It was the Gender Recognition Act that messed everything up

I really think the GRA has pushed the situation to this point and should not just be reformed but scrapped altogether in favour of new laws to protect gender non-conforming people from discrimination.

You have highlighted such an important point here, jellyfritz, not only in pointing out that the GRA is where the problem starts, but in emphasising that feminists must challenge the root of gender identity ideology, not just the more extreme manifestations of it.

Trans activists have used the Overton Window brilliantly: they've been so unyielding in pushing the most extreme version of genderist ideology, that feminists are always on the back foot, desperately trying to stop whatever is happening this month - rapists in women's prisons, boys winning girls' sports events, 12-year-olds being given sterilising hormones - and all of the madness springs from the initial false premise that is enshrined in the GRA: the nonsensical and sexist idea that a human male can 'feel' female, and vice versa.

Feminists need to shift the Overton window by staking out a stance that unequivocally rejects genderist ideology in its entirety: human beings cannot change sex, gender is sex roles, rather than legislating to protect a subjective feeling in someone's head ('gender identity'), let's protect everyone's right to transgress sex roles: meaning, for instance, employers should not be allowed to discriminate against a man who prefers to present in a manner more typically associated with women.

And I would add that we should also insist on the importance of the materiality of sex: what those differences mean for how men and women live in the world, and why services, statistics, sports bodies, etc need to take account of them.

This is the firmest ground to stand on: a sound, logical position that offers an alternative understanding of gender to the one that is being promoted by the transgender movement, and protects freedom of expression for all while insisting that sex is both real and politically relevant.

Interesting article, Stopmakingsense.

Do the Maria Millers of this world actively want all sex-segregated areas/sports/scholarships etc to be completely abolished then? The eventual outcome would be that men would not even need to claim a 'female identity' to access women's spaces, because:

For a school to allow a male student who identifies as female into a woman’s shower facility while refusing such shower access to a male student who identifies as male (or as androgynous, or pangender, etc.), does discriminate on grounds of gender identity.

This is an interesting article - ignore the religious publication title - it is a secular legal argument

www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/03/supreme-incoherence-transgender-ideology-and-the-end-of-law

I used to think feminism and trans activism should be allies but now think anything but completely dismantling the system of gender will just hurt woman more.

Strength in numbers I guess. But they seem very different religions - trans think gender is innate, and non-binary think it's fluid.

Just another contradiction of trans logic.

I wonder why they constantly include non-binary.

What's in it for them?

I'm getting M&S and Parcelforce.

Nope. No idea.

I liked a page from Feminist Current and Faceache, with its odd algorithm, has decided I'd like this bunch

The MN algorithm has been showing me, for several days now, loads of adverts for men's cheap clothes aimed at the under 30 age bracket. Heaven only knows how that works as it could not be more wrong.

I liked a page from Feminist Current and Faceache, with its odd algorithm, has decided I'd like this bunch.

I think the use of language has confused it.

Apparently, lesbians who avoid trans women are transphobic and cis-people (men?) who prefer transwomen are fetishists.

The post came with a thank you to the TERFs for sharing the post, publicising it and getting it 800 likes.

I suspect it's more to do with people not reading the content first.

This thread has helped me (finally) sort out in my head what I think, and how I am going to present my arguments to my MP.

I have a gender non-conforming 19 yr old DD, on the autistic spectrum, who currently identifies as male. I would give my right arm, well, OK both arms and both legs, if she could live her life happily using whatever pronoun she wants, dress how she pleases, without feeling the need for hormones or surