By Janice Moore
“He who stifles free discussion, secretly doubts whether what he professes to believe is really true.”
Wendell Phillips (1870), American advocate, slavery abolitionist and women’s rights activist
A FEW weeks ago, I posted an advertisement on local Facebook pages about an upcoming event in Jersey with guest speaker Stephanie Davies-Arai. Stephanie is the founder and director of Transgender Trend, which is a UK organisation that draws attention to the harms done by gender-identity ideology, particularly with respect to children in schools and in medicine.
Within less than an hour of posting the advertisement, activists were trying to shut down the event.
Ms Davies-Arai is a well-known and highly regarded speaker on this subject. She has been invited numerous times to give verbal and written expert evidence to the UK parliament and the High Court. Her principal focus is on the safeguarding of children, and in 2022 she was awarded a British Empire Medal for services to children.
So, why are local activists trying to stop you from hearing what Stephanie has to say?
It is often argued by gender-identity activists that the mere suggestion of discussion around these issues equates to debating the existence of transgender people. This is an example of a “thought terminating cliché”, which Wikipedia defines as: “a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.”
Thought-terminating clichés like this, along with “be kind” and “transwomen are women”, are commonly used by activists to discourage people from thinking critically about important issues. They use them precisely because they don’t have a rational response to the concerns being raised.
Beware the thought-terminating cliché. Their incessant repetition doesn’t make them true or even useful. “Be kind” does not solve problems, it masks them. Constant reiteration of the phrase “transwomen are women” doesn’t make it so. None of this negates the real issues faced by people who suffer from distress related to their biological sex, but being compassionate does not necessitate denying reality.
Nobody is suggesting a debate around the existence of transgender people, or suggesting that they shouldn’t have all the rights and protections that everyone else has, as well as specific protections to ensure against discrimination due to being transgender, all of which are already in place.
At its heart this issue is about men, and about enabling men, however they identify, access to women’s spaces and services. It is true that those advocating for breaking down women’s boundaries are doing so in the name of “transgender rights”. That does not mean all people who identify as trans support the erasure of women’s boundaries and sex-based rights: a small, vocal and often aggressive minority have been pushing this agenda.
Rights and protections for women are also entrenched in law. Yet thanks to these activists, and thanks to unwitting politicians in Jersey as elsewhere, policies have been put in place over the last decade that allow men to claim access to the rights and protections for women that were put in place to protect women, from men.
Why are the rights of women considered less important to those of men, transgender or otherwise? Why is it the job of women to accept the erasure of our boundaries to accommodate men, for whatever reason? What about the rights of women?
What about the rights of women to safety, dignity and privacy in changing rooms and toilets? A good example is the case of 30-year veteran nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended by her employer, NHS Fife, because she complained about having to share a female changing room with 28-year-old Dr Upton, a man who recently came to identify as a woman. Dr Upton insisted on using the women’s changing room and continued to do so after interactions with Ms Peggie made it very clear that she was uncomfortable. In the tribunal, Ms Peggie was forced to disclose details of a previous sexual assault and experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding to explain why she might be uncomfortable sharing changing facilities with a male doctor.
A YouGov poll in the UK in 2021 showed 96% of women want to retain single-sex toilets. Ninety-sex percent. Why do politicians think it is acceptable to ignore the wishes of the vast majority of women in order to placate a tiny but vocal group of activists?
What about the rights of girls and women to compete safely and fairly in sport without having to do so against males who say they identify as women? Girls are dropping out of sport for fear about their safety or because they can’t compete fairly. In extreme cases they are being punished for raising concerns. Last month, a second teenage female footballer in the UK was given a six-match ban for asking whether the adult transgender opponents she was playing were men. Punishment of the 18-year-old, who apparently has ADHD as well as learning difficulties, comes just a few months after a 17-year-old girl with suspected autism was handed a similar suspension. The girl was quoted as saying: “It kind of made me hate football”. That males, especially once they have gone through puberty, have physical advantages over girls is a well-evidenced scientific fact. Why are the feelings of males in sport more important than safety and fairness for girls and women?
What about the rights of women in domestic violence and rape crisis centres, who may find a man working in or using a shelter they have gone to precisely to escape trauma caused by a man in the first place? The Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre made headlines over the fact that their CEO Mridul Wadhwa, a man identifying as a woman (even though the position was reserved for women only), was refusing to provide women-only services to rape victims. These are victims of male violence: it’s quite reasonable to assume they might want female-only services. Why is a woman’s mental and physical well-being when she is at her most vulnerable less important than ensuring men’s feelings are validated?
