Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
The problem is that the senior managers *only* care about the training courses being attended, and the boxes being ticked. They don’t care at all, about what actually happens on the front line.
It's the linkage I'm disputing. I can't see why the police would be less racist if they dropped things like diversity training. That sounds like a nonsense to me. Eg they were hardly clean on this score back when such training didn't exist.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
The problem is that the senior managers *only* care about the training courses being attended, and the boxes being ticked. They don’t care at all, about what actually happens on the front line.
It's the linkage I'm disputing. I can't see why the police would be less racist if they dropped things like diversity training. That sounds like a nonsense to me. Eg they were hardly clean on this score back when such training didn't exist.
The training gives a false sense of security to the higher-ups. They think that of course no-one is racist, because everyone did the how-not-to-be-racist course.
The facts on the ground are that, while the courses might be part of the solution, they are not the totality of it.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
The problem is that the senior managers *only* care about the training courses being attended, and the boxes being ticked. They don’t care at all, about what actually happens on the front line.
It's the linkage I'm disputing. I can't see why the police would be less racist if they dropped things like diversity training. That sounds like a nonsense to me. Eg they were hardly clean on this score back when such training didn't exist.
Okay, IMV: awareness matters. These courses will not stop a hardcore racist from being racist. They'll say all the right things, tick the boxes, laugh at it after the course, and then go on being racist.
But racism isn't about hardcore racists. It's about all of us; including those of us, of all backgrounds and races, who have unconscious biases. We don't always see things from another person's perspective: I certainly don't. Being aware of your unconscious biases can help you counter them.
And that's where such training, if well done, may help.
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
You might want to consider that your trans friends (presuming they are m->f) would not be able to become trans if your simple line of "I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces." was followed.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
You might want to consider that your trans friends (presuming they are m->f) would not be able to become trans if your simple line of "I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces." was followed.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
It might come as a surprise that neither of them consider using an open female changing room, being put in a womens prison, or goto a battered womans refuge as prerequisites for being able to live their lives as the gender they identify.
You are quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces.....they aren't your rights you are eager to give away.
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
You might want to consider that your trans friends (presuming they are m->f) would not be able to become trans if your simple line of "I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces." was followed.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
It might come as a surprise that neither of them consider using an open female changing room, being put in a womens prison, or goto a battered womans refuge as prerequisites for being able to live their lives as the gender they identify.
You are quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces.....they aren't your rights you are eager to give away.
If you class toilets (and you said 'changing rooms') as single-sex spaces, then you are *exactly* saying they should not be able to transition. Because living as a woman for a year or two (depending on country) is key to the transitioning process. And unless you know women who use male toilets routinely, then living as a woman rather depends on it. And going into male toilets dressed a woman may not be good mentally for them, or safe.
I am not " quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces". I am saying that there are conflictions here that are not easy or simple to solve. And BTW, I know feminists who agree with what I'm saying (in fact, I'm somewhat parrotting their lines).
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
You might want to consider that your trans friends (presuming they are m->f) would not be able to become trans if your simple line of "I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces." was followed.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
It might come as a surprise that neither of them consider using an open female changing room, being put in a womens prison, or goto a battered womans refuge as prerequisites for being able to live their lives as the gender they identify.
You are quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces.....they aren't your rights you are eager to give away.
If you class toilets (and you said 'changing rooms') as single-sex spaces, then you are *exactly* saying they should not be able to transition. Because living as a woman for a year or two (depending on country) is key to the transitioning process. And unless you know women who use male toilets routinely, then living as a woman rather depends on it. And going into male toilets dressed a woman may not be good mentally for them, or safe.
I am not " quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces". I am saying that there are conflictions here that are not easy or simple to solve. And BTW, I know feminists who agree with what I'm saying (in fact, I'm somewhat parrotting their lines).
*You* are the one giving up the rights of others.
The only one bringing up toilets is you I have never mentioned them and I referred only to communal open changing rooms. My friends for example goto gyms or pools where the changing rooms have individual cubicles and showers because they respect the fact that most women don't want to see a penis waving around or have their young daughters see it even if it is just in the act of changing.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
The problem is that the senior managers *only* care about the training courses being attended, and the boxes being ticked. They don’t care at all, about what actually happens on the front line.
It's the linkage I'm disputing. I can't see why the police would be less racist if they dropped things like diversity training. That sounds like a nonsense to me. Eg they were hardly clean on this score back when such training didn't exist.
I don't think there's really a big issue in the UK with racist application of the law. I could be wrong. If the law (eg stop and search) were being applied too heavily on ethnic minority communities and therefore too lightly on white British communities, you would expect an epidemic of crime amongst the white British community (a la Rotherham grooming gangs).
The problem with 'diversity training' et al as I see it is that it doesn't impart any sort of genuine empathy/moral compass - it creates drones. The training may be right or wrong, but you know that if the training rulebook said that gingers should be mercilessly truncheoned on sight, they would do that.
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
You might want to consider that your trans friends (presuming they are m->f) would not be able to become trans if your simple line of "I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces." was followed.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
It might come as a surprise that neither of them consider using an open female changing room, being put in a womens prison, or goto a battered womans refuge as prerequisites for being able to live their lives as the gender they identify.
You are quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces.....they aren't your rights you are eager to give away.
If you class toilets (and you said 'changing rooms') as single-sex spaces, then you are *exactly* saying they should not be able to transition. Because living as a woman for a year or two (depending on country) is key to the transitioning process. And unless you know women who use male toilets routinely, then living as a woman rather depends on it. And going into male toilets dressed a woman may not be good mentally for them, or safe.
I am not " quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces". I am saying that there are conflictions here that are not easy or simple to solve. And BTW, I know feminists who agree with what I'm saying (in fact, I'm somewhat parrotting their lines).
