Echoing criticism levied at Townsend by Pride in Surrey, he added that by expressing her opinions on the topic, “Lisa Townsend is in breach of her personal obligations under public sector equality duty” and that “tweets like these are an abuse of her position as an elected official whose duty is to oversee the police service under the law”.
Townsend, who has two law degrees, refutes the allegation that by expressing her opinion she is in breach of her legal duties. “If people disagree with me and want to stand against me that’s fine — that’s democracy. But I am tired of being told not to talk about this because it is really important. For Crispin this is clearly just a trans issue. For me, it is a women’s safety issue.
“At present, we’ve got a situation where, thanks to the lobbying of Stonewall, anyone who decides they identify as a woman must be allowed into female spaces. I cannot see anything more misogynistic than a policy that insists that the feelings of a male legally, morally, ethically trump the rights and safety of women and children.
“I absolutely support the right of trans people to live in the way that makes them feel comfortable; to dress, live and love as they want. But everybody’s needs and feelings deserve to be considered. It is wrong to prioritise one group above another. As an elected official it is my duty to speak up for those who Stonewall and their supporters too readily forget.”
What do those “forgotten” constituents make of her campaign? Well, behind her desk is a noticeboard with scores of thank you cards pinned to it; when her staff logged correspondence in the weeks following the interview, they found that 90% were supportive. “I was overwhelmed by support, and was sent cards, chocolates and even a bouquet in the colours of the suffragettes; people were so grateful that I’d used my position to amplify their concerns.”
Likewise, many within the Conservative Party have applauded Townsend. Nearby Guildford MP Angela Richardson thanked Townsend and urged Surrey Constabulary to record offences by sex rather gender identity (in this she is supported by Home Secretary Priti Patel). Townsend also has the backing of other PCCs, including chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) Marc Jones.
Throughout the Tories more broadly, Townsend believes “the overwhelming majority of grassroots members and elected politicians recognise that women’s safety is compromised by gender self-identification”.
Yet it was the support of the heads of domestic abuse refuges and women’s organisations in Surrey, women who had previously kept quiet on the issue, that most inspired Townsend. “I read every single card I received. Some of those who wrote to me were women who had needed the support of refuges and rape crisis centres. Others were desperate parents, worried that their children were being forced to use mixed sex facilities in schools which had been advised by Stonewall. They didn’t feel able to share their views openly due to the potentially career-ending accusations of transphobia.
“So many women who’ve got in touch have told me they’re ‘politically homeless’, that they’d probably never vote Tory but were fed-up by the failure of other parties to acknowledge their concerns.”
Despite Blunt’s attempts to censure her, Townsend maintains that the Tory party is a broad church where debate is actively encouraged. As such, she says she feels “frustrated” by attempts by a minority within her own party to shut down debate, and that this is “both un-Conservative and undemocratic”.
She adds: “It just wouldn’t occur to me to complain about another person, let alone another elected conservative politician, because they’d said something with which I’d disagreed. And it’s telling that more widely, nearly all of those who’ve told me to stop talking about this, or who have complained, are men. This issue has really brought home to me just how many men feel threatened by women with opinions.”
And it’s an issue that isn’t going disappear soon — not least within a Conservative Party that could soon find itself in the throes of a leadership election. The sexual politics of transgenderism span far beyond the borders of Surrey, and Townsend is confident that future politicians will be asked for their views on sex-based rights. “It’s an issue every politician has been contacted about,” she says, “and I’m afraid anyone who says otherwise is lying.”
“At some point, whether it’s weeks, months or years, the Conservative Party will select a new leader. As a member of the Conservative Party, I will have a vote. And I can tell you now, I will be looking very closely at the candidates who put themselves forward. I will want to know what their view is on single-sex spaces and how they define ‘woman’. And I will vote accordingly.”
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeCrispin Blunt is a fairly unusual sort of Tory as a gay Brexit supporting former army officer who left his wife and who has spoken out in favour of poppers he is not cut from conventional cloth.
