I read through the student magazine piece in some amazement. If the illogical statements by SU Trans Association and Queersphere in the "Palatinate" magazine are in any way representative of university level rhetorical standards and debate, this has got to be of great concern. The following points struck me.
After affirming that it is indeed the legal right of the SU to invite whomever they wish to speak to members, they then request the union to "account for itself". Erm, why does the SU need to account for itself if the right to invite a person to speak on any subject is just that? Furthermore, who gave the SU Trans Association the authority to request or hold someone to account in this respect? Where did they get the idea that the event's purpose was to shock and offend? Did it not even occur to them that the aim of the event might be to discuss and inform on what is undoubtedly a controversial and emotive issue? Why would you automatically assume bad faith?
Nowhere is it explained exactly how the decision to invite Helen Joyce to speak to the DUS was in any way an "irresponsible and uncaring" one?
The reference to "Trans joy" is somewhat scuppered by the statement that trans persons were (allegedly) feeling "very very nervous" "depressed" and struggling to come to terms with the fact that Helen Joyce was even coming to Durham! Trans joy must be a hugely fragile concept if even the thought of a gender critical person turning up at an event provokes such claimed anguish.
Congratulations to Helen and the DUS for holding firm and continuing with the event. It is shameful in a supposedly free society that so many hoops have to be jumped through, weak reasoning and cowardice confronted and overcome, simply to have a debate.
This is a reminder that when I challenged trans extremism in the House of Commons I later received none of the abuse and threats experienced by Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry. Do the extremists understand their sexism?
I also recall the shouters outside the first LGB Alliance conference at QEII admitting none had read the books by Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce.
The entire ideology is sexist, even actively misogynistic. No-one on the trans side seems to care at all that trans men who take hormones have nowhere effectively to play competitive sport, as they still don’t have all the male advantages but are taking a performance enhancing drug (testosterone). They don’t care that trans men could be raped in men’s toilets or men’s hospital wards (as has already happened) and have nowhere to go once that has actually happened as women’s rape crisis centres are closed to them and men’s rape crisis centres aren’t talking about the same thing. The only time trans men come into the equation is when they want to erase the role of women in reproduction and child care - hence the “birthing parent”, “chest feeding”, “menstruators” language that is so utterly demeaning of all women.
The trans movement is profoundly misogynist and deeply sexist. And yet it calls itself a “human rights” movement. The reveal of stupidity and woman hatred amongst those who vote on our laws is one of its horrifying side effects.
I so admire your continued, at least publicly, good spirits while being on the frontlines of this terribly depressing attack on sanity, reality, women/girls, children, lesbians and gays (oh goddess, that's practically everyone) from trans mania. I am an activist against it all and am tired of the STUPIDITY and cruelty, misogyny and homophobia. Good for you for pushing on and making a difference. The other hero of the night is Edward Tye. Easier for a man, as you say, but still his persistence to do the right thing under pressure shows character and hope.
Thank you Helen. I truly appreciate that you are willing to go out there and be articulate about this emotive subject. I just become tongue tied when I try to explain, especially to my Lib Dem MP. She is desperate to be kind to the ‘trans folk’.
I’m off to Tranada next week to visit family and one visit will be to my captured stepsister and her ‘trans counsellor’ son. When I tried to explain that proper counselling for confused children was not ‘conversion’ but they weren’t buying it. So glad I live on Terf Island. Thanks for all you do.
<<Policing single-sex spaces on the basis of appearance would mean great problems for “gender non-conforming women”.>>
Ohhh, this old chestnut. So because one in a million women might, kinda-sorta, in the right light, be mistaken for the opposite sex, all men should be able to enter women's spaces at will. Growing up gay I knew a LOT of gender-nonconforming lesbians, and I never heard a single one of them suggest that would be a good policy.
