[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)

Discussion in 'protest, direct action and demos' started by Kate Sharpley, May 30, 2017.

London Anarchist Bookfair
Start Date: Sat 28th Oct 2017 10:00 AM
End Date: Sat 28th Oct 2017 07:00 PM
Time Zone: Europe/London +01:00 BST

Park View School
West Green Road,
London N15 3QR

Posted By: Kate Sharpley

Confirmed Attendees: 0
You can not RSVP for this event...

This event has already begun, or has already passed; RSVP has been since closed.
  1. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    Because they are for exceptional cases. If, for example there was no exceptional reason to insist on a cis person in a particular role, the proposed changes would mean that anyone can gain access to that space simply by claiming trans status.

    What is the proposed change for if not to make it easier? That's the whole purpose!
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
    bimble likes this.
  2. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    Or unless you're a woman concerned by the direction of travel.
  3. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    They are not for exceptional cases they are for cases where there is a proportional need. And they are used all the time, not just with regard to gender transition but also race and sex.
    As would be the case right now, if there is no proportional reason to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender transition then it would be illegal. And rightly so. Just as it would be if an office job was advertised as men only

    And the proposed change is to make the process of applying for a GRC less lengthy and traumatic, not to give transwomen access to women's spaces. The point of a GRC is that then people can change their passport etc not that it automatically triggers access to women only spaces because it doesn't, just as not having one doesn't necessarily prevent it.
    nyxx likes this.
  4. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry but you're wrong about that. The Gvernments guidance, here, expicitly states that they are:

    'Unlawful discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not acceptable and consequently the exception has to be used in exceptional circumstances.'

    That's sophistry. The point is that, at present, there's a requirement for a medical process to get a certificate, and a presumption that, in all but exceptional cases, receipt of the certificate will result in access to women's spaces. It follows that making the process for getting a certificate easier, means making access to women's spaces will become easier.

    Also, there's the proposal to make 'gender identity' (as opposed to 'gender reassignment') a protected characteristic. That would make it practically impossible for a woman to challenge any man - and I'm not calling trans women men, here - who enters a woman's space; he need only say that he identifies as a woman, even if it's not true.

    That's something women have every right to discuss. However much anyone might try to deny them that right, based on their own spurious (and possibly self-interested) interpretation of what the proposed changes might mean in practice.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  5. TopCat

    TopCat Gone away, no forwarding address

    Well said comrade.
    Pickman's model likes this.
  6. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    The law says must meet a proportionate aim as you well know. And those exceptional if you like exemptions include things like women's refuges. Until recently Womens Aid invoked the exemption when recruiting staff, although they now say their policy is under review.

    Yes, in cases where there is no grounds to discriminate then someone with a GRC must not be discriminated against. But neither must anyone undergoing or who appears to be undergoing or who intends to undergo gender transition. A GRC has nothing to do with how the law is applied. It is illegal in most cases to discriminate against transpeople whether or not they have a GRC. Unless the exemption is applied then a prospective employer/service provider has no right to even ask to see a GRC. From a legal point of view self-identification is all that is required.

    A GRC has nothing at all to do with accessing women's spaces. Why not read the committee's report and you might understand why these changes have been proposed better and what current practice already is.
    lazythursday and nyxx like this.
  7. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry, but, again, your assertions about the current law are incorrect. At present, gender identity is not a protected characteristic (gender reassignment is); self- identification isn't "all that is required". In fact, that is a really significant proposed change; originally in the form of Maria Miller's Private Member's Bill: the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill 2016-17. Which also serves to prove that you're wrong to suggest that the only proposed change is around demedicalising of the GRC process. And why women have a right to discus it.

    Eta: We're going round in circles, now. It suffices to say that: I think you misunderstand the current law, and are dishonestly downplaying the significance of the proposed changes, in order to prevent women having the discussion; and, you think that my position (that the changes are significant, and so legitimate for women to discuss) is driven by some sinister motive (notwithstanding that I've always been clear that I consider trans women to be women). Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  8. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    Perhaps you'll listen to the law society: Working with transgender employees - The Law Society
  9. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    Exactly. Currently "a process to reassign their sex by changing their physiological or other attributes of sex", not mere self-identification.

    Anyway, see my edit above; not sure this is going anywhere.
  10. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    Yes, I've read the committee report and much of the evidence, youre talking off the top of your head so perhaps not worth it.
  11. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    I've read it too. But I understood it, and am not trying to misrepresent it. So, yes, it's not worth it.
  12. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    Not for you, but for others reading this thread because I think it's important that the proposed changes and the current situation are understood.

    A gender recognition certificate has no bearing on anti-discrimination laws or access to women's spaces. There are people who have fully medically transitioned who don't have a GRC because its such a pain iin the arse to get one. They are still fully protected under the equalities act.