However, Lisa Townson represents a more authentic and pragmatic Tory tradition than Stonewall’s absolutist trans stance that Crispin supports. His response in attempting to close down debate on the trans issue suggests a more National Socialist approach to debate than a Tory one.
He sounds like a pervert to me
Agreed. His preoccupation with the toilet is the sort of thing we expect from Lib Dems.
I can understand both the Trans Womens and Women’s side of this issue, however, how this is debated, or argued does not help anyone. I think most people have seen how vicious the exchanges can get, and how ludicrously people are even losing their jobs over this issue. The only way this will be sorted is through sensible conversation between women and trans women. I cannot see how the likes of Blunt, butting in and threatening women for putting their side helps at all. He should know better. As mentioned above, I realise gender dysphoria does exist and can lead to serious mental health issues which cannot be ignored, but I also understand that women have worries around safe spaces and sports. One of the biggest problems for me seems to be the acceptance in some circles that any man can just proclaim they are a woman and then be allowed into a womans changing room. How people like Blunt can’t see how this might be abused is beyond any rational thought. One last point, which I try to apply when coming up against such divisive issues, is to reverse the problem, and isn’t this telling that men do not have the same issues around Trans men…..?
Why would men have any issue with trans men (if indeed they knew any)? They can pose no threat, in either sporting or sexual arenas. The crux of this problem is that transwomen, in spite of wishing to emulate the born variety, have the female of the species as their sexual object. This means that the trans woman in the changing room or social space/women’s refuge is sexually focused on those present (and it is at least possible that this is why he/she wants to be there). Transwomen are intensely preoccupied with women’s appearance, their bodies, clothes, hair, and even their bodily functions (some claim to have periods). In a changing room or women-only space, to be observed by a trans woman is to be observed by a man (and that is exactly how it feels). I had a dear and gentle friend who was trans, so I am not unsympathetic, but the fact that the vast majority of transwomen have intact and eager male genitalia, makes a mockery of the ‘transwomen are women’ mantra.
‘Why would men have any issue with trans men (if indeed they knew any)? ‘ that is my point Jane, they don’t. A sex change operation doesn’t make someone physically equal in strength to the sex they are transitioning to. Trans men will be generally weaker than men, so pose no potential threat and trans women will be generally stronger than women. Which leads me to think it is immoral to deny women a critical voice on this issue, and to label them ‘hateful’, as some people have does not help at all, as this directly involves women, not men. Blunt should know better.
Quite right.
There’s no such thing as a “sex change operation “. Sex in birds and mammals is immutable. These surgeries are merely cosmetic and of course most (probably 90%+)males claiming to be women have no intention of having them. Most also don’t have dysphoria they are autogynephiles with a fetish, formerly known as transvestites.
Agree, except AGPs are not the same thing as what used to be called transvestites (cross-dressers). The latter faded away, after the laws and stigma against simply being gay disappeared.
AGPs possess a particular fetish, arousal at the thought of themselves as women, sexually.
There has indeed been research on AGPs. Much of this recently has been denounced or completely shut down by the trans community.
Transwomen are men.
Is a trans goose transgander?
Transwomen are men who may have been surgically and / or hormonally mutilated so as superficially to resemble women.
True, but some of the impersonations are fairly convincing — at a distance
Not to women we can tell sex at 100 paces irrespective of clothes or hair! Evolution has seen to that.
Paris Lees is quite convincing, not sure if he/she retains meat and two veg
Don’t know who gave you all those down ticks but I’ve reversed one of them. En route from Oz to the UK in 1975 we (Wife and 2 pre-teen kids) had a 4-day stopover in Singapore. We did all the usual sights, including the “Must See”Commonwealth War Memorial. One night I took my wife to Bugis Street. She was fascinated by the Catamites and they were fascinted by her. She said they were all looking at her. I told her thay were just looking to copy her movement, sitting, standinhg and walking. She was not impressed by the state of the “Ladies Toilet”. One of the momentos was a picture of the annual beauty show. I still have it (somewhere) but the thing is: the least pretty woman in the picture is the Female who organised it. My Wife said she could understand how a sailor, full of drink, could be led astray.
