I was looking for something else and I found these videos of Lord Blencathra. Together, they tell a story. See if you can spot it. From the titled hoity toity to female prisoners, gender identity ideology leaves no woman behind when doling out the bad news. Women in the House of Lords are frightened to speak, women in prison are frightened of being raped.
When a Thatcherite appeals to compassion and common sense in order to protect the most basic rights of women you know something has gone terribly wrong.
I sent my thank you letters.last night but I'll do more. There's a lot I'd like to say to Michael Cashman as well but it would probably get me arrested..
Yes - the Women's Rights Network are asking that we all write to the individual Lords with our thanks/concerns. It may feel futile but it never is. The letters sent to the BBC re the Nolan Report and the Cotton Ceiling report enabled them to hold the line by citing how much support they'd had. It's always worth it.
Yes and you often get some truly lovely and personal replies back. They're somehow more fulsome in how they do this in the Lords as they are freer to do so. If you get their title or form of address roughly right it will get to them as the Parli pixies do their magic.
No, it's important to someone, a man or a woman, who has bothered to write to thank someone for standing up for those less able to and to raise the profile of issues. Stop deliberately twisting what I write. Men and women (or those with differences of sexual development) can appreciate a letter in response. It shows that these people are human and decent. You know nothing about me Margaret, you know nothing of my life. You seem clueless about why anyone might write to a politician and engage with a political process. I have received some brilliant letters back. Incisive, inspirational and honest, so stop patronising me and my choice of words.
I don't know what division you are insisting on sowing here but you are continuing despite being asked not to and it's very unhelpful.
Well at least you refrained from personal abuse this time. Well done.
By the way the assembly was very well received and the net response was that before they condemned you they need to know more about you. Sometimes I just love the younger generation.
I know I'm raising awkward questions. I note that no one has answered them tending instead to offer personal criticism.
Here's where I'm going with this - Nicola Sturgeon has stated she consulted with women's groups before making a decision on the GRA. If those groups have responded as you and many others have to someone who clearly holds a different world view then it is no surprise whatsoever she has ignored said women's groups.
I hold people with your attitude towards opposing points of view to be responsible for the GRA being ratified, as I can understand N. S.'s response being to ignore you.
You say I don't know anything about you. I'm not asking because I suspect all I'd get is a long list of how people haven't complied with your preferences. You suggest I read Simone de Beauvoir. I suggest you read her again.
What personal abuse? I have not personally abused you. You are incredibly patronising. You claim to have pupils, yet you are not my teacher and I am no pupil of yours.
You quoted me in an assembly? You based an assembly on this? That's disturbing considering your treatment of me on here.
I have no issue with awkward questions at all. Many others have answered you, in fair and reasonable ways and you have chosen to ignore them and me. It is not your different view I have issue with, it is your manner of attacking others, inability to comprehend, engage and your attack of me, here.
You can hold whatever views, but you cannot portray mine as you wish and I wonder why you are so wedded to continually twisting what I and others write.
How do you know my connection to government or the Scottish Parliament?
I also did not suggest you read Simone, although I agree with that comment. You are wildy lashing out again at me, confusing me with other commenters and you seem to be imagining and confusing a lot. You have no idea of what I read, which is clear from your statements.
I suggest you read your own comments, mine, and entire threads again, where you pick at and attack, then accuse others you attack of this.
I find you disturbed and request you stop your attack of me and others.
'Margaret Mary Byrne replied to Chris Baumgarten's comment
Who cares that men are turned on by women breastfeeding? They're men that's a biologicaly NORMAL male reaction to women's breasts. Who cares if they take pictures for later masturbation? At least it stops them bothering women in person.'
I would suggest that those women very much care, and the men in their families do too.
I reiterate that I ask you to desist and stop this on here.
What attack is that? I haven't called anyone, 'fragile and narcissistic', or any of the other descriptions you've offered.
You see you're doing the same as the transexuals, in that an unwelcome question is met with personal abuse and a demand that the questions aren't asked.
If it reassures you, I haven't quoted you. I showed your replies as examples of and hominem techniques for responding to a valid point of view with which the recipient disagees. It was very useful and instructive.
Can I ask you to get rid of the twee, Louisa May Alcott user name? The use of the word 'little' doesn't add gravitas to your posts.
