The worrying rise of TERFism in the UK (MOD WARNING IN OP)

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 06-09-2018 4:56pm

P_1 wrote:

Only seems to be tweets. Asked some manc friends but they haven't been around the city centre today or yesterday

bodice ripper wrote:

Any evidence of these stickers?

The Manchester transport police tweeted that they sent officers to check but have yet to report if it's a hoax or not.

Slutmonkey57b · 06-09-2018 5:57pm

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

1. You are essentially trying to argue that trans women are not women again. Using a junior cert level of biology to back your points up.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm just observing what the argument looks like, to someone on the outside. You can ignore that if you like, people on the outside of this debate really won't care as the outcome doesn't affect them.

2. Agreed : women's rights to safe spaces from sexual predators is not an unfounded necessity. However claiming transwomen are somehow more likely to attack a cis woman in these spaces is very much unfounded.

You are putting words in my mouth again, I did not claim any such thing. There is no concept that a safe space for women is one which is "sexual predator free". Sexual predators are hardly going to announce themselves at the door. It is one which women deem to be safe by design rather than assumption.

3. You are again, like so many on here, trying to compare and conflate transwomen to male sexual predators.

3 points and the third time you've put words in my mouth, which doesn't reflect well. Malicious people (who may have no trans identity at all) are going to or have already exploited the trans movement for their own (non-trans) ends. Read up on gamergate, and you will see a lot of the same tactics employed, against women, as they always have been. Read up on what the Challenor family did, and you'll see similar tactics at play.

If you are part of the trans movement, then this is something it would pay to be aware of. Your choice.

Accusing someone who's trying to warn you about a legitimate problem that might impact you of something they're not doing isn't going to win you any allies.

4. TERF is no more a slur than NAZI is.

Like I say, I believe the current course of events isn't going to play out that way. The fact that the word "terf" is employed in different ways against men vs. Women, and the fact that there's no equivalent term for men who don't agree with some of what's coming out of discussions around trans people tells us that it's intended, and used, as a slur.

Nobody's going around making bomb threats against men's groups on behalf of trans men, are they?

Annasopra · 06-09-2018 6:36pm

Mod

A reminder of the mod warning above;

this is a discussion on terfs in the UK so please keep on topic and dont veer off into a discussion on the lgbt forum or its charter or if trans women are women at all. Thats a general thread warning.

JackTaylorFan · 06-09-2018 10:00pm

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I'm not arguing anything. I'm just observing what the argument looks like, to someone on the outside. You can ignore that if you like, people on the outside of this debate really won't care as the outcome doesn't affect them.

Oh, I really wish I could agree with this statement, really, I do. But nah... There's a ton of people out there for whom trans rights won't affect in the slightest way, who are really, really angry. Like really angry. Only someone being contrarian would deny this. Now, I don't know why people are upset exactly. I mean, I have some theories - for instance: why straight men get so upset. it's usually got to with their own sexuality being challenged. And well, you only have to look at the latest Alex Jones nonsense to start to think "Wow! All that trans-bashing for so long. Hmmm... Maybe it really is as simple as that. Wow!" I mean, that's just one theory of many.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You are putting words in my mouth again, I did not claim any such thing. There is no concept that a safe space for women is one which is "sexual predator free". Sexual predators are hardly going to announce themselves at the door. It is one which women deem to be safe by design rather than assumption.

I did no such thing. You made it clear that you think giving transwomen access to women's spaces would put cis women more at risk of being attacked. Thus implying, deliberately or not, transwomen are sexual predators, whilst also playing straight into the narrative created by TERFs and their sponsors and sympathizers.

There has literally never been anything stopping a male predator gaining access to a women's public restroom or changing room up to this point. Fact is, if someone is going to assault someone a sign on a door ain't going to be a deterrent. Seems you just want to punish transwomen for a crime they never committed. Also, I always find it quite fascinating how the concern never goes the other way. Should we protect men from trans men invading their space?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

3 points and the third time you've put words in my mouth, which doesn't reflect well. Malicious people (who may have no trans identity at all) are going to or have already exploited the trans movement for their own (non-trans) ends. Read up on gamergate, and you will see a lot of the same tactics employed, against women, as they always have been. Read up on what the Challenor family did, and you'll see similar tactics at play.

So, you want to punish all transwomen for the actions of a few malicious types, as you said yourself, who may actually have no connection to the trasn community at all? Yeah, that seems fair.

I also have a suggestion though... It's a radical one, granted, but... how about we punish the actual people committed of a crime? And not blame an entire community - one of the most marginalised and vulnerable communities on the planet, by the way - for the ill will of a few "malicious" types? I don't know... is that too crazy to hope for?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If you are part of the trans movement, then this is something it would pay to be aware of. Your choice.

Accusing someone who's trying to warn you about a legitimate problem that might impact you of something they're not doing isn't going to win you any allies.

Your definition of the word "allies" must be very different than mine.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Like I say, I believe the current course of events isn't going to play out that way. The fact that the word "terf" is employed in different ways against men vs. Women, and the fact that there's no equivalent term for men who don't agree with some of what's coming out of discussions around trans people tells us that it's intended, and used, as a slur.

To be honest, I usually call men who support TERFs
TERFs/Bigots/Assholes/C*nts/etc. Pick one if it helps.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Nobody's going around making bomb threats against men's groups on behalf of trans men, are they?

Just to put things into perspective, I've had two death threats this year - one, where I asked for help with on here. And for which I was subsequently harassed further and was on the receiving end of good old victim blaming. What was my crime? Just being a transwoman minding her own business. I suppose that's enough for some to want me dead. But sure, the poor TERFs. I'll cry tears for all their bitter, twisted little hearts this evening before bedtime prayers, I'm sure.

JackTaylorFan · 06-09-2018 10:13pm

Someone mentioned that this endemic of a much bigger political problem, and to be honest, they are right - but don't think TERFs don't stoop to these same levels: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/oklahoma-schools-close-after-adults-threaten-transgender-student-n900881

P_1 · 06-09-2018 10:36pm

So after an hour I'll never get back properly looking into the argument raised by the TERFs I have to say it's an argument that does not hold merit. For context, and to bring some rational evidence to the table, heres an example of a somewhat reasonable appearing propaganda piece from them.
https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1037779769608335362?s=19

An_Toirpin · 07-09-2018 12:27am

The word Terf is a disgusting hateful slur. No one should try to divide us like that.

Slutmonkey57b · 07-09-2018 12:54am

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

There has literally never been anything stopping a male predator gaining access to a women's public restroom or changing room up to this point. Fact is, if someone is going to assault someone a sign on a door ain't going to be a deterrent. Seems you just want to punish transwomen for a crime they never committed.

So you'll have read the news, then.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45436953

This wouldn't be possible without self-id. Men were not transferred to women's prisons before self id. Anyone who suggested it would have been dismissed as a crank. Instead, women who raised concerns about single sex spaces being eliminated by self-id were dismissed as cranks. Even in this thread, when someone's attempting to make the point reasonably, you're so busy over reacting and making false claims about what is being put to you, that you seemingly won't accept the possibility that there are very serious, even life-threatening consequences to eliminating single sex spaces, and instead you're sticking to the notion that the wants of one small section of society not only should trump the very serious needs of another, but that anyone who disagrees should be branded a bigot.

I'll leave you to explain how it didn't happen and isn't the result of self-id.

Note: I don't claim that the perpetrator of this crime has any status or is representative of anyone other than themselves. You'll no doubt attempt to suggest I am. But i can only repeat that i can only see anyone advocating that women should have no say in determining who gets to share their spaces is going to find themselves on the wrong side of history.

If self-id is a law worth advocating for, then these types of fallouts need to be addressed, discussed, and solved the same as any other law. "It's not up for debate", again, is not a line that's going to succeed if obvious consequences like this get dismissed out of hand.

Also, I always find it quite fascinating how the concern never goes the other way. Should we protect men from trans men invading their space?

Trans men don't seem to be making death threats either. But then, trans men would find it more difficult to physically or verbally intimidate any male opponents into silence or compliance.

Just to put things into perspective, I've had two death threats this year - one, where I asked for help with on here. And for which I was subsequently harassed further and was on the receiving end of good old victim blaming. What was my crime? Just being a transwoman minding her own business. I suppose that's enough for some to want me dead. But sure, the poor TERFs. I'll cry tears for all their bitter, twisted little hearts this evening before bedtime prayers, I'm sure.

I'm not getting into "who's worst off" with you. In an ideal world nobody would be getting death threats. It's worth asking why things are this way.

If the answer is "It's the terf's fault" then... off you go, I suppose. I personally don't believe it's as simple as that.

bodice ripper · 07-09-2018 12:57am

An_Toirpin wrote:

The word Terf is a disgusting hateful slur. No one should try to divide us like that.

Sorry, who is "us" in that sentence?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-09-2018 1:19am

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sorry, who is "us" in that sentence?

Feminists I assume. I have a longer post on this tomorrow but terfs didn’t arise as a response to transgenderism - feminists who held the same opinions they always held were labelled terfs as the ideology took hold.

P_1 · 07-09-2018 3:23am

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The word Terf is a disgusting hateful slur. No one should try to divide us like that.

Let's break the acronym TERF down shall we and see how much of a slur it is.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

Trans Exclusionary. They want to exclude trans people. Not seeing much of a slur here to be honest. That's what they set out to do.

Radical. Pretty descriptive I'd have thought.

Feminist. Again not sure where a slur would come in here. Though given they want to exclude trans people I'm not sure how that fits in with feminism, seeing as feminism is meant to be a movement of equality.

So please point out how you see the need to twist the English language to make that acronym be a slur?

Slutmonkey57b · 07-09-2018 7:52am

P_1 wrote: »

Let's break the acronym TERF down shall we and see how much of a slur it is.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

Trans Exclusionary. They want to exclude trans people. Not seeing much of a slur here to be honest. That's what they set out to do.

Radical. Pretty descriptive I'd have thought.

Feminist. Again not sure where a slur would come in here. Though given they want to exclude trans people I'm not sure how that fits in with feminism, seeing as feminism is meant to be a movement of equality.

So please point out how you see the need to twist the English language to make that acronym be a slur?

Definition and intent of the use of words are two entirely different things, which you surely know.

What would the equivalent accurate term be for the opposite side be, where a group of people have decided that women should be referred to as "non-men" or "menstruators", and that a biological woman possesses a "front hole" whereas a trans woman possesses a "vagina"?

Feminism is not a movement of equality, it's a movement of removing repression, fighting millennia of wrongs, and giving women the right to state basic things which men have always taken for granted, such as the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, have their own money and property, protection from institutionalised harm, the list goes on and on. It never has, and never suggested it would, have to advocate for the needs of anything other than women and their particular biological or societal needs.

And "terf", as I say, isn't an attitude that's going to win people over.

P_1 · 07-09-2018 8:09am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Definition and intent of the use of words are two entirely different things, which you surely know.

What would the equivalent accurate term be for the opposite side be, where a group of people have decided that women should be referred to as "non-men" or "menstruators", and that a biological woman possesses a "front hole" whereas a trans woman possesses a "vagina"?

Feminism is not a movement of equality, it's a movement of removing repression, fighting millennia of wrongs, and giving women the right to state basic things which men have always taken for granted, such as the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, have their own money and property, protection from institutionalised harm, the list goes on and on. It never has, and never suggested it would, have to advocate for the needs of anything other than women and their particular biological or societal needs.

And "terf", as I say, isn't an attitude that's going to win people over.

I agree on the last point re it's an attitude that won't win people over but its tough to avoid using it when you see some of the downright insidious things they are currently getting up to.

How else would you suggest identifying them?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 07-09-2018 8:26am

P_1 wrote: »

So after an hour I'll never get back properly looking into the argument raised by the TERFs I have to say it's an argument that does not hold merit. For context, and to bring some rational evidence to the table, heres an example of a somewhat reasonable appearing propaganda piece from them.
https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1037779769608335362?s=19

Why do the issues raised in the "propaganda piece" not hold any weight? I think it's somewhat reasonable to be concerned about self-id, and the poster outlines a few reasons why one might be concerned.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 07-09-2018 8:28am

P_1 wrote: »

Let's break the acronym TERF down shall we and see how much of a slur it is.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

Trans Exclusionary. They want to exclude trans people. Not seeing much of a slur here to be honest. That's what they set out to do.

Radical. Pretty descriptive I'd have thought.

Feminist. Again not sure where a slur would come in here. Though given they want to exclude trans people I'm not sure how that fits in with feminism, seeing as feminism is meant to be a movement of equality.

So please point out how you see the need to twist the English language to make that acronym be a slur?

I think ascribing "radical" to someone because of their beliefs on one issue is unhelpful.

Annasopra · 07-09-2018 8:28am

We have had self ID in Ireland for 3 years. None of these problems have arisen.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 07-09-2018 8:29am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We have had self ID in Ireland for 3 years. None of these problems have arisen.

Source?

Annasopra · 07-09-2018 8:30am

Emerie Witty Electricity wrote: »

Source?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/html

JackTaylorFan · 07-09-2018 8:41am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

So you'll have read the news, then.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45436953

For every one of those stories you can find, I can find about 10 of these, to be honest. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/05/transgender-woman-jenny-swift-found-dead-at-doncaster-prison

Are you saying cis females don't sexually harass one another in prisons, too?

