facto act of hate.
To be very clear, if there were evidence that trans women in these scenarios behave like female people rather than male, none of this would matter but as far as I know there is not. The removal of the concept of female people as a meaningful group is being done not because of evidence it's unnecessary but because of an ideology that says this is how things should be.
So if you have any evidence to the contrary please please share it, because I would love to be wrong about all this! As someone who would naturally align with the standard progressive views it is very alien to me to be standing against on this specific topic. But it's not because I am suddenly no longer progressive, but because I believe what it does to female people is not progressive.
As I understand it, there were no trans women murdered in the UK in the period which the most recent list reading covered. Meanwhile female people are being murdered at about three a week. That might just be a factor of there being much fewer trans women than female but in absolute terms the number of murdered females is undeniably much higher than the number of murdered trans women. I think given that context, trying to make it an issue about trans women is in pretty poor taste. I hope you agree.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zsdd - starts at 1:50:00
I haven't had time to listen to the interview but will try and do so over the weekend. Given the context I do have:
I will do more reading about Kurtis Tripp. I found this from him. Clearly it's biased, being his actual own words, but it certainly puts a different light on both the school "threat" and "stalking". https://kurtistrippmusic.medium.com/ribbons-72d563814132 . The only copies of the "suicide" tweet I can find are a cropped part of the conversation. It's not quite saying trans suicide stats themselves are funny but it may equally well be offensive for other reasons so I don't want to go too far on that based on what I saw. If you have more context I'd like to see it (not necessarily to defend him).
The "cosplay" comment is certainly offensive. What you may not realise that many female people find the hyper-feminised / sexualised presentation of some prominent trans women also offensive. That's where the "cosplay" reaction comes from. I have no doubt that the trans women in question have genuine reasons and needs to present they way they do, but for female people it's the same old story of female people being being told to STFU about our own offense to accommodate male emotional needs.
Yes, on the face of it that sounds pretty nasty.
I'm not just talking about cis women though. I'm talking about female people. Not all female people are women. I don't identify as cis - I don't meet the criteria. In fact I only identify as a woman because that's where the rights and protections that I as a female person need currently sit - I don't actually meet the gender-based definition of "woman" at all.
Thank you. I appreciate that. I understand that you are coming from a good place.
I agree we do not need to throw trans people under the bus in order to stand up for female people. But we also do not need to throw female people under the bus in order to stand up for trans people. After all, plenty of female people ARE trans! I do think we need to be able to talk honestly about the differences between female people and trans women to find a way that works for us all. Share the bus!
Honestly I'm not saying Duffield is a saint. But she is at least trying to get this conversation on the table. Starmer, and other like him, KNOW this is wrong. They KNOW it's not fair to female people. But they are too scared to talk about it, to have that "toxic" debate, so they want female people to SFTU and put male needs first. That is a tale as old as time.
Edited to add: And I'm going to leave it here. This is a public forum but it's also one where people know me IRL and female people have been threatened and worse for saying less than I have here so I have taken a pretty big step today. Anything further would be better as a face to face conversation over beer or cake.