Right, I have a job to do, I suspect this is not true of you. Get out in the world more, it make it easier to cope with opposing points of view.
I would like to warn you that using someone's statements, image, or personal profile in any attempt to attack them and the views they hold and doing this publicly is an offence.
There have attempts to use photos, images, profiles and quotes in PowerPoint 'training' sessions and to encourage individuals to be harassed for their views.
What you have described doing and using this as a public training or teaching aid is exactly that. And to children?
Now you're searching for ways to intimidate me. I'm aware of the law on this point. I am at liberty to extract your words and use them unattributed as examples. If you're quoting the law then make sure you fully understand it first.
Yes, and to children who need to be equipped to deal with your sort of response to a question. Look it up. AD HOMINEM.
Found on Twitter:. "It is so inhumane to fporce women to be locked up with men that it is forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
If women in UK prisons were prisoners of war, there would be no men in their prison camps. "
That's an eye opener certainly. But they'll make the stupid argument that there are only women in women's prisons because TWAW. There was a very well thought out strategy in trying to make that nonsense a mandatory article of faith from the outset in our society.
Speaking as someone who in the course of their professional life gone into some of the toughest prisons in the UK I hold the view that the transwomen are more in danger than the female prisoners. Females in prison are in my experience often of high intelligence and ability. The vulnerability comes from their lack of family support and living in a culture that sees drug use as normal.
Some of these women have become my friends and I have learned a lot from them about looking after myself.
Treating men in dresses as women is as insulting to women prisoners as it is to women who are not prisoners and IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY not because there's something different about incarcerated women.
What men do to other men in prisons is not women's fault; and though terrible, not ours to solve. And I know you are trying to pant some kind of picture of trans identifying men in prisons that is of the April Ashley/Blaire White but the reality is this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NpIy-0_esU
Well, for a start, incarcerated women are incarcerated for a reason usually, but are also not able to get away from abuse from transwomen, when that occurs, because they are incarcerated. That counts as a difference, in a sense. However, your point seems to reverse itself halfway through your post. What gives?
I agree. I was just trying to point out to Ms. Byrne that women who are not incarcerated are, potentially at least, able to escape a violent offender, who may be wearing a dress or not. Incarcerated women are not so "lucky" so there is a difference. I felt so bad to hear that a woman (or anyone) could be put in prison for not paying their TV license. That makes no sense, and is unconscionable, in my opinion. If anything, why not just require them to do community service? Or remove the ability to access TV? It reminds me of debtors' prison. Admittedly though, as an American, I can't find too much fault with the British prison system without seeming like a big hypocrite. By the way, who is Alan?
I have mixed feelings about third spaces. On the one hand it feels like the fairest option, on the other these third spaces will be paid for by taxpayers, if it is applied to prisons, toilets, hospitals… the figures will be ginormous. Also it’s a bricks and mortar sanction that there is a legitimate thing as “trans”. There isn’t, and it’s a choice.
Or very small providers or businesses being forced to provide these spaces at their own cost in order to comply with laws and 'provision'. Even in women's advice, crisis, refuge, safe houses and rape shelters.
I knew a nice GP who was unaware of the provision of services for women in our region and specific local area or out-of-area provision where there was none. He was shocked that I would know. I carefully suggested that he was a man. It hadn't occurred to him that we women live (or are forced to live) such private and sometimes secretive lives, with or without children, and have networks and services for our own safety, and even he, a GP would only know on a need-to-know basis. I was sad that it wasn't something he was aware of not being aware of, or to risk assess his patients.
I'm not saying that men don't experience abuse; anyone who needs support to be safe should get it.
It looks like the only way we might be able to get them to relent. Give up our spaces and safety, or pay for extra ones. That looks like they win either way.
It's a pragmatic solution. And even though it's a fantasy it's not illegal to be trans. I don't think we need to be petty, harsh or vindictive to be firm.
How was that 'petty, harsh or vindictive'? I am really not reading that in what was written. I know and respect that there are trans people and those with gender dysphoria. No one should be under increased risk of harm. Who and how that is assessed is under scrutiny. Fear of being called petty, harsh and vindictive has silenced many from asking questions or disagreeing. That's then been seen as general consensus, which is exactly the point Lord Blencathra made. Even the most privileged women of the House of Lords have been fewer in debates on this.
