Re: [Marxism] Open Letter In Support Of Trans Labour Members

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

John, just on the issue of "ME, a man" commenting on this. I'm asked to
comment on it all the time. Secondly, far more importantly the majority of
such businesses, where I am, are women owned or couples owned. This could
not happen without initiating it or their buy in. If there was opposition
by women to non-gender wash rooms, we would of heard it by now. Not a peep.
I live in a highly feminist city, gay city, and transcity: San Francisco.
Thirdly, they are and never were 'safe spaces'. This sort of nonsense (IMO)
about bathrooms being safes paces because men are not "allowed" in do in
fact make it quite UN-safe because it allows women to have half as many
people there to stop an assault (as you acknowledged they take place there
anyway, law or now law). The fact is that there are thousands of rapes
committed in "women only spaces" because rapists violate the law and don't
care about it (did you know that many places have no laws concerning this
whatsoever? That this is based on cultural customs and not legal statute?).
We would of course have to disagree with this about assaults being more
likely in gender neutral bathrooms. This issue has, btw, zero to do with
excluding transwomen from such spaces as they are, for all intents and
purposes, women (fortunately the dystopian idea of genetic checks haven't
made it feasible to exclude transwomen. Now such access just has to be
legitimized in law).

An example I stumbled across in Mexico City about 10 years ago was that
there are women only cars on the Mexico City subway. I was shocked (simply
because it was so unexpected by me and my friend I was traveling with). We
were stopped by an armed (with an assault rifle) women cop who told us only
women "beyond this point". It seems this was instituted on the demand of
women who organized for this because of the epidemic of groping by men on
the subway over years. Women have the choice of using this or the main set
of integrated cars. This was totally supportable. Again, however, the issue
of transwomen (who look like women and is key to this particular issue) are
of course able to use this car since no one, the women on the car, the cops
guarding it, and the potential molesters can't tell who is trans and who is
not). But those on this list, some, would argue that transwomen shouldn't
use such facility as in the Mexican subway system because "genetically they
are men and that is what counts". And this goes to the heart of this
discussion.

I defend women only spaces when in fact they are a function of women (cis
or trans) organizing to do so. This includes of course transwomen who ARE
transwomen and not just men who say they want to transition. This last
issue is a huge one and goes to the self-identity issue that has caused so
much fanfare and hatred.

BTW...I attended the ISO Socialism Conference, the one in 2017 that had
over 2,000 attending and they made all rest/wash rooms gender neutral.
There were no problems reported. Of course a socialist conference such as
that obviously is not at all representative of society at large.

What I see, *politically* the hot potato is not what you and I are politely
discussing. Rather, it is over the issue of "self-ID". This is what is
hugely complicated and often transcends the basic civil rights issues, or
perhaps "subsumes it" as a better expression. I would like to see more
information on this (this has to do with things like transathletes, locker
rooms and other issues where it is *only* the self-identificiation that
makes someone transgender and how to handle this in society. It is this
issue above all else that has caused the heat, "de platforming" and so on.


David W.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Open Letter In Support Of Trans Labour Members

[John Edmundson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

As for women's spaces being about safety vs prudery, of course women were
not safe in that world when "People pissed,
shit, washed, and did all manner of human social intercourse without
regards to any sort of gender." Women would use chamber pots and empty them
the next day rather than risk going out at night. So just because that was
how things were didn't make it some kind of utopia. As Marxists we get that
about the past, right. We don't romanticise it. And of course this is, and
always has been a class issue.The wealthy were of course the first to get
the gains.

And in the third world, it a massive class issue for poor women. In places
like India, poor women are fighting for those spaces now. Women have to
'hold on' all day, risking urinary tract infections, because there are no
safe facilities and rapes often occur when they attempt to find somewhere
to relieve themselves.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2014/06/25/human-rights-gang-rape-sharmila-l-murthy
It should be natal women who get to decide if self declared women are to be
allowed into women's spaces.