Oh, Helen, thanks again but how bloody awful that, at the end, you were shovelled away into solitary confinement -- I'm not in any way blaming Edward for this but good grief -- to treat a person like this is to treat them as less than human -- I can only hope that in years to come, it occurs to members of the audience that they've missed out on the absolute treat of being in your company. I hope too that they have the integrity to appreciate how wrong they were in casting you aside like this.
Thank you for all that you and Sex Matters do. It means so much to me. I was an English Literature student at Durham in the late eighties and found feminism so exciting. It opened my eyes. Squeezed in between the classics we studied feminist and lesbian poetry – Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Alice Walker. Also the work of Andrea Dworkin and Elaine Showalter. Taught by formidable HD specialist Diana Collecott. I loved it all. Forty years later I struggle to comprehend what has happened and to understand why women are still so little thought of. I am glad though that my uni days as a young feminist were then not now.
Instead of being bundled into a taxi, I wish a handful of women, including me, who deeply appreciate all that you do (and endure) could have escorted you to a pub and bought you a drink to celebrate the 'trickle' in hopes for a future flood. Be well.
Thoughtful, straight-forward, as always. I live in Oregon, USA, a "blue" state.
This bit: "I think it’s quite possible blue states will settle on a sort of “men’s right to roam”, meaning that women lose all rights to any space or service where men don’t have the right to enter. That, the questioner said, was not what he expected or wanted to hear." is not what I want to see, either, but it's plausible. This: men's right to roam -- brilliant!
Trans-capture has weakened the Democratic Party in the USA. It's dismaying. There's growing group -- DIAG -- Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender and they are very good, where my political contributions go, but it feels a bit like Republicans Against Trump -- a struggle against evil that...
I am from the states. I keep seeing this image in my head of a woman getting on a bus and being told be trans activist to get to the back of the bus. Once at the back of the bus the Democrats push her off the bus and the bus is back up over her. Thrown under the bus. As a women I feel we are losing rights my mother and grandmother had and if we aren't careful future women will have less rights than I had.
Well, it's very very bad. With regard to women's rights -- both major USA parties seem to have spun their own ideology into strange places each in their own way, at the expense of women and children. As a 76-yr old straight male Democrat, one might think I have no standing in the matter, but my main feeling is appalled betrayal that trans-baloney has gained such influence. Seems to me that there's a larger matter of irrational and cruel ideologies attaching to human political institutions. My further remarks would go beyond the scope of this HJ substack entry. Oh, there's an old 1960's Civil Rights song: "If you miss me at the back of the bus, you can't find me nowhere/Come on over to..." (and posits several scenarios). Dems losing big time on this one, with terrible consequences.
The claim that the "insistence on policing single-sex spaces on the basis of appearance would mean great problems for “gender non-conforming women”" (along with "Now any cis man can come into a female space and claim to be a trans man") is now one of the go-to arguments put forward by trans activists in response to FWS and the EHRC code of practice.
I would love to know what response you gave to the tedious student officer asking this question.
My own (female) MP, who has signed EDM 240, trotted this one out in a response to my email to her (I've posted the full response on X):
"Specifically, the draft seems to create a situation in which anyone can be challenged about accessing facilities based on how well someone else believes they visually conform to gender stereotypes. We have heard from many women who are concerned about the rise of “gender policing”, where they are accused of not looking “female” enough and challenged to “prove” their sex – just to access the women’s services and facilities that are their hard-won right. This is completely unacceptable"
This is usually whilst claiming that they do want to 'keep women safe' and fully support women's rights. They do not appear to have thought it completely unacceptable that for the past 15 years women have been told explicitly that they cannot challenge any obviously male-bodied person in their female-only space. Nor have I seen any practical suggestions from any of them as to how you challenge someone who you believe to be the opposite sex without initially making some assumption based on physical appearance. The answer, of course, is that you can't - but to admit that would be to admit that you don't actually care about "gender non-conforming women" at all; what you really want is to maintain self-ID policies for the benefit of males.
