TERFs crash London Pride

[caveman1917]

It was interesting to read, and an informative perspective on the social background of the incident described in the OP.

But I'm having trouble connecting it to anything. It's fascinating stuff, but it's like reading about the intricate history of a computer game world. None of it seems real. It might be that things are very different in the UK. But I think it's more likely that things are just very different on the Internet.

So you admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about (ie the UK) but then immediately proceed to state a conclusion (that things are different "on the internet") anyway. Sure, don't let ignorance stand in the way of whatever position you'd like to promote.

I thought it was quite funny because of its accuracy.

 

[caveman1917]

And that's the problem, it's not women in general who are against this, it's not even feminists in general. It's a tiny handful of extremists and conspiracy theorists who for some reason have aligned themselves with the extremists of the religious right, and who preach nearly the exact same worldview when it comes to transpeople. It's also, as I've seen, almost exclusively white people as well.

Every time you want to get an idea of how a group is treating or plans to treat those they define as "undesirables", look at the rhetoric they engage in regarding said "undesirables". They will inevitably assert that the marginalized group is engaged in the sorts of practices and worldview that they themselves are guilty of. They assert that the existence of transpeople is "erasing" the existence of lesbians, when it in fact it's the radicals who are trying to erase the existence of transpeople. They whinge about transpeople conspiring with the patriarchy against them, while they're conspiring with the religious right (about as close to their patriarchy boogeyman as can exist in the real world) to outlaw transpeople and remove their civil rights. They complain about transpeople causing problems for them, while they publicly harass and marginalize transpeople, as exemplified by the incident in the OP.

It's a technique that they've picked up from the religious right, along with the scapegoating and demonization of minorities tactics so popular amongst fascists and other reactionaries.

cool story bro

 

[Myriad]

And that's the problem, it's not women in general who are against this, it's not even feminists in general. It's a tiny handful of extremists and conspiracy theorists who for some reason have aligned themselves with the extremists of the religious right, and who preach nearly the exact same worldview when it comes to transpeople. It's also, as I've seen, almost exclusively white people as well.

Every time you want to get an idea of how a group is treating or plans to treat those they define as "undesirables", look at the rhetoric they engage in regarding said "undesirables". They will inevitably assert that the marginalized group is engaged in the sorts of practices and worldview that they themselves are guilty of. They assert that the existence of transpeople is "erasing" the existence of lesbians, when it in fact it's the radicals who are trying to erase the existence of transpeople. They whinge about transpeople conspiring with the patriarchy against them, while they're conspiring with the religious right (about as close to their patriarchy boogeyman as can exist in the real world) to outlaw transpeople and remove their civil rights. They complain about transpeople causing problems for them, while they publicly harass and marginalize transpeople, as exemplified by the incident in the OP.

It's a technique that they've picked up from the religious right, along with the scapegoating and demonization of minorities tactics so popular amongst fascists and other reactionaries.

Well, maybe. Until I see real evidence of a feminist-claiming faction actually conspiring with the religious right, I'm treating this as a difference of perspective. (A momentary alignment of a very narrow interest doth not a conspiracy make, though it's an opportunity for a conspiracy.) I don't think anyone in this thread is a crypto religious fundamentalist.

What I think is happening is ordinary politics being magnified and abstracted into incredible detail by the churning of the blogosphere. If I'm reading the "annals" blog post correctly, while putting a sufficient Gaussian blur filter over the whole thing, the actual story seems to be that a proposed government measure for trans rights was made broader than many segments of the public are comfortable with, and there has been a significant (even if not decisive) backlash against it.

The self-claimed source of the backlash is that at the most basic level, some women are claiming that they're grudgingly willing to "treat [trans women] as women," but aren't willing to call them women, because that's their lane.