Cheers,
John

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:02 PM John Edmundson 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 3:02 PM DW via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>   [So...this is my first tippytoe into this debate, something I've avoided
>> as it is impossible to have a calm rational debate about this, it seems,
>> at
>> least on the left. Ergo, my own ignorance around these questions will
>> remain as such since no one can discuss it with me or others who are
>> trying
>> to figure it all out.--David W.]
>>
>
> I certainly  know where you're coming from there. This list should be a
> place where such a civil discussion should be able to be held.
>
>
>> John wrote the following:  "
>> So concern about trans women having unfettered access to women's spaces is
>> patently *not* about transphobia, but about male violence - exactly the
>> reason such female only spaces were established in the first place."
>>
>>
>> Yeah...no it wasn't and it's both historically and anthropologically so
>> much BS to say that.
>>
>
> I was thinking of rape crisis centres when I made that point. Apologies
> for being unclear about that. Obviously places like huts to keep women
> apart during menstruation weren't what I was thinking about and are not an
> issue for trans activists either as far as I know . . .
>
>
>> Where I live in the Bay Area womens
>> washrooms are going away replaced by non-gender specific ones in public.
>> GOOD.
>
>
> So you, a *man*, think it is good that "*womens* washrooms are going away
> replaced by non-gender specific ones". Hmmm, I just don't see why women
> should be being expected to give their spaces up yet be de-platformed or
> threatened for questioning whether that is the way forward.
>
>
>> Like the single non-gender bathroom and washrooms we find at small
>> businesses (and that have always been found there) separating out
>> washrooms
>> and bathrooms was a function of KEEPING women separate from men for the
>> obvious religious/cultural reasons and had zero to do with women spaces as
>> "safe spaces".
>>
>
> Washrooms etc, yes. Evidently the first incarnation of that was in Paris
> (maybe the great exhibition?) and was seen as a curiosity. I used to think
> the best option was to go for unisex but my wife pointed me to evidence
> that unisex facilities are higher risk for male assaults on women, even
> though obviously it is possible for men to assault women in women's toilets
> etc also. She also pointed out that sometimes women really want that space,
> such as when they have a heavy period to deal with, or even to get away
> from unwanted attention. I've rethought my view on that.
>
>
>> I've always felt the washroom/bathroom (as opposed to the changing room or
>> locker room...a related but quite different issue) was a silly argument in
>> terms of transwomen (or for transmen) who, for all appearances, are the
>> sex
>> they identify and whose outward appearance is what they choose...as wholly
>> irrelevant to the trans rights issue anyway as trans people for centuries
>> have used bathroom of their choice and no one is the wiser.
>
>
> I won't argue with you on that. I think the current demand for this is all
> about asserting a political point - that trans women are women - rather
> than something that really needs to change. No one asks for ID now and
> won't where self ID is enacted.
>
>
>> Only the right
>> wing has ever raised this as something to go after trans folks for. They
>> lose every time in these arguments for that very reason. I believe in safe
>> spaces for women *when they chose to 

Re: [Marxism] Open Letter In Support Of Trans Labour Members

[John Edmundson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 3:02 PM DW via Marxism 
wrote:

>   [So...this is my first tippytoe into this debate, something I've avoided
> as it is impossible to have a calm rational debate about this, it seems, at
> least on the left. Ergo, my own ignorance around these questions will
> remain as such since no one can discuss it with me or others who are trying
> to figure it all out.--David W.]
>

I certainly  know where you're coming from there. This list should be a
place where such a civil discussion should be able to be held.


> John wrote the following:  "
> So concern about trans women having unfettered access to women's spaces is
> patently *not* about transphobia, but about male violence - exactly the
> reason such female only spaces were established in the first place."
>
>
> Yeah...no it wasn't and it's both historically and anthropologically so
> much BS to say that.
>

I was thinking of rape crisis centres when I made that point. Apologies for
being unclear about that. Obviously places like huts to keep women apart
during menstruation weren't what I was thinking about and are not an issue
for trans activists either as far as I know . . .


> Where I live in the Bay Area womens
> washrooms are going away replaced by non-gender specific ones in public.
> GOOD.


So you, a *man*, think it is good that "*womens* washrooms are going away
replaced by non-gender specific ones". Hmmm, I just don't see why women
should be being expected to give their spaces up yet be de-platformed or
threatened for questioning whether that is the way forward.


