Tory leadership failure Part V: Rishi ‘Infosys’ Sunak

[mandryka]

Standard trope, at the centre of transphobic discourse: of course it's about trans people, the issue is trans rights. Linking trans rights to violence against women is transphobic, in the same way as linking homosexuality to pedophilia is homophobic.

That can be true and the Scottish process for gender certification too lax.

When you go on the tube you see all sorts of posters warning people against upskirting, pressing, touching, exposing, staring, catcalling, cyberflashing and stuff like that. People do all sorts of pervy things. Declaring yourself female to catch a glimpse of women in the shower seems a real possibility to me. IMO the "onus of proof" is on those who advocate self declaration of gender identity to show that the pain for a genuine trans is too much when they have to comply with a system which requires medical certification.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Speaking personally, as someone for whom this was outside of a lot of my Weltanschauung, the mix of new words to understand and the ease in which you can get stuck in a discussion which rapidly turns a bit nasty, makes it difficult and discouraging participation in the debate. I am sure I am not alone and why many who probably support trans rights, keep the hell out of it all.

Agree that it's a topic where it's easy to be tripped up by language and cause offence where none is intended. I definitely include myself in that. And it can be a moving target as language changes.

On the other hand I think it's normally pretty clear whether someone is coming from a position of empathy or instead seeking to scaremonger and 'other' trans people.

It also occurs to me that I've met and worked with trans, intersex or non-binary individuals in the past and currently have a trans colleague. So it's no big deal to me. It's normal. They're just peeps. If I had to make any mental adjustment that was done a while back. If people haven't had that experience I can see they might be still wondering a bit where they stand on it all.

 

[Seanm]

That can be true and the Scottish process for gender certification too lax.

When you go on the tube you see all sorts of posters warning people against upskirting, pressing, touching, staring, catcalling, cyberflashing and stuff like that. People do all sorts of pervy things. Declaring yourself female to catch a glimpse of women in the shower seems a real possibility to me. IMO the "onus of proof" is on those who advocate self declaration of gender identity to show that the pain for a genuine trans is too much when they have to comply with a system which requires medical certification.

I think it's one of those things where it's wise to employ caution before insisting that this or that group bear the onus of proof. It's not an abstract thing, as Paul I think has pointed out. There's a large body of evidence on this, due to many countries already having legislated for self-identification. Lots out there but bear in mind that the Uk really is TERF island so British sources are more likely to be unhinged than not, including especially the Guardian.

 

[Ted-M]

Standard trope, at the centre of transphobic discourse: of course it's about trans people, the issue is trans rights. Linking trans rights to violence against women is transphobic, in the same way as linking homosexuality to pedophilia is homophobic.

Are there issues that need discussed arising from self-id etc, maybe but you're not allowed to talk about it? This seems unreasonable.

 

[mandryka]

There's a large body of evidence on this, due to many countries already having legislated for self-identification.

This I didn't know and it clearly makes a difference.

 

[mandryka]

This I didn't know and it clearly makes a difference.

And indeed this seems to be a good place to start

Gender self-identification - Wikipedia

 

[Seanm]

Are there issues that need discussed arising from self-id etc, maybe but you're not allowed to talk about it? This seems unreasonable.

I'm not saying issues can't be discussed I'm saying look at how they are discussed: Nick Ferrari and a high profile transphobe on GMTV talking about trans rights and violence against women as if they were the same thing - it's moronic, one-sided and dangerous, and pretty representative of how this "debate" is conducted. Let's not pretend it's about discussing the issues: it's about indulging really very toxic people, at the cost of harming vulnerable people.

 

[Woodface]

This is a very tricky subject, read an interview with Grayson Perry today & even he is very reluctant to comment on this issue.

I think the problem is when extreme behaviour is classed as usual to make a rather toxic point. Of course there will be some who use gender certification for ill motives but it’s not a norm.

The difficulty I have is that I cannot speak or comprehend how women feel about this; I know some feminists see it as a threat to women.

 

[mandryka]

The difficulty I have is that I cannot speak or comprehend how women feel about this; I know some feminists see it as a threat to women.

When I look at the two countries with gender self identification in place where they speak a language I understand -- Switzerland and Belgium -- I can find nothing on the web from women - feminists or otherwise - complaining about people abusing it to do things like look at women in showers etc. Thanks to @Seanm I'm now coming round to the conclusion that the argument that it's a bad thing because it will increase that sort of undesirable behaviour is a bit of a red herring.

This is on the basis of 10 minutes surfing the web, so obviously, I reserve the right to change my mind!

 

[Tony L]

Let's not pretend it's about discussing the issues: it's about indulging really very toxic people, at the cost of harming vulnerable people.

Agreed. This was a point Katy Montgomerie made very well in the video with Jo Maugham I linked upthread; that almost all mainstream discussion about trans rights is between cis outsiders with usually poorly researched and largely ignorant opinions. It is remarkably rare that anything comes from within the community aside from via YouTube, Twitter etc. They are just not platformed. This is why whenever the topic appears here I now always try to present links straight to voices within that community.

PS Innuendo Studios summed it up brilliantly in The Alt Right Playbook (I can’t remember which episode) stating that marginalised groups such as this aren’t a ‘side’ in any ongoing argument, they are the ball. They are just being kicked around the pitch to suit other interests.

 

[Woodface]

When I look at the two countries with gender self identification in place where they speak a language I understand -- Switzerland and Belgium -- I can find nothing on the web from women - feminists or otherwise - complaining about people abusing it to do things like look at women in showers etc. Thanks to @Seanm I'm now coming round to the conclusion that the argument that it's a bad thing because it will increase that sort of undesirable behaviour is a bit of a red herring.

This is on the basis of 10 minutes surfing the web, so obviously, I reserve the right to change my mind!

I tend to agree, I have an auntie who was a Labour councillor & old school feminist; fair to say she was not happy about how it could effect all women short lists. I think this is an overreaction but I am mindful of ‘mansplaining’.

 

[Tony L]

A disgraceful whipped Labour abstention on the Tory overruling of the Scottish trans rights bill (Twitter). Just 11 Labour MPs did the right thing.

 

[paulfromcamden]

When I look at the two countries with gender self identification in place where they speak a language I understand -- Switzerland and Belgium

And Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...change-ireland-transformed-transgender-rights

The Scottish Gender Reform Bill isn't about which toilet people should use - as someone pointed out today, when was the last time you were asked for ID before being allowed to use the loo? - it's simply about allowing people to have the legal documents they need to live their life without having to go through a needlessly bureaucratic and traumatic process, about not having a panel of complete strangers decide their identify for them.

At the moment a trans individual in the UK requires the permission of their spouse to change gender. It's nuts.

 

[droodzilla]

A disgraceful whipped Labour abstention on the Tory overruling of the Scottish trans rights bill (Twitter). Just 11 Labour MPs did the right thing.

Grim, but predictable. Starmer is a coward, who will throw any minority under the bus if he thinks it's politically expedient to do so.

Full details here:

https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1615424214810431506

https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1449

Most of the Labour MPs who voted No are the usual suspects from the left of the party. The only notable exception is Ben Bradshaw, who is about as right-wing as they come. I can only assume his opposition is rooted in his respect for the constitutional settlement.

Credit to Lib-Dem MPs for doing the right thing, and also to my own (Labour) MP, Olivia Blake.

 

[droodzilla]

Also, amazingly, it turns out that Starmer has found an eleventh pledge to break:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fmss1f3WYAMTwJQ?format=jpg&name=large

Genuinely impressive stuff, this. Surely Starmer is the most dishonest MP in the UK, against stiff competition.

 

[Seeker_UK]

On the other hand I think it's normally pretty clear whether someone is coming from a position of empathy or instead seeking to scaremonger and 'other' trans people.

IME, face to face is always less troublesome than via the typed word.

 

[Hazelberry]

Yes, but don't make the mistake of thinking all the bigots are all on one side here. Anyone else had the pleasure of being mobbed on social media because they made a comment that made them a target of those who enjoy denouncing wrong males? PFM isn't the sort of place where that would happen, though.

I hasten to add that this is not said to detract an iota from the denunciation of the far right attackers on transsexuals. I just wanted to support, as somewhat reasonable, tedmanzie's fear of a toxic reaction towards him.

Perhaps I should point out that I’m at the sharp end of this (non) issue.

Trans people are no threat to cis people. There is no debate to be had. Trans rights are human rights. Anyone questioning trans rights is a bigot fuelled by intolerance & ignorance.

Said bigots are welcome to redeem themselves with a little education. TonyL has provided plenty of excellent links to this end already.

 

[DonQuixote99]

Perhaps I should point out that I’m at the sharp end of this (non) issue.

Trans people are no threat to cis people. There is no debate to be had. Trans rights are human rights. Anyone questioning trans rights is a bigot fuelled by intolerance & ignorance.

Said bigots are welcome to redeem themselves with a little education. TonyL has provided plenty of excellent links to this end already.

I would wish to say I'm with you as an ally. But since you responded like this to me, I'm just going to observe that 'questioning' can be a pretty low bar for declaring 'anyone' a bigot. Because 'bigot' sounds very serious, sounds like cause to slag unmercifully, seek removal from pfm, etc. So I guess I want assurance that there's questioning and then there's questioning, if you know what I mean, and that it's not a matter of zero tolerance for 'anyone.'

 

[Tony L]

FWIW I think the wording is ambiguous. I fully agree that ‘anyone who questions trans rights is a bigot’. Trans rights are human rights. The end. That said it is perfectly understandable for random onlookers to have many questions about trans rights and to want to learn. It is this later category I read tedmanzie's posts, which is why I have attempted to respond with links with intelligent answers to many such questions from highly credible sources within the community.

pfm is very intentionally a LGBTQ+ friendly place. I want this site to be an active ally, a safe space, and the whole moderation team will always do our best to moderate to that aim. To my mind the most effective way to achieve this is to platform/link genuinely good information from those within the community and allow that to change minds and educate, as I’m sure it will.

 

[DonQuixote99]

FWIW I think the wording is ambiguous. I fully agree that ‘anyone who questions trans rights is a bigot’. Trans rights are human rights. The end. That said it is perfectly understandable for random onlookers to have many questions about trans rights and to want to learn. It is this later category I read tedmanzie's posts, which is why I have attempted to respond with links with highly intelligent answers to many such questions from highly credible sources within the community.

pfm is very intentionally a LGBTQ+ friendly place. I want this site to be an active ally, a safe space, and the whole moderation team will always do our best to moderate to that aim. To my mind the most effective way to achieve this is to platform/link genuinely good information from those within the community and allow that to change minds and educate, as I’m sure it will.

The distinction between 'questioning rights' and 'questioning about rights' is a good one. The other distinction to make is 'good faith' vs 'bad faith.' Dog whistles and faux concern put a post in the later category. One of the foulest trolls I recall was a fellow, full of faux concern, questioning a parapalegic person about the use of mechanical devices to evacuate feces from his bowels. The goal was totally to embarrass the guy, but just going by the bare words of the text, you couldn't exactly prove it. A reasonable but admittedly subjective standard must be applied, to find the post was in bad faith and eligible for removal.

Detection of bad faith is tricky, but indespensible, both to prevent bad actors from doing harm, and to distinguish bad actors from honest questioners.