I am not ignoring the fact that abuses of the system can happen. But You clearly want to punish all transwoman for the crimes of one. If this was because the colour of skin instead of gender this would be called racial profiling.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 07-09-2018 8:45am

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

For every one of those stories you can find, I can find about 10 of these, to be honest. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/05/transgender-woman-jenny-swift-found-dead-at-doncaster-prison

Are you saying cis females don't sexually harass one another in prisons, too?

I am not ignoring the fact that abuses of the system can happen. But You clearly want to punish all transwoman for the crimes of one. If this was because the colour of skin instead of gender this would be called racial profiling.

How does that relate in any way to the post you're replying to? You're totally avoiding the issue

P_1 · 07-09-2018 9:13am

Emerie Witty Electricity wrote: »

I think ascribing "radical" to someone because of their beliefs on one issue is unhelpful.

Indeed, the phrase radical should be reclaimed by the open minded and those who refuse to accept binaries. Perhaps Reactionary might be a better term for the r

The Bishop Basher · 07-09-2018 9:48am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We have had self ID in Ireland for 3 years. None of these problems have arisen.

It may not be a problem now...

But with the sudden and very significant rise in kids claiming to be transgender, what about 5 or 10 years from now ?

I suppose on the upside there's an equally sudden surge in adults deciding they're not trans anymore so maybe it'll just burn itself out..

seamus · 07-09-2018 9:55am

Rennaws wrote: »

It may not be a problem now...

But with the sudden and very significant rise in kids claiming to be transgender, what about 5 or 10 years from now ?

What about it? What kind of problems are you envisioning that haven't already come to light?

Goodshape · 07-09-2018 11:14am

MOD:

Thread closed for review.

JackTaylorFan, we do see the reported posts. Calling them out and "back-seat modding" in the thread itself is entirely counter productive as it only serves to further derail the discussion and makes it difficult for us to remove any off-topic posts without disrupting subsequent conversation.

If you have a problem with a post or poster, reporting is enough. Thanks.

Ten of Swords · 07-09-2018 4:25pm

Mod

Thread reopened. All mod warnings remain in effect.

Please read the mod warning in the opening post

7aubzxk43m2sni · 07-09-2018 4:53pm

Ok, let me try again.

I don't see TERF's as a worrying issue as I believe they are trying to avoid combining two fights, feminism and trans rights into one. I think those who are involved in the feminist movement are entitled to fight for women's rights without fighting for trans rights too.

JackTaylorFan · 07-09-2018 4:53pm

Emerie Witty Electricity wrote: »

A question regarding the mod note - specifically that posters should not imply that trans women are not "real women".

Is this not the entire topic of debate when discussing "TERFs"?

For all the dressing up of this being about safe spaces for women (which believe me, I want too) it pretty much boils down to what you just pointed out really. TERFs don't recognise transwomen as women and will go to extremes, including harassment and violence to get their message of hate across. And that is why on an LGBT+ forum TERF rhetoric really shouldn't be entertained.

JackTaylorFan · 07-09-2018 4:56pm

Since this discussion has brought up the issue of transgender prisoners, specifically in the UK - here is the current UK Government Policy guideline on the matter - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566828/transgender-review-findings-web.PDF

Allowing transgender offenders to experience the system in the gender in which they
identify will, in the great majority of cases, represent the most humane and safest way to
act. We believe it will also assist successful rehabilitation.

In the minority of cases where that is not possible, the reasons for departing from this
starting presumption must be clear, explicit and made known to the person they affect,
especially when it involves assigning someone to a male or female prison. The majority of
such cases are likely to concern transgender people convicted of serious offences, where
both public protection and the best interests of the person themselves may not be
compatible with the general presumption described above. However, this will not be true
of all transgender serious offenders and it is important that policy for the majority should
not be founded upon the highly complex considerations raised by a minority.

seamus · 07-09-2018 5:04pm

Emerie Witty Electricity wrote: »

Ok, let me try again.

I don't see TERF's as a worrying issue as I believe they are trying to avoid combining two fights, feminism and trans rights into one. I think those who are involved in the feminist movement are entitled to fight for women's rights without fighting for trans rights too.

But they aren't mutually exclusive. A core part of the trans rights movement is the fight for recognition of one's gender, equal to any other.

Thus "women's rights (excluding transwomen)" is in direct conflict with trans rights, which seeks to recognise trans people as equal.

Imagine it was "Women's rights (excluding black women)" and you get the idea.

TERFs by their very existence do not recognise transwomen as equal and are therefore in direct conflict with the trans rights movement. They cannot peacefully coexist.

Slutmonkey57b · 07-09-2018 6:06pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/html

I think it's clear the poster was asking for the source of your assertion that there have been 0 problems, not the relevant statute.

The worrying rise of TERFism in the UK (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Comments