I can't think of any cases where the sex of an individual isn't perfectly obvious, not least those which have received much media coverage over the past few years. Transactivists seem to believe that these confrontations are going on all the time, but how many women, especially on their own, are going to challenge a man, knowing the physical disparity? It's the man-in-a-dress who should be criticised for simply failing to acknowledge the law, being dishonest and using the wrong facility, not the women forced into this difficult situation.
The problem of enforcing policy and law shouldn’t define policy and law. It always used to be that men knew they should only use the men’s and women knew they should only use the women’s. And when single sex spaces are enforced in law these practices should return. At least individuals then know if they are acting illegally or not and have consequences to fear, whether or not anyone actually challenges them for doing the wrong thing.
Thank you, great article as usual. I hope you are right that this is a sign of a "preference cascade," at least in terms of the free-speech aspect of this issue. I've pretty much let go of the idea of the "tide turning" about trans ideology, as encouraging signs have proved so often to only be a trickle that never swells. Change of any kind, if it comes, is excruciatingly incremental. In some places like my blue state of WA, institutional change seems less and less likely anytime soon. Your prediction about blue state laws giving men the "right to roam" are discouraging--but based on how I witness this is playing out culturally, I sense you may be right. Good to be forewarned though.
PS: There is a hyperlink missing in the paragraph referring to an article you wrote about why women support this madness.
"The smartest question of the evening was in response to my talking about how young women believe this stuff because they’ve been indoctrinated into it: indoctrinated by whom, a young man asked. Mainly by other women, I answered (I have written previously about this here)."
Ms. Joyce, this is an observation that is very important. Would you please direct me to the other writing you have done on this subject?
I read through the student magazine piece in some amazement. If the illogical statements by SU Trans Association and Queersphere in the "Palatinate" magazine are in any way representative of university level rhetorical standards and debate, this has got to be of great concern. The following points struck me.
After affirming that it is indeed the legal right of the SU to invite whomever they wish to speak to members, they then request the union to "account for itself". Erm, why does the SU need to account for itself if the right to invite a person to speak on any subject is just that? Furthermore, who gave the SU Trans Association the authority to request or hold someone to account in this respect? Where did they get the idea that the event's purpose was to shock and offend? Did it not even occur to them that the aim of the event might be to discuss and inform on what is undoubtedly a controversial and emotive issue? Why would you automatically assume bad faith?
Nowhere is it explained exactly how the decision to invite Helen Joyce to speak to the DUS was in any way an "irresponsible and uncaring" one?
The reference to "Trans joy" is somewhat scuppered by the statement that trans persons were (allegedly) feeling "very very nervous" "depressed" and struggling to come to terms with the fact that Helen Joyce was even coming to Durham! Trans joy must be a hugely fragile concept if even the thought of a gender critical person turning up at an event provokes such claimed anguish.
Congratulations to Helen and the DUS for holding firm and continuing with the event. It is shameful in a supposedly free society that so many hoops have to be jumped through, weak reasoning and cowardice confronted and overcome, simply to have a debate.
Great comment
This is a reminder that when I challenged trans extremism in the House of Commons I later received none of the abuse and threats experienced by Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry. Do the extremists understand their sexism?
I also recall the shouters outside the first LGB Alliance conference at QEII admitting none had read the books by Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce.
The entire ideology is sexist, even actively misogynistic. No-one on the trans side seems to care at all that trans men who take hormones have nowhere effectively to play competitive sport, as they still don’t have all the male advantages but are taking a performance enhancing drug (testosterone). They don’t care that trans men could be raped in men’s toilets or men’s hospital wards (as has already happened) and have nowhere to go once that has actually happened as women’s rape crisis centres are closed to them and men’s rape crisis centres aren’t talking about the same thing. The only time trans men come into the equation is when they want to erase the role of women in reproduction and child care - hence the “birthing parent”, “chest feeding”, “menstruators” language that is so utterly demeaning of all women.
