Read on Twitter
watching the women & equalities committe verbal evidence for the GRA reform inquiry & wondering: Self ID works in all these other countries, but the panic here is that men will use it to pretend to be women to assault women so does that mean English men are literally the worst?
I mean if your argument is that it will happen here when there's no evidence it happens in other countries, that's what you're saying. You're saying English men are so predatory, they'll abuse a law that men in other countries don't abuse.
Makes you wonder why so many English men are so keen to support this line of reasoning. Do they agree? Do they think their fellow English men are Literally The Worst?
who are all these "straight male allies" who are allegedly attacking women? (approx 15.33 on the clock)
What baffles me is that these three women in the second part of the panel are taken so seriously when they have spent the entire panel so far complaining about things like HR policies & Stonewall instead of the actual topic at hand: GRA Reform
Their argument so far seems to be "GRA Reform is bad because trans people are mean to us and don't let us have our opnions that trans people are icky"
And so far all of the studies they've brought up are discredited, or being used in an extremely dishonest way that misrepresents their findings.
That these women are being given equal credit to three actual experts in the first panel is painful.
That these women are being given equal credit to three actual experts in the first panel is painful.
Also mentioning Maya Forstater as someone who has been "attacked" while ignoring that a court found that her belief that she can misgender people because of her philosphoical belief that trans people don't exist is "not worthy of respect in a democratic society"...
Fascinated by the "if you look at Hansard, the original GRA was a theraputic intervention for people who had had lots of surgery..." argument. Do they really believe this?
Also, pretty clear that their end goal is to repeal the GRA entirely, not just prevent reform.
Also, pretty clear that their end goal is to repeal the GRA entirely, not just prevent reform.
"do they really believe this" is a question I am asking myself a lot throughout this second panel. It's just all so bizarre.
I genuinely can't work out whether they are deliberately lying, or of they really believe the warped interpretation of the Equality Act, the GRA, Stonewall and LGBTQI organusations that they espouse? If they believe it, they must be terrified all the time.
Ah, there it is, around the 15.53 mark, the inevitable mention of Hampsted Ladies Pond.
This is the topic of my dissertation The idea that some women can't swim there as it's "mixed sex" is utter flim-flam & concern trolling. It only works if you misunderstand the equality act.
This is the topic of my dissertation The idea that some women can't swim there as it's "mixed sex" is utter flim-flam & concern trolling. It only works if you misunderstand the equality act.
at 15.56 apparently it's "human nature" to identify as different genders out of malfeasance? and...what?
Once again, the entirety of these three women's evidence only works if your philosophical belief is that trans women are men, and will always be men. They talk around it, and never actually say it, but it's the only way their arguments work.
This was a central argument of my dissertation: that those who would argue against reform of the GRA don't just think trans women don't belong in women's spaces, they think that trans women don't belong in womanhood at all.
"how can we resolve this issues if we can't even talk" one of them asks at the 16:00 mark.
We cannot resolve this issues, because you believe that trans women aren't women. That's the bottom line. We can't have a "grown up conversation" with that premise.
We cannot resolve this issues, because you believe that trans women aren't women. That's the bottom line. We can't have a "grown up conversation" with that premise.
They demand a "grown up conversation" whilst denying the basic humanity and dignity of trans people (and they don't even mention non binary people)
At 16.06 the claim is that the media is dominated by trans voices and I...I just...
how HOW is anyone taking these people seriously? HOW?
how HOW is anyone taking these people seriously? HOW?
"those lobbying for self ID have had far more access to government ministers thatn women's groups" is claimed at 16.08
If this is true, and if it's trye that the media are trans-friendly, why are we still having to fight so hard for this?
If this is true, and if it's trye that the media are trans-friendly, why are we still having to fight so hard for this?
If it was the case that the trans lobby are totally powerful and in control, we wouldn't be having this inquiry at all, we'd be having reform.
Also, 16.10 "ex partners of transitioned people" what a vile phrase
Also, 16.10 "ex partners of transitioned people" what a vile phrase
at 16:12, a claim that there has been a toxicity about this debate, and the proof of this is that Alex Sharpe refused to debate her in person when she was on woman's hour (while she was also being silenced, one presumes)
Who is leading this toxicity? those darned acedemics, REFUSING to debate their lived existence.
At 16.14, a claim that women aren't really being listened to in ireland on trans issues. Gotta come in on this one to post the open letter from irish feminists...
At 16.14, a claim that women aren't really being listened to in ireland on trans issues. Gotta come in on this one to post the open letter from irish feminists...
And at 16:16 - all of the toxicity is being driven by "gender identity activists".
There's some extremely pernicious rhetorical tricks being used in these witness statements and some really dishonest representations of events that happened.
There's some extremely pernicious rhetorical tricks being used in these witness statements and some really dishonest representations of events that happened.
The trouble is, I am extremely familiar with these issues. I literally have an MA in these issues. I am extremely well read on these issues, very engaged in the debates, very well aware of how to critically assess the falsehoods & rhetorical wranglings employed here.
The vast majority of people don't have that background. Three of those who do were the witnesses in the first session. There's not that many of us that have the acedemic credentials to have these conversations and unpick the grift and the falsehoods.
The debate is being portrayed as "women versus The Trans" where as trans people are being portrayed as deluded (or worse, malicious) men rather than what the vast majority of trans people are like - just people, trying to be happy and thrive.
That is not a fair framing. That is not a "grown up conversation". That is not a 'balanced debate'.
I worry that too many people don't understand how unfair the terms are, how dishonest the second panel is, and how desparately tiring this is for those of us who are not cis.
I worry that too many people don't understand how unfair the terms are, how dishonest the second panel is, and how desparately tiring this is for those of us who are not cis.
Watching this before I go to bed was really not one of the greatest decisions I have ever made.
PLEASE SEND ME CUTE ANIMALS AND WHOLESOME STORIES ABOUT HAPPY QUEERS
16:33 an ABSOLUTE BALD FACED LIE about why Hampsted Ladies Pond opened. The claim is that it was because women "weren't allowed" to swim in mixed sex areas or at beaches and this is so hilariously untrue it's painful.
The ladies pond opened in the late 1920s, after sea bathing had been popular for some time. Women's diving had recently become an olympic sport and the mens pond, open in the lare 1890s, were fed up of having to give up wednesday afternoons to the women.
informal swimming at all the ponds at hampsted had been taking place...well as long as people worked out that swimming was fun.
Many of the women that swam at the pond in the 20s were champion swimmers, many were even channel swimmers
Many of the women that swam at the pond in the 20s were champion swimmers, many were even channel swimmers
Women that swam all year round, broke the ice to swim in freezing weather, swam the channel and win medals for diving weren't so delicate that they couldn't swim in mixed company
All the masks come off after 16:35 when they're asked more difficult questions. We have "adult human female", we have "large gametes" and we have "the legal fiction" of the GRA.
p.s. marriage is also a legal fiction
p.s. marriage is also a legal fiction
i really must sort out re-writing my dissertation so I can submit it to a journal and get it published.
for now feel free to DM me if you'd like to read it.
for now feel free to DM me if you'd like to read it.
ok now I am going to fucking bed
doing my daily calm meditation first because my brain, it is unhappy
doing my daily calm meditation first because my brain, it is unhappy
I've slept on it and have another thought to add.
Seeing the two "sides" put together like that makes it very clear that they aren't opposite sides of the same debate. They're having two completely different conversations.
Seeing the two "sides" put together like that makes it very clear that they aren't opposite sides of the same debate. They're having two completely different conversations.
One conversation is about whether the UK government needs to update an act of parliament which is out of date.
The other is about whether or not the specific people affected by that act of parliament deserve to be afforded full humanity.
The other is about whether or not the specific people affected by that act of parliament deserve to be afforded full humanity.
Note the phrase "legal fiction" used throughout the second panel. The very basis of the legislation in question is that it allows a trans person to legally change the sex on their passport. This is a very clear statement of how the second panel see trans people.
In the opening sentences of her first statement, Stock dismisses, pathologises & patronises the three people in the first panel in the exact same way Sharpe described in her opening statement.
How can we have a "debate" when 1 "side" dismisses the other as legally fictitious?
How can we have a "debate" when 1 "side" dismisses the other as legally fictitious?
Stock et al demand the inquiry "listen to women" & I agree the inquiry should. But which women? That's the debate panel 2 are having. They want to set terms about who is worth hearing while dismissing those affected by the law as unfortunate, delusional & potentially dangerous.