It will mean the redesign of hospital wards, systems, training and medical and official records. All the issues with being called for the 'wrong' screening tests is because of the legally conferred authority to have 'changed sex' and the blurring of sex and gender. Was that really not considered by those who changed the law?
I too have mixed feelings, perhaps not the same mixed feelings as Greengate. It could be one pragmatic solution, but it will cause huge upheaval and cost. So not so particularly pragmatic or practical. And requires major infrastructure changes based on a minority view that may discriminate against men, women and those who identify as trans. It will also highlight the trans status that many refuse to accept themselves as being, with any other or third space and those seeing themselves as the 'new' sex in totality, and rejecting that they have ever been their birth sex. It requires the formal and official rewriting of everyone else's reality, memory and history and there is the clear conflict between rights. It moves things from exceptions to become universal and applicable to all. That can be seen as coercive. The impact of some services or businesses deciding to unilaterally make toilet provision 'mixed' sex or 'gender neutral' and the subsequent challenges, pauses and changes back seems to have revealed how contentious this is. All those without gender dysphoria now made to centre this issue in how they conduct their day-to-day lives. It moves from the private and personal, to reframing public spaces and lives.
There's is also a difference between 'legal' and 'legitimate'. And general understanding of these. The whole issue of whether you can 'switch' or 'change' sex is under question here. The manner this happened, how the gender recognition process has been codified and the fudges that happened, with more and more rights being demanded and boundaries shifted. That was warned about at the time, and the very processes happened in ways that many opposed.
The more that is revealed about who and how they lobbied for legal changes to single-sex spaces the more suspect the legal underpinning becomes. The precedents that were used to set other precedents. The effect on women and vulnerable people was considered, but the evidence for why it was deemed necessary to protect certain rights over others is looking suspect.
I do not believe that risk assessments for exceptions are present or robust enough to allow the complete reversal of the premise of much of the way we structure and base our societies. We must be allowed to talk about this. And safety and how we assess that. When those who lobbied and lobby for the removal of single-sex exemptions and even the very word for woman, mother and maternity now deny they did and do this, they do not show they are trustworthy.
Yes, it's only using the loo, but it reveals the wider fundamentals and structures of life, from which many know and build all their beliefs and culture from. That jars for many, let alone those who have been made to feel wary about using spaces, through to being uncomfortable, through to being attacked and assaulted in previously single-sex spaces by those of the opposite sex who have been allowed a trans status. It's become a glorified way for some men to achieve their goal. I'm unsure what that goal is as the reports, images and footage suggest it's not about just peeing.
I really am hoping it's a case of trying to get things discussed and keeping trying. I haven't read the minutiae of why this wasn't successful and the particular objections but sometimes they withdraw and tweak to address particular objections then try again, or are defeated a few times before the right balance of words can be found or in a new form. It's arcane how bills pass or don't pass through all their stages.
One of the many things I find shocking about Brian Paddick is that he was a policeman, for God's sake. Did he never work with female victims of male violence? Did it make no impression on him?
Look up Brian Paddick and his route to the Lords. And what he's said previously as noted in Hansard. He has well-known views and supports certain causes vociferously.
This cannot ever be gay rights versus women's rights. After all, have they forgotten women are gay too? Lesbian erasure.
I chose a few search terms, like women and trans to see what he said. He's had an interesting life and I agree with a lot of what he's said on many subjects (such as domestic abuse). The way the debates unfold is informative.
I'm not suggesting he stated that it is gay rights vs women's rights btw, it's what some and a cursory impression can sometimes create. Sometimes analogies or comparisons are used to explore a topic and work out the bounds of what we think and feel (like the lift Shami referred to). We bring our personal experience in. I do that too, and I'm very sensitive to being very clear on this thread and site even more now because of some other interactions here and on this article. I often find myself agreeing with those who have different opinions or experiences to me, and I also change my mind.
'I have also, embarrassingly, been with a lesbian friend of mine, assigned female sex at birth and who has always identified as a woman, who was stopped going into a women’s toilet in a top London restaurant because they wrongly thought that she was a man.'
