We are allowed to have women-only spaces
Peter Tatchell orders women to let men into spaces reserved for us.
Excluding trans women from women’s spaces because of physical or sexual violence by a tiny unrepresentative minority is like banning all Muslims because of terrorist acts by a handful of extremists. SO WRONG!
So then not allowing men into women’s spaces because of violence by a minority is also like “banning all Muslims because of terrorist acts by a handful of extremists”? So then women don’t have a right to women-only spaces at all, ever, no matter what? Do women have to give birth in public then? Do we all have to do everything in public and leave all our doors and windows open?
In other words Peter didn’t bother to think about what he was saying, he just saw an opportunity to tell women what to do, and he seized it.
Not everyone said yes sir, whatever you say sir. A lot of people pointed out that it’s not his place to tell us we have to include men in spaces reserved for us.
He did a followup post explaining that he’s right.
As a follow up to my post on Wednesday about trans rights, which generated a staggering 1,400+ comments: I am not telling women what to do. I am merely expressing my point of view, in the same way that I accept that straight people have a right to comment on LGBT+ issues. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Moreover, I’m simply echoing the many feminists & women’s organisations that have been trans-inclusive for many years – with the support of staff and women service users, and without any problems. They endorse trans rights and inclusion. Are all these feminists and women’s organisations also misogynists?
He is telling women what to do though, and condescending to us as well.
I reject the trope of trans women as predators. Although I share the concerns of those who are worried about women’s safety, I don’t agree that a blanket ban on trans women is right or the answer. Men who want to harm women don’t need to pose as trans women to do harm.
In addition, many acts of women-on-women violence are committed by women who are not trans, so demonising trans women and focusing on them as a huge threat is disproportionate and not evidence based.
If there are trans women who have a history of violent or sexual assaults on women, and have not demonstrably reformed, I agree they should not have access to women’s spaces. Indeed, many women’s organisations already vet women & trans women to exclude anyone perceived to be a threat or not a genuine trans woman.
I recognise that there are many deeply held differences on this issue but believe they can be reconciled in a way that supports both women’s and trans rights. All women, trans or not, are victims of misogyny. And trans women suffer particularly high rates of male hate crime, domestic violence and sexual assault. This common oppression by men must surely give all women, including trans women, an interest in working together to fight misogyny in all its forms. I have supported every women’s rights struggle, including trans women’s rights, for over 50 years and will continue to do so, even if we disagree on the trans issue. Solidarity with all women worldwide fighting for respect, dignity, rights and freedom x
But trans women aren’t women, they’re men who “feel like” women or some such woolly nonsense. They’re not women, and they have a striking tendency to hate us. We don’t want to invite them to our party, and we don’t have to. Women are concerned with stuff that affects women; trans women are a massive change of subject. We don’t want to talk about their subject, and we don’t have to. Men as a group have a strong tendency to hog the microphone; we don’t want to share the microphone with them, and we don’t have to.
How does he tell the difference between a “man posing as a transwoman” and a “transwoman”? How are women, in general, supposed to tell the difference?
Some men are predators. Men-who-claim-to-be-women are predators at the same rate as the general male population. No one is claiming that transwomen are predators, only that they are not less likely to be predators than are any other men.
The situation in prisons suggests that predatory men will in fact claim to be women if it will provide them access to women. If so, it suggests that these kinds of “inclusive” rules could increase the proportion of predatory transwomen beyond that of the general male population.
First, I don’t take orders from men like Tatchell who support pedophiles (pedophile-adjacents).
Second, the “…without any problems.” claim is BS because what real woman would say anything bad about a TIM in a trans-inclusive organization no matter what he did?
Third, “Men who want to harm women don’t need to pose as trans women to do harm.” is telling us that we are going to get raped and abused and killed anyways so what is a few more women’s bodies thrown on the pyre? No sale, dude, no sale.
Fourth, “many acts of women-on-women violence are committed by women who are not trans” is BS because “trans women” are men. Any true women-on-women violence is very very rare in women’s spaces. And a real woman is much more likely to be able to fight off a female attacker than she would be able to fight off a man (no matter what he identifies as).
Fifth, “….victims of misogyny. And trans women suffer particularly high rates of male hate crime, domestic violence and sexual assault.” claims — first one is untrue, men who claim to be women are not victims of misogyny because they are men. Second one is about male-on-male violence and that is something only men can solve among themselves. Dumping the “loser” males onto women where those men can then be the “winners” of the violence game against us is misogyny.
So, another Five-Layer Misogyny Cake is being offered to us by a pedophile apologist. Tatchell can take a long walk off a short pier.
He’s right that not all Muslims are terrorists, but he’s overlooking the fact that all TiMs are male. Also, it isn’t for the threat of violence alone that women want female-only spaces, and I wish that the TRAs would stop pretending otherwise. It matters not one iota whether any specific TiM is a physical threat to women, all that matters is that he is a man who is not welcome in women-only groups.
I certainly wouldn’t expect Tatchell to accept that women sometimes need privacy away from men; anybody who will head a campaign that very publically ‘outed’ gay men (and occasionally not-gay men by mistake) against their will clearly has no concept of privacy – except for his own, that is.
Is there a name or a term for people such as Tatchell, PZ, the odious G., etc, who think that because they consider something to be acceptable then there are no reasons beyond bigotry and ignorance for anybody else to find it unacceptable? Apart from ‘pompous, arrogant pricks’, that is.
Adding to Sackbut’s observations:
But it does provide a new avenue to get closer to women, this time with the benefit of social cover. Some will use it, including people that are too timid to go in without that cover.
How about the trope of people as predators? Trans people are a subset of people, and since some people are predators, it follows that some trans people are predators. To claim otherwise is to claim that trans people are somehow immune to being bad people, unlike every other subset of people. So then, how to tell the difference between genuine trans women, and men falsely claiming to be women?
This is likely where Tatchell will change direction, saying something like ‘some women can also be predators, therefore if you guys [gc people] are soooo concerned about women’s safety, why don’t we want police protecting every toilet and dressing room?’ It will be stated as if this is what is required of us to be ‘logically consistent’ with our stated goal of safety.
Of course, it is a silly argument to make. We can’t take measures that guarantee perfect safety, as they don’t exist. We also can’t spend absurd monies on getting as close as possible to perfection, because we run into the problem of cost versus benefit before long. Instead, we make reasonable effort with the resources we have, and part of that means making rules to shape behavioural norms. Yes, there will always be people brazen or desperate or crazed (etc.) enough to walk into women’s dressing rooms and perv or rape or whatever, but that has always been the case, and it has been the case with every law made.
That argument is an argument to relax restrictions to toilet etc. access, because it is an argument to relax all restrictions. The other group that uses the same argument with regularity is the gun fondler/NRA type. “If you increase gun restrictions, there will still be people getting guns though! You’d have to be truly draconian to get anywhere close to perfect firearm safety! Police on every gun locker! etc” and again, the goal is reasonable safety rather than perfection. There will still be people with illegal firearms, just as there will still be people driving while drunk or stealing or embezzling or (ad nauseum).
A reasonable measure is to let there be toilets that are restricted to each sex, in recognition of the fact that the female sex generally benefits from having spaces that exclude the male sex. There is no need to post guards at every toilet, and there never was. Some sexual assaults will still happen – men assaulting women, men assaulting men, women assaulting women, even women assaulting men. This was considered reasonable and unremarkable for the entire history of women finally being permitted into the public sphere, in fact it was considered necessary. What changed?
Which is why we have women only spaces in the first place. Duh. We have places where we exclude male bodies precisely because men harm women. Not all of them, no, of course not, but there is no way to tell which are which. They do not wear signs, or have flashing lights on their pants around their penis, or have two heads, or hooves and a pitchfork. They are ordinary looking men.
Only a minority of men harm women, but we fought and won for the right to exclude all men from certain spaces because there is no way of knowing which one it will be. And with many of the rules going in about unisex bathrooms, they don’t have to pose as trans women to get access to those spaces, because the spaces have been opened to everyone just to ensure no trans gets their feelings hurt by being told they are in the wrong bathroom. What, just because they are bearded and bepenised? No! And they don’t have to put on a dress, wear make up, or any signifiers of feminine; they just get to go into the bathroom they want to go into. So even if we agreed that transwomen would never harm women (and we can do that only by ignoring evidence of harm that has already occurred), the opening of female only spaces to men will likely cause harm – even without anyone having to pretend to be trans.
@ Southwest88 #2
Brilliant rebuttal. Shows exactly how everything is framed in terms of men’s interests and the effects on men, never even RECOGNIZING what the other side of that coin is for women’s interests and the effects on women.
AoS
Good timing, I just had an argument with someone that made extensive use of what we might call the ‘argument from personal disinterest’. The person made sure everyone knew how boring and uninteresting they found sports, therefore, why should anyone be interested in sports to such an extent that we care about fairness or competitiveness? Just combine men and women in any pursuit and don’t worry about winners!
Why do TiMs want into the women’s room? Because they are afraid of men. All Tatchell’s arguments apply just as much to why TiMs should allow men in any space where the TiMs are.
‘not a genuine trans woman’
Do we have a hard and fast objective definition of this yet? If so please share–the world is waiting.
I’d say they are feminists₂ and women₂’s organisations as well as misogynists₁:
Woman₁: Person with a strong preponderance of innate physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers.
Woman₂: 1) Person who identifies as person who identifies as person who identifies as etc… etc… ad infinitum 2) Whatever trans-identified men₁ happen to be. 3) Don’t ask, you fucking TERF!
Man₁: Person with a strong preponderance of innate physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers.
Man₂: 1) Person who identifies as person who identifies as person who identifies as etc… etc… ad infinitum 2) Whatever trans-identified women₁ happen to be. 3) Don’t ask, you fucking TERF!
Misogyny₁: Hatred or contempt of, and/or discrimination towards women₁
Misogyny₂: 1) The idea that women₁ is even a valid category 2) The idea that misogyny₁ exists and/or is a problem worth adressing in its own right 3) Whatever women₂ say it is.