The trans movement is profoundly misogynist and deeply sexist. And yet it calls itself a “human rights” movement. The reveal of stupidity and woman hatred amongst those who vote on our laws is one of its horrifying side effects.
Thanks, Perer Bottomley, for seeing this for what it is and for speaking up about it.
I so admire your continued, at least publicly, good spirits while being on the frontlines of this terribly depressing attack on sanity, reality, women/girls, children, lesbians and gays (oh goddess, that's practically everyone) from trans mania. I am an activist against it all and am tired of the STUPIDITY and cruelty, misogyny and homophobia. Good for you for pushing on and making a difference. The other hero of the night is Edward Tye. Easier for a man, as you say, but still his persistence to do the right thing under pressure shows character and hope.
Thank you Helen. I truly appreciate that you are willing to go out there and be articulate about this emotive subject. I just become tongue tied when I try to explain, especially to my Lib Dem MP. She is desperate to be kind to the ‘trans folk’.
I’m off to Tranada next week to visit family and one visit will be to my captured stepsister and her ‘trans counsellor’ son. When I tried to explain that proper counselling for confused children was not ‘conversion’ but they weren’t buying it. So glad I live on Terf Island. Thanks for all you do.
<<Policing single-sex spaces on the basis of appearance would mean great problems for “gender non-conforming women”.>>
Ohhh, this old chestnut. So because one in a million women might, kinda-sorta, in the right light, be mistaken for the opposite sex, all men should be able to enter women's spaces at will. Growing up gay I knew a LOT of gender-nonconforming lesbians, and I never heard a single one of them suggest that would be a good policy.
Oh, Helen, thanks again but how bloody awful that, at the end, you were shovelled away into solitary confinement -- I'm not in any way blaming Edward for this but good grief -- to treat a person like this is to treat them as less than human -- I can only hope that in years to come, it occurs to members of the audience that they've missed out on the absolute treat of being in your company. I hope too that they have the integrity to appreciate how wrong they were in casting you aside like this.
Thank you for all that you and Sex Matters do. It means so much to me. I was an English Literature student at Durham in the late eighties and found feminism so exciting. It opened my eyes. Squeezed in between the classics we studied feminist and lesbian poetry – Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Alice Walker. Also the work of Andrea Dworkin and Elaine Showalter. Taught by formidable HD specialist Diana Collecott. I loved it all. Forty years later I struggle to comprehend what has happened and to understand why women are still so little thought of. I am glad though that my uni days as a young feminist were then not now.
Why would trans identifying women ("transmen") not be allowed in women's rape crisis shelters? They are of the female sex.
Instead of being bundled into a taxi, I wish a handful of women, including me, who deeply appreciate all that you do (and endure) could have escorted you to a pub and bought you a drink to celebrate the 'trickle' in hopes for a future flood. Be well.
Me too. On call here in the South West and can't imagine a better way to spend an evening.
Thoughtful, straight-forward, as always. I live in Oregon, USA, a "blue" state.
This bit: "I think it’s quite possible blue states will settle on a sort of “men’s right to roam”, meaning that women lose all rights to any space or service where men don’t have the right to enter. That, the questioner said, was not what he expected or wanted to hear." is not what I want to see, either, but it's plausible. This: men's right to roam -- brilliant!
Trans-capture has weakened the Democratic Party in the USA. It's dismaying. There's growing group -- DIAG -- Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender and they are very good, where my political contributions go, but it feels a bit like Republicans Against Trump -- a struggle against evil that...
I am from the states. I keep seeing this image in my head of a woman getting on a bus and being told be trans activist to get to the back of the bus. Once at the back of the bus the Democrats push her off the bus and the bus is back up over her. Thrown under the bus. As a women I feel we are losing rights my mother and grandmother had and if we aren't careful future women will have less rights than I had.
