There’s been plenty of good news to smile about this week... Women Of Steel Won’t Weesht A group of female Labour Party members held a picnic in the centre of Sheffield on Saturday to celebrate Maya Forstater’s recent court victory and the ruling that makes it clear that ‘sex-matters’ is a belief protected by law.
As a feminist, I find it difficult to be too upset about pageants. They're sexist garbage at best. The comment section sounds familiar, men blaming feminists for our own erasure. Lib fems perhaps, but not feminism as a whole.
Ah, finally, a bit of good news, even some Guardian columnists now see what's really happening. Still a slog but this year is definitely more positive. Well done people of the UK for doing so well. Ref Laurel Hubbard, this case might be the last straw and it's great to see athletes speak up. Thank you for this post. It's cheered me up.
I'm a keyboard warrior!! At last! I am banned from the Daily Mail Online!! I commented on the Daily Mail article about Professor Freedman. I said something about the moderators not letting comments through. Was that a rookie error?!! Never mind, I do need to get some work done.
Under the article by Kate Harris, I have written twice:
Repeal the "Gender" "Recognition" Act 2004. "Gender" is not defined in the Act. The Act "recognises" a trait which is not defined. But "gender dysphoria" IS defined in S25 of the Act: “gender dysphoria” means the disorder variously referred to as gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and transsexualism". So the Act legitimizes a disorder, a very serious mental disorder. This is utterly absurd! Why was this ever approved by Parliament? In the Equality Act 2010 a mental disorder is protected as a subset of the protected characteristic "disability". There is no need for a special new protection. Remove "gender reassignment" from the list of 9 PCs. And amend hate crime legislation to suit. Again any crime which is motivated by "hatred" of a person with a disability is obviously worse than the same crime without such motive.
Those who suffer from gender dysphoria are worthy of compassion and protection in line with others with mental disabilities.
I made a similar comment under recent articles in "The Times" and the censor now lets them through every time.
THANK YOU, Graham and Kate Harris and Maya Forstater and JK Rowling, and all the good people who have changed the atmosphere so, so much that we are now able to discuss a change in the law..... to restore sanity. I may have a bit more trouble adding the last three words, but I'll try next time!
"Sometimes the law is an ass", is how I would refer to the IOC's policy on trans-inclusion. Other sporting bodies are shrugging their shoulders and saying oh well, the IOC says we can allow it. 🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷
Use your brains!!!! Of course it's wrong. And unfair. And dangerous. Part of me wants Hubbard to get the gold medal. If he loses it gives TRAs ammunition to say allowing TW to compete with women has no effect.
The Hubbard affair coupled with the video from the LA Spa that came out this week is about to give a huge 1, 2 punch to this house of cards. Anyone who has touched grass in the last 5 years knows this stuff is beyond bizarre and won’t stand for it. Feeling optimistic for the first time is a long time.
I'd like to hear some informed thoughts about this. I don't think so because the level of Hubbard's testosterone could not be matched by ingested steroids by a female. She would be advantaged against other women but not a man.
And she would likely be banned from competition if tested. I can't get over how so many don't see the inherent sexism at play. One set of rules for women, another for transwomen.
Nice to see my local police force has decided to pull away from Stonewall. We have a PPC who is shit hot on VAWG and it felt slightly jarring that the force was associated with SW.
There was a brilliant demo in front of NZ House on Sunday by women against the inclusion of men in women’s sports. Almost all the public reaction from passers by including a large music freedom to dance march was positive.
I do find it depressing how so many organisations just rolled over and implemented this stuff without any thought as to how it would affect women. It took such a long time to get the rights we have and it feels like a lot of people were just happy to drop them without question, instead of viewing them as fundamental human rights that were non-negotiable. It feels like it's a constant fight to claim any bit of ground and then once you have it you have to constantly fight to stop it being taken away again. Political trench warfare. Anyway, it's nice to have a summary of some good news.
So here’s what I don’t get… Stonewall are taking money from members. They’re not giving money, they’re receiving funding. So what’s the draw? I had assumed it was a financial incentive to be a Stonewall advocate. It’s the opposite. So why are so many public services and private companies so eager to carry the name? I don’t get it.
The reaction we're seeing to Laurel Hubbard is exactly why many policies were implemented by stealth with no public consultation.
Exactly this! The whole ideology is a house of cards teetering on the edge of a wobbly table.
Smack dab in the middle of the San Andreas fault.
This is depressing....
https://youtu.be/TD9XlYxfcSc
As a feminist, I find it difficult to be too upset about pageants. They're sexist garbage at best. The comment section sounds familiar, men blaming feminists for our own erasure. Lib fems perhaps, but not feminism as a whole.
Ah, finally, a bit of good news, even some Guardian columnists now see what's really happening. Still a slog but this year is definitely more positive. Well done people of the UK for doing so well. Ref Laurel Hubbard, this case might be the last straw and it's great to see athletes speak up. Thank you for this post. It's cheered me up.
I'm glad to hear that! And I totally agree about Hubbard. Always thought it'd be sport that turned the tide!
"These effectively make Sheffield a no-go area for trans activist David Paisley, who has a fear of ribbons."
🤣🤣🤣
Professional comedy writers are the real victims here!
Can't take the credit, I'm afraid. That was Graham's line!
:-D thanks for letting me know
It's the benefit of an editor who has 5 BAFTAS! ;-)
I love these good news supplements, very encouraging. Keep up the good work fellow GCers!
His fear of ribbons! David is ribbonaphobic
Sharron Davies is another sportswoman who has Tweeted on the IOC's unfairness. See e.g. https://twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1408313930678743043?s=19
Yes, Sharron has been on the case and standing up to the madness for a couple of years. A real warrior!
I'm a keyboard warrior!! At last! I am banned from the Daily Mail Online!! I commented on the Daily Mail article about Professor Freedman. I said something about the moderators not letting comments through. Was that a rookie error?!! Never mind, I do need to get some work done.
Banned by the Daily Mail...? Outstanding work!!
Under the article by Kate Harris, I have written twice:
Repeal the "Gender" "Recognition" Act 2004. "Gender" is not defined in the Act. The Act "recognises" a trait which is not defined. But "gender dysphoria" IS defined in S25 of the Act: “gender dysphoria” means the disorder variously referred to as gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and transsexualism". So the Act legitimizes a disorder, a very serious mental disorder. This is utterly absurd! Why was this ever approved by Parliament? In the Equality Act 2010 a mental disorder is protected as a subset of the protected characteristic "disability". There is no need for a special new protection. Remove "gender reassignment" from the list of 9 PCs. And amend hate crime legislation to suit. Again any crime which is motivated by "hatred" of a person with a disability is obviously worse than the same crime without such motive.
Those who suffer from gender dysphoria are worthy of compassion and protection in line with others with mental disabilities.
I made a similar comment under recent articles in "The Times" and the censor now lets them through every time.
THANK YOU, Graham and Kate Harris and Maya Forstater and JK Rowling, and all the good people who have changed the atmosphere so, so much that we are now able to discuss a change in the law..... to restore sanity. I may have a bit more trouble adding the last three words, but I'll try next time!
"Sometimes the law is an ass", is how I would refer to the IOC's policy on trans-inclusion. Other sporting bodies are shrugging their shoulders and saying oh well, the IOC says we can allow it. 🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷
Use your brains!!!! Of course it's wrong. And unfair. And dangerous. Part of me wants Hubbard to get the gold medal. If he loses it gives TRAs ammunition to say allowing TW to compete with women has no effect.
... And that TW don't have any advantage after all.
I was thinking the same!
He’s 20 years older than female competitors.
The Hubbard affair coupled with the video from the LA Spa that came out this week is about to give a huge 1, 2 punch to this house of cards. Anyone who has touched grass in the last 5 years knows this stuff is beyond bizarre and won’t stand for it. Feeling optimistic for the first time is a long time.
If a female athlete were to dope using steroids, would they be at the level of the threshold for trans athletes in women's sports?
I'd like to hear some informed thoughts about this. I don't think so because the level of Hubbard's testosterone could not be matched by ingested steroids by a female. She would be advantaged against other women but not a man.
And she would likely be banned from competition if tested. I can't get over how so many don't see the inherent sexism at play. One set of rules for women, another for transwomen.
Nice to see my local police force has decided to pull away from Stonewall. We have a PPC who is shit hot on VAWG and it felt slightly jarring that the force was associated with SW.
There was a brilliant demo in front of NZ House on Sunday by women against the inclusion of men in women’s sports. Almost all the public reaction from passers by including a large music freedom to dance march was positive.
I do find it depressing how so many organisations just rolled over and implemented this stuff without any thought as to how it would affect women. It took such a long time to get the rights we have and it feels like a lot of people were just happy to drop them without question, instead of viewing them as fundamental human rights that were non-negotiable. It feels like it's a constant fight to claim any bit of ground and then once you have it you have to constantly fight to stop it being taken away again. Political trench warfare. Anyway, it's nice to have a summary of some good news.
So here’s what I don’t get… Stonewall are taking money from members. They’re not giving money, they’re receiving funding. So what’s the draw? I had assumed it was a financial incentive to be a Stonewall advocate. It’s the opposite. So why are so many public services and private companies so eager to carry the name? I don’t get it.