Easy for him to say

Peter Tatchell does keep getting this wrong.

First of all the priority. Trans rights first, women’s rights the also-ran. What the hell. First of all that’s one of the core reasons for this whole conflict: this relentless insistence that trans rights are far more important and urgent than boring old women’s rights. Second, why? Why put trans rights first? Women are half of everyone; trans people are a tiny fraction of everyone. What is it with this constant shrugging weary eye-rolling indifference to women’s rights from people who fancy themselves progressives?

Then there’s calling us “non-trans women.” Fuck right off with that. We’re women. That’s it. We’re not “cis” and we’re no more non-trans than we are non-reptile, non-plaster, non-chocolate, non-asteroid.

And most of all there’s his assuming the conclusion and announcing that “rational, evidence-based ideas” will get us there. There’s his assuming as fact that “trans women are not a threat to non-trans women” and that all there is to do is “show” that.

It’s probably true that most trans women are not a threat to women, but Peter Tatchell can’t possibly know that no trans women can ever be a threat of any kind to women. He can’t know that and we can’t know that and governments can’t know that, so systematically removing all arrangements intended to make women safe from voyeuristic or violent men is not automatically a brilliant plan.

That’s speaking generally, but speaking particularly, there’s also the fact that plenty of trans women are visibly and vocally and publicly a threat to women right now as we watch. Plenty of trans women are working hard to silence women who talk back in the way I’m talking back right here. They got a scalp a couple of days ago when they had Meghan Murphy permanently banned from Twitter. So yes, Peter, some trans women and their “allies” are a threat to women right here and right now.

3 Responses to “Easy for him to say”