Now, it's understandable that there's a part of any cis person's brain that holds a little doubt about whether trans people are "really" this or that. (It's the same part of our brains that make us cis.) And for some strong feminists this feeling would be magnified for various reasons, including a "stolen valor" concept: "'Real' women put up with mistreatment and disrespect every moment of every day, but being so amazingly strong and valiant and resourceful they manage to live their lives despite that. How dare a man who hasn't earned that title by accomplishing that incredible feat presume to claim the badge of honor 'woman'?"

Anyone, in fact, could feel that a little bit, in less exaggerated form. Right at the same time, most likely, as they're also feeling "trans people have been treated badly and really could use a break" and "is it really okay that society is changing to accept these things that previous generations would have clearly regarded as decadent?" and "what's this going to cost me down the road?" Everyone is weighing those things and more in their own brains, and different people and different groups of people are weighing different ones differently, and politicians and their advertisers are trying to manipulate the weightings. In the end all those conflicting feelings result in a yea or a nay.

That's how public politics works. Under the surface it's an interplay of vague feelings toward yea or nay that appear and disappear and shift and evolve. And most people aren't consciously aware even of their own sets of those feelings, let alone anyone or everyone else's. Most people can understand two or more sides, even if they've already committed their support to one of them. Columnists can write opinions, but those voices are usually coming from outside the community concerned.

On the Internet, there's no surface. Every one of those vague yay or nay factors in your brain gets embodied and represented by loud voices arguing the critical importance of just that one thing, coming from within what used to be the special-interest community. Differing opinions of differing strengths, under this microscope, turn into populations of quantum states of conviction. Trans women are either ABSOLUTELY WOMEN IN EVERY WAY AND ONLY A BIGOT COULD CLAIM OTHERWISE or MEN WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES TO DESTROY WOMANHOOD FOR THE PATRIARCHY. And it's not just a set of some number of different viewpoints, it's a fractal hierarchy of them, infinitely intricate and infinitely abstract with equally vehement conflicts on every level. Following them is like looking at the motions of water molecules a thousand feet deep and trying to figure out where the waves are, and whether the tide is rising or falling.

There are good reasons to be unhappy when the ten million word Internet something-gate you've been heavily involved in gets summarized in somebody's thousand-word article. But that's nothing compared to the results of a vote, which reduce it all to one bit.


ETA: tl;dr courtesy of The Guardian:

Social media have unhelpfully amplified the voices at both extremes of this argument.

 

[caveman1917]

Next to the examples about the labour party there's also the London Anarchist Bookfair that fell prey to the gender cult. It was the biggest annual Anarchist event in the UK held since 1984 until last year a group of about 20-30 cultists attacked anarchist-feminist Helen Steele at the bookfair. Afterwards the pressure was put on the organizers for having stood up for their long-term comrade (Helen Steele has been active for decades and was one of the victims of the spycops scandal) and not complying with the demands of the cultists, and so that was the end of the London Anarchist Bookfair.

ETA: statements by the organizers here and by Helen Steele here. "On the internet" my ass!

 

[luchog]

Well, maybe. Until I see real evidence of a feminist-claiming faction actually conspiring with the religious right, I'm treating this as a difference of perspective. (A momentary alignment of a very narrow interest doth not a conspiracy make, though it's an opportunity for a conspiracy.) I don't think anyone in this thread is a crypto religious fundamentalist.

You're twisting what I said, and using an overly-restrictive definition of "conspiracy", which was obviously meant metaphorically in context.

As for overlapping interests, go look at Rolfe's posts where she links to Religious Right propaganda organs to support her anti-trans position. It shouldn't be hard, there are quite a few of them. Close to half of the sources she uses to support her anti-trans bigotry are from hard-line reactionary Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian organizations.

We saw the same overlap in the '70s and '80s with the War on Pornography, where the radical feminist fringes and Religious Right were allied against "exploitation of women" in mainstream pornography. It may be an alliance of convenience, but it exists de facto if not de novo.

And you clearly haven't read her other posts or her links to those whose position she explicitly supports if you're insisting that I'm eliminating nuance in this discussion. There is no nuance whatsoever in their position, it is one of the most extreme I have ever seen, and engages in some rather elaborate conspiracy theorizing about how there is a shadowy cabal of transpeople who are working in media and entertainment to force lesbians to become transmen, and to disguise men as women to infiltrate women-only spaces for the sole purpose of abusing women. Hell, look at the OP alone to see an example of how this is happening in the real world, not just armchair warriors on the 'Net.

 

[Rolfe]

Next to the examples about the labour party there's also the London Anarchist Bookfair that fell prey to the gender cult. It was the biggest annual Anarchist event in the UK held since 1984 until last year a group of about 20-30 cultists attacked anarchist-feminist Helen Steele at the bookfair. Afterwards the pressure was put on the organizers for having stood up for their long-term comrade (Helen Steele has been active for decades and was one of the victims of the spycops scandal) and not complying with the demands of the cultists, and so that was the end of the London Anarchist Bookfair.

ETA: statements by the organizers here and by Helen Steele here. "On the internet" my ass!

Maria McLauchlan, handle "Skepticat" - one of the anti-homoeopathy illuminati and married to a prominent member of the English skeptics movement - was assaulted by a trans-identifying man just over a year ago. He was convicted of assault and fined, but the judge scolded Maria for being reluctant to call him "she" in court and said that because of this transgression he wouldn't be making any order for compensation in her favour despite her expensive camera being smashed.

The context was that a meeting to discuss the proposed legislation had had to find a new venue at very short notice because the original venue was targeted by trans activists insisting that this was a "hate group" and they should cancel the booking or else. A replacement venue was found but rather than publish the address and risk the same thing happening again, attendees were requested to meet at a spot in Hyde Park (Speakers' Corner) to be led to the venue. A fairly large group of trans activists turned up and started hazing the assembling women. Maria got her camera out to photograph the incident, and the guy attacked her and pulled her camera out of her hand. The camera was broken in the scuffle.

Maria is 60, has osteoporisis and a metal plate in her shoulder. The trans activists spread a story that she had attacked their guy and had him in a "head lock". However someone else filmed the whole thing and the circumstances were so clear from the film that a conviction was inevitable.

Maria said that it was dark, and she was only aware of being attacked by a man who was more than six feet tall. He wasn't wearing obviously feminine clothes, although come to that neither was she. But she was very clear that her attacker was a man. However he turned up to his trial with long hair or a wig and feminine clothes and calling himself Tara, and the judge insisted Maria had to refer to him as "she", despite the fact that he doesn't have a Gender Recognition Certificate (so is legally a man) and is apparently fully male-bodied with the only concessions to femininity being hair, clothes and makeup.

 

[caveman1917]

Maria McLauchlan, handle "Skepticat" - one of the anti-homoeopathy illuminati and married to a prominent member of the English skeptics movement - was assaulted by a trans-identifying man just over a year ago.

Yes I know, Helen Steele was also present at that event - it was the same cult as with the bookfair. If you read Helen's statement I linked to in my post you can see that this is referenced a few times, the bookfair attack was just a month or so after the one you refer to.

He was convicted of assault and fined, but the judge scolded Maria for being reluctant to call him "she" in court and said that because of this transgression he wouldn't be making any order for compensation in her favour despite her expensive camera being smashed.

Yeah it's incredible, isn't it? You don't get any compensation because of the transgression of refusing to declare in court your belief in a factually, observably false claim about your attacker's sex.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes I know, Helen Steele was also present at that event - it was the same cult as with the bookfair. If you read Helen's statement I linked to in my post you can see that this is referenced a few times, the bookfair attack was just a month or so after the one you refer to.

Yeah it's incredible, isn't it? You don't get any compensation because of the transgression of refusing to declare in court your belief in a factually, observably false claim about your attacker's sex.

Someone said afterwards that Maria should have put it directly to the judge that he was directing her to commit perjury, both as regards her perception of the person who attacked her and indeed his legal sex. But how could she think of that while actually on the witness stand?

The defence also came out with a pack of lies in Tara's defence, or rather mitigation. Unfortunately there was no way to counter this at the time because nobody knew they were going to make these false claims.

