When I came home last night, it was to find that 'feminist' Julie Bindel had described me on Twitter as a 'bellend', an 'orange-fringed brat' and an 'aggressive, spoilt, privileged, posh identifarian'. This was due to me attending a protest at a venue in Bristol called The Jam Jar, which was hosting an event called We Need To Talk About Sex, in which the Gender Recognition Act, and by extension the rights of transgender people (particularly transwomen) to use gender-exclusive spaces, was being debated. (I'm gutted that Bindel has since removed the tweets, but thankfully I saved them and they now happily reside in the 'Testimonials' in my introduction section.)
This debate had provoked an awful lot of discussion, in ways that are actually more diverse than most protests I have been at. There is a strong argument that if you support freedom of speech, which I do, then you have to support the venue hosting an event like this and the people taking part in it. 'I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it', and all that, which is something I frequently quote myself. I know at least two comrades from other campaigns who have taken against this protest for that reason. I completely understand where they are coming from, having spent quite a lot of time in the hours leading up to the protest debating it with myself for that reason. But I want to debunk a little of this here, because ultimately I came to a different conclusion.
I'm a cisgendered man, and have become increasingly aware about trans issues over the last few years, having become friends with a few transgender people. I'm entirely supportive of trans people and people of a trans background* being able to self-identify, and believe that no one has the right to dictate anything otherwise. But, if you are cisgendered it tends to stop there. It's quite difficult to talk about trans issues without offending someone - not because people are just hyper-sensitive, but because if you are lucky enough not to have been there you can't fully empathise. Even as a trans ally, I'll hold my hands up and admit I don't understand trans issues at all. The more you talk to transgender people, the more you realise how ignorant you really are. So I try my best to only talk directly about transgender issues using other people's words who are more informed than I, and when I am with transgender friends, to keep quiet, listen to what they say and not to dominate the discussion. I think I'm quite a domineering person even when I don't want to be, but one can only try one's hardest.
The simplest antidote to the freedom of speech argument is - yes, they have a right to say what they like, just as everyone else has a right to object to this. That is really the crux of it. We did not object to the right of people to have this debate. We have not asked the Government to say, 'You must not say this'. We didn't even (contrary to what some may tell you) prevent anyone from accessing it; we held a banner over the entrance, but people were always allowed to pass by and enter the building. What we are objecting to is people choosing to have this debate. Something that came up a lot is, 'Why don't you just come in and contribute to the discussion if you have an opinion?' A lot of my friends have responded to this by saying that the reason is that they aren't prepared to debate with TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Reactionary Fuckwits) because TERFs by definition are oppressing the rights of trans people, questioning the validity of their existence and causing harm to them within society. One friend who is both transgender and Jewish likened it to suggesting that Jews have an open discussion with Nazis. You cannot have a reasoned discussion with someone who objects to the very terms of your existence. (One of my friends in particular makes some really eloquent points on social media, and I'd love to publish some of them on this blog, but at the time of writing she has not given me permission to do that - if she does subsequently, I may well put something up from her in a following blog.)
Whilst I agree with these points, I actually think it's even more simple than that. I will go out there and say: we did contribute to the discussion. We contributed by showing everyone exactly what we think of the way that this talk was framed. If people wanted to hear the alternative views of transfolk, they heard them outside the building on the way in. As a cisgendered man, I learned a whole lot more outside than I would have done had I been inside. I heard the people aggressively challenging the transfolk standing next to me, telling them that the freedom of speech of the oppressors was more important than the safety of the oppressed. I became aware of my own male cisgendered privilege when both media bodies in attendance approached me for an interview before anyone else - at an event about transwomen, the opinion of a cisgendered man such as myself was considered more important than the opinions of actual transwomen. If you're a cisgendered person who wants to learn more about the trans community, the most effective way to do that is to listen to them. To stand with them at demonstrations like this. To watch as the police are called on them. To storm buildings on their behalf and risk arrest on their behalf.
Because these are the sort of struggles that people in our society are going through. And within 24 hours, I have gone from being somewhat conflicted about whether or not I have to support events like this in the name of freedom of speech, to realising that it's far more clear-cut than that. This is not really about freedom of speech; this is about wanting to silence one of the most oppressed minorities without receiving any criticism. This is what I try to challenge every day of my life, and what I think everyone should try to challenge. And we should be bloody proud of those who are.