*You* are the one giving up the rights of others.
The only one bringing up toilets is you I have never mentioned them and I referred only to communal open changing rooms. My friends for example goto gyms or pools where the changing rooms have individual cubicles and showers because they respect the fact that most women don't want to see a penis waving around or have their young daughters see it even if it is just in the act of changing.
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
You might want to consider that your trans friends (presuming they are m->f) would not be able to become trans if your simple line of "I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces." was followed.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
It might come as a surprise that neither of them consider using an open female changing room, being put in a womens prison, or goto a battered womans refuge as prerequisites for being able to live their lives as the gender they identify.
You are quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces.....they aren't your rights you are eager to give away.
If you class toilets (and you said 'changing rooms') as single-sex spaces, then you are *exactly* saying they should not be able to transition. Because living as a woman for a year or two (depending on country) is key to the transitioning process. And unless you know women who use male toilets routinely, then living as a woman rather depends on it. And going into male toilets dressed a woman may not be good mentally for them, or safe.
I am not " quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces". I am saying that there are conflictions here that are not easy or simple to solve. And BTW, I know feminists who agree with what I'm saying (in fact, I'm somewhat parrotting their lines).
*You* are the one giving up the rights of others.
The only one bringing up toilets is you I have never mentioned them and I referred only to communal open changing rooms. My friends for example goto gyms or pools where the changing rooms have individual cubicles and showers because they respect the fact that most women don't want to see a penis waving around or have their young daughters see it even if it is just in the act of changing.
Do you see toilets as single-sex spaces?
No and currently there is no legislation to stop anyone going into any toilets. Trans already have the ability to use the toilet they choose. There are no proposals afaik to change that from any party which is why I called you out on keep banging on about toilets. Especially when as I noted what concerns most people is the single sex spaces I listed
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
You might want to consider that your trans friends (presuming they are m->f) would not be able to become trans if your simple line of "I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces." was followed.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
It might come as a surprise that neither of them consider using an open female changing room, being put in a womens prison, or goto a battered womans refuge as prerequisites for being able to live their lives as the gender they identify.
You are quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces.....they aren't your rights you are eager to give away.
If you class toilets (and you said 'changing rooms') as single-sex spaces, then you are *exactly* saying they should not be able to transition. Because living as a woman for a year or two (depending on country) is key to the transitioning process. And unless you know women who use male toilets routinely, then living as a woman rather depends on it. And going into male toilets dressed a woman may not be good mentally for them, or safe.
I am not " quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces". I am saying that there are conflictions here that are not easy or simple to solve. And BTW, I know feminists who agree with what I'm saying (in fact, I'm somewhat parrotting their lines).
*You* are the one giving up the rights of others.
The only one bringing up toilets is you I have never mentioned them and I referred only to communal open changing rooms. My friends for example goto gyms or pools where the changing rooms have individual cubicles and showers because they respect the fact that most women don't want to see a penis waving around or have their young daughters see it even if it is just in the act of changing.
Do you see toilets as single-sex spaces?
No and currently there is no legislation to stop anyone going into any toilets. Trans already have the ability to use the toilet they choose. There are no proposals afaik to change that from any party which is why I called you out on keep banging on about toilets. Especially when as I noted what concerns most people is the single sex spaces I listed
Okay, good. We're getting onto definitional differences. Many see toilets as 'single-sex spaces', and therefore you may want to amend your saying to 'some single-sex spaces'. You may also like to note that some on here have called for trans people to be banned from using women's' public toilets.
And I 'bang on' about toilets as it's something that is vitally important for trans people (heck, everyone), and one that the 'single-sex spaces' becomes a wolf-whistle for.
After all, many more people use public toilets much more frequently than they use refuges, gyms or prisons.
Trying to understand the PB Tory logic here. Is it that overseas trips are some kind of decadence that only latte-sipping Islington lawyers would enjoy?
Or that Greek museums, rightly, can no longer count on subsidies from apprentices in the Midlands?
Comments
The facts on the ground are that, while the courses might be part of the solution, they are not the totality of it.
But racism isn't about hardcore racists. It's about all of us; including those of us, of all backgrounds and races, who have unconscious biases. We don't always see things from another person's perspective: I certainly don't. Being aware of your unconscious biases can help you counter them.
And that's where such training, if well done, may help.
"By all means give trans people their own safe spaces."
And you know what happens then? It becomes "Why are *they* getting the funding, when there are so few of them?" Therefore I hope you'd argue just as strenuously for funding for such places.
"I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female."
Sorry, I missed that question. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as should all such edge cases. There are probably three options: male prison, female prison, or special unit. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.
You are quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces.....they aren't your rights you are eager to give away.
I am not " quick to argue women have to give up womens rights to safe spaces". I am saying that there are conflictions here that are not easy or simple to solve. And BTW, I know feminists who agree with what I'm saying (in fact, I'm somewhat parrotting their lines).
*You* are the one giving up the rights of others.
The problem with 'diversity training' et al as I see it is that it doesn't impart any sort of genuine empathy/moral compass - it creates drones. The training may be right or wrong, but you know that if the training rulebook said that gingers should be mercilessly truncheoned on sight, they would do that.
And I 'bang on' about toilets as it's something that is vitally important for trans people (heck, everyone), and one that the 'single-sex spaces' becomes a wolf-whistle for.
After all, many more people use public toilets much more frequently than they use refuges, gyms or prisons.
Is it that overseas trips are some kind of decadence that only latte-sipping Islington lawyers would enjoy?
Or that Greek museums, rightly, can no longer count on subsidies from apprentices in the Midlands?
Both appear to be Alice-in-Wonderland delusions.