the law as it stands on sex - part 3

Oh I'm sure you're right Doodledog they seized on trans as their new raison d'etre, because while homophobia still existed on a personal level the battle was largely won. There's far too much money at stake to give up that gravy train, the salaries for the many advertised job vacancies they have are good, unlike many other charity salaries.

It is so sad that an organisation that was founded on accepting same sex attraction as a perfectly normal sexuality, now calls that sexuality transphobic since it's 'gender identity' that counts and not physical bodies. Nancy Kelley is a lesbian married to another female lesbian, but thinks other lesbians shouldn't exclude the whole group of transwomen from their dating pool because that is prejudiced.

Agreed. I can't help thinking that they were so successful at getting acceptance for gay people that they did themselves out of a job and had to find a new 'cause'.

It's interesting that so much of the Stonewall ideology is homophobic, but I suppose the personnel will have changed since it started out - a new generation will have taken over since the focus shifted to trans issues.

There is no reason that Stonewall, set up to promote and defend the rights of gays and lesbians, should ever have got involved in the trans debate.

Trans people are not homosexuals. Their situation needs to be championed by a group which understands and promotes their very different situation.

There's a very good article in the Telegraph today, by Suzanne Moore, 're Alison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court:

It cannot have been easy to be a black woman of Jamaican heritage in the late 1980s, living in Oxford and realising you were a lesbian. It must have been desperately lonely. Section 28, which was implemented in 1988, left gay teenagers with little support.
It cannot be easy, after a lifetime of supporting radical causes and becoming a criminal barrister, to find that at your workplace there are complaints about you orchestrated by a group set up originally to protect gay rights: Stonewall.
It cannot be easy to disclose as an adult the sexual abuse that happened to you as a nine-year old. That you were seen as easy prey, the daughter of a single parent, and were drugged and sexually assaulted many times or that the man who was convicted for these crimes has now been released from prison.
All of these are just episodes in the life of Allison Bailey, a formidable barrister who is suing both Stonewall and her chambers, Garden Court ...We watch agog. Bailey, like any other woman, gay or straight, can think what the hell she likes. Is she really your enemy, Stonewall?
Seriously, who do you represent now?

Good question. Stonewall appears to be no longer concerned for gay and lesbian people and is willing to throw them, along with women, under the nearest bus.

I agree Iam64; it's invariably used by the least kind as verbal shorthand for shut up, be quiet, know your place. I will not shut up. Nor will I be quiet. And my place is right here, promoting, defending and fighting against the erasure of women.

Yes Doodledog - ‘ be kind’ has become a nonsense, a tool of the patriarchy or a demand made by individuals or groups whose own behaviour lacks kindness

That's true, Fennel (and thanks ? )

If it were down to medical advances, though, there would have been a lot of children in times gone by who were desperately unhappy, and I don't remember that being the case. Unhappy gay people, for sure, but I really don't think that there were legions of people 'just knowing' that they were 'born in the wrong body'. I know that a lot of people always (whatever the cause of their unhappiness) suffer in silence, but the way 'some people' talk, this has been an issue since time began, and there would have been clues in Art, literature, drama, something by now, if that were true. Also, it would have impacted on at least some powerful people, who would have been able to do whatever they liked (and did, in many ways), but AFAIK there is no suggestion that the occasional lord, duke or king 'lived as' a woman.

I think the social atmosphere just now is toxic, the, and agree with you that there is a lot of 'just put up with it' from certain quarters. There is a veneer of 'be kind', but it is used to make passive aggressive digs at people who don't conform, and to squash questioning. I think the term was coined in response to tweets about the late Caroline Flack, and whilst I'm not at all advocating malice on social media, I think 'be kind' has now morphed into something that means 'don't criticise anything that a self-appointed set of people have decided is right'.

It tends to be used to silence women - maybe men are less likely to be concerned about having a 'kindly' reputation? Also, it has always been the case that women are called 'bitchy', if they say things that would be considered witty or incisive if a man said them - 'be kind' is yet another tool of the patriarchy, and yet another way to stop debate in its tracks.

yes, excellent post Doodle.
I should add, 'Trans'has also become more common because it's more possible medically. Either better procedures and drugs, or willingness on the part of GPs etc
And a changed social atmosphere to caring more about people's feelings.
Though that seems to be changing back to "just put up with it!"

Mollygo

Thanks for these links.
Don’t apologise for the DM. We need a newspaper that will be read by many to raise awareness of what’s going on.

Yes, well I know the DM get endless flak, online, over their views and politics, (often rightly), but they have got on board with this, and pick up on some of the current lunacy.

And, of course, they are the biggest selling UK newspaper.?

I admire JKR a little bit more every day! Some of the comments below the article expree exactly what we've been saying here

Baffled by the hypocrisy trans lobby The trans want to fit women to little boxes and use their words. I m not calling my mother cis-female, or gender assigned at birth. My mother, she is a woman. I will not submit to trans lobby just because they are mean.

Doodledog

*So what has happpened in the years between to lead to these problems?*

Maybe women and gay people have gained more rights and legal protections, and men have found a way to bat them back by imposing 1950s stereotypes of what it means to be a woman or a man?

If you are a woman and don't conform to those stereotypes, it must be because you are 'really' a man, and if you are a boy who seems to be a bit 'feminine', you must 'really' be a girl.

There is no such thing as homosexuality, as same-sex attraction can only exist where there is sex. If sex is replaced with 'gender', same-gender attraction is absolutely open to interpretation - so if you are a lesbian, and attracted to women, you are deemed to be open to the idea of sex with transwomen (TWAW, remember) and must be transphobic if you don't like the idea on account of their being men. So straight men can have sex with straight women, as always, but also with transwomen, if they have suppressed gay urges and lesbians, who probably just needed a good seeing to anyway.

Transmen are likely to be lighter, weaker and smaller than men, so unlikely to pose a threat, particularly if they have been socialised as female. So we end up with men able to dominate transmen, women and transwomen. What's not to love?

As if all that is not enough, men can gain access to places where women are powerless, such as jails and hospitals, intimidate them in changing rooms, 'compete' against them in sport, and intimately examine/assault them in situations where the women don't realise that it is a man who is touching them. All they need to do is say the magic words 'I am a woman' and access is granted, with anyone who disagrees intimidated, threatened with violence or written off as 'phobic'.

Women are written out of research projects, as where once women meant 'adult human female', now we are told it means anyone who 'presents as' a woman, and who shares political views with 'allies', so figures on things like pension deficits, educational attainment, pay differentials and crime become meaningless.

Who is behind all this? I don't suppose it is one evil genius cackling and rubbing his hands in glee; but the patriarchy failed to suppress women as much as it would like to, and the far right would love to see women back in the kitchen, preferably in a pretty dress and high heels.

Excellent post.

I know its been endless and has exposed a misogyny and homophobia that I naively thought no longer existed but to look on the bright side without this nonsense we wouldnt have realised that JKR is really funny .

Thanks for these links.
Don’t apologise for the DM. We need a newspaper that will be read by many to raise awareness of what’s going on.

After the flak she took for supporting Alison Bailey, JKR has lobbed another tweet into the argument.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10751871/JK-Rowling-tweets-image-white-bearded-Stonewall-approved-lesbian-facing-fury.html

(Sorry it's always from the DM, but they are the newspaper taking up cudgels on behalf of biological women).

Doodledog

I hope you’ve got your plumbing sorted.

I’m grateful to the Mumsnetters for their dedication to the cause, and to letting those without tickets in on the action.

Sort of thanks 'fingers firmly crossed', at least the ceiling didn't collapse!

I forgot that Mumsnet usually has a thread on these court cases, although that was my prime source of news when Kiera Bell had her hearing.

I hope you’ve got your plumbing sorted.

I’m grateful to the Mumsnetters for their dedication to the cause, and to letting those without tickets in on the action.

Thanks for that link Doodledog I tried to keep up with the live tweeting but as we had a plumbing emergency today I was a bit intermittent.

The case is ongoing, Rosie. You can follow it vicariously on Mumsnet, as people on there have got some sort of tickets to watch it on Zoom and are reporting to the thread in real time.

