TERFS vs Womanhood

Before I begin I want to clarify a couple of things...

First, I am not a feminist of any kind. I am an egalitarian.
People are people and NO ONE should have more rights than another. [all people are equally bloody awful]
I have a bunch of issues with a lot of forms of feminism, most notably the concept of a patriarchy that oppresses women at every turn. OBVIOUSLY there are communities & cultures that applies to but hearing privileged white western females complaining how hard done by they are (while advocating a feminism that has no place for people like me*) sticks in the craw.
I grew up in the UK - born in 1978 my youth was shaped by a very female led society:

• Queen Elizabeth II
• Margaret Thatcher
• Female teachers (out of 4 schools I recall less than 10 male staff)
• Female GPs, ophthalmologists & hospital staff (I had lots of eye appointments in my youth)... fairly sure the only male medical pros I encountered were dentists.

Moira Stewart reading the news, Gloria Hunniford on the radio, Madonna was the queen of pop, women were going into space, I could name more female 80s sportspersons than male (Fatima Whitbread, Tessa Sanderson, Jane Torvill) - it literally never crossed my mind that being 'a girl' was in any way shape or form a barrier to doing ANYTHING.
Yes, I know that's not everyone's experience but why precisely would I have thought men were in charge of anything?!

The second point is that I am AGENDER* (https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/5145961804380033180
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2373217817352024212) - I am biologically female and have birthed offspring from my own unmentionables - but I absolutely DO NOT ascribe to this concept of womanhood, sisterhood, female solidarity. My experiences are my own and not dictated by my genitalia.
The idea that because I have no Y chromosome / am possessed of a uterus / have a tendency to wear bras (or any other criterion for femaleness you might come up with) should have ANY impact on my world view or life experience seems ludicrous.

So what is it that I want to say about TERFs you ask?
Well, obviously I do not identify as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist but that is not to say I don't have an issue with the contentious Gender Recognition Act.

First up I absolutely support Trans rights. EVERYONE should be able to live their life free of oppression, hatred and disenfranchisement.
Secondly I absolutely support the concept of gender recognition being de-medicalised. The current system is INSANE.

Personally, I would like to see gender recognition done via a solicitor in the same way as a Deed Poll document changes a person's name for all official purposes. I changed my name age 15 by common usage in 1993 and by Deed Poll circa 1999 for a passport.
Three gender options: male, female, non-binary. Can only be changed every six months or so. Great solution!
This would be suitably easy yet official, and would rule out the principal objections to 'self identification' that a good number of 'women' (who are promptly ostracised from the debate as TERFs) not unreasonably have (more about that in a sec).
What a lot of TERFs / cis people at least CLAIM to fear is that predators will hide behind legislation which is genuinely needed to protect trans people. It is the FORM this legislation takes that needs some proper thinking about. And successive gov'ts have not shown themselves to be any good with the joined-up-thinking. For example, civil partnerships were introduced in the UK without a procedure in place to dissolve the union. 

These objections are founded in fear and habit.
Females of the species (NOT just CIS women) have for generations experienced certain 'special treatments' - women are routinely given lighter jail sentences, women's prisons frequently have far better living conditions than male jails, women are given preferential treatment in domestic violence cases and child custody hearings. THIS IS SEXISM. Even though I or my female offspring could benefit I DO NOT APPROVE.
I have blogged before about this:
(https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2393350157861380543)

HOWEVER, some 'perks' of womanhood exist for solid reasons, such as:

• sex segregated toilets
• sex segregated changing rooms
• sex segregated hospital wards
• refuges

I have no objection whatsoever with an 'actual' trans person using any of these spaces and I abhor people who do have a problem with that. Women can be assaulted by women, men can be assaulted by men. What nobody should want is a scared mum being charged for gender discrimination for challenging the person who only chooses to identify as a woman to perv over kids in the swimming pool changing room. I personally think it is that loophole of self-identification that worries people.
You notice I specify 'sex segregated' here? As an agender person I take no offence at using the facility assigned to my biological gender both for my own protection and for the security of those around me. I do realise that others experience this differently but the point that it is not just for your own comfort or safety is, I feel, important.
I have experienced some odd gender moments - being challenged by a man as to why I was 'following' him (I was walking to work the same route), having a man be extremely embarrassed when I walked in on him in the loo (I was a cleaned, doing my job) - the idea that men feel no embarrassment or vulnerability is frankly ludicrous; they often treasure their single sex spaces as much as women do. Men want to feel some protection from bogus allegations of assault and to feel safe when they pee.