No. Most are not even at a distance…
Jon some have no surgery or hormonal treatment and just decide to self identify as trans. It beggars belief.
Indeed. At best, a man can have himself surgically and hormonally mutilated to resemble a woman, but many don’t bother, and in either case height, hand and feet size, and shoulders:waist:hip proportions typically betray them as men.
Even if those were somehow soluble or not noticeable, I think a Blade Runner style verbal test would still distinguish XX from XY. If a woman says to a man “I’m going to a dinner next week” he’ll say “where’s that?”, whereas if she says that to a woman, she’ll ask “what are you going to wear?”
An accurate elaboration on my comment.
I get your point, and I do think that this gets to the crux of why we segregate such spaces in the first place.
But first: it is not the case that all trans women have women as the object of their sexual desire.
And second: this objection would also apply to lesbian women in women’s spaces (and gay men in mens spaces).
This is why lesbian anti trans activists never make the “sexual object” argument – though it’s relevance is completely obvious.
Beg to differ, about your last point. Of course that point is made, by lesbians and others.
Why? Because (1) lesbians are not men, and express sexuality in a completely different way from men, and (2) lesbians (being women) are just as much at physical risk as all women are from men in women’s spaces.
Crap! Lesbians and gay men don’t fancy alll women and all men, in the same way that heterosexual do not fancy all men or all women. This is the get out clause for people who do not understand the issues. Please go get educated.
I used to think that transwomen were gay men. Quentin Crisp, an effeminate gay man in the 1950s and 60s, once said he wished it had been possible for him to transition. No one could have failed to be moved by his difficult life story dramatised in ‘The Naked Civil Servant’ and there are transwomen with this background who obviously pose no sexual threat to women. (Of course, many effeminate gay men prefer to stay gay men and it’s now safer for them to do so.)
However, I now realise that there is another category who, as you say, have females as their sexual object. It explains something which always puzzled me – the lecturer at my university who, once David, became ‘Carole’ but stayed with their girlfriend. I’d assumed trans was for gay men; clearly something else was operating here. Gender critical activists call it gynephilia – a fetish where heterosexual men like to imagine themselves as females. Hence the growing number of stories from Trans Widows (see their website) whose husbands and boyfriends had increasingly bizarre bedroom demands culminating in identifying as women, but insisting they stayed with their female partners. Sometimes this insistence was aggressive. So, yes, the transwoman phenomenon appears to be a very different kettle of fish from the transman.
The truth is, we just do not know enough about this, nor how it relates to sexual orientation. And it looks like it is getting harder to study objectively.
There is no reason a priori to suppose that we are looking at a single phenomenon here. There may be multiple different reasons for being trans.
It is evident to everyone that some lesbians,and some gay men (but not all) gravitate towards styles of dress and behaviour more commonly associated with the opposite sex. Could there be some overlap here with the trans phenomena?
At present we just don’t know.
Much of my wardrobe has been bought from men’s depts. Why? Longer legs and arms and broader in the back than the equivalent sizes in women’s clothes. Occasionally will wear a skirt or a dress. Doesn’t make me a lesbian even when I had very short hair. I drink pints of real ale. I watch rugby. Doesn’t make me a lesbian.
Dressing in “female” clothes and putting on lippy and mascara does not make a man a woman. The man is simply a man in a dress.
love your use of the word ‘eager’!
I did hesitate…
I am not an expert on the subject, but I agree with what you are saying. However, it would be good to have Blunt on here to hear the other side
Agree – Unherd should be giving a platform for some contrary voices.