*I met a man last year who said that having successfully transitioned, he no longer considers himself transgender, but rather as someone who has a trans background who has since become cisgender. I shall use the term 'transgender' fairly broadly in this blog in the interests of being clear in what I am saying, but I am aware that some people aren't comfortable with the term applying to them.
So you don't think for yourself, you just repeat what the shoutiest people shout?
ReplyDeleteHi :)
DeleteThat's a trap that's easy to fall into, but I do my best not to - not just with this campaign, but with all campaigns I'm involved with. Critical thinking is really important. But of course, a lot of the time campaigners shout just as loudly as their opponents do, so if you align yourself with the shoutiest people you're liable to end up very confused!
Thanks for the comment, hope you're enjoying my blog :)
So you admit you have no idea how it feels to be trans - but presumably you do know how it feels to be a woman? Seeing as you're not prepared to listen to them or try to understand their issues?
ReplyDeleteNo gender critical feminist wants trans people dead or any of the other hyperbolic bullshit you lot come out with. I find it hard to believe you, or any of your mask-wearing idiot friends, actually think that. This is just an excuse to have a pop at a soft target, isn't it? Guess what - it's the government who are ruining the lives of millenials by making it impossible to get on the housing ladder, trashing the NHS, removing benefits, allowing businesses to take the piss with unpaid internships etc etc. While you lot are getting your knickers in a twist about your 'identities' and punching 60-year old grannies, they're getting away with trashing your futures. Well played, millenials, well played.
Hi, thanks for the comment :)
DeleteThe answer is no. I undoubtedly don't know how it feels to be a woman, as I'm not a woman. But I have come to the conclusions that I have come to by listening to a lot of women (both transgender and cisgender). To be honest, it's difficult to really be a spokesperson for this issue because I'm fortunate enough it's not my issue. There are many complicated things that need to be sorted out, but what it comes down to is, I don't believe anyone has the right to comment or cast aspersions on another person's gender or gender identity. I don't think that does anyone any good, whether they're cisgender or transgender.
As for your other points, I actually 100% agree with you. If you read some of my other posts, you'll see I very frequently post against the Government doing exactly those things.
Thank you for your civil response. I'm glad to hear it. I feel strongly that the government's support for self-ID is a smoke-and-mirrors tactic to seen to be giving millenials something they want (that doesn't cost anything) while providing a major distraction from the harm they are causing while everyone is busy fighting over this issue. I don't want to see the next generation of young people struggling, and think you've got a pretty shitty deal.
DeleteAs a woman - and a mother - there are aspects of womanhood that no man can ever experience or understand, no matter how much lipstick he applies, or how much surgery he has. I'm sorry that certain people feel that is 'exclusive' - it absolutely is, but that's biology for you. This therefore IS my issue, as what is happening is an appropriation of womanhood (that would be seen as massively offensive if it was racial appropriation) and a centring of men in women's issues. I can see why you don't think it's your issue - patriarchy favours men - but as women still haven't achieved equal pay, there's a rape epidemic going on, two women are killed by their (male) partners in the UK every week, FGM is still a huge problem, child marriage is still legal in many places all over the world (including the USA), and there's all this pain and suffering that disproportionately affects women (and is largely caused by men), you can maybe see why women a) want and need space from people with penises and b) don't want to have to centre penis people in feminism.
This is undoubtedly one of the very, VERY few things this present Government is doing that I support! And I agree, they aren't doing it for any better reason than trying to appeal to the young, but I focus more on the effect than the reasoning behind it.
DeleteI'm not quite sure I accept your notion of 'what women want'. When I was replying to your comment earlier, I was with two women, both of them to the best of my knowledge cisgender, both of whom were saying that the views of TERFs didn't represent them, and that they didn't understand how people couldn't see that including transgender women is not the feminist position to hold. As for all your examples, I'm staunchly against all of them, and I don't see that accepting transwomen as women harms progress on those things.