Feminism₁: A movement that fights misogyny₁
Feminism₂: 1) A movement that fights feminism₁ 2) See Misogyny₁.
maddog1129 #8
That may be true in some cases, but at least as often I’m pretty sure the pull to get into female only spaces (whether to impose themselves on women or to have their own “womanhood” validated) is stronger than the push to get away from (other) men, hence the (as far as I can tell) nearly universal hostility toward the idea of separate spaces for TIMs.
I would argue that instead of it being a tiny minority there are probably a larger percentage of predators amongst TiMs than the general male population based on anecdata, else you wouldn’t see such a surge in “women” violent crime.
guest #9
I think my definition of “Woman₂” in comment #10 pretty much covers it.
There might be a legitimate distinction to be made between those TIMs who genuinely suffer frem
gendersex dysphoria, and those who don’t, but that doesn’t literally make them part of the same group as women₁, and calling them by the same name – “women” – doesn’t make them a subset of the same group any more than clubs for hitting baseballs (bats₂) are a subset of the same group as flying mammals (bats₁). It’s all just a bad pun.There was a good essay a while back (possibly linked to in this blog) imagining parents called in to a consultation by a doctor. The doctor says something like ‘your child is transgender, they immediately need to be put on powerful drugs and prepared for surgery as soon as reasonably possible’. The parents are, of course, horrified by the news, and request to see the test results, x-rays, or whatever the doctor used to make this diagnosis. The doctor calls them bigots and throws them out of the consulting room.
I’m not so sure about that. I think it’s in the nature of trans ideology as currently promulgated and enforced with menaces that the men-who-claim-to-be-women population is not going to be a random sample of the male population. I think the nature of that trans ideology is going to attract more than a normal percentage of narcissists and sadists. It’s kind of a built-in problem at this point. The ideology is stupid and counter-reality and arbitrary and fucking nuts, so who is going to leap aboard? Not a random sample, I think. A stupid sadistic form of “activism” that spends almost all of its time and energy on bullying women just isn’t average enough to attract an average population.
Granted, this opinion gives ammunition to the “you think all trans women are monstrous predators!!!!” crowd, but that can’t be helped. Lots of irony in this. The movement is warped so it draws warped people so the warped people get to bully us for noticing how warped the whole thing is, and on we go around this circle forever, becoming stupider with each circuit.
Holms, #7: That sounds like a comment I read once, either at PZ’s or Mano’s, that basically said I think that all sport is pointless so to end the arguments over trans women competing against cis [bletch!] women it would be no loss to the world to just end all competitive sports. I can’t remember who left the comment but I assume whoever it was probably doesn’t get much exercise.
That may be the very person I am thinking of! Sam N.
Re #15 I’m thinking about articles like this, regarding studies showing TIMs exhibit the same pattern of violence other men do. I agree there may be confounding factors that may make the situation worse now or in the future, but this kind of study is what I was recalling.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/
Quite correct. Tatchell here, for example, is not posing as a woman. Still seeking to harm women nonetheless. Insofar as power and policy influence are concerned, we’ve seen how easy it is to harm women without coming into contact with them at all. These harms might not involve actual violence, but the consequences invariably do.
I thought “policing womanhood” was supposed to be bad. With self-ID, how would they ever possibly tell if someone is not a “genuine trans woman”? “Genuine trans women” are not women either, so the two groups look very similar. Do they have some technique to discern someone’s Magical Gender Essence? An Aura Detector? A Mood Ring? As Guest @ #9 pointed out, the world is waiting.
It could be restated that “Men-wo-claim-to-be-women are predators at at leastthe same rate as the general male population.”
When there was a strike by the police in a Canadian city (I think it was Canadian) it was discovered that people who normally wouldn’t break the law took to crime remarkably easily given the opportunity. What’s to say that some TiMs, the ones we’re constantly told are not predatory, might not succumb to temptation once they find they have unrestricted access to women-only spaces?
It’s one thing to deny that TiMs represent a threat to women if the barriers to access are removed, but the only way to know for sure would be to let it happen, and in my opinion that is an experiment too risky to be allowed to run.
One of these days, perhaps, Tatchell will realize that he needs to just shut the hell up. Perhaps. I dunno. Hope springs eternal.
Yes, especially the ones who claim to be “lesbians”
Did Tatchell just stray into arguing that because women commit violence against women we shouldn’t worry about other people committing violence against them? Maybe he’d like to argue disinterest against cops shooting black people because of black on black violence. Sheesh.
AofS:
I think the incident you are referring to was the Montreal Police Strike (aka Murray-Hill Riot). it took place in 1969 and formed a rhetorical exhibit for Thomas Sowell’s “constrained vision” when relabelled the “tragic vision” by Stephen Pinker. As I was born in the mid 1960s it featured in my own civics education in my first year a secondary school – civics pedagogy then still being in the hands of the greatest generation; by the time I left secondary school the 68-ers had reached that station on their long march through the institutions and removed it.
That’s the one; thanks, Alan.