Agree in principle, but it has to be the understanding that there is actually a debate to be had and that all sides of the argument should be clearly heard without attempts at intimidation to shut them down. Sadly, some trans activists, including Blunt on this evidence, do not appear to believe this, but rather that we should all just agree with them as they are obviously right, and anyone who raises any objection is a hateful bigot worthy of censure or worse.
I’ve read some good academic stuff. And far more reasoned and objective than some of what we get on here.
That sounds reasonable on the face of it, but if you step back and think for a moment you will remember that Blunt and those who claim to think like him have the whole of the rest of social media in which to present their arguments. Twitter, facebook, YouTube [to name but a few] all censor the perspective presented by the author of this piece and those who take a similar position. People have their right to post or comment shut down for days or weeks at a time and sometimes permanently for simply expressing something which five or ten years ago would have been regarded as an uncontroversial truth. This is a platform where we are not afraid of even uncomfortable truths, however I suspect you will find that those who support the other faction will find this a dangerous platform and a place where they cannot feel “safe” and that they will therefore not consent to posting here.
That is very true. Try expressing a ‘gender critical’ view in the times or guardian and it will not pass their censor, no matter how politely and fact-based the post.
Have we not heard more than enough to last a lifetime from these people?
There is (deliberate?) confusion in terminology between ‘transwoman’ and ‘I identify as a woman’ which activists use to prevent debate. Hi It is particularly in the latter case when there has been no attempt to alter the XY chromosomed body. Debbie Hayton helps us to understand the conflicts writing on UnHerd and points out that though living as a genuine transwoman she is still biologically male. It’s a really fraught area but we should give women their full single-sex based respect and rights.
People should try reading Helen Joyce’s Trans. Explains things clearly…
Perhaps those self identifying “Trans women”wanting to gain access to these female only spaces should given access with the provision that they first have their pen!s removed. No years of hormones or talking therapy, just straight in with the castration. I wonder how many would “self-identify” then?
Agreed, this would put an instant end to it. Of course, the hate would then focus on whoever advocated such a step.
Self identification isn’t about gender dysphoria though. If that was all the debate would be over. We already allow people to transition and get a gender recognition cert if accessed by a psychiatrist to have the dysphoria and to have lived in the preferred gender for a time. Nobody is doubting biology there.
Gender identity is the idea that biology (sex)is secondary to perceived identity (gender) or that it doesn’t exist; that people are “assigned” a gender at birth based on phenotypes, and that that action discriminates against people whose real gender identity is female while they present at birth as male, and vice versa. In fact it goes further and states that the people whose biology is compatible with their identity are “cis”, not just a privileged class but an oppressor class. All that means that no psychiatric test is needed, or wanted. Most countries with self id allow a change of sex on a passport with just a declaration.
With this ideology the problems you have with men in women’s changing rooms is solved to the satisfaction of believers in gender identity – those biological men are actually trans women. Unless gender identity dies as an idea, that’s the future.
I am pleased you have identified the ideological component. Gender identity ideology is a prominent component of the postmodern (5 letter word beginning with q and ending with r) theory. Much of the claims emanate from that overarching ideology.
I think if you restricted the arguments to just Women and Trans Women the argument would probably disappear.
From what I have read most of the agitation comes from neither
Thanks, very sensible comment
It’s not even about trans women, it’s about men using and abusing self ID to gain access to women-only spaces without question.
The only people to lose their jobs, are (drum roll here please), women. The issues affect women and girls. The issues are caused by men who think they know more about being women than actual women and who are supported by other men who don’t actually like women. When a woman like a Lisa Townsend speaks out, instead of listening, people like Crispin Blunt wade in to tell these women to keep quiet. In this day and age, women no longer have to remain quiet or face the scold’s bridle. We have a voice and are quite prepared to use it collectively and individually to protect hard fought rights from being clawed back by biological males.
Well said MJ!
This issue will never be resolved until we stop pretending that the Emperor is wearing clothes.
There is no such thing as ‘gender’ outside linguistics. Mammals cannot change sex. The law should not be written to pander to the delusions of the mentally ill and the perverted, nor should it encourage misogyny and homophobia.
