This was always going to be too long for a tweet, and ended up, I think, too long for a thread. So it’s here as a blog post...
From my point of view, we – those who share similar, but not all the same views on womens’ rights and where they come into conflict with claimed rights and privileges for trans people – should think about some separation of ideas and principles. At least I am thinking about that.
There is the question of how trans people, and women are treated in the public sphere, in our own private realms; and what we mean when we say trans.
By the public sphere, I mean hospitals, prisons, sports governing bodies and womens’ refuges, amongst many other settings. And here it has become clear that the prevailing view is that rules and practices must be set which, under the Equality Act, reserve spaces for women only. That is, for me, the main thrust and aim of all our campaigning.
It may have been true, five or ten years ago, that many would have said that a trans woman, having ‘fully transitioned’ (though there is no such thing) for many years might, if convicted of a non-violent, non-sexual offence (not paying their TV licence for instance), be allowed to serve their sentence in a women’s prison. Those days are long gone. This is the entirely rational backlash to the complete change in the definition of trans.
Back then, trans was usually taken to mean ‘fully transitioned’. Now the definition which Stonewall and others are attempting to foist upon us, is the man who likes to dress as a woman part-time, a few days a week; or the bearded man, with no surgical or hormonal intervention, who wears a skirt and calls themselves a lesbian. Any man, it is claimed, for whatever reason (many of which are deeply disturbing) can claim to be a woman and therefore claim access to womens’ spaces and break down boundaries which women have set around their sex class.
This, self ID, is not yet, nor should ever be law in the UK, but has, in many cases in public bodies, become practice. And this has directly caused great harm, and the inevitable backlash which has inevitably, but unavoidably, set back acceptance and respect for genuine trans people, especially trans women.
However, for those of us who know trans people, in our personal lives, or online; trans women who have never demanded access, or validation, or any special privileges further than respect and acceptance; we can if we choose, refer to them as she. This does not negate the position that trans women are NOT women, or our view on what should be policy in the public realm.
In our private spheres, we can use whichever language we are comfortable with.
Nobody should be told that if they have a long-standing trans woman friend who they refer to as she, they are somehow a traitor to the cause of defending, preserving and expanding womens’ rights in the public sphere.
One of the worst aspects of the other side in this debate is their bastardisation and mangling of language, and attempting to force everyone to conform to their set rules on how language should be used. I don’t think we should sign up to that. We can be nice, and kind, in the way I understood those words twenty years ago. We can call a trans woman ‘she’ or refer to them as ‘her’ if we choose. We are not making that decision for everyone, or indeed anyone else but ourselves.
That, I think is where the private sphere and the public realm are very different. It is not hypocritical to call a trans friend her, and also rail at the media, or the courts for referring to a male sex offender as she.
You might retort that “the personal is political”, which for the most part I would agree with, but in some cases, including this one, I think there is some separation to be had.
That’s a very balanced and nuanced view. As an ex-Labour member myself I am curious if you have any ideas why the Labour Party has become so completely befuddled by this issue and has taken a view that many people would argue is damaging to women. It also presents an open goal to Labour’s political opponents. Is it just because so many Labour activists are caught up in the latest thing and over the last decade it’s been ‘trans rights’