Over and over I hear that 'trans people aren't a threat' and it's certainly true that a trans person is far more likely to be a victim of violence. However, being trans is not, in itself, proof of goodness or innocence.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
Saying 'a trans person wouldn't rape' is as dumb as claiming female paedophiles don't exist or that children can't kill. I believe that ALL people need their rights and safety protected as far as is feasible. 

Another issue I have is the erasure of womanhood - even though I don't buy into it myself.
Not so long ago women had to fight to be able to buy sanitary products freely (you used to have to ask in the chemist and be handed a plain brown papered package because menstruation was shameful). I am all for the erasure of the insidious PINK of 'feminine' products (I mean WTF with the pink OUIJA BOARD?! (https://dangerousminds.net/comments/hasbros_new_ouija_board_for_girls) 
Now it's all 'people who menstruate' and 'we're pregnant' and IVF being taught in gender neutral terminology. 
I am all for inclusivity BUT when we're talking about things which are exclusive to biological females being stripped of that recognition is very discomforting.
When I was pregnant *I* was pregnant, not the man whose (ahem) contribution was over in 5 minutes. I've heard IVF dads rant against that use of 'we' when they're not going through all those invasive tests, procedures, hundreds of injections... Obviously there is no simple solution to the terminology but I can see why feminists are pissy.

Women fought for generations for recognition and now they're being erased from the narrative. Cis women are the bulk of female identifying people and now they're being just as 'misgendered' as the small number of disenfranchised trans / non-binary / agender / gender fluid etc people under the previous system. How is that right or fair?!

Unequal Equality

Over the last few days I've been getting a fair bit of hassle over a tweet. Specifically:

Somewhat vexed that the disappearance of Libby Squire (21, Hull Uni)

seems to be getting more coverage than that of

Daniel Williams (19, Reading Uni). Everyday sexism?

- @HeggieTBK; 10:24pm 4th February 2019

I have been called disgusting, despicable, bloody awful etc for it...why? Because I dared to suggest a man might be disadvantaged based on gender. Equality, it seems, is only attractive if it applies to our preconceived ideas of the underdog.

First of all lets just go over the facts. Both disappearances involved young white British university students. Daniel disappeared first - he was last seen alive around 1am on Thursday January 31st 2019. Sadly his body was found in a lake on campus five days later but he was still missing at the time of the tweet. Libby vanished less than 24 hours later - last seen at 11:40pm. At the time of blogging she remains unfound. 

Let me go through a few key points for a moment here...

• Neither student has been flagged in the media for being an especially at-risk individual (eg. medical issues or disability) which would be an acceptable contributing factor to the discrepancy in coverage. In short, both cases are strikingly similar and noteworthy for being the same day - making an assessment of the coverage that bit easier. However, I certainly acknowledge that what I personally have seen is just a partial sample. I deliberately wrote that it 'seems' to be a difference in coverage, not an absolute statement that this was the case.
• Contrary to what people inferred I never stated that the reason for any discrepancy was sexism. The question mark after 'everyday sexism' is significant here; I was SUGGESTING it as a cause or at least a contributing factor.
• A few people claimed that Libby's case got more coverage because she had gone missing more recently. At the time, Daniel had been missing 22 hours longer, not that a matter of hours should matter - if one had been already missing weeks or months it would be different. Indeed, at least one person claimed Daniel had been missing since New Year's Eve, confusing his case with another. A genuine mistake or perhaps another sign that Daniel's case really was less reported?
• Several people asserted that Daniel's family wanted privacy and that was the reason his case got less media attention. This may be so - but is it acceptable that a missing young person should get more or less attention based on their family's interaction with the press? I certainly understand that some families actively drive media campaigns, especially after the first flush of interest dies down but just because a distressed family aren't keen to talk to journalists or make TV appearances doesn't mean their loved-one shouldn't still be front page news. The missing person should take precidence over their family's actions / inactions.