> Like the single non-gender bathroom and washrooms we find at small
> businesses (and that have always been found there) separating out washrooms
> and bathrooms was a function of KEEPING women separate from men for the
> obvious religious/cultural reasons and had zero to do with women spaces as
> "safe spaces".
>

Washrooms etc, yes. Evidently the first incarnation of that was in Paris
(maybe the great exhibition?) and was seen as a curiosity. I used to think
the best option was to go for unisex but my wife pointed me to evidence
that unisex facilities are higher risk for male assaults on women, even
though obviously it is possible for men to assault women in women's toilets
etc also. She also pointed out that sometimes women really want that space,
such as when they have a heavy period to deal with, or even to get away
from unwanted attention. I've rethought my view on that.


> I've always felt the washroom/bathroom (as opposed to the changing room or
> locker room...a related but quite different issue) was a silly argument in
> terms of transwomen (or for transmen) who, for all appearances, are the sex
> they identify and whose outward appearance is what they choose...as wholly
> irrelevant to the trans rights issue anyway as trans people for centuries
> have used bathroom of their choice and no one is the wiser.


I won't argue with you on that. I think the current demand for this is all
about asserting a political point - that trans women are women - rather
than something that really needs to change. No one asks for ID now and
won't where self ID is enacted.


> Only the right
> wing has ever raised this as something to go after trans folks for. They
> lose every time in these arguments for that very reason. I believe in safe
> spaces for women *when they chose to assert this*.


My problem is that right now, "when they [do] chose to assert this", they
are dismissed as transphobes, threatened with sexual violence etc by people
who simultaneously claim to also be women themselves.


> The issue is trickier
> when we are talking what substantiates a trans person and what is "merely"
> *just* a self-declaration of same. THAT is a huge issue (locker rooms --
> also a prudery issue I should add -- and women's sports). I'll await more
> discussion on those if it comes up.
>

I don't think the changing room thing is just a prudery issue - women who
have been subjected to sexual violence in the past are not simply being
prudish in wanting a place to undress where they won't be subject to men
looking at them. It does surprise me though how many women I know who used
to fight tooth and nail for women's spaces at universities etc, who now
tell me they have no problem with mixed gender changing rooms. I suspect
they don't believe they will ever have to face it in reality.

Another issue of course is the "cotton ceiling", where lesbians who won't
have sex with trans women with penises are condemned as transphobic. All
power to those lesbians I say, but they are demonised by this movement. I
just can't see the liberation in this. How is this not a 

Re: [Marxism] Open Letter In Support Of Trans Labour Members

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

 [So...this is my first tippytoe into this debate, something I've avoided
as it is impossible to have a calm rational debate about this, it seems, at
least on the left. Ergo, my own ignorance around these questions will
remain as such since no one can discuss it with me or others who are trying
to figure it all out.--David W.]

John wrote the following:  "
So concern about trans women having unfettered access to women's spaces is
patently *not* about transphobia, but about male violence - exactly the
reason such female only spaces were established in the first place."


Yeah...no it wasn't and it's both historically and anthropologically so
much BS to say that. Original womens' only spaces were established
*totally* as a function in prudery of class society. MOST primitive
societies untouched by Christianity, Abrahamic religions more generally,
"Western society" had no such thing as "womens spaces". People pissed,
shit, washed, and did all manner of human social intercourse without
regards to any sort of gender. Where I live in the Bay Area womens
washrooms are going away replaced by non-gender specific ones in public.
GOOD. Like the single non-gender bathroom and washrooms we find at small
businesses (and that have always been found there) separating out washrooms
and bathrooms was a function of KEEPING women separate from men for the
obvious religious/cultural reasons and had zero to do with women spaces as
"safe spaces".

I've always felt the washroom/bathroom (as opposed to the changing room or
locker room...a related but quite different issue) was a silly argument in
terms of transwomen (or for transmen) who, for all appearances, are the sex
they identify and whose outward appearance is what they choose...as wholly
irrelevant to the trans rights issue anyway as trans people for centuries
have used bathroom of their choice and no one is the wiser. Only the right
wing has ever raised this as something to go after trans folks for. They
lose every time in these arguments for that very reason. I believe in safe
spaces for women *when they chose to assert this*. The issue is trickier
when we are talking what substantiates a trans person and what is "merely"
*just* a self-declaration of same. THAT is a huge issue (locker rooms --
also a prudery issue I should add -- and women's sports). I'll await more
discussion on those if it comes up.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Open Letter In Support Of Trans Labour Members