The discussion I went to a year ago went ahead at the original venue, but again the trans cult (a different lot this time as this was in Edinburgh) pitched up to harrass people going into the hall and kept up an incessant banging of kitchen utensils outside throughout the meeting. They were invited to come in and state their case from the platform but they refused. Afterwards they started an online campaign against the venue for hosting "hate speech", including contacting people who had booked the hall for other events and bullying them into cancelling and relocating their event.

Yeah, it's all just on the internet, innit?

 

[Rolfe]

Next to the examples about the labour party there's also the London Anarchist Bookfair that fell prey to the gender cult. It was the biggest annual Anarchist event in the UK held since 1984 until last year a group of about 20-30 cultists attacked anarchist-feminist Helen Steele at the bookfair. Afterwards the pressure was put on the organizers for having stood up for their long-term comrade (Helen Steele has been active for decades and was one of the victims of the spycops scandal) and not complying with the demands of the cultists, and so that was the end of the London Anarchist Bookfair.

ETA: statements by the organizers here and by Helen Steele here. "On the internet" my ass!

I read about a lesbian bookshop that had to close after being targeted by trans activists for refusing to allow male "lesbians" into their events. I think that was in Canada. There are also organisations being threatened with loss of funding for not being "inclusive" if they try to keep their services female-only.

I think the current situation where the activist is suing depilation salons is also in Canada. Basically he wanted his genitalia waxed (for hair removal). The waxing technique is different on male and female genitalia and establishments tend to specialise in one or the other, nevertheless the people doing the waxing are mostly female either way. So this guy could have had his bits waxed by a woman, no problem, that's apparently quite normal even in establishments catering to men.

However he went round seeking out female-catering establishments, including women who worked from home as sole traders, and then when he was informed that they didn't do customers with a penis and testicles he sued them under anti-discrimination laws. Most of the women have been unable to find any legal representation because law firms don't want to touch anything with the "transphobia" word in it.

A female blogger who put up a blog post about this had her entire blog binned by WordPress for "hate speech", specifically that she had used the guy's real name - which is no secret and he uses it himself sometimes, but this is apparently the crime of "deadnaming". She's lost the entire blog going back years, no warning, nothing. To add insult to injury, the rule about "deadnaming" was only introduced by WordPress within the past few days, after the post in question was published.

But it's just the internet, after all.

 

[caveman1917]

A female blogger who put up a blog post about this had her entire blog binned by WordPress for "hate speech", specifically that she had used the guy's real name - which is no secret and he uses it himself sometimes, but this is apparently the crime of "deadnaming". She's lost the entire blog going back years, no warning, nothing. To add insult to injury, the rule about "deadnaming" was only introduced by WordPress within the past few days, after the post in question was published.

An archived mirror is online.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, that's good. She said she had copies of most of the posts but thought the comments were gone for good and there was a lot of important stuff in the comments.

This extreme bullying is such typically male behaviour even as the poor wee marginalised souls bleat about their pink feminine lady brains. No self awareness at all. And I've seen some screenshots of posts by the ball-waxing guy (and others) that are stomach churningly gross. Not a fetish? Really?

 

[luchog]

The thing is, when that latter group is portrayed as representing all trans then the arguments are arguments against trans people.

And that's the problem. Certain people are taking a miniscule handful of incidents, most of which are not even verifiable via reliable sources, and blowing them up as fully representative of the entire group.

There's a word for that, sort of slips my mind at the moment...

trans cult

Thank you for so effectively illustrating my point.

Call me odd, but to me it would seem that finding one's position on an issue in full agreement with the position held by some of the most oppressive, most bigoted, most inhumane, and most generally awful people in world culture would be sufficient motivation to re-examine one's position, not to double-down on it. The fact that the weight of rigorous, replicable, and verifiable evidence and reportage is also against one's position should similarly provide impetus to rethink rather than entrench. But there you go.

And meanwhile, murders of transpeople continue to rise; along with a precipitous rise in hate crimes in general. Up 17% nationwide, and up 50% in my city.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/a-national-epidemic-fatal-anti-transgender-violence-in-america-in-2018

 

[Rolfe]

Nobody is suggesting that the incidents referred to are representative of the entire group of trans people. They are however pretty representative of the group "trans rights activists" who are becoming recognised even by ordinary trans people themselves as doing significant harm. It is the existence of these people which leads many women to question and indeed oppose current proposals to allow anyone to identify as whichever sex they like, no questions asked. Because obviously there is then no way to ensure that only the nice ones take advantage of the concession.

Obviously I can't speak for the USA, but the gender-critical voices I hear in Britain are overwhelmingly coming from pretty left-wing Labour women, many of them (former) Labour Party activists. Though I have to admit of some shock at finding myself on the same side as Claire Heuchan and Frances Barber on this issue.

It's also worth bearing in mind that while any murder is appalling, trans people are murdered at a lower per capita rate than women, at least in Britain.

 

[luchog]

Nobody is suggesting that the incidents referred to are representative of the entire group of trans people.

Nearly every single source you've cited in this thread has, in fact, done so.

They are however pretty representative of the group "trans rights activists" who are becoming recognised even by ordinary trans people themselves as doing significant harm.

No they're not, and no we don't. There are a very small number of "trans rights activists" and transpeople in general who are awful people. Just like there are a very small number of humans who are awful people. You know what that means, transpeople are humans too.

And "trans rights activists" includes myself, and pretty much any person who believes that transpeople deserve human rights the same as anyone else, and work to achieve recognition of those rights.

There are just as many awful people among trans rights activists as there are among gay rights activists, womens' rights activists, or civil rights activists. I don't hear anyone except wannabe-fascist and similar idiots saying that Valerie Solanas or the "back bloc" militants are representative of all feminist activists or left-wing/anarchism activists, yet when one or two transpeople make headlines for being unpleasant...

It is the existence of these people which leads many women to question and indeed oppose current proposals to allow anyone to identify as whichever sex they like, no questions asked.

Not it's not, and you haven't provided any evidence of that sort. The only women I see "questioning" (JAQing off) trans identity are those who are adamantly opposed to trans identity in general, and invent all sorts of conspiracy theories to support that opposition. They are just using the existence of a statistically insignificant number of extremists to justify a wider bigotry.

Just like the religious right uses the existence of a tiny handful of cases of same-gender child sexual abuse to paint all homosexuals as predatory paedophiles trying to "recruit" and/or rape children.

When your tactics mirror that of the oppressive reactionary right, it's time to rethink, not entrench, at least for reasonable people.

You can swap the word "trans" for the word "gay" in 90% of every anti-trans assertion and citation you've posted in this thread, and it will read the same. For that matter, you can substitute "Jew" for "trans" in about 50% of them and they will sound disturbingly familiar.

And even if this were true as you claim, then that's back to being clear evidence of bigotry on the part of those women, ascribing the actions of a statistically insignificant few to the larger group as a whole. Something you keep asserting you're not doing, while continuing to do it.

Because obviously there is then no way to ensure that only the nice ones take advantage of the concession.

Sounds like a good reason to oppose gay rights too, after all, "everyone knows" that they sexually assault children in public restrooms, and have been very unpleasant in their demands for rights, even going so far as to engage in rioting and other violence.

Guess what, humans are messy, and any time humans have the freedom to abuse a right or privilege, there will be a few who will abuse that right or privilege. We're seeing it with white nationalists clinging so tenaciously to their "free speech" rights to promulgate hate and division, and their "right to assemble" being used to justify violent marches and rallies. We've seen it in the past with Black Nationalists like Nation of Islam. We've seen it with black bloc militant far-left anarchists. We see it with ordinary people every single day. The abuse of a right does not invalidate that right.

To deny transpeople their equal rights just because they're just as human as anyone else has a name. Guess what that name is.