One of the weirdest accusations leveled against me was that I was "trying to score points" off these people's disappearances. What the hell is that even supposed to MEAN? It's not a game. I was commenting on my perception of current affairs. I could comment until the cows come home on how historically the disappearances of various young people have been handled in the press - girls and young women getting far more attention than boys, men and older women; whites getting more attention than other ethnicities; well-off getting more attention than the poor. I have nothing to gain from my speculation, it merely bothered me that the lad at a university geographically close to me seemed to be getting mentioned as a footnote to a girl's disappearance. I would not be happy if my child's disappearance only seemed to be mentioned as an afterthought in the coverage of another person's case.

For many the problem seems to be applying the word 'sexism' to a scenario where the male is disadvantaged on grounds of gender. Men ARE disadvantaged in many ways in our society; they are inherently distrusted, a woman's word is valued more highly; men are disadvantaged in many careers and in custody hearings. But people seem to find acknowledging this distasteful.

Now, those of you who have read my blogs will know that I am agender. I am biologically (and presenting) female but I don't identify as such - my sex has nothing to do with who I am as a human being. I don't expect to be treated better or worse for being biologically female; the only reason that should matter is in terms of sex-differentiated medical conditions. I am also the parent of two biologically female offspring - one is at uni, the other has graduated. I don't expect them to be treated any differently based on their biological sex or gender identities either! I am not beyond imagining myself to be the parent of male offspring who I also would not want treated any differently based on gender. This is what equality means to me.

The only reasons to treat people differently in this scenario is if one was at more risk than another - one is an insulin-dependent diabetic, for example, or if there are specific indications of foul play. It makes me mad to think that a young woman is considered to be at greater risk than a young man purely because she is female. Like men cannot be victims of sexual assault or violence. It makes me mad that people think their fathers / brothers / husbands / sons deserve anything different than their mothers / sisters / wives / daughters.

I have commented a number of times that I dislike 'feminism' and prefer the term 'egalitarian'. Strictly speaking the one is a branch of the other but to me, feminism implies firstly the necessity of a female identity (and there are self-identified feminists who disregard non-cis females - there are also groups of feminists who disregard the problems specific to women of colour - feminism is not especially inclusive) and also a strong suggestion that women are inherently disadvantaged and victimised. On this second point I disagree. I know that my own experiences of being female aren't an absolute but I cannot relate to issues such as cat-calling or being disrespected on ground of gender. I am not saying these things are not common but at 40 years old I can only say that I have not experienced them - I can be indignant that others have suffered but so many interpretations of feminism start from a position of victimhood that I cannot identify with...and even if I could, I do not find strength in victimhood. I prefer to assume I have power; that I am equal to anyone else.

Now obviously, that is all about me and why I look at things the way I do. I understand that others are different, of course I do. But I find it confusing how my tweet calling for actual meaningful equality resulted in personal attacks on me. That their are women who think wanting males to be treated equally is unacceptable is both weird and disturbing but the fact that men responded angrily to my tweet I find utterly baffling. Is that toxic masculinity - men who are offended that any man could be considered as vulnerable as a female? Or is it toxic feminism - convincing men that their needs are less than those of women?

Maybe Daniel and Libby's disappearances were treated equally in the press...but why are people (of a non journalist persuasion) so offended by the suggestion that they weren't? In my humble opinion this is why true equality is a long way off for our society - because we still can't acknowledge that certain forms of inequality even exist. I for one only want equality if it really is the same set of rights and privileges for everyone.

UPDATE
Libby Squire's body was found in the Humber 7 weeks after her disappearance and is being treated as a potential homicide.
Daniel Williams' death was considered misadventure - drowning under the influence of alcohol.
I'm not saying Daniel didn't die in a tragic accident or that Libby wasn't murdered but it still seems odd from my outside perspective that the cases STILL strikingly similar seem to be considered so differently - that the male caused his own death but that the girl must've been hurt by someone else? Presumably there is some evidence but what evidence would there be if a drunk lad was pushed into a freezing lake? I also wonder what evidence of foul play they might have in Libby's case as nearly 2 months in the water isn't good for preserving traces...

Cleaner Controversy

This is an old news one but it popped up on Facebook again today and although I ranted about it elsewhere I decided a blog post was probably still called for.

The story in question surrounds a 'controversial' photograph of a female cleaner being 'made to' remove pro-International Women's Day graffiti from steps at Oxford University; and the university being 'forced' to apologise for their 'gaffe' (please pay attention to all the sarcastic quote marks here)

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-43335030

1) The cleaner's gender.

