Shit journalism in action
The BBC finds another bus to drive over Rosie Duffield:
A Labour MP wants a meeting with Sir Keir Starmer to clarify where the party stands on transgender issues.
Rosie Duffield, who has clashed with campaigners over her views on self identification for trans people, said the party’s position was unclear.
But a senior Labour MP said it was “being used as a wedge issue” when the party should be focused elsewhere.
She’s just a stupid junior MP who should be ignored, yeah?
Canterbury MP Ms Duffield has regularly used social media to outline her own position on transgender issues.
She believes that biological females should have protected spaces where biological males are not allowed to go, such as domestic violence refuges and prisons, and she is against people being able to self-identify as trans to gain access to those spaces.
I think that’s wrong. The issue isn’t people being able to self-identify as trans, it’s being able to self-identify as the other sex when doing so encroaches on women’s rights. I don’t think anybody objects to people being able to self-identify as trans.
Ms Duffield has said she is “completely supportive of trans rights”, but she has been condemned by some LGBT+ groups for her position – which say trans men and women should be treated the same as biological men and women – as well as for endorsing controversial tweets on the issue.
Explains the BBC, eager to make sure we really get why the BBC wants to call her a terf without using the word.
And two of her staff members resigned from her office over her views.
A senior Labour MP, who did not want to be identified, told the BBC they were frustrated with the “oxygen” being given to the subject, calling it “a stupid, pointless, manufactured row about rights” that was distracting from the issues that needed debating.
They added: “Let’s talk about how every single trans person awaiting NHS treatment is having their rights to see a specialist in 18 weeks under the NHS constitution breached, for example, rather than whether Rosie Duffield thinks everyone should have their genitals and chromosomes checked to go to the toilet.”
Notice how much more space is given to this unnamed senior MP compared to the space given to Duffield. Notice the contempt in that last sentence.
They then give a crappy unfair slanted “analysis” starting with this shit:
Rosie Duffield has taken a stance on an emotive topic that gives rise to controversy, around people’s identities, the right to self-identify and gain access to certain spaces.
But is there any mention of controversy around women’s safety, the right to recognize a man when we see one, and the right to refuse to throw women’s spaces open to men? No there is not. All the emotive and the controversy and the rights are on the trans side, and women defending our rights are just stupid cruel bitches who should shut up.
And I’m tired of reading this bilge so I’m stopping.
Note also the reference to “right to see an NHS “specialist”.” I wonder if the BBC reporter would support the “right” of an anorexic to see a specialist in stomach stapling surgery?
Well, it’s really the one-two punch that’s the issue. Self-ID without encroachment is harmless; encroachment without self-ID (that is, with the requirement that you demonstrate sincerity and authenticity to a trained professional, who can identify other possible causes for gender dysphoria) can be managed, since it can be gradiated in a way to prevent unfair or unsafe encroachments. (FREX: No, you can’t get into a women’s prison if you’ve still got a penis, period. However, identifying as trans might get you placed in a smaller facility with other transwomen. And a non-violent, post-op offender might well be considered for admission to a women’s prison, once they pass a risk assessment.)
It’s the mixture of Self-ID with encroachment that creates the worst offenses and abuses. The TRAs often try to hide this by ONLY discussing one prong of this attack on women’s rights and safety at a time, and trying to exclude the other side from the current discussion. This obscurement is very deliberate, and can be pretty damned effective; I used to fall for it, myself.
@ Freemage #2
I’d maintain that even a “post-op, nonviolent” trans identified male is still male, and there is no good reason to consider imposing his presence on women prisoners. AGPs still perv on women, and get their jollies out of gaming the system and voyeuring on women. It’s no part of the women’s sentence to accommodate men’s self-indulgent narcissistic desires.
That.
Weird incident on the bus yesterday. There were only a few people on it, 5 or 6 of us, and one man was standing up near the front facing the windows behind the driver (thus out of sight of the driver), and he was fiddling with his pants and belt and shirt, as if re-dressing after a swim or something only there’s no pool on the bus. There was a lot of elaborate tucking in of shirt activity. There was – of course – a woman in the front row of seats just to his left. She got up and moved a row back. The guy kept tucking and tucking and tucking in that shirt, as if it were made of rebellious snakes, and then he got off at the next stop. I don’t really know what the hell he was doing – he wasn’t obviously masturbating but then I was sitting in the back row so can’t be sure. But he wasn’t just tidying up his clothes, that much was obvious.
There are a lot of men who do that kind of thing. There just are. Women shouldn’t have that risk forced on them.
And I would add that it should apply to domestic violence centers even if the man has been subject to domestic violence. I can feel sympathy for a man who is a victim of violence, but he doesn’t belong in a woman’s shelter no matter how he identifies. If he can’t feel safe going to a place to help men, then there needs to be a third alternative, and all trans women trying to enter women’s shelters need to be referred there, and removed by security if they refuse to leave.