Why non-trans women don’t matter
Another man who “identifies as” a woman says this is all fine and poses no harm to women.
Alex Sharpe is “a social and legal theorist, legal historian and gender, sexuality and law scholar and activist”; source Garden Court Chambers. Sharpe is also a trans woman.
The article is pay-walled, and very expensively so – $42 for a single article! – but we can read the abstract.
This article considers and rejects claims [that] reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) to allow gender self‐declaration will undermine non‐trans women’s rights and lead to an increase in harms to non‐trans women.
Note that he calls us “non-trans women” as opposed to just women. We’re just one category of women now, and being explained to ourselves by men who say they are women. It’s not getting more convincing or persuasive over time.
There are way too many people who think sexual autonomy is not an absolute right – but to think that while thinking that forcing everyone to see you the way you see yourself is an absolute right is just ludicrous.
I have access to the entire paper if anyone wants to read it. It’s fair use for educational purposes.
If Trans Women are simply one type of woman, then the vast majority could be dangerous and predatory and it would still be right to include them in women’s spaces. After all, if we were to discover that, say, blond left-handed Latvian women tend to be violent, then we wouldn’t assume they’re all violent and look for cultural or social explanations for those that are. And they’re counted with the rest of women.
Which is to say, it all hinges on the ideology and how we classify trans identified males. Rates of violence, to or from trans women, are irrelevant. We’d allow the blond, left-handed Latvian women and we wouldn’t allow shy, picked-upon, non aggressive men into our bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and sports. Their best arguments on point are only fair at best. Not good enough.
I’d like to read it.
I think this should work. If not, let me know how I can get a pdf to you.
https://rdcu.be/b0VEU
Weird, I thought reducing LGBETC to ‘non-straight’ or similar was insulting to those groups not explicitly named? And I thought retaining ‘trans woman’ as a descriptor of trans women, as opposed to just calling them women, was insulting because it implies they are not properly women… yet here we have ‘non-trans women’ as a descriptor of women.
Women are now subordinates within category ‘woman’.
And notice highlighted text from the final tweet. Apparently, female sexual autonomy is to be balanced against the feelings of the trans-identifying male that wants to fuck her when determining whether criminal charges should be pursued; and further, sometimes this balance will come out in favour of the male. Incel logic presented as feminism.
Jessica Yaniv, Karen White, cardboard guillotines, barbed wire wrapped baseball bats…
Q.E.D.
One could, with justification ask ‘Will Gay Rights movements empower pedophiles?’ or ‘Will sexual liberation lead to child abuse?’ Only briefly for Gay rights groups. They responded pretty well to the threat of NAMBLA. Around generic ‘liberation’ from the late 60s? Not so good, the French are dealing with a boastful pedophile right now, after winking away his crimes for decades.
The categorical refusal to recognize the threat of misogynist, violent, pseudo-trans ‘activists’ seems unprecedented, and to be most actively promoted by the most dangerous individuals.
A bit OT, but did anyone see this?
https://medium.com/@emjaymurphee/are-gay-men-cisgender-36c7f7883226