• Cleaners are stereotypically women as more women take part-time low-paid work. This is not a marker of social class, intelligence, capability or 
• Has anyone asked the cleaner what their gender identity is? I am biologically female and I am agender. I will use female pronouns in this blog to avoid confusion but this is an important point.
• The assumption that as a woman she would support International Women's Day and be offended by being 'made to' clean up the graffiti. Or perhaps conversely the assumption that a male cleaner would NOT support IWD and would not be offended by the task. personally I would have been 'offended' by the twat who wrote the graffiti that I then had to clean off.

2) Being made to clean up the graffiti.

• Literally complaining about her doing her job here. 
• I've seen comments assuming that she has no choice but to work as a cleaner - assuming she has no choice in her employment, assuming she has no qualifications or skills - that may indeed be the case, many cleaners ARE unskilled and most are not earning a decent wage BUT it's still a gross assumption. I earned a degree while working as a cleaner. I have known cleaners who do the job as 'pocket money' and a way to keep fit and active. Some are mums who just want something outside the home, some are older women just killing time before claiming their pensions, others have a well-paid spouse but still want independence.
• I've seen comments that a cleaner works INDOORS ONLY...obviously the commenter has never done cleaning work. I worked in a school and did tasks such as carrying classroom furniture into the playground to scrub it all down. There were also comments about it being one of the coldest days of the year which I find incredibly condescending - like women, by biology or gender identity, shouldn't be working outdoors in the cold; this is not equality.
• I've seen comments about it being 'the patriarchy' in action - men making a woman do a menial task. See above comments about the irrelevance of her gender in the argument. Also, we do not know whether she was told to clean it off or did so as part of her regular duties, we do not know the gender of any person telling her to clean the steps, we do not know the gender of the person who wrote the graffiti.

3) The acceptance of the graffiti.

• Apparently writing in chalk all over stuff is an 'Oxford tradition' and therefore acceptable. I thought Oxford was supposed to be a world's best educational institution so why are they legitimising childish and illegal graffitiing?! Next it'll be defending pub brawls as cultural property...
• Somehow being chalk rather than spray paint makes it acceptable.
  Yes, chalk is a better medium for drawing on a surface that isn't yours - for the very relevant point that it's EASIER TO CLEAN OFF - but mostly I think that if you want to make a political statement you should be doing it without defacing someone else's property. I REALLY don't like graffiti, can you tell?! I think it can be an amazing artform but unless it's done well and with consent I do not approve.
• The fact it's "Happy International Women's Day" rather than an expletive or a crude outline of a penis makes it acceptable. IWD is not a greetings card holiday which people go around saying this phrase to each other. I wonder if there would have been a similar outcry if it had been a black cleaner scrubbing off the phrase "Joyous Kwanzaa" or a Muslim cleaner removing "Eid Mubarak"?
• Being a political statement doesn't make it somehow better than other graffiti - "Loz woz ere" or whatever. I believe in equality but the presumption that women are somehow inevitably disadvantaged in a world of men is not something I either agree with and I think it is potentially very harmful. I literally just read this article* where a man is making light of his experiences as a domestic violence survivor and I can't help but think that's because of the way men are disadvantaged in our society. Men are frequently not taken seriously regards sexual assault and domestic violence, they are less likely to win custody of their children, they get less support during many scenarios such as when diagnosed with breast cancer. Inequality works both ways and cannot be resolved by feminism.
  *http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/girlfriend-sword-attack-scared-living-poop-article-1.3876246
• Mostly I think that you do not draw or write, in any medium, on something which is not yours. My dad is arguing against me painting a mural on the side of his shed despite the fact that it's an ugly breeze block wall which forms part of the boundary wall of my garden. I wouldn't dream of painting on his property (in the sense of (i) on the grounds of his property or (ii) off the grounds on a side that isn't mine - like the roadfront side of his garden wall) but I have doubts as to whether he can control what I do on my side of the line. It's HIS shed but it's also MY boundary. If I wanted to drill holes in it and put up trellis I'm reasonably sure I could... It'd be the same with painting your side of a garden fence on a boundary you do not own.

The Great Loo Debate

I have seen an awful lot on social media lately about transgender people's right to use the bathroom of choice and I want to put in my tuppence worth on the topic.

1a. Gendered bathrooms are a thing we are taught to expect from early childhood, a lot of people are going to be pissy (no pun intended) if expected to do something they are distinctly uncomfortable about. Given that estimates put non gender conforming people at around 1% of the population that leaves a huge majority of people who could be left feeling potentially unable to use public restrooms.

1b. Being uncomfortable about using public bathrooms leads to shy bladder / shy bowel syndrome which leads to issues like urinary tract infections, constipation and even incontinence. I understand that a lot of trans people may well suffer from this but dispensing with segregated bathrooms is likely to exacerbate the issue and become a health risk for a lot more people.

1c. Who have you shared a bathroom with of the opposite biological gender? For a lot of us only EVER family members and people we were otherwise intimately acquainted with. Maybe YOU have a background where you've shared facilities with a range of people but a lot of us haven't and would never willingly to do so.  Also I should imagine that for women of very conservative religious backgrounds particularly this is could be a deeply problematic thing. I'm no expert on religious issues but given that strictly religious women of several failths have to be separate from men in many day-to-day activities anyway this is bound to be a deeply divisive issue which could lead to cases of religious discrimination if segregated facilities were not upheld.

2. We're being told that 'bathroom predators' are a myth but tell that to the numerous men, women and children who've been assaulted in that way. Yes, most people are raped / abused by people they know but assaults by strangers can and do happen; yes, we know same-sex assaults happen but statistically women are more likely to be assaulted by men than other scenarios - and public restrooms have always been considered a high risk place. Girls go to the loo in packs for REASONS, and those do not generally include fear of basilisks.

3a. No one is specifically equating being trans with being a 'bathroom predator' BUT...being trans doesn't make you a good person. Sorry but your identity does not equate to your morality.

3b. How are we planning to ascertain whether someone is trans? Disabled people have to carry ID / radar keys to access locked facilities which they have to have medical proof of their NEED for such a thing (which, lets face it, is an utter disgrace. Adults, especially those with incontinence issues, should not be having to ask to use the bathroom in the 21st century!) - you see someone using the disabled bathroom you can challenge them on their right to do so. What people are REALLY concerned about here is predators PRETENDING to be trans; a system so bogged down by political correctness that a man entering a women's bathroom (for example) is not challenged.

4. Not an issue that is usually raised but...if genderless bathrooms become commonplace / people are not challenged on entering a bathroom contrary to their apparent birth sex it may well also lead to an increase in *ahem* bathroom assignations / public indecency issues and I don't suppose anyone wants that.

Question: if a man in a gender-free bathroom comes out of a cubicle with his fly unzipped / if a woman comes out with her skirt tucked in her knickers will they risk being done for exposing themselves??? These things happen a lot and are usually rectified before leaving the restroom thanks to mirrors / friendly fellow occupants. Mixed bathrooms could seriously complicate that.

I personally think trans people who are undergoing treatment - psychological, hormone or surgical - should be able to use the facilities of choice and being issued with a medical ID (like the disabled version) to prove their case if challenged. Simply saying 'I identify as a man' or 'I identify as a woman' is too easy for paedophiles and other sexual predators to do.
There are few statistics on either but there are likely to be more gender non-conforming people than sexual predators in the UK but this is not about numbers this is about perceived risk. Sexual predators pose a risk and changing how public bathrooms operate will certainly increase that risk as well as perception of it.
It would be a good idea if all new public buildings were required to provide a gender-free FOURTH bathroom type (after male, female, accessible - previously disabled) - being for trans and others such as parents who need to supervise opposite gender children (which can be a major headache, especially if you have an older child with special needs who is not 'disabled' as such). A similar requirement could be put in place that all refurbishments should provide this fourth category of restroom wherever possible. By being a fourth type it would give people the choice, and choice is important - for ALL of us.

EDIT (2019)
I identify as agender and I am biologically female so I have always used female loos. I have cleaned bathrooms for a living and have no desire whatsoever to share facilities with males of the species - even at home! When my stepdad visits I make him use one particular loo cos he pees on the floor!
I was assaulted by a teenage lad the other day for being agender... and that was out on a busy main road - heaven knows how much danger people could be at in an enclosed, private space like a bathroom. Sexual assault, gender assault, religious persecution, an innocent lad getting mistaken for a paedophile because he took his little sister into the bathroom?! The possibilities are endless and while not all are limited to shared public loos they'd certainly make it easier to attack someone.