I don't believe we are 'assigned' at birth, I believe we 'are', unless there is a difference in sexual development, and the watchful waiting that can happen, or become more obvious as we develop or that comes to light when other issues occur, or symptoms develop. But aside from his word choice, this does show how 'no debate' and ducking this as an issue hasn't been a solution that is impacting many of us and in unintended ways. No one should have to 'perform' their characteristics, protected or otherwise. Having to 'prove' them is the end result of the confusion that has been created by hiding or having lobbying without transparency. I am undecided as to what the solutions are for some of this.
Implications of, and who uses a GRC, are also not explored as much as I would hope and the argument that it's a tiny amount of a tiny amount, if we've confused data collection.
Maybe he forgot to mention the bit where she was sentenced to dine there, forced to go to this 'top London restaurant' in handcuffs under guard and then incarcerated there ;-). I'm trying to work out which of London's prisons 'top London restaurant' is euphemism for.
I have been in a few (London prisons) and each time I remember the air hitting my face as I walked out, suddenly back to do whatever I wanted. Looking at the sky. Obviously intimidating procedures to get in and out. I was certainly changed by it and I knew I was leaving when I wanted.
Cashman is in the most entitled and privileged gang on Earth - Gay Men. He's also been taking huge sums as 'salary' from the taxpayers in UK and EU for numerous years. Again the epitome of entitlement. He like many other gay men loathe women especially lesbians and ones who dare challenge his views. He is truly loathsome.
He was very good, but a woman in a green cardigan came up on YouTube next and she was even better, very assertive about the whole business of putting men in women’s prisons. I couldn’t see what her name was because I’m watching on my phone.
Taking or sharing images is a particularly unpleasant area and I'm afraid there's a lot more you'll not want to know. The UK has had a few of these legislative changes (or attempts) and with the universality of image sharing online. Like 'upskirting'. One of many sticking points has been 'use' and 'intent' and proving the intention to cause distress, or intent to share or as 'revenge' which seems remarkable as the very act shows a level of selfish objectification and fetishization of women as 'other' and sex objects that runs through many criminal acts. Then issues of consent, informed consent and coercion. Men or those with power over others having their jollies seems an accepted and normalised part of society.
It's awful but inspiring to see current generations of (younger) women (and men) again bringing attention to it and 'everyday sexism' to try to stop it and make it utterly socially unacceptable. It's sometimes Private Member's bills or trying to get enough support for MPs to even raise it and push forward.
Sorry, but men are not programmed to like looking at women breastfeeding, unless you think sexist, voyeuristic programming is what men get from growing up in a patriarchal society. In that case, I could agree with you to some extent. Femaleness/femininity is taboo to men in patriarchy, don't you know? Breaking taboos, such as the personal boundaries of the tabooed subject, can be a turn-on to the sexually immature.
That is a burst bubble for you, it seems. I commiserate (sincerely). Life can seem loads better not knowing about certain things. For me, I would have said, years ago already, that there are plenty of men who would get off on watching women breastfeed. You may not know about all the endless varieties of pornography, of which that is just one of many. Consider yourself lucky in your "ignorance"!
When a Thatcherite appeals to compassion and common sense in order to protect the most basic rights of women you know something has gone terribly wrong.
I sent my thank you letters.last night but I'll do more. There's a lot I'd like to say to Michael Cashman as well but it would probably get me arrested..
A reminder that it is possible to write to mps at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA and say thank you/ well done! I will be doing this ASAP.
Yes - the Women's Rights Network are asking that we all write to the individual Lords with our thanks/concerns. It may feel futile but it never is. The letters sent to the BBC re the Nolan Report and the Cotton Ceiling report enabled them to hold the line by citing how much support they'd had. It's always worth it.
It's definitely worth the effort - they need our backing too!
Yes it is and please bear in mind this was the House of Lords, so they are in The Other Place, as MPs so quaintly call it.
Doh! Yes of course
Yes and you often get some truly lovely and personal replies back. They're somehow more fulsome in how they do this in the Lords as they are freer to do so. If you get their title or form of address roughly right it will get to them as the Parli pixies do their magic.
And of course a, 'lovely and personal', reply is SO important to women.
No, it's important to someone, a man or a woman, who has bothered to write to thank someone for standing up for those less able to and to raise the profile of issues. Stop deliberately twisting what I write. Men and women (or those with differences of sexual development) can appreciate a letter in response. It shows that these people are human and decent. You know nothing about me Margaret, you know nothing of my life. You seem clueless about why anyone might write to a politician and engage with a political process. I have received some brilliant letters back. Incisive, inspirational and honest, so stop patronising me and my choice of words.
I don't know what division you are insisting on sowing here but you are continuing despite being asked not to and it's very unhelpful.
Well at least you refrained from personal abuse this time. Well done.
By the way the assembly was very well received and the net response was that before they condemned you they need to know more about you. Sometimes I just love the younger generation.
I know I'm raising awkward questions. I note that no one has answered them tending instead to offer personal criticism.
Here's where I'm going with this - Nicola Sturgeon has stated she consulted with women's groups before making a decision on the GRA. If those groups have responded as you and many others have to someone who clearly holds a different world view then it is no surprise whatsoever she has ignored said women's groups.
I hold people with your attitude towards opposing points of view to be responsible for the GRA being ratified, as I can understand N. S.'s response being to ignore you.
You say I don't know anything about you. I'm not asking because I suspect all I'd get is a long list of how people haven't complied with your preferences. You suggest I read Simone de Beauvoir. I suggest you read her again.
What personal abuse? I have not personally abused you. You are incredibly patronising. You claim to have pupils, yet you are not my teacher and I am no pupil of yours.
You quoted me in an assembly? You based an assembly on this? That's disturbing considering your treatment of me on here.
I have no issue with awkward questions at all. Many others have answered you, in fair and reasonable ways and you have chosen to ignore them and me. It is not your different view I have issue with, it is your manner of attacking others, inability to comprehend, engage and your attack of me, here.
You can hold whatever views, but you cannot portray mine as you wish and I wonder why you are so wedded to continually twisting what I and others write.
How do you know my connection to government or the Scottish Parliament?
I also did not suggest you read Simone, although I agree with that comment. You are wildy lashing out again at me, confusing me with other commenters and you seem to be imagining and confusing a lot. You have no idea of what I read, which is clear from your statements.
I suggest you read your own comments, mine, and entire threads again, where you pick at and attack, then accuse others you attack of this.
I find you disturbed and request you stop your attack of me and others.
I see you have written this on this site?
'Margaret Mary Byrne replied to Chris Baumgarten's comment
Who cares that men are turned on by women breastfeeding? They're men that's a biologicaly NORMAL male reaction to women's breasts. Who cares if they take pictures for later masturbation? At least it stops them bothering women in person.'
I would suggest that those women very much care, and the men in their families do too.
I reiterate that I ask you to desist and stop this on here.
What attack is that? I haven't called anyone, 'fragile and narcissistic', or any of the other descriptions you've offered.
You see you're doing the same as the transexuals, in that an unwelcome question is met with personal abuse and a demand that the questions aren't asked.
If it reassures you, I haven't quoted you. I showed your replies as examples of and hominem techniques for responding to a valid point of view with which the recipient disagees. It was very useful and instructive.
Can I ask you to get rid of the twee, Louisa May Alcott user name? The use of the word 'little' doesn't add gravitas to your posts.
Right, I have a job to do, I suspect this is not true of you. Get out in the world more, it make it easier to cope with opposing points of view.
I would like to warn you that using someone's statements, image, or personal profile in any attempt to attack them and the views they hold and doing this publicly is an offence.
There have attempts to use photos, images, profiles and quotes in PowerPoint 'training' sessions and to encourage individuals to be harassed for their views.
What you have described doing and using this as a public training or teaching aid is exactly that. And to children?
Now you're searching for ways to intimidate me. I'm aware of the law on this point. I am at liberty to extract your words and use them unattributed as examples. If you're quoting the law then make sure you fully understand it first.
Yes, and to children who need to be equipped to deal with your sort of response to a question. Look it up. AD HOMINEM.
It really is!
Found on Twitter:. "It is so inhumane to fporce women to be locked up with men that it is forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
If women in UK prisons were prisoners of war, there would be no men in their prison camps. "
That's an eye opener certainly. But they'll make the stupid argument that there are only women in women's prisons because TWAW. There was a very well thought out strategy in trying to make that nonsense a mandatory article of faith from the outset in our society.
