Question on gender critical arguments

[Thinkingg]

I've been reading more about this, I'm aware of the basics. Could someone talk me through what laws currently protect women as a class? I.e. if anyone could freely choose if they were women (the most extreme outcome of 'transwomen are women' plus self ID), what would that change, both here and in poorer countries?

[Thinkingg]

Sorry I'm sure this has been covered before, point me elsewhere if there's already a thread

[Barracker]

My right to privacy from the opposite sex.
My right to assemble with my own sex.
My right to be measured and compared against the opposite sex for equity.
My right to representation by my own sex.
My right to compete against my own sex.
My right to be accommodated with my own sex.

Women's rights are in essence the right to be recognised as different from men, and accorded provisions specific to their sex that are not open to men.

In fact, I'll boil it down to - such a change removes women's rights entirely, and places them at risk of imprisonment for speaking about and defending the previously held rights of their sex.
And of course that imprisonment will no longer be only with my own sex.

[Z0rr0]

There are nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. It is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of these characteristics.
• age
• race
• sex
• sexual orientation
• religion or belief
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity

See this: fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/
EHRC statutory code says:

2.55 Sex is a protected characteristic and refers to a male or a female of any age. In relation to a group of people it refers to either men and/or boys, or women and/or girls.

2.56 A comparator for the purposes of showing sex discrimination will be a person of the opposite sex. Sex does not include gender reassignment or sexual orientation.

“Sex is clearly described here using the commonly accepted words man and women. A woman must not be discriminated against compared to a man based on her biological sex. If a transgender person does not possess a gender recognition certificate then their legal sex is still the same as their biological or birth sex”

There are six main areas set out in the Equality Act 2010 that acknowledge the need for women-only spaces, services, roles and activities and makes it lawful to exclude males (including trans-identifying males). In all cases the use of an exemption must be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. There are no blanket rules since each situation must be considered on its own merits and due regard must be given to all groups affected by invoking the exemption. The least discriminatory option must always be chosen.
It goes on to describe single sex accommodation, sports, women only shortlists, women specific services etc.
eg
Considerations of privacy or decency might require a public changing room or lavatory attendant to be of the same sex as those using the facilities.
Unemployed Muslim women might not take advantage of the services of an outreach worker to help them find employment if they were provided by a man.
A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

Anywa, have a look at the link, it's all there.

[NotTerfNorCis]

The question is what does 'choose to be a woman' mean? Biological reality remains. All you can do is perpetuate social stereotypes, and feminism used to be about shattering those.

I get the impression that these days, if a girl isn't comfortable with feminine stereotypes then instead of breaking the mould, she's encouraged to believe she isn't a girl at all. It's old-fashioned sexism - you don't act like a woman? Then you aren't a woman!

[MrsKCastle]

It's not just about laws and legal protections, it is also about social norms.

Many of these norms are already changing. It is becoming more and more difficult to disagree with 'Transwomen are women' and to a lesser extent, 'Transmen are men'.

This has many practical implications. Some of these are changing now, or have already changed.

• Males in 'female-only' or 'women's' spaces, including changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, other accommodation where sharing is expected (women's domestic violence refuges, school trips)
  
• Males receiving rewards, opportunities or representation that is designed to address the history of discrimination against women: women's officers, political shortlists, scholarships, awards.
  
• Linked to above - Males who have been through male puberty in women's sport
  
• Males counted as female and vice versa for statistical purposes e.g. Crime records, 'gender' pay gap, medical needs
  
• Sexuality and its redefinition: the expectation that people will date others based on their gender, the idea that someone could be attracted to only one type of body being considered a fetish

[MrsKCastle]

In my post above, I should have made something clear.

When I talk about 'males' in certain spaces, I am not necessarily or only talking about 'transwomen'. A huge part of the problem, is that 'if anyone could freely choose if they were women' then that would mean that we could never question someone else's 'gender'. Anyone who wanted to use the women's facilities, or apply for a women's role or opportunity, could do so.

If it were only a question of 'choosing' or 'expressing' one's 'gender', that wouldn't be so bad. But there is this expectation that anyone with the gender 'woman ' should be treated as being of the female sex. I

The end game is that society is no longer able to distinguish between males and females for any reason.

[HPFA]

The weird thing is that the NHS website has this to say:

The prostate is a small gland in the pelvis, found only in men.

And leading men's health movement Movember says this

Only men have a prostate gland.

As far as I know no transwomen have objected to these and similar statements, so we can only assume they agree that if you have a prostate, you're a man.

[popehilarious]

Laws, such as anti sex discrimination, would be useless. E.g. you're discriminated against because you're a female of child-bearing age and people assume you might become pregnant (regardless of whether you intend to or can)? That's no longer sex discrimination as men can become pregnant too. Equality!

[Thinkingg]

Thanks all, especially @z0rr0 for the legal stuff. Interesting point MrsKCastle that social norms might have even more impact than legal stuff.

[Z0rr0]

No worries.

[BatShite]

As far as I know no transwomen have objected to these and similar statements, so we can only assume they agree that if you have a prostate, you're a man.

Oh using the word man is fine, identifying men is fine. Its only the word woman thats a huge issue that must include everyone or else bigot.

This has led to the situation where if you refer to “men” everyone knows you mean men, if you refer to “transwomen” then every knows you mean transwomen and if you refer to “women” then thousands of people decide you’re an exclusionary bigot and try to get you sacked.

excelpope.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/northerner-illuminates/?fbclid=IwAR03btQ4lVtxrdymK9u28X5BMGnG1tSSWIcZ8Am85DsZ_vX61hTI5wFT9yQ Says it well..