[John Edmundson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

One of the problems with the way this debate is framed is the determination
to claim that anyone who is gender-critical is transphobic, in the same way
that anyone opposed to Israel is deemed to be antisemitic. An example from
one of the links in MM's post follows. Quoting a "Women's Place UK"
speaker, the article proceeds:

*"And there are predatory men who will use any means to gain … access  to
women’s spaces when they are vulnerable* -yes, she means trans women"

Actually, the insertion "yes, she means trans women" is pure editorialising
slotted in as fact. The speaker is discussing the possibility of self
declared MtF women entering women's spaces. Right now, no one checks
anyone's ID when they enter a changing room. But with self ID, the taboo to
men simply walking into women's changing facilities is massively lowered.
And evidence suggests that male violence against women and male violence in
general is significantly higher that that perpetrated by women. Even
getting gender reassignment surgery does not change this fact:

*“[R]egarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk
for crime compared to female controls (aHR6.6; 95% CI4.1-10.88
)
but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5-1.2).  This indicates that
they retained a male pattern regarding criminality.  The same was true for
violent crime.”*

*“ Criminal activity, particularly violent crime, is much more common among
men than women in the general population….Crime after sex reassignment,
however, has not previously been studied.  In this study, male-to-female
individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female
controls but not to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment
procedure neither increased nor decreased the rate of criminal offending in
male-to-females.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
*

Ironically, only by accepting that "trans women are women" does the
statement become transphobic. Because if trans women are women, then trans
women are six times more violent than "cis" women. But if trans women are
men, they are no more violent than other men, so the concern is with any
men, not trans. Which is, of course, what most gender critical people have
always maintained.

So concern about trans women having unfettered access to women's spaces is
patently *not* about transphobia, but about male violence - exactly the
reason such female only spaces were established in the first place. If we
one day get to a point where male violence against women as a phenomenon is
a thing of the past, the issue of who uses what spaces will be
substantively different. But as long as the evidence suggests that all
male-born, *regardless of their gender identity*, are statistically more
likely to present a risk to women, I believe women have the right to retain
those spaces. If women-only spaces are no longer valid now, when male
violence against women is still high, how were they ever valid before. It
is not up to male born people to decide they have the right to those
spaces, regardless of how sincerely they identify as women. And I would
have thought that those male born who genuinely identify as women would get
that. Some, of course, like Miranda Yardley, do get it and want no part in
these campaigns.

Bottom line - what are men being asked to compromise on? Nothing.
What are women being told to compromise on? Hard won gains that women and
socialists fought for decades to achieve. Are women (particularly lesbians)
really the oppressor group they are portrayed as? I don't think so.

The reality is, we need specialist facilities to cater to the needs of
trans people rather than taking spaces from women. Trans wings in prisons,
trans shelters, unisex *as well as* sex segregated toilet and changing
facilities etc, rather than requiring women and girls to relinquish their
spaces (changing rooms etc) to people with penises.

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:33 AM MM via Marxism 
wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> Text:
>
> We are members of the Labour Party expressing solidarity with trans people
> in the face of hate from the media and by anti-trans groups in the 

[Marxism] Open Letter In Support Of Trans Labour Members

[MM via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Text:

We are members of the Labour Party expressing solidarity with trans people in 
the face of hate from the media and by anti-trans groups in the UK. We 
recognise that the UK has recently experienced a week  of coordinated 
pernicious attacks on trans people, including the launching of the execrable 
LGB Alliance and a motion passed at Hornsey & Wood Green General Meeting in 
support of Womans Place UK. The failure of the Labour Party on this issue is a 
deep wound to the principles of equality the Party is supposed to stand for.

Let us be under no illusions. The motion passed at Hornsey & Wood Green 
supports a transphobic organisation:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/25/university-of-oxford-protest-transgender-feminism-womans-place/

https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/womans-place-uk-transphobic/

https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2019/10/23/trans-exclusionary-group-womans-place-uk-set-to-hold-a-panel-in-oxford/

Failure of the General Secretary's office to rule the motion out of order in 
the first place is hard to comprehend but to still have failed to intervene to 
rule it out now that it has received some publicity and is going to Tottenham 
CLP is unconscionable. Our confidence in the Labour Party's commitment to 
protect trans members is shaken. Action must be taken.


Link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfb0_wA_hDX-iq5scn-L2OqrnwkfpklSptSQFJFovRJMizcQw/viewform
 

More than 500 signatures so far.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com