Avatar for brokenbetty


Member since Sep 2010 • Last active Sep 2021

Most recent activity

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    I do not accept the way you interpret the posts you have quoted but I've said I'm going to walk away because this topic is not safe for female people, so after this post I'm disconnecting for a while.

    However, I hope I can bring you a bit of happiness..

    I'd love to believe trans women hadn't been murdered during the time period in question

    From the "counting dead women" site, as of April 2021

    As far as I know, nine males who fall under the trans umbrella have
    been killed in the UK since 2009. I don’t know which of them would
    have described themselves as cross-dressers, transsexuals, transwomen,
    trans women, or even say that they are women but using Stonewall’s
    concept of the trans umbrella, there are nine. There have been over
    1,800 women killed by men in the UK in the same time.

    The most recent being:

    Amy Griffiths, 51, was killed by Martin Saberi, in Worcestershire in
    January 2019. The two have been described as friends.

    So, on IWD 2021, when Rosie Duffield (correction: Not Duffield, Jess Phillips) read out the list of deaths in the UK since the last IWD (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-5­636582), there had been no trans women murdered in the period.

    Let's think about those numbers.

    9 possibly trans women. Over 1,800 female people. 200 dead female people for every 1 trans women.

    Now, to be fair Ms Karen Ingala Smith is not an official census. She builds her list from research and available sources. It's entirely possible she missed someone and that would be tragic. But I very much doubt she has missed hundred of killings of UK trans women, not least because such cases would be a significant topic of concern and discussion.

    So yeah, make the argument the site should be called Counting Dead Female People, I'd agree with that. And make the argument that maybe IWD should be International Female Day - after all, no one is saying that Females can't exist as a meaningful social and political group, right? And a day to focus on the global challenges and progress of Female people would indeed be welcome. But don't take a list of murdered female people and make the most important thing about it whether it's using the "right" definition of woman. I'd say that is poor taste - in fact I'd say "poor taste" doesn't even come close.

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    referred to trans women as 'male bodied biological men' - this is
    mis-gendering, and therefore harassment under the EHRC guidelines

    Trans women are biologically male (amab). That's literally the definition of a trans woman. If she wasn't male, she would not be trans. "Man", like "Woman", has been redefined as a mixed-sex single gender group but not everyone accepts that. I personally would have not issue with the redefinition - in fact I'd see it as positive - IF it was done in parallel with preserving pre-existing single-sex provisions. But that's not what is happening. Female people are simply being unnamed and disempowered, because the impact on us is considered unimportant. This is seen as purely a trans rights question but it is not, it is also a female rights question. Yet female people (by which I mean groups who speak for females of any gender rather than women of both sexes) are not at the table.

    said she does not accept the protections conveyed to trans women under
    the equality act - undermining one of the last bits of Labour

    She wants to preserve the rights of female peple to exclude male in certain circumstances. I agree with her. It is not a gender issue, it is a sex issue. One of the most important engines of feminism was when female people started talking and realised that the problems they faced were not just individual to them but a systemic and structural devaluing and underpowering of fenale people in favour of male. That has got better but it has not in any way stopped. As a female, I feel the weight of male voices and male presence all the time. Males dominate spaces (literal and metaphorical). They talk over us. They reframe what we say to fit their own expectations. Sometimes they physically abuse us. They insert their sexualisation of us into everything we do.

    Female-only spaces and conversations take that pressure off. The right to those spaces matters. to speak and have our voices heard as female is so important.

    It simply comes down to, do you think female people should have the right to associate without males even when those males identify as women? Should we have the right to a female healthcare provider in intimate or triggering situations? When sleeping or undressing in accommodation or spaces that were not arranged by ourselves where we cannot personally chose who comes in, should we have the right to have a blanket exclusion of males? That doesn't in any way mean everything must always exclude tran women, just that it should be possible for female people to say "in this case, it's female-only" and for that to be seen as a reasonable and valid thing not a de facto act of hate.

    To be very clear, if there were evidence that trans women in these scenarios behave like female people rather than male, none of this would matter but as far as I know there is not. The removal of the concept of female people as a meaningful group is being done not because of evidence it's unnecessary but because of an ideology that says this is how things should be.