Regardless of what people wear, what names they call themselves or the sex-role stereotyped behaviours that they choose to adhere to, they will always be the physical sex into which they are born. Tolerate eccentricity by all means, as long as it does not put others at risk, but do not expect the majority of the population to pretend that something is the case when they know that it is not.
Bear in mind, that in living memory that is exactly what many people thought was being done in relation to homosexuality. First in relation to its legality, then in relation to age of consent, and later in relation to marriage.
Last years perverted and mentally ill are this years normal – with some of them pulling up the gang plank to the good ship “tolerance” before those they dislike can get on.
Notice how Blunt frames his complaint: that Lisa Townsend wants to take part in the debate, i.e. will not be silenced at his behest.
Crispin Blunt sounds like a piece of work. How arrogant, how entitled and blinkered, do you need to be to take the position that you’re allowed to use your position to speak your opinion on certain issues, but others who may disagree are not? His attempts to silence Lisa Townsend are both sinister and absurd, and also reek faintly of desperation, as if he knows that the worst excesses of aggressive trans-activism are now being called out and its lack of wide support and democratic consent being exposed.
Excellent point.
My daughter had to use a women’s refuge so I’m definitely supporting Lisa.
You remarked “men feel threatened by women with opinions”. I think those are in two categories:
1) LGBT activists who behave as though they are beyond criticism and pontificate from ivory towers of superior views;
2) men who are bullies and know that making allegations and complaints is a cost-free enterprise.
Activists routinely describe the Tory party as Fascists, but they can’t even seem to get the Trans running on time.
Haha!
Stonewall’s power to create authoritarian norms of intolerance is chilling. I may not be a Tory voter but Lisa Townson has my full support and admiration on this issue.
Deselect Blunt! He is a complete a***hole, not to mention a traitor to Conservative values.
There is no ‘debate’ here – men are NOT women, full stop. (And vice versa). Those who have transitioned are accepted as women by the great majority of people. However it is completely legitimate and reasonable to suspect the motives of biological males who have made, may never, possibly never intend to, make any such transition, and nevertheless insist on using female facilities. To be blunt, do you want some hairy b****cked bloke hanging around your teenage daughter’s changing room? The interests of women, 50% of the population, trump those of a tiny number of deeply disturbed and misguided oddballs.
There is no such thing as a ‘trans’ person – nobody can change sex. The sooner this childish but dangerous absurdity is abandoned the better. There are only men and women – some of whom might claim they are the opposite sex. This should be a matter for psychologists and counsellors, not of fact or law. There are men whose sexual fantasies include dressing up as women. Either category commit crimes against women at the same rate as other men so clearly they ought to be excluded from women’s spaces material, legal, medical, political, occupational or social as they always have been. Their feelings are not a consideration for women – and self identification into the category of women is an outrageous insult to women. No decent, honest human being would dare to argue that this is acceptable. Women cannot disregard our reality to accommodate any man’s delusion. Men cannot be women no matter how much they might try to bully us about it. Let’s firmly put aside all this ‘trans’ nonsense and agree that, for a while there, a lot of people lost the run of themselves over it.
Fascinating insight into how Crispin Blunt thinks and operates. This article ought to be sent to all Tories in Reigate (I hope someone in that category reads this and acts). He is of course entitled to his views, but seeking to persecute his own county’s PCC is beyond the pale. Nasty, Crispin, can’t you see that?
He wants to watch himself. Dominic Grieve thought he had a personal following in Beaconsfield, so when he lost the whip for plotting with Bercow to sabotage Brexit, he stood as an independent. And was thrashed out of sight.
What is Blunt doing in the Conservative Party? In what sense is he a conservative?
I always ask the same about Johnson.
He has a strange mix of opinions but seems to have a real bee in his bonnet about transgender rights. Not an obvious Tory, for a seat in leafy Surrey.
Blunt calls it a contentious issue. It shouldn’t even be contentious. If you’ve got tackle in your undies you’ve got no business being in the women’s changing room.
I simply cannot get my head around a man, thinking he’s a woman, having their feelings trump the safety (and feelings) of biological women. It’s nuts.
In addition to the issues of safe spaces and trans widows there is the pressing problem of the escalation in the numbers of adolescent girls seeking to transition. The alarm has been raised here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/24/trans-kids-therapy-psychologist/
They won’t be using the ladies though.
Perhaps more relevant to British subscribers is Keira Bell’s testimony.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story
Isn’t Blunt in breach of the parliamentary code of conduct in trying to censor a publicly elected official?
Might try submitting a complaint using his own words to the Commissioner….
Ok done it – submitted a complaint to the Standards Commissioner about Blunt seeking to use his position as an MP to censor and limit a publicly elected official in activities relevant to her role.
Oh well got nowhere – he’s allowed to ‘express’ his opinion even if it is threatening apparently.
If this is so how can he complain about the view of Townsend? Does it have to be a certain opinion or are only certain groups entitled to be offended?
Given that it’s just about always biological women who are ceding or sharing their facilities and rights, then surely the trans rights movement is a thinly disguised men’s rights movement?
Crispin seems like a total idiot.
There are two quite different issues here one is a small number of people like April Ashley reassign their gender and whilst not exclusive like Caroline Cossey or April they date and marry men. Both were not known to have pursued reassignment but were outed by newspapers or “friends.” Caroline was a Bond Girl.
April returned to the UK some time ago and thanks to the Gender Recognition Act everything lines up passport driving licence and pension entitlement.
What is relatively new is this concept that people can self identify. That would seem to me to be what we used to call a Transvestite a Man wearing Woman’s clothes.
I entirely understand woman’s unease that they do not want to share a private space with someone who is driven in exactly the same way as any other male.
Conversely for the likes of April and Caroline to not enter a woman’s space is illogical and any other space would be dangerous to them.
In summary, I do not think this is a transgendered issue it’s a self-identification issue.
Well dear reader. The funny thing is that while lots of males claiming to be women want to get into women only spaces, like Prisons, refuges, rape centres, changing rooms etc- how many women claiming to be men are trying to get into mens prisons, changing rooms etc ?
I wish that we had Lisa Townsend in my area. To my mind, anyone who, “… remains absolutely determined to take part in this most contentious of public debates” or any contentious debate, is to be applauded and supported.
Spoken as if there is something inherently wrong with discriminating between different entities. In this case between actual women and males who identify as women.
What needs to be tackled head-on is this treatment of ‘discrimination’ as a swearword or pejorative.
How did C Blunt get chosen as a Tory candidate, then elect(ed. His views would have been well known. There is nothing conservativ e whatsoever in supporting Stonewall’s position on trans. There is nothing conservative at all about saying that your feelings are more real than physical facts. So question: how come C. Blunt was chosen as a Topry candidate? Then elected? Who was in at the decision. Names please.
I have never read a good explanation of why transgender people, a tiny fraction of the whole population, would wield such political power. Is it part of the ongoing celebration of victimhood?
… nearly all of those who’ve told me to stop talking about this, or who have complained, are men.
This tells me very little – that the complainants are defined by an immutable characteristic (being male). What is more revealing, IMO, is to break this group down to find out why they are complaining. Is it because they are men per se (as the observation above implies) or are there other variables at work here?
What it tells you is that some of the people in this debate are coming from a position of general antipathy towards men!
The vast number of people have no interest whatsoever in all this and simply dont care… and have never even met any trans
Blisprin Cvnt.
Focussing on the safety issue alone, it would be helpful to get some sort of estimate of just how big a risk trans women present. In most aspects of life we base our decisions on some sort of evaluation of risk.
For example, male teachers, taken on average, present a far higher risk of sexual abuse to children than do female teachers. But we do not ban men from entering the teaching profession.
Younger drivers present a greater risk on the road, reflected in insurance costs, but we do not simply ban them.