That's identity politics over class analysis. It crushes political movement if everyone's individual feelings have to be put ahead of decisions based on class. Just because two of your mates - who are probably young women who haven't yet experienced what it feels like to be paid less than male peers, respected less than male peers, lose jobs/be turned down because of pregnancy (even though that's illegal), almost die in childbirth because of badly funded maternity services, try and juggle full-time work with childcare etc etc - think 'trans women are women', doesn't mean the rest of us who have a LOT more experience of the full spectrum of womenhood (good and bad) agree. Unfortunately, you can't identify out of those kind of experiences otherwise most women would. The world still perceives you as female and the idea that you can dodge all this by giving yourself 'them/they' pronouns is a fucking joke tbh. Society needs to change, not language. That's all transactivism is actually doing, you know - taking the language away from women to describe their oppression. It's not actually challenging the oppression, it's perpetuating it.
DeleteI don't see how accepting transwomen as women harms any progress on any of those things, to be frank.
DeleteCan I ask how many of your female friends have been sexually assaulted? Probably many more than have told you. One of the reasons feminists have been fighting against men who identify as 'they' accessing, for example, female safe places such as toilets, is to protect the mental health of these women. These million+ women in the UK who have been sexually assaulted and oppressed. They are literally campaigning for the safety of the oppressed.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the media wanted to speak to a man at this event is because you are a man stopping women speaking, against their civil rights (Article 11 EHRA). A MAN OPPRESSING WOMEN. Not a trans-woman oppressing a cis woman. Surely you can see the difference?
Thanks for the comment :)
DeleteSexual and other physical abuse is undoubtedly a major issue. But anyone can be an abuser, whatever age they are, whatever their gender, whatever their sexual orientation and whatever their gender identity. Abusers shouldn't be allowed in safe spaces. That doesn't give anyone the right to tell anyone else what gender they are.
The vast majority of abusers are male, though. Over 90% of UK prisoners who are doing time for sexual offences are male. The stats show that there are more non-adult males in prison for sexual offences than females, let alone when you add in the adult male population.
DeleteAlso, you don't know someone is an abuser until they do it. They don't advertise it. Lots of abusers have got away with abuse, even rape, as the conviction rate is ridiculously low. So how do you propose to stop them from entering safe spaces? Isn't it easier just to let women have their own spaces away from potential abusers instead of waiting to be abused and then trying (and failing) to get some sort of legal recourse?
Those things are all reasonable concerns, but casting aspersions on the gender of others and putting innocent people in danger as a result does not solve it.
DeleteGender is a made-up social construct. I don't see what 'casting aspersions' on it means? Unless you mean, if someone says they're a woman, they're a woman, despite the penis, stubble, and years of male socialisation/entitlement? No, they're not. I'm assuming you're a straight male. Unless you'd be prepared to have sex with a transwoman, you know that they're not women either. It would be mightily disingenuous to try and make a case for just not being attracted to women with penises, if you're claiming penises are a female sex organ and/or that 'gender' is what really matters. In which case, you also know that trans rights is nothing more than a men's rights movement. Do you really want to be an MRA?
DeleteAnd while we're talking about 'putting innocent people in danger,' two women are killed by their partners each week in the UK alone. Countless more are sexually assaulted and raped. What do you think will happen if our changing rooms are effectively opened up to men? Do you think this will help assaulted women when they come to court? No, women are not believed anyway, the defence will simply argue they shouldn't have been naked in front of men and that they were being provocative by being naked in a place where men are present and the attacker will walk free. Clearly, though, you feel that that's collateral damage. Women's rights matter less to you than men's rights.
Not that it's any of your business, but I wouldn't automatically rule out sleeping with a transwoman, a cisgender woman, a cisgender man, a transman or indeed any other group of people. Why would I?
DeleteAs for the rest of your points, they don't take into account the levels of abuse that transwomen receive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGeorge, nobody is trying to invalidate transwomens' existence but they are are subset of men not women. I am strugglung to think of what they share with biological women (for want of a better word). I have no idea why you felt compelled to protest a meeting about a law change affecting women. I think you will think differently one day if you have a wife or daughter who may find themselves excluded from certain activities because of the presence of male bodied people trans or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I attended that demo with four comrades, all of whom were women! (Two of them were even cisgender, so presumably you would count them at least as women.) I believe that no one has the right to comment on anyone's gender but their own. I'm not qualified to say what it means to be a woman, but as a man I would never be so presumptive to say what a man is. I can only say what I am, and give others the respect they deserve.