If a group like Stonewall (or any powerful group) can throw money at court cases that people are bringing in their own defence, it feels like a massive imbalance of the scales of justice, doesn't it? this is what drives me crazy. Anyone who subscribes to the view that sex is immutable, there are only two sexes and gender is pretty meaningless as a scientific factor is according to TRAs part of a group 'funded by right wing Christians/activists/bigots' take your choice. Well I'm still waiting for my payment, although I've supported as many cases like Maya's, Allison's, James Esses, and Rosario's as I'm able. I'm so disappointed that Raquel Rosario Sánchez lost her case against Bristol University, although the judge seemed to agree she'd been bullied, but the University doesn't have a duty to protect her from that? It seems to me that Stonewall gets massive funding from many sources, but the 'GC' side always relies on ordinary people putting their hands in their pockets.

So looking forward to Allison's case, Stonewall will have to answer questions yet again, and when 'the cotton ceiling' gets examined that should open many an eye.

She is definitely brave.

What struck me is the cost of it all. Allison has been able to get crowdfunding, and she is a barrister, but how many people with no legal contacts could afford to risk money like that?

If a group like Stonewall (or any powerful group) can throw money at court cases that people are bringing in their own defence, it feels like a massive imbalance of the scales of justice, doesn't it?

I’ve just taken time to read the Allison Bailey page. Thanks for that. I think I’ll need to read it again, but once more it seems to be a case of one group denying the rights, not only of females but of all LGB people. Brave woman Allison.

So what has happpened in the years between to lead to these problems?

Maybe women and gay people have gained more rights and legal protections, and men have found a way to bat them back by imposing 1950s stereotypes of what it means to be a woman or a man?

If you are a woman and don't conform to those stereotypes, it must be because you are 'really' a man, and if you are a boy who seems to be a bit 'feminine', you must 'really' be a girl.

There is no such thing as homosexuality, as same-sex attraction can only exist where there is sex. If sex is replaced with 'gender', same-gender attraction is absolutely open to interpretation - so if you are a lesbian, and attracted to women, you are deemed to be open to the idea of sex with transwomen (TWAW, remember) and must be transphobic if you don't like the idea on account of their being men. So straight men can have sex with straight women, as always, but also with transwomen, if they have suppressed gay urges and lesbians, who probably just needed a good seeing to anyway.

Transmen are likely to be lighter, weaker and smaller than men, so unlikely to pose a threat, particularly if they have been socialised as female. So we end up with men able to dominate transmen, women and transwomen. What's not to love?

As if all that is not enough, men can gain access to places where women are powerless, such as jails and hospitals, intimidate them in changing rooms, 'compete' against them in sport, and intimately examine/assault them in situations where the women don't realise that it is a man who is touching them. All they need to do is say the magic words 'I am a woman' and access is granted, with anyone who disagrees intimidated, threatened with violence or written off as 'phobic'.

Women are written out of research projects, as where once women meant 'adult human female', now we are told it means anyone who 'presents as' a woman, and who shares political views with 'allies', so figures on things like pension deficits, educational attainment, pay differentials and crime become meaningless.

Who is behind all this? I don't suppose it is one evil genius cackling and rubbing his hands in glee; but the patriarchy failed to suppress women as much as it would like to, and the far right would love to see women back in the kitchen, preferably in a pretty dress and high heels.

Fennel I put some of it down to Walt Disney and "Princess culture". When I was a child, about the same era as you were, even Disney films weren't like that. I saw "Snow White", where Snow White was a pretty girl, yes, but she wasn't as impossibly glamourous and seductive as a Hollywood starlet. Since then, Disney heroines have gradually become every little girl's dream of perfection. They are portrayed as feisty and independent, but they are also shaped and made up like adult temptresses - and they squeal at spiders and snakes.

Elegran thanks for that.
Your family sounds similar to mine.
I was talking to my daughter the other day about the issue and one of the things she said was "When we were children me and my friends were 'tomboys' and no-one worried about it".
She still is a tomboy, but never had the idea that this means she should go to the length of changing. Our boys too have some 'female' characteristics.
So what has happpened in the years between to lead to these problems?

I've just read it again too Doodledog, thanks for the tip about doing it from the bottom up, it really does paint the timeline more clearly. I saw a little live tweeting from the hearing and like that as well as pronouns being respected Allison is not to be referred to as 'cis' as she finds that offensive. The judge asks in order to differentiate between trans and non-trans should she just be referred to as a woman? YES YES YES that's what we want women and transwomen, clarity all the way.