Well, it's very very bad. With regard to women's rights -- both major USA parties seem to have spun their own ideology into strange places each in their own way, at the expense of women and children. As a 76-yr old straight male Democrat, one might think I have no standing in the matter, but my main feeling is appalled betrayal that trans-baloney has gained such influence. Seems to me that there's a larger matter of irrational and cruel ideologies attaching to human political institutions. My further remarks would go beyond the scope of this HJ substack entry. Oh, there's an old 1960's Civil Rights song: "If you miss me at the back of the bus, you can't find me nowhere/Come on over to..." (and posits several scenarios). Dems losing big time on this one, with terrible consequences.
Totally agree I have always voted Democrat but am so baffled by their hard line on this issue.
The claim that the "insistence on policing single-sex spaces on the basis of appearance would mean great problems for “gender non-conforming women”" (along with "Now any cis man can come into a female space and claim to be a trans man") is now one of the go-to arguments put forward by trans activists in response to FWS and the EHRC code of practice.
I would love to know what response you gave to the tedious student officer asking this question.
My own (female) MP, who has signed EDM 240, trotted this one out in a response to my email to her (I've posted the full response on X):
"Specifically, the draft seems to create a situation in which anyone can be challenged about accessing facilities based on how well someone else believes they visually conform to gender stereotypes. We have heard from many women who are concerned about the rise of “gender policing”, where they are accused of not looking “female” enough and challenged to “prove” their sex – just to access the women’s services and facilities that are their hard-won right. This is completely unacceptable"
This is usually whilst claiming that they do want to 'keep women safe' and fully support women's rights. They do not appear to have thought it completely unacceptable that for the past 15 years women have been told explicitly that they cannot challenge any obviously male-bodied person in their female-only space. Nor have I seen any practical suggestions from any of them as to how you challenge someone who you believe to be the opposite sex without initially making some assumption based on physical appearance. The answer, of course, is that you can't - but to admit that would be to admit that you don't actually care about "gender non-conforming women" at all; what you really want is to maintain self-ID policies for the benefit of males.
I can't think of any cases where the sex of an individual isn't perfectly obvious, not least those which have received much media coverage over the past few years. Transactivists seem to believe that these confrontations are going on all the time, but how many women, especially on their own, are going to challenge a man, knowing the physical disparity? It's the man-in-a-dress who should be criticised for simply failing to acknowledge the law, being dishonest and using the wrong facility, not the women forced into this difficult situation.
The problem of enforcing policy and law shouldn’t define policy and law. It always used to be that men knew they should only use the men’s and women knew they should only use the women’s. And when single sex spaces are enforced in law these practices should return. At least individuals then know if they are acting illegally or not and have consequences to fear, whether or not anyone actually challenges them for doing the wrong thing.
"Brilliant" as you guys say on your side of the pond.
Thank you, great article as usual. I hope you are right that this is a sign of a "preference cascade," at least in terms of the free-speech aspect of this issue. I've pretty much let go of the idea of the "tide turning" about trans ideology, as encouraging signs have proved so often to only be a trickle that never swells. Change of any kind, if it comes, is excruciatingly incremental. In some places like my blue state of WA, institutional change seems less and less likely anytime soon. Your prediction about blue state laws giving men the "right to roam" are discouraging--but based on how I witness this is playing out culturally, I sense you may be right. Good to be forewarned though.
PS: There is a hyperlink missing in the paragraph referring to an article you wrote about why women support this madness.
"The smartest question of the evening was in response to my talking about how young women believe this stuff because they’ve been indoctrinated into it: indoctrinated by whom, a young man asked. Mainly by other women, I answered (I have written previously about this here)."
Ms. Joyce, this is an observation that is very important. Would you please direct me to the other writing you have done on this subject?
Well I'm pleased it went off without incident, Helen but the precautions that were necessary!! Well done to Edward Tye
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/annie-kenney-part-2
Dusty