What about women prisoners in female prisons where men who say they identify as women are housed with them? « Prison onset gender dysphoria » has become a commonly used phrase for male criminals who “identify as a woman” only after being arrested, charged or convicted of violent crimes, so they can be housed in a women’s prison. Isla Bryson, known as Adam Graham when he violently raped two women, subsequently claimed to identify as a woman. This was a highly publicised case in Scotland, but it is also happening elsewhere: several months ago in Canada, Tara DeSousa, Canada’s youngest convicted sex offender who at the age of 15 raped a three-month-old baby, began identifying as a woman after his conviction. He is currently housed at a women’s facility with a mother-and-baby unit.
“Not all men, but always a man”. Predatory men will use any opportunity to take advantage. By allowing men who say they identify as women into women’s spaces you open the door to all bad men to take advantage.
One of the more surprising contradictions around this topic is that many of the advocates for the erasure of women’s boundaries are, in fact, women. Young women are overrepresented among those who are happy to relinquish single-sex spaces and facilities to “be kind”. Perhaps this is because they are too young to value those sex-based rights which previous generations of women fought so hard to gain.
Then again, perhaps it is a consequence of privilege. Telegraph columnist Suzanne Moore wrote in article on 11 February: “Trans activism belongs to the privileged middle class: those who are never likely to be sharing a prison cell with a sex offender, nor find themselves in a shelter for domestic abuse. Those who can happily distance themselves from the material consequences of losing single-sex spaces. They may, however, voice discomfort in the future by finding out that their daughters must share loos and changing rooms with adult men”.
We’re told: “Every trans person is someone’s child, sibling, friend, parent or colleague” – and this is, of course, true.
Also true:
Every woman or girl having to change in front of a man is someone’s child, possibly also someone’s mother, sister, grandmother.
Every woman who is forced to resort to rape crisis centres or domestic violence shelters, or who face time in prison, is also someone’s daughter.
Every girl who drops out of competitive sport because she either fears for her safety or feels unable to compete because a boy is competing against her also has parents, grandparents, siblings.
Women and girls deserve better. The rights of women to single-sex services, spaces and sport are fundamental. We must stand up for them.
Change is coming. There is a growing recognition that things have gone too far and that there needs to be a shift back toward common sense.
In his first weeks in office, Donald Trump announced several Executive Orders aimed at reigning in some of the worst examples of gender extremism, including one aimed at keeping men out of female sports. You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to agree with him on this: a New York Times poll found 79 per cent of Americans (including 67 per cent of Democrats) thought men didn’t belong in women’s sports, making it probably the most popular executive order ever. How did it ever even get to this? Aggressive activism coupled with political cowardice.
A correction is also gathering momentum in the UK. Much of this is coming from court cases and tribunals. UK civil servant and engineer Eleanor Frances recently won an 18-month legal battle with her former employers over her concerns about their promotion of gender ideology through its HR policies. Ms. Frances initially offered to settle her claim for £1 in damages, plus costs, asking only that her employers acknowledge the issues she had raised, apologise, and work with the relevant regulators to address them. This offer was ignored. In December the UK Civil Service settled for the full final damages claimed (over £120,000 of tax-payers’ money) and agreed to revise its policies and strategies which were deemed not to be impartial, a cornerstone of a well-functioning civil service.
Cases like these are increasing public awareness and concern. A UK YouGov poll released several weeks ago showed that scepticism around gender ideology has grown across the board over the last two years, among both sexes and, somewhat surprisingly, all age groups.
Jersey needs to wake up to how “captured” the government and its policies have been by this radical ideology and the impact on women’s rights and the protection of children. The government needs to take note of the direction of travel and get on board with the growing shift back toward common sense. It requires action now, before more harm is done. To do that, it is essential politicians listen to voices outside the current echo chamber, beyond those of activists employing thought-terminating clichés.
WRN Jersey has organised Stephanie’s visit to give politicians, educators and the public the opportunity to hear her share her wealth of knowledge about these issues and the risks to child safeguarding and women. We’ve arranged several meetings for her with authorities in Jersey who are responsible for safeguarding, including with politicians and school leaders. We hope that some of them are open-minded and brave enough to attend.
We are also hosting a public with Stephanie on Wednesday 6 March from 7-9pm at St Brelade Parish Hall. Efforts by activists to have the event cancelled have only made us more determined to ensure the public has the opportunity to listen to what Stephanie has to say. If you’re interested, please come along. Entry is free.
For more information contact WRN Jersey at: wrnjersey@womensrights.network