Obviously I can't speak for the USA, but the gender-critical voices I hear in Britain are overwhelmingly coming from pretty left-wing Labour women, many of them (former) Labour Party activists.

That is not demonstrated by the sources you've been citing, of which over half have been religious right organizations.

Though I have to admit of some shock at finding myself on the same side as Claire Heuchan and Frances Barber on this issue.

And yet...

Oh, and I believe it's been posted before, and is certainly old news, but it needs reiterating:

Radical feminists team up with right-wing evangelicals to oppose trans rights protections


When you find yourself on the same side as oppressive reactionaries, it's time to re-consider your position. This goes well beyond "strange bedfellows" here.

It's also worth bearing in mind that while any murder is appalling, trans people are murdered at a lower per capita rate than women, at least in Britain.

And after all, Great Britain is the only place that matters, not like all those uncivilized subhumans in the rest of the world.

And again, I strongly disbelieve that, given the available evidence and proven tendency for authorities to -- often deliberately -- misgender transpeople who are victims of hate crimes, and fail to classify violence against transpeople as hate crimes as a result (you can look at the link in my previous post for evidence). So the numbers are well-understood to be grossly under-reported. At least, they're well-understood by those who don't have a vested interest in demonizing, denigrating, delegitimizing, and dismissing transpeople.

 

[Rolfe]

What rights do trans people not have, or are being denied, that other people do have?

 

[Mycroft]

It's a bit long but it's spot on the nail and witty with it.

I've stopped being surprised by men leaping to support men who want to occupy women's spaces and erase the fundamental definition of women though. Burn the witch.

It seems the fundamental disagreement here is whether transwomen should be considered women or men. Your continued mis-gendering of transwomen as men assumes at least one fact where the rest of us don't agree with you.

 

[Mycroft]

What rights do trans people not have, or are being denied, that other people do have?

If you have your way, the rights appropriate to their gender.

 

[luchog]

It seems the fundamental disagreement here is whether transwomen should be considered women or men. Your continued mis-gendering of transwomen as men assumes at least one fact where the rest of us don't agree with you.

And does, in fact, provide ample evidence of an attitude that shines through brightly despite mealy-mouthed denials of its existence.

If you have your way, the rights appropriate to their gender.

The right to simple human decency, apparently.

And in many places in the world, the right to go and what other people take for granted, without being harassed, assaulted, or outright killed.

And in the US, the current federal administration has expressed their intent to legislate transpeople out of existence.

‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

As I recall, it took a Supreme Court decision to force a previous administration to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation, and not a deviant behaviour, overturning laws criminalizing expressions of homosexuality. Given that the current makeup of the Supreme Court leans heavily in a conservative, if not reactionary, direction; a similar overturning of such oppressive legislation targeting transpeople is considerably less likely.

 

[Rolfe]

If you have your way, the rights appropriate to their gender.

Gender is a feeling in someone's head. It doesn't confer any particular rights.

 

[Rolfe]

The right to simple human decency, apparently.

And in many places in the world, the right to go and what other people take for granted, without being harassed, assaulted, or outright killed.

And in the US, the current federal administration has expressed their intent to legislate transpeople out of existence.

‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

As I recall, it took a Supreme Court decision to force a previous administration to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation, and not a deviant behaviour, overturning laws criminalizing expressions of homosexuality. Given that the current makeup of the Supreme Court leans heavily in a conservative, if not reactionary, direction; a similar overturning of such oppressive legislation targeting transpeople is considerably less likely.

I don't know any law that says anyone has a legal right to "simple human decency".

Everyone has the same rights not to be harrassed assaulted or killed, that are accorded to people in their society. Unless you know of a society where it's actually legal to do these things to trans people but not to others?

I'm really not concerned with US politics. Trans people where I live have no legal rights denied to them that are granted to non-trans people. It's illegal to harrass, assault, murder, sack, refuse to employ, refuse to serve or indeed to discriminate against anyone in any way on the grounds that they're trans. So let's not pretend that there are legal rights being sought here that aren't already granted.