    The all party group committee report did recommend that gender identity replace gender transition as the protected legal charicteristic in the equalities act. The government rejected this proposal. But importantly, this recommendation was aimed at protecting non-binary people, not transpeople who are already relatively well protected. At present someone could be legally refused employment, or being allowed to rent a flat, and all manner of other things if their gender identity was not male or female. A person who said they were gender fluid, or rejected the gender binary completely, can legally be discriminated against. The committee report is quite clear that it is this group that changing the protected charicteristic in the equalities act from gender transition to gender identity is intended to protect.

    So the committee report said let's let people reject gender completely if they wish, and even enshrine that in law. And the so-called gender critical feminists are outraged.
    Nigel Irritable and nyxx like this.
  13. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    Can you post a link to the source for this please (the comittee report)? I'd be interested in the wording.
  14. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    When considering this 'rejected' proposal, you might want to bear in mind the Private Members' Bill bought by the current chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee. And that any such change to the law would have implications well beyond its well-meaning intentions, which is what concerns gender critical feminists. Also, the wider picture and the direction of travel (rather than each proposal in isolation).
  15. weepiper

    weepiper Jock under the bed

    This is completely unrepresentative of the radical feminist view of trans men - in fact most radical feminists are deeply uncomfortable with and worried about the rate at which teenage girls are suddenly identifying as trans boys, wearing binders and crushing their developing bodies because they're so horrified by the reality of female puberty. It doesn't 'ruin the theory of trans people being a product of misogyny' at all, in fact radical feminists would say the existence of trans men reinforces that. My 14 year old daughter has three trans boy friends just in her year at school, before anyone leaps in and yells at me for not knowing what I'm talking about here. Edit, and yes, they were all lesbians before they started saying they wanted to be boys. It's more acceptable for them to be boys than it is for them just to be gay. Further edit, two of them have eating disorders issues too. They hate their bodies. Society has done that to them, we (radical feminists) are fucking furious that this is happening to female children and they're so desperate to escape it they want to change their sex. Don't tell us we're denying their existence, it's offensive.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  16. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    When my cousin's child socially transitioned for a couple of years (has now decided to revert to being a girl) they explained it in terms of not being into make-up and liking science. I did not find it easy to hear that stuff and not feel upset, as if the last few generations of feminism have disappeared somewhere. But some will say she was not true trans, so whatever her reasoning its not got anything to do with the real thing.
    emanymton likes this.
  17. Sue

    Sue Well-Known Member

    A friend was telling me a similar story about a girl in her son's class at primary who spent a year as a boy (not sure what the exact terminology is) before going back to being a girl/using her female name etc.

    Again a lot of this seemed to be based on her liking 'boy' stuff rather than 'girl' stuff and thinking being a girl was rubbish in comparison. My friend knows the parents and was quite shocked that there seemed to have been no discussion with the child about how it's perfectly possible to be a girl while liking/wanting to do 'boy' things and vice versa.

    No doubt it's way more complicated than that but it would seem a reasonable place to start with children in general.
  18. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    The report and the Government's response are both at: Transgender equality inquiry

    The more recent consulation announcement is at: New Action to Promote LGBT Equality - GOV.UK

    The consultation was originally supposed to have been published now and legislation laid this Autumn but it has been delayed until after the new year sometime, meaning any change to the law is unlikely this parliament at least.
  19. LynnDoyleCooper

    LynnDoyleCooper Up against the wall motherfucker.

    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  20. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    They used to post on here around the time of the summit hopping. In fact, i summit hopped geneva with them. Will read now.
  21. redsquirrel

    redsquirrel This Machine Kills Progressives

    Really worth reading. Lots of good points raised.
  22. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    Also a welcome bit of levity.
  23. redsquirrel

    redsquirrel This Machine Kills Progressives

    Fozzie Bear and Pickman's model like this.
  24. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    It's a bit superficial. 'Hitler was a vegetarian' type stuff. Doesnt really offer any positive suggestions. Or even ask the right questions: how has the liberal left been allowed to create a state of affairs whereby feminists are driven into the arms of the right?
  25. planetgeli

    planetgeli There's no future in England's dreaming

    A good read, thx for that.
  26. Fozzie Bear

    Fozzie Bear Well-Known Member

    Have you made any positive suggestions? (Sorry if I have missed them)
  27. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    Yes. Open, honest and respectful dialogue.
  28. MadeInBedlam

    MadeInBedlam Arm the mentally ill

    Perhaps a bit more flesh on those bones?
    Pickman's model likes this.
  29. Athos

    Athos Well-Known Member

    Don't try to no platform feminists, don't lie about what the proposed changes to the law mean, don't spitefully misgender people, don't smear all trans women as rapists, recognise that there is some merit to the 'other side's' concerns, recognise that this isn't a case of good v evil (but of competing goods/unintended harms), focus on what people have in common as a way to build solidarity, etc., etc.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  30. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    I'm not sure we've all read the same article. When i clicked on the link it was a piece about terfs and the Christian right. There's now a different article at the top of the page.
    this is the link to the bookfair piece
    Leaflets, letters, and the anti-anti-semitism of fools
    I think so anyway
    LynnDoyleCooper likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice