No place for women
How does he know any of that?
But as you will all know there are a small number of people who do not identify with the gender that they were born into, and it can be incredibly stressful. And there are young people who are going through real anguish actually in relation to this, and I’m not gunna join those that just want to [arm shoots out] add to the abuse of that small group of people.
How does he know any of what he says? Ignoring the insult at the end for the moment, how does he know there are “people who do not identify with the gender that they were born into”? How does he even know what it means? How does he know it can be incredibly stressful? How does he know there are people going through real anguish about this? How does he know any of it?
The same way we know anything, you could say. How do we know Trump was president? How do we know Clarence Thomas accepts expensive presents and doesn’t report them? How do we know Trump was indicted on Tuesday?
But it isn’t the same way. There are important differences. None of those bits of knowledge are magical or inherently incredible. They don’t require unquestioning belief in other people’s claims about a magical inner identity that nullifies a humdrum external physical reality. They don’t take the form “Ignore what you see in front of you, accept that I am the opposite of what I appear to be, and that I go through real anguish because of it, while people like you are bovinely contented with the gender you were born into.” Starmer is talking about a bizarre belief about a hidden magical self as matter-of-factly as if he were talking about trade or inflation or the NHS. He’s talking about that bizarre belief and he’s treating it as far more important and more deserving of attention and solidarity than boring old women’s complaints about rape and misogynistic cops and not being listened to.
Just from what he’s said here, we don’t need to believe in the Gender Identity soul. There are in fact a number of young people who don’t “identify with the gender they were born into” meaning they don’t feel as if their sex reflects who they are. That can be a misunderstanding, a mental health issue, a social contagion, whatever. That they’re upset about this — “feel anguish” — is pretty obvious.
Which would mean that we’re to say yes, they’re deluded, but let’s humor them anyway. This is an easier argument to rebut.
I love the cut to the front row of young women in the audience about 11 seconds in. Their body language speaks volumes.
If it’s such a small group of anguished people, yet he’s desperate not to add to their distress, why is he instead adding to the anguish of over half the population who don’t want men of any kind to obliterate women’s safe spaces?
Sastra,
I agree. Even supposing it’s possible there are chemical differences in female and male brains that make our brains/sense-of-self align with our sex, and that there can be mismatches leading to a “female” mind in a male body, … we clearly don’t have the science to identify this. (Again, supposing this idea of a “gender” is real at all.)
We know there are desisters and detransers. We also know there were numerous internal disputes and fears and concerns at places like Tavistock about fast-tracking gay kids to lifetimes of cross-hormone treatments, dangerous puberty blockers and life-altering surgeries. We know of other European medical associations that are changing their “affirmation only” policies for gender dysphoria.
We also know that “self-ID” is a literal open door for male sexual predators to access women’s spaces.
We also know that male bodies of “transwomen” give them an unfair physical advantage over female athletes. Even if this “gender” concept exists in reality they must admit they have a male body and subsequent advantages that made the creation of women’s sports necessary. [And ridiculous assetions that TWAW therefore transwomen’s bodies are “female” by default, should be ignored.]
We also know that responses to male and female bodies and faces are inherent. If you find one or the other sexually attractive or not, it’s visceral, inherent and not a matter of choice. If you find one or the other threatening [obviously this mainly applies to the impact of male bodies on female victims of male violence] it should be a genuine concern. It is not bigotry for homosexual males or females to reject trans as partners. It is not bigotry for a female victim of male violence to be opposed to a male presence at women’s shelter.
If I may put forward a slice of personal conspiracy theorizing; Keith Starmer of UK Labour (and Sturgess of SNP, and the Democrats and the Liberals and other center-left parties) embrace of the trans-cause could just be wanting to be on the right side of history, and doing so in a hurry because they all know how stupid the persecution of homosexuals was, and how it needn’t have taken so long for them to receive the same rights as heterosexuals. And I guess this is really all that it is.
But the toleration for actual assaults on gender critical women, the threatening of job-loss and the rape and death threats; and the whole “no debate!” … as capitalism continues to cannibalize society, the “conservative” parties that advocate for the continuation of “free market” ideologies are going to become almost completely non-viable. Center-left and left-wing parties blindly enforcing these idiotic pro-trans policies will alienate enough people that they will either not vote or vote for actual conservative parties. Enough to keep the whole two-party bullshit system in place.
But I have a hard time seeing how that could be deliberately orchestrated. Even if that is the result.
The elevation of transwomen over women might just be plain misogyny as Ophelia says. But I sense that most men prefer women over transwomen. And my opinion is that the types of men who become cops would ordinarily be more prone to want to punch the lights out of a transwoman than an actual woman. Seeing the former as freakish and a betrayal of male privilege. But enough speculation.
I think that there is strong element of truth in this, and the deliberate strategy of adding an alphabet to LGB and forcing a community. This is why there is such a demanding reaction that the LGB Alliance be recognized as a hate group, so that people don’t see through the lies. To attack one letter is to attack all letters, and the addition of ever more letters that mean the same thing, makes it all more difficult to separate. I think it’s also behind the insistence of using the word “Queer” to bind them all together. But what’s distressing is the way that this issue gains stronger traction all the time, and that it allows the misogyny that has never been defeated to gain strength again. We did not see the sorts of physical violence and threats against those opposed to same-sex marriage as we do against women when they try to talk about how the issue affects them. It’s an issue that allows misogyny that was barely contained below the surface for men on the left who are able to now be seen to carry out their tendencies and get cookies for it.
So many men who should see this trend towards violence against women and at least say “Hold up, what’s this now?” just push past and only see the rhetoric that trans rights are a matter of protecting the kids and men who were bullied for being femme in the locker rooms.
No Debate, as desperate as it seems, is working for men against women. Why? It’s still Bros before Hos. And I don’t know about the cops, Me. They seem to be okay with the sorts of events that happened in Hobart, Auckland, and at Speaker’s Corner. They’re harassing Caroline Farrow rather than looking into the violence against women in England. It’ll be important to see how the police in Belfast approach the Let Women Speak event in Belfast on April 16. How many of the Northern Ireland police will be pissed of at the reports of the Met’s misogyny that just came out and decide to let the women get their due? Or will there be enough attention after Posey’s antipodean adventures that they’ll do a better job of protecting women there?
“Me” @ 4 – Well I don’t say “the elevation of transwomen over women is just plain misogyny” and that’s all there is to it. I think it’s riddled with misogyny but I don’t think that’s all there is to it. What else there is to it is a huge mystery to me, but I don’t think any of this is simple. Deranged, yes, but simple, no.
Ophelia,
I thought you once explained the police siding with transwomen against gender critical feminists as “bro’s before ho’s.” Perhaps it’s a false memory. If so I retract it.
@5 Last weekend we had two feminist events in London–the WDI conference on Saturday and Speaker’s Corner on Sunday. The organisers of Saturday’s event decided it would be expedient to just not tell the police, and it happened with no disruption at all, leading us to wonder whether sympathisers within the police actually tip off TRAs about gatherings of women. Speaker’s Corner was huge, pleasant and peaceful, with good police presence–as far as I’m aware there were only a few TRAs and they weren’t brave enough to start anything without safety in numbers. It’s possible the police have been shamed into better behaviour toward women, at lesat temporarily.
Me – I’m sure I did, and I’m even more sure I’ve said “bros before hos” at least once about something. But that’s entirely compatible with saying the elevation of transwomen over women is misogyny but misogyny is not all there is to it.
It also is not bigotry for heterosexual males or females to reject trans as partners. We all have the right to select the partners we prefer, and I would rather be with a male partner than a bearded woman.