    So if you have any evidence to the contrary please please share it, because I would love to be wrong about all this! As someone who would naturally align with the standard progressive views it is very alien to me to be standing against on this specific topic. But it's not because I am suddenly no longer progressive, but because I believe what it does to female people is not progressive.

    repeated her support for excluding trans women from lists of murdered
    women - not an illegal thing to do but I think you'll agree, pretty
    poor taste

    As I understand it, there were no trans women murdered in the UK in the period which the most recent list reading covered. Meanwhile female people are being murdered at about three a week. That might just be a factor of there being much fewer trans women than female but in absolute terms the number of murdered females is undeniably much higher than the number of murdered trans women. I think given that context, trying to make it an issue about trans women is in pretty poor taste. I hope you agree.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zsd­d - starts at 1:50:00

    I haven't had time to listen to the interview but will try and do so over the weekend. Given the context I do have:

    defended the convicted criminal Kurtis Tripp, a man arrested by the
    FBI on terrorism charges after threatening to shoot up a school, who
    thinks trans suicide rates are 'funny' and thinks trans people are
    'cosplaying' as the opposite sex (a tweet which Duffield 'liked')

    I will do more reading about Kurtis Tripp. I found this from him. Clearly it's biased, being his actual own words, but it certainly puts a different light on both the school "threat" and "stalking". https://kurtistrippmusic.medium.com/ribb­ons-72d563814132 . The only copies of the "suicide" tweet I can find are a cropped part of the conversation. It's not quite saying trans suicide stats themselves are funny but it may equally well be offensive for other reasons so I don't want to go too far on that based on what I saw. If you have more context I'd like to see it (not necessarily to defend him).

    accepted that by 'liking' the 'deeply offensive' cosplay tweet, she
    was endorsing the viewpoint contained within it

    The "cosplay" comment is certainly offensive. What you may not realise that many female people find the hyper-feminised / sexualised presentation of some prominent trans women also offensive. That's where the "cosplay" reaction comes from. I have no doubt that the trans women in question have genuine reasons and needs to present they way they do, but for female people it's the same old story of female people being being told to STFU about our own offense to accommodate male emotional needs.

    bisexual men in relationships with women aren't really queer and are
    in fact co-opting gay culture - on bi visibility day!

    Yes, on the face of it that sounds pretty nasty.

    Do not get me wrong here. Cis women need specific protections too

    I'm not just talking about cis women though. I'm talking about female people. Not all female people are women. I don't identify as cis - I don't meet the criteria. In fact I only identify as a woman because that's where the rights and protections that I as a female person need currently sit - I don't actually meet the gender-based definition of "woman" at all.

    I also support laws for making misogyny a hate crime, and for making street
    harassment a specific criminal offence, one which imo should involve
    being put on the sex offenders register.

    Thank you. I appreciate that. I understand that you are coming from a good place.

    I just don't think we need to throw trans people under the bus, in order to stand up for women.

    I agree we do not need to throw trans people under the bus in order to stand up for female people. But we also do not need to throw female people under the bus in order to stand up for trans people. After all, plenty of female people ARE trans! I do think we need to be able to talk honestly about the differences between female people and trans women to find a way that works for us all. Share the bus!

    Honestly I'm not saying Duffield is a saint. But she is at least trying to get this conversation on the table. Starmer, and other like him, KNOW this is wrong. They KNOW it's not fair to female people. But they are too scared to talk about it, to have that "toxic" debate, so they want female people to SFTU and put male needs first. That is a tale as old as time.

    Edited to add: And I'm going to leave it here. This is a public forum but it's also one where people know me IRL and female people have been threatened and worse for saying less than I have here so I have taken a pretty big step today. Anything further would be better as a face to face conversation over beer or cake.

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    I don’t “like” being angry. I AM fucking angry. Like the body I have and the sexism that comes with it, it’s not a choice.

    What, in her own words, did Duffield say?

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    This is specifically on the trans rights stuff that I'm thinking. Starmer has been weak on Duffield and imo anyone who argues that the equality act 2010 should reduce its scope of protection for trans people should not be in the party.

    I don’t think you realise how fucking angry many female (afab) people are.