Focussing on high profile, but rare, cases, or imagined extreme scenarios (6’6” 20 stone serial rapist could enter the ladies in a frock) just doesn’t help the debate.
How great are the risks?
I think you are right that it would be good to understand the actual risks, but what about the perceived risks? People should have the right to feel safe in their environment
I agree, but I fear that at the moment it is activists and the media who are driving that. An accurate assessment of risk would either help to put minds at rest, or would confirm the worst fears. But at least people would have something to go on.
There have already been cases in women’s prisons. The other common sense way to assess is to look at the preponderance of sex crimes perpetrated on women and the highly unusual examples of sexual assault by women against men. Even the need for women and children refuges adds to the reality of danger. Not saying there might not be reverse cases but they seem tiny in number. A fully trans make who has properly physically transitioned is a wholly different case.
Kathleen – it’s a big world. There are cases of almost everything. It’s the level of risk that is important. And I’m afraid your “common sense” here is no sense at all. In fact, it’s totally irrelevant to the issue. Sorry to be so blunt.
This raises an interesting point. But I am not sure if there is a category error in there somewhere? For example, a women-only category being compared to categories with mixed sexes? (I’ll have to think about that some more once I have had a few espressos.)
I think the more apropos position is to argue about how we are to categorise reality. Placing ‘trans women’ in a female-only space, in my view, is to accept the belief that trans women are women, where woman is an adult human female, that is, women is that class of humans whose underlying physiology corresponds to the sex that is called female.
This is clearly false if we are to ascribe what we know about biological reality, to what has been exposed due to the application of the scientific method. And consequently it is asking people to deny their own observations and reasoning – in other words to lie about what they consider to be the truth (that which corresponds to reality).
That is why the underlying ideology of ‘(a five letter word beginning with q and ending with r) theory’ goes to great lengths to erase such distinctions.
Actually, trans women do not make that claim, though it is often supposed they do. They just conceptualise it differently. They do not claim to be cis women (ie born genetic women), rather they claim to be a type of a broader category “women” which includes both cis and non-cis women.
Their opponents want them to be classified as men, regardless of outward appearance.
Not saying I agree or disagree, but just to clarify.
It’s not just a matter of ‘risk’. It’s the fact that girls and women have a right to privacy, which would be compromised by the presence in changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, etc of so-called transwomen, the vast majority of whom are fully intact biological men. What about women and girls who are religiously modest (Jewish or Muslim) or who have been sexually abused by men; these women and girls should not be forced to share single-sex spaces with males, however those males ‘identify’.
‘Identifying as a woman’ and being a woman are not the same thing. As Maya Forstater says, ‘Sex matters’. Anatomy matters!
If you look back to my first comment, you’ll see that I am referring to the safety issue alone.
The privacy issue is an interesting one. Why are we specifically concerned about privacy in relation to the opposite sex, but not the same sex?
I’m interested in why you are referring to ‘the safety issue alone’ David. Why would you do that? If a man in the next bed on a hospital ward was handcuffed to the bedframe, I would not feel any more relaxed about his proximity. If he had chosen to be on the women’s ward, as opposed to the men’s, I would be highly suspicious. Are you are suggesting that women are being paranoid in imagining that men enjoy looking at female bodies (and that some might actually go to some trouble to do so)?
And women are concerned about privacy in same sex spaces. We hate communal changing rooms (where we are expected to strip to our underwear in front of other women). We also lock the door to our cubicle in the Ladies. Women don’t do communal showers, post-match baths or get casually undressed in front of other women, even in our own household.
We really don’t care if the male person in our single sex space is a eunuch, voyeur or serial rapist, his wanting to be there is the problem.
Because I wanted to separate out that issue from the privacy and other issues, and wanted to do so explicitly. I’m not saying the other issues don’t exist. Sometimes it’s useful to unpack the issues a bit and deal with them one at a time.
And because it has often been the safety issue that has been foregrounded by others.
If you already have such measures in place to ensure your privacy even in front of other women, then it is not quite clear what the issue is.
A point I’ve made elsewhere is that if the concern is being viewed as an object of desire (quite apart from safety issues) then that same concern could be directed against lesbians and gay men.
Indeed, the reason that lesbian and feminist critics do not use that argument, but focus on safety, is because they know that those groups would be vulnerable to the same critique.
If we don’t want a trans man in the ladies changing rooms because they might enjoy looking at Women’s bodies – then what about lesbians?
My niece played football for her City team. She went to University and joined the women’s squad. There were a good number of lesbians in the team and their sexual overtures, combined with unavoidable physical contact, caused her to leave.
Sexual attention from opposite or same sex potential partners is desired and sought after in agreed circumstances. The entire rationale for most same sex spaces (clearly not the footy team) is that they are ‘safe’ places where sexual engagement is off the cards. You know this.
Women consider their trans acquaintances to be heterosexual males; we do not despise or fear them. I know some who advise trans friends on clothes and make up. But I don’t know any straight or gay woman who would choose a trans woman as a partner or welcome sexual attention from them.
We seem to be negotiating terms of engagement with the trans community, but not everything is negotiable. Denying biological sex is not on the table, nor is accepting biological males into women only spaces. Lesbians are fine in women’s changing rooms – they are there to get changed.
Well said.
I’m more than happy for trans women to have their own space and I’m happy for fully transitioned trans women to be allowed access to womens spaces.
the self identity ruling provides a loop hole in my opinion, for s3x offenders to prey on women. Like a fox in the hen house or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This isn’t so much a reflection on Trans women per se, as shoring up protections from those who would abuse the system. not to mention that the self identity thing also damages trans-cis relations like this! Trans feelings trumping women and children’s right to protection from abuse!
Hi Lindsay and thank you for such a reasoned response. I think you are right that that is the fear, but I’m not sure how real it is.
Are toilets, for example, really such a conducive space for s3x offenders to offend in. Compared to darkened streets, for example.
Where children are concerned, we already take care due to the risk that paedophiles might pose in toilets or changing rooms.
What we really need to get a handle on is the real level of risk, compared to other risks which we already readily accept.
More discussion is definitely needed, however it’s largely the trans activists that are actively stifling it which really doesn’t help anyone, least of all trans people, and this article is a good example of the trans activists silencing debate. Without proper two way discussion there will always be mistrust and fear in regards to the matter. Many women are scared of men at the best of times, thanks to the fear mongering of the MSM, opening the doors of areas we should feel safe to fully intact men in dresses without our consent or even discussion is not going to end well.
You speak of the level of risk as if its your risk to take, its not, its ours and we should be allowed to voice our concerns.
Also lets not forget the wording of many of the rape threats that trans women have made to out spoken women (clearly intact trans women as they explicitly refer to their member). Would i feel safe in the company of people who find that kind of language acceptable? Absolutely not! So yes, there are some members of the trans community whose behaviour has been negatively reflected on the rest of the community.
There may be something of a backlash now, but it’s not clear that their tactics aren’t working. Which I agree is depressing. But they aren’t stupid. They are using the same tactics of intimidation, shaming, guilt tripping, playing the victim while simultaneously aggressing etc. that the feminists used before them. indeed are still using. They have learned their lessons well, and have seen what works.
We would all rather things changed through rational debate – but recent activist history shows that dirty tricks are a more effective way of pushing your agenda.
Regrettable I know.
Let’s not forget though that we are seeing the fallout of a spat between trans and terf activists which really has little to do with the rest of us. And the information we are getting is heavily skewed and filtered.
And frankly, some of the actors on the Terf side have form in terms of bias, bigotry and an easy way with the truth. I’m not inclined to trust them.
Which is why I would like to see some balance by allowing an intelligent person to make the argument from the trans side.
Live not by lies. Above and before the issue of safety there is the issue of truth.