Letter to my MP on report on Transgender Equality

 

To _______________ MP

As a resident of ____ ,I’m writing regarding my serious concerns for the future safety of women and girls both in this local area and nationally. There are presently plans within  proposed transgender rights legislation, highlighted by Conservative MP Maria Miller,  which in my opinion are at odds with the rights of the general population of women and female children. See document below:

 



My major concern is the issue of access to existing women-only spaces. While recognising the rights of all to be free from harassment and violence, my concern is that these proposals will actually increase the threat to women/girls within publicly designated  spaces such as changing rooms and toilets. The very reason such spaces exist is to lessen the threat of (male) violence to women, enabling their use of public areas.
The term ‘transwoman’ may include a variety of people, not just transexuals and those living with gender dysphoria. It is commonly used by  those who have not had any form of medical intervention or have any intention of doing so. There is also lobbying for gender identity to be assumed by anyone without the need for any kind of medical acknowledgement. By definition, self-identifying as a ‘woman’ and accessing female-only space is potentially open to any man.
The reality is that this situation WILL  be abused and women and children will be harmed as a result.
I do recognise the right to public safety for all, and therefore I support a solution which aims to help all – such as tackling the male violence inherent in the whole issue of public safety and by providing separate safe space for trans people. Highlighting this does not mean I am transphobic, any more than noting the very real issue of male violence is misandrist. Nor does it suggest I believe all ‘transwomen’ are abusers.
As women and girls constitute more than half the population in the UK, I believe this is a serious issue and the role of our MPs is to prioritize ALL citizen’s safety. Rather than seeing this proposed legislation as progressive, however, I view it as a hugely regressive step for a society in which the rights of women have been and still are being hard fought for.
Please can you help by standing up for the rights of ALL. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
___________________

Male approval of transwomen is predictably patriarchal.

Men, including men on the left, have always hated feminism, have always been misogynists, and will always support activism which harms women.

For example, why are men so supportive of TW in women’s spaces, yet these same men have never been concerned with including women in the spaces occupied by men for centuries? If TW are just women as it’s always stated, then where is this mass support for other issues regarding women  from TW supporting males……? TW it seems are therefore NOT actually women by their own supporters hypocritical standards – they are however a very trendy and more importantly, grossly patriarchal cause.

Much of the male support behind TW ‘rights’ is morally bankrupt, all about misogyny and a continuation of the values of subjugation and dominance.

Ultra feminized/sexualized TW are the sort of ‘women’ men want. They are a heterosexual male fantasy.

Research shows 73% of men who have sex with m-to-f transsexuals identify as straight…

Transgender porn is a best seller. It not only preforms as a modern day ‘freak show’ for the titillation of straight men. Both viewer and object participating in the display of exoticism, the thrill of exploitation and dominance of the ‘other’. (The popularity of black and Asian TW in pornography is no coincidence, indicative of the hierarchies within masculinity and a racist culture).

This also projects ideas of the ultimate male fantasy of ‘women’, but from an insider male perspective. The straight male gaze when applied to other men is only acceptable within the illusion of the sexually ever-available caricature of ‘womanhood’ – created for straight male pleasure. It also gives men any excuse for a bit of dick worship applied to that desire….

Certainly no consideration of rights there. Nothing progressive or liberating about objectification, pornography or prostitution or any kind of male violence. It upholds the same patterns of toxic masculinity, homophobia, white supremacy and patriarchal/capitalist values forever serving the values of dominant straight white males.

However, men want women who uphold the values of domination and subjugation and the hierarchy within gender which allows them many privileges.

Feminism, of course, supports the opposite of this.

The thing is, many TW, born into masculinity and male socialisation, know this already….. many playing out incredibly damaging gender stereotypes in the search for straight male approval and ‘validation’.

It is where these hugely harmful roles played out between males leave females, including the poison it injects into already damaging notions of womanhood, as fodder for violent male pleasure, that greatly concerns feminists.

 

 

 

Include me out. How ‘inclusion’ is killing feminism.

The problem with this modern obsession for ‘inclusion’, especially for university societies, is that it’s not only killing the soul of feminism or lesbian/gay rights but it’s basically devoid of any common sense.

The reason we’ve always had separation in activism has never been particularly about exclusion specifically, but for reasons of focus, empowerment, allowing an oppressed voice space to speak and sharing experience. This, in turn, lead to clear analysis and particular campaigning. Separation in activism is both common and successful and has been used in anything from civil to gay rights.

However, uni societies, like feminist women-only groups, were put under pressure to change, to be more inclusive, which hasn’t meant being more accessible to disadvantaged women like lesbians or woc, but has meant including men. While mixed activism has always been a choice in feminism, women-only groups were/are especially valuable for women’s autonomy, crucial to a movement about the liberation of women themselves.When any oppressed group works with the group of people who oppress them, the emphasis and direction will of course change to suit the dominant group, that’s inevitable.

