I have no asked this question four times and received no answer. Look - if your answer is 'because a male's need for validation is considered more important than a woman's right to safety and dignity' then just say so! I won't agree with you, but at least I know your position.
I am struggling to think what other possible answer there can be. We all presumably agree that people have a right to express their identity within the confines of existing civil and criminal law.
We all presumably agree that when different 'identities' compete in the same space and for the same resources, there is potential for tension and a need for monitoring, to ensure that one 'identity' doesn't overwhelm the other.
This recognition and attempt to balance the competing needs of different identities, does not 'erase' or 'invalidate' or show a 'phobia' of one identity over the other. On the contrary. It is an exercise in recognition of both identities.
But there will be circumstances where the two identities just cannot safely co-exist - contact sports. Rape crisis centres etc. So an assessment and a choice has to be made.
So I ask again. Do you agree women have a right to single sex spaces? If not - why not?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sarah Phillimore

Sarah Phillimore Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SVPhillimore

25 Sep
Phew! I was a bit worried that Helen Webberley was only being advised on endocrinology by Susie Green, but it’s ok - she took advice from her husband also.

Who is a gastroenterologist.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1441306… Image
Not really the specialism at the cutting edge of dosing 10 year olds with puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones. Image
She claims that his experience treating hypogonadism is relevant. Well yes, it involves testosterone. For a male body. Doesn’t seem to be relevant at all for a 12 year old girl.

mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi… Image
Read 8 tweets
25 Sep
Sigh. Given that you seem to think a victim is anyone who claims it, I am sure the answer is ‘lots and lots’.

I grow increasingly tired of this. Yes, men are generally more violent and dangerous than women. But that does not mean we abandon the rule of law.
If you were accused of abusing a child, I bet you would want a chance to defend yourself and submit evidence to show the allegation was false. If you were a liar, trying to hide your abuse then it’s just as vital the allegations are tested so the right decisions are made.
The problems with the family courts are NOT that they delight in ‘giving children to abusers’. A significant problem is simply the lack of judges to ensure that finding of fact hearings happen quickly. Waiting months and months IS traumatic I accept.
Read 6 tweets
24 Sep
It’s very important that those who support medical transition for children understand precisely what this will inevitably involve. The child being discussed here was 10 years old. There was no discussion about impact on fertility.
Why not? Because a 10 year old child has no conception of life as a sexually functioning adult. They are unable to consent to giving away their fertility and their sexual function.
Webberley argues that you don’t need to bother with that because all we are talking about are puberty blockers which are completely harmless and reversible! Ignore for the moment that no one has any idea the impact on a 10 year old who takes PB for next 4 years as advised here.
Read 9 tweets
23 Sep
There is much that was horrifying and absurd in the evidence of Dr Webberley. For me, the worst was this. No wonder she concludes gender dysphoria is commonplace - she trained herself to diagnose it for profit. ImageImage
Nothing else explains sudden surge in referrals - andthat the patient cohort suddenly switched from boys to girls - but social contagion. What makes this different from the ‘Satanic Panic’, where some professionals similarly lost their minds, is it’s presentation as civil rights.
Another difference is that in the Satanic Panic is was the adults who suffered false imprisonment and the destruction of their careers. Here, we see children face the destruction of their once healthy bodies and they will carry this with them all of their lives.
Read 8 tweets
22 Sep
There was significant confusion - for me at least - about what the 'parental loophole' case established. I think there was an argument it was only meant to apply for children already referred to treatment, thus to protect prescribing GPs who weren't under contract with the Tavi.
I am very glad that there has been a 'pause' in referrals and hope this time has been used wisely to actually consider the best way forward on the best evidence. I am sorry for that (very, very) small percentage of children for whom medical transition is required.
But on utilitarian principles, I am relieved that there is respite for the (much, much greater numbers) of children who are seeking medical transition to alleviate some other form of mental distress or are getting swept up in social contagion.
Read 7 tweets
22 Sep
So why do we bother having doctors, lawyers, plumbers or electricians etc? Experts are of course not infallible. Knowledge shifts and improves. But to suggest a 12 year old girl is capable of ‘informing’ a doctor about the impact of testosterone on her body is insane.
What we are seeing here is prime example of ex post facto rationalisation - I.e simply interpreting everything that happened as support for what you want to do. We all do it.
But experts are supposed to do it less often.
skepticink.com/tippling/2013/… ImageImage
Expertise and professional training is supposed to act as protection against the uncritical adoption of a moral position which then distorts facts to support it. An electrician who thinks electricity is governed by his own moral universe will soon be dead, for example. Image
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(