Speaking as someone who in the course of their professional life gone into some of the toughest prisons in the UK I hold the view that the transwomen are more in danger than the female prisoners. Females in prison are in my experience often of high intelligence and ability. The vulnerability comes from their lack of family support and living in a culture that sees drug use as normal.
Some of these women have become my friends and I have learned a lot from them about looking after myself.
Treating men in dresses as women is as insulting to women prisoners as it is to women who are not prisoners and IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY not because there's something different about incarcerated women.
What men do to other men in prisons is not women's fault; and though terrible, not ours to solve. And I know you are trying to pant some kind of picture of trans identifying men in prisons that is of the April Ashley/Blaire White but the reality is this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NpIy-0_esU
Well, for a start, incarcerated women are incarcerated for a reason usually, but are also not able to get away from abuse from transwomen, when that occurs, because they are incarcerated. That counts as a difference, in a sense. However, your point seems to reverse itself halfway through your post. What gives?
I agree. I was just trying to point out to Ms. Byrne that women who are not incarcerated are, potentially at least, able to escape a violent offender, who may be wearing a dress or not. Incarcerated women are not so "lucky" so there is a difference. I felt so bad to hear that a woman (or anyone) could be put in prison for not paying their TV license. That makes no sense, and is unconscionable, in my opinion. If anything, why not just require them to do community service? Or remove the ability to access TV? It reminds me of debtors' prison. Admittedly though, as an American, I can't find too much fault with the British prison system without seeming like a big hypocrite. By the way, who is Alan?
I have mixed feelings about third spaces. On the one hand it feels like the fairest option, on the other these third spaces will be paid for by taxpayers, if it is applied to prisons, toilets, hospitals… the figures will be ginormous. Also it’s a bricks and mortar sanction that there is a legitimate thing as “trans”. There isn’t, and it’s a choice.
Or very small providers or businesses being forced to provide these spaces at their own cost in order to comply with laws and 'provision'. Even in women's advice, crisis, refuge, safe houses and rape shelters.
I knew a nice GP who was unaware of the provision of services for women in our region and specific local area or out-of-area provision where there was none. He was shocked that I would know. I carefully suggested that he was a man. It hadn't occurred to him that we women live (or are forced to live) such private and sometimes secretive lives, with or without children, and have networks and services for our own safety, and even he, a GP would only know on a need-to-know basis. I was sad that it wasn't something he was aware of not being aware of, or to risk assess his patients.
I'm not saying that men don't experience abuse; anyone who needs support to be safe should get it.
It looks like the only way we might be able to get them to relent. Give up our spaces and safety, or pay for extra ones. That looks like they win either way.
It's a pragmatic solution. And even though it's a fantasy it's not illegal to be trans. I don't think we need to be petty, harsh or vindictive to be firm.
How was that 'petty, harsh or vindictive'? I am really not reading that in what was written. I know and respect that there are trans people and those with gender dysphoria. No one should be under increased risk of harm. Who and how that is assessed is under scrutiny. Fear of being called petty, harsh and vindictive has silenced many from asking questions or disagreeing. That's then been seen as general consensus, which is exactly the point Lord Blencathra made. Even the most privileged women of the House of Lords have been fewer in debates on this.
It will mean the redesign of hospital wards, systems, training and medical and official records. All the issues with being called for the 'wrong' screening tests is because of the legally conferred authority to have 'changed sex' and the blurring of sex and gender. Was that really not considered by those who changed the law?
I too have mixed feelings, perhaps not the same mixed feelings as Greengate. It could be one pragmatic solution, but it will cause huge upheaval and cost. So not so particularly pragmatic or practical. And requires major infrastructure changes based on a minority view that may discriminate against men, women and those who identify as trans. It will also highlight the trans status that many refuse to accept themselves as being, with any other or third space and those seeing themselves as the 'new' sex in totality, and rejecting that they have ever been their birth sex. It requires the formal and official rewriting of everyone else's reality, memory and history and there is the clear conflict between rights. It moves things from exceptions to become universal and applicable to all. That can be seen as coercive. The impact of some services or businesses deciding to unilaterally make toilet provision 'mixed' sex or 'gender neutral' and the subsequent challenges, pauses and changes back seems to have revealed how contentious this is. All those without gender dysphoria now made to centre this issue in how they conduct their day-to-day lives. It moves from the private and personal, to reframing public spaces and lives.
There's is also a difference between 'legal' and 'legitimate'. And general understanding of these. The whole issue of whether you can 'switch' or 'change' sex is under question here. The manner this happened, how the gender recognition process has been codified and the fudges that happened, with more and more rights being demanded and boundaries shifted. That was warned about at the time, and the very processes happened in ways that many opposed.
The more that is revealed about who and how they lobbied for legal changes to single-sex spaces the more suspect the legal underpinning becomes. The precedents that were used to set other precedents. The effect on women and vulnerable people was considered, but the evidence for why it was deemed necessary to protect certain rights over others is looking suspect.
I do not believe that risk assessments for exceptions are present or robust enough to allow the complete reversal of the premise of much of the way we structure and base our societies. We must be allowed to talk about this. And safety and how we assess that. When those who lobbied and lobby for the removal of single-sex exemptions and even the very word for woman, mother and maternity now deny they did and do this, they do not show they are trustworthy.
Yes, it's only using the loo, but it reveals the wider fundamentals and structures of life, from which many know and build all their beliefs and culture from. That jars for many, let alone those who have been made to feel wary about using spaces, through to being uncomfortable, through to being attacked and assaulted in previously single-sex spaces by those of the opposite sex who have been allowed a trans status. It's become a glorified way for some men to achieve their goal. I'm unsure what that goal is as the reports, images and footage suggest it's not about just peeing.
What a speech!
Amendment rejected! After all that hard work! Fuck it!
I really am hoping it's a case of trying to get things discussed and keeping trying. I haven't read the minutiae of why this wasn't successful and the particular objections but sometimes they withdraw and tweak to address particular objections then try again, or are defeated a few times before the right balance of words can be found or in a new form. It's arcane how bills pass or don't pass through all their stages.
Great post, thanks.
But I think you’re mistaken in your use of “hoi polloi”. Hoi polloi refers to the commoners, the prole masses, not fancy title holders.
I thought that as well, but calling them TITLED hoi polloi is quite amusing.
Michael Cashman is the very definition of titled hoi poloi in my humble opinion.
He didn't say, 'hoi polloi' he said hoity toity.
“From the titled hoi polloi to female prisoners, gender identity ideology leaves no woman behind when doling out the bad news.”
That’s a copy-paste right from the text. I don’t know what you’re reading, go have another look.
Awkward
One of the many things I find shocking about Brian Paddick is that he was a policeman, for God's sake. Did he never work with female victims of male violence? Did it make no impression on him?
Look up Brian Paddick and his route to the Lords. And what he's said previously as noted in Hansard. He has well-known views and supports certain causes vociferously.
This cannot ever be gay rights versus women's rights. After all, have they forgotten women are gay too? Lesbian erasure.
It's good to read through if you have the time. The following isn't directed at you ForWomen but it's as good a place as any.
If anyone wants to look it's https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/
I chose a few search terms, like women and trans to see what he said. He's had an interesting life and I agree with a lot of what he's said on many subjects (such as domestic abuse). The way the debates unfold is informative.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?memberId=4288&startDate=2016-12-14&endDate=2021-12-14&type=Spoken&searchTerm=trans&outputType=List&partial=False
I'm not suggesting he stated that it is gay rights vs women's rights btw, it's what some and a cursory impression can sometimes create. Sometimes analogies or comparisons are used to explore a topic and work out the bounds of what we think and feel (like the lift Shami referred to). We bring our personal experience in. I do that too, and I'm very sensitive to being very clear on this thread and site even more now because of some other interactions here and on this article. I often find myself agreeing with those who have different opinions or experiences to me, and I also change my mind.
He also talked about a friend of his:
'I have also, embarrassingly, been with a lesbian friend of mine, assigned female sex at birth and who has always identified as a woman, who was stopped going into a women’s toilet in a top London restaurant because they wrongly thought that she was a man.'
I don't believe we are 'assigned' at birth, I believe we 'are', unless there is a difference in sexual development, and the watchful waiting that can happen, or become more obvious as we develop or that comes to light when other issues occur, or symptoms develop. But aside from his word choice, this does show how 'no debate' and ducking this as an issue hasn't been a solution that is impacting many of us and in unintended ways. No one should have to 'perform' their characteristics, protected or otherwise. Having to 'prove' them is the end result of the confusion that has been created by hiding or having lobbying without transparency. I am undecided as to what the solutions are for some of this.
Implications of, and who uses a GRC, are also not explored as much as I would hope and the argument that it's a tiny amount of a tiny amount, if we've confused data collection.
I call bullshit on that anecdote of his, but even if it were true, minor social embarrassment necessitates removal of women's safety and privacy?
Maybe he forgot to mention the bit where she was sentenced to dine there, forced to go to this 'top London restaurant' in handcuffs under guard and then incarcerated there ;-). I'm trying to work out which of London's prisons 'top London restaurant' is euphemism for.
I have been in a few (London prisons) and each time I remember the air hitting my face as I walked out, suddenly back to do whatever I wanted. Looking at the sky. Obviously intimidating procedures to get in and out. I was certainly changed by it and I knew I was leaving when I wanted.
Right on both, it's Paddick, you're right there's also the crossbench QC Lord Pannick.
"Shami Chakrabarti" I just remember her as a human rights activist... talking across everyone! Did she say anything worthwhile?
Gosh. I read that as Shame chakrabarti.
Cashman is in the most entitled and privileged gang on Earth - Gay Men. He's also been taking huge sums as 'salary' from the taxpayers in UK and EU for numerous years. Again the epitome of entitlement. He like many other gay men loathe women especially lesbians and ones who dare challenge his views. He is truly loathsome.
He was very good, but a woman in a green cardigan came up on YouTube next and she was even better, very assertive about the whole business of putting men in women’s prisons. I couldn’t see what her name was because I’m watching on my phone.
Claire Fox? Short hair.
Yep that was her.
👏👏👏
If it's the 'wrong person' then why are you replying?
Where does it say I can't reply to or comment on ANY post?
OK, one thing I didn't need to know in my life. Men getting off on women breastfeeding.
Taking or sharing images is a particularly unpleasant area and I'm afraid there's a lot more you'll not want to know. The UK has had a few of these legislative changes (or attempts) and with the universality of image sharing online. Like 'upskirting'. One of many sticking points has been 'use' and 'intent' and proving the intention to cause distress, or intent to share or as 'revenge' which seems remarkable as the very act shows a level of selfish objectification and fetishization of women as 'other' and sex objects that runs through many criminal acts. Then issues of consent, informed consent and coercion. Men or those with power over others having their jollies seems an accepted and normalised part of society.
It's awful but inspiring to see current generations of (younger) women (and men) again bringing attention to it and 'everyday sexism' to try to stop it and make it utterly socially unacceptable. It's sometimes Private Member's bills or trying to get enough support for MPs to even raise it and push forward.
Sexism is roughly defined as taking someone's sex into account when sex is irrelevant to the situation.
Men looking at breasts is sexual not sexist. Men are programmed to like looking at breasts.
Sorry, but men are not programmed to like looking at women breastfeeding, unless you think sexist, voyeuristic programming is what men get from growing up in a patriarchal society. In that case, I could agree with you to some extent. Femaleness/femininity is taboo to men in patriarchy, don't you know? Breaking taboos, such as the personal boundaries of the tabooed subject, can be a turn-on to the sexually immature.
Ah, the Spinal Tap definition of sexism!
That is a burst bubble for you, it seems. I commiserate (sincerely). Life can seem loads better not knowing about certain things. For me, I would have said, years ago already, that there are plenty of men who would get off on watching women breastfeed. You may not know about all the endless varieties of pornography, of which that is just one of many. Consider yourself lucky in your "ignorance"!
Who cares that men are turned on by women breastfeeding? They're men that's a biologicaly NORMAL male reaction to women's breasts.
Who cares if they take pictures for later masturbation? At least it stops them bothering women in person.
Yes, now I am sure you are a piece of work, Margaret Mary Byrne. You clearly have some difficulty distinguishing right from wrong.