In Goldsmiths University, what once would have been a group supporting the rights of gay and lesbian students now includes ‘trans, queer, questioning, asexual, intersex, pansexual, polyamorous people….’. This could include anyone, including already much advantaged straight people. How very ‘queer’…..I would argue that somewhere in that mix the rights and much needed support for gay and lesbian students are lost in a harmful fog of ‘inclusion’.

The fact that more dominant groups are entering societies means that not only are such societies losing focus, and not protecting the rights of the oppressed groups they are supposed to represent, but are in some cases  actively working against themselves!?

Recently at Goldsmiths both the fem soc and LGBT group actually worked with a group whose leader has anti women’s rights and anti gay views, to the determent of a woc – a female speaker and human rights activist, gay rights supporter and feminist. You can call yourself ‘inclusive or intersectional’ while apparently never challenging your own oppressive beliefs, having no clear analysis and while joining in with bullying and silencing in the name of inclusion.

This is far from the first or last case of feminist socs actively attempting  to silence other women/feminists. There is no getting away from how  senseless that is. The obsession with ‘inclusion’ has even lead to using the word ‘exclusionary’ as a slur from one feminist to another, a word also seemingly allowing the acceptability of threats of rape and murder from men to women.

This seemingly modern interpretation of inclusion ignores both systematic and structural oppression and does not regard the existing context of inequality. The more white men you have in your feminist group the less likely you are to listen to woc. It does nothing but serve the needs of the dominant groups in society, the groups which have the power and voice anyway. This, in turn, is a regressive and hugely harmful step that will actually undo much of the rights that many have fought for over the past decades and beyond.

Please include me out.

 

 

women’s prisons have been women-only for good reason

  1. In the UK – 81% women in prison under an immediate custodial sentence have committed non-violent offences.
  2. In 2009-10, (those born and socialised as) males were perpetrators in 91% of all violent incidents in England and Wales.
  3. Males were responsible for 81% for domestic violence, 86% for assault, 94% for wounding, 96% for mugging, 98% for robbery.
  4. Males were responsible for 98% of sexual offences. Of child sex offenders, 99% were male.
  5. Many males, not just TW, are vulnerable to male violence in prison, many face abuse, violence and are a suicide risk due to sexuality, ethnicity, age etc.
  6. The huge numbers of prisoners who are incarcerated with mental health problems is a far greater issue than that of TW.
  7. How many of those prisoners, including female prisoners, in the general prison population have taken their own life?
  8. Why are TW being regarded as a special risk compared to other vulnerable groups?
  9. Why are violent TW being allowed to be incarcerated with vulnerable women?
  10. The problem of male violence in male prisons is not one to be offloaded onto women.

On the suicide of TW Joanne Latham: This is being used by trans activists to push for TW to be moved to female prisons.

Rather than campaigning for some sort of neutral and safer space for TW, Trans activists are championing violent TW like Latham to be relocated irrespective of the potential threat to female prisoner’s well-being and safety……

CVNTaypW4AAF3hR

This ignores the rights and humanity of female inmates who are also to be protected from male violence.

statistics on male violence are taken from : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/25/dangerous-masculinty-everyone-risk

Women and War, the War on Women

A century ago 90% of war casualties were male soldiers, now 90% are civilians, 80% of whom are women and children.

In war “Women and girls are not just killed, they are raped, sexually attacked, mutilated and humiliated”

Females are often targeted to”terrorize, demean, ‘defeat’ entire communities, as well as to punish, intimidate and humiliate women’….

…’hundreds of thousands of women are trafficked annually for forced labor and sexual slavery…including to service western troops’.

Militarism means that  ‘women are often the spoils of war, their deaths are considered collateral damage, their bodies are battlegrounds or commodities that can be traded’.

women and war

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1219-26.htm

On being pro ‘sex work’

1. It’s very trendy to be ‘pro sex work’ – it’s seems very ‘progressive’ and ‘free thinking’….
2. If you focus on those who ‘choose’ prostitution, the rest…the kidnapped, trafficked, tortured, raped, murdered, seem to fade away somehow…
3. You ignore the fact that ‘choice’ is actually loaded anyway in a misogynistic, racist, white supremacist, patriarchal society
4. You don’t focus on the fact former abuse, addiction, DV, poverty, coercion, lack of resources and opportunity etc often form part of that ‘choice’
5. You kid yourself that the sex trade is a solution to economic inequality for women and poverty as a female issue…
6. You tell yourself it’s a job like any other (where abuse, torture, rape, murder is a daily reality).
7. You blame feminists for bringing up uncomfortable truths. This is the real violence!
8. You get kudos from men, your opinions are validated for once…..
9. You write academically about ‘sex work’, but the reality is you’d never ever really want it for your own daughter ….

10. And you tell yourself that the idea of buying a woman does not uphold patriarchy, perpetuate male violence or harm all woman and womanhood as a whole……