DeleteBut you ARE saying what a woman is. You are saying it's a subset of men. You are telling women that their biology and socialisation is irrelevant - even though it damn well isn't. Who gives you, a cisgender male, the right to decide that? Why were you even there, telling women what to think, if you don't feel you're qualified to do that? Talk about patriarchy in action.
DeleteI have never said that. You have a point that I as a cisgender male can't really qualify that, but you may be interested in my interview with a transwoman on this that I'll be posting on here later today probably. She's far more eloquent on exactly what this is about than I.
DeleteYou say it isn't true that people were blocked from entering the event, then why is there a video circulating of a group of trans activists physically obstructing a staircase and preventing two women from entering the venue?
ReplyDeleteI myself did not witness this, as I was outside. However, I have seen the video and am very close to some of the people who were there. From what I have heard, this was heavily edited. Julie Bindel was filming people on a phone, a woman who did not wish to be identified on camera tried to cover the screen and this was then interpreted as her trying to steal the phone, which was never her intention. The edit made out that the activists were consistently violent, but a moment when a male organiser pushed a woman down the stairs was cut.
DeleteAs I said, I was not present and this is from discussion with some quite close comrades, not from my own recollection. If you watch the Bristol Live video, you can see the banner always being lifted to let people in - the BL presenter even says, 'They aren't physically stopping people from entering, so it's not a blockade as such.'
I see. How did Bindel edit the video to show a row of people with masks on stretching their arms out so that no one could get past them?
DeleteI really couldn't comment on that, this is just from what I've witnessed and what I've been led to believe by close comrades who I have no reason to doubt.
DeleteSo have you watched the footage?
DeleteHere's a link to the unedited video, so you can see it and form your own opinion instead of relying on what your friends tell you to think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOB-vLia_xY
ReplyDelete' A lot of my friends have responded to this by saying that the reason is that they aren't prepared to debate with TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Reactionary Fuckwits) '
ReplyDeleteFirst up your expansion of the acronym TERF gives away your prejudice. Interstingly the other side would expand it as Trying to Explain Reality to Fuckwits. The word is used as a misogynistic slur and often allied with calls to violence against women and is dehumanising. I object to the noun transgenders and to the use of the gays because I think these too hint at dehumanisation. But it seems that for you it's fine to dehumanise those you disagree with.
'friend who is both transgender and Jewish likened it to suggesting that Jews have an open discussion with Nazis. You cannot have a reasoned discussion with someone who objects to the very terms of your existence. '
This is offensive and hyperbolic twaddle. That a Jewish person said it has no bearing on the fact that it's an entirely inaccurate comparsion which totally invokes Godwin's law.
What does objects to the terms of your existence mean? Women who critique trans ideology or rather the ideology if gender identity are often described as denying trans peoples existence - clearly false as they recognise trans people exist. Or worse that they are denying trans peoples rights to existence - which implies they think trans people should be killed - if they did then the nazi comparision would be valid. Only they don't think that so it isn't.
This is a huge straw man. In fact there is nothing in any of the gender critical literature which says anything of the sort.There are NO calls for violence to trans people from gender critical women and their has been NO violence from women.You would think this would be a thorn in the side of anyone wishing to be honest.
But no instead the complete lack of evidence for any such sentiment is no impediment. The fact that homophobicen are violent to trans women is handily blamed on gender critical women. The argument is that by their daring to question and disagree with trans ideology they are psychically goading redneck men across the pond into attacking male prostitutes who present in feminine attire. This is a pretty outrageous theory.
It's like saying that me not believing in Allah and questioning the introduction of Sharia law is the same as me killing Muslims. That any hate crimes perpetrated towards Muslims are somehow my fault because questioning the right of a religion to dictate my reality and legal framework in a secular country is both hateful and incitement to violence. Yet you would never claim that was the case. Why not?
It's this rank hypocrisy that bothers me. I m quite capable of supporting Muslim peoples rights to believe in Allah and worship and so so safely without harrassment and to not believe myself and disagree with Sharia law being introduced to the UK.
Just as I am capable of supporting trans peopla rights to identify as whatever they wish and dress and present as they prefer and to do so safely free from harrassment and to not believe in gender identity ideology myself and to object to the introduction of laws which forces the prioritisation of a believe system over a secular system based on objective reality.