    It’s less than 100 years since we got the vote. Within my adult lifetime it was still legal for a man to rape his wife. On average in the UK a female person is murdered every three days, almost always by a male and 50% of the time by a current or ex partner.

    Yet we are being told that how society treats people with female bodies is irrelevant to feminism, and that our lived experience as female from birth has no more authority than a feeling in a male head.

    And of course society can redefine womanhood as nothing to do with the female body if it wants to.

    But our bodies still exist and the shit we deal with because of them still happens whatever we are (or are not) called, so IMO we have damn good reason to say we exist as a meaningful social and political group.

    Yet we are being literally undefined, not for our own benefit but as the solution to a problem being experienced by males.

    And this is progressive?

    I think trans women and female people have a lot in common. We both suffer from gender stereotypes and toxic masculinity. We should be allies. We should join our voices. But we both also have challenges the other does not share. We are not interchangeable.

    I want to talk about this. This is a massive thing that is being done to female people. Maybe it’s the right thing. I’d love to be persuaded that it is. I want the concerns I have to be dismissed not by just ignoring them or calling me a bigot but with convincing reasons why they are not the problem I think they are.

    And I want there to be discussion about why, if sex and gender are different, we can’t support trans people by acknowledging both sex and gender instead of demanding the wholesale replacement of sex with gender.

    But that’s not happening. The redefinition of women/undefinition of female is being imposed on us without any public debate because “it’s too toxic” to let the female people who have concerns, usually older women who’ve lived long enough to see that youthful ideals about equality don’t hold up against the established real world power structures, talk about it.

    (In the interest of keeping the post succinct I’ll not touch on trans boys and men other than to say they also deal with the challenges of being female and the male/female power dynamic means they don’t impact male political power in the way trans women and girls impact female political power, so my concerns here are more about whether individuals are getting the right support than the overall social impact.)

  • Avatar for brokenbetty

    I really like your paintings. They have a distinctive feel. Empty faces in empty spaces - you can't quite tell what the figures are thinking.

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    Some people haven't. Other people see waste, pointless tasks, stupidity and try to change it.

    Rationally yes. But I'm talking about the whole package. Humans connect in person in a way that they don't through remote communication.

    My current team formed in lockdown. We have hardly ever met in person but we work great together. Last week some of us were all in the office together and in one meeting, someone said something and me and one of the other guys made brief eye contact in reaction.

    That flash of communication could never happen remotely. After so long having everything mediated through Zoom/chat, an instant of raw connection was quite intense.

    Then there's all the ad hoc conversations and serendipity that happens when people are in the same space. Remote working doesn't stop you have the conversations you know you need, it stops you having the ones you didn't know you needed.

    I'm not saying we can never stop business travel, I'm saying it is a trade off because we can't fully replicate human communication and connection remotely, and I don't think it's just a case of some people not being evolved enough to do it.

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    Thing is, technology may have evolved but people haven't. Our logical and rational software runs on an OS that's basically emotional.

    I don't travel often but when I do get to go and spend a week with people and go through stuff together in person, eat with them once or twice, maybe go out for drinks together, it changes everything about how we work together afterwards and that lasts for the rest of the time we work together.

    I can see we (humans) might have to say "Nope, can't do that anymore and that's that" but it's not a no cost switch.

    (But you are so right about the printers.)

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    I work with US-ians.

    Words I have had to explain recently: Rota, Faff and Wanky. The latter resulting in some confusion when I briefly thought my colleague's husband was called Wanky. (He's actually called Dick, so you can see how that happened, sort of...)

    And the "war gaming" meeting that went in the diary as "wall gaming"

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    Rubiks Cube Calendar?

    Not hard (you only do one side) but you get to re-solve it every day

    Edit - shit they are expensive!

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for brokenbetty

    A basic bluetooth radio https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CJKRXFC/r­ef=pe_27063361_487055811_TE_3p_dp_1

    A thing for the phone to mount it somewhere easy to see

    A convertor kit for the car with a replacement fascia and connectors to wire in the steering wheel controls.

    I could have gone for a cheaper no-brand radio and I'm sure it would be fine, but the convertor kit had instructions for the main brands so seemed less faff to go that way. And it's nice to keep the steering controls. The thing that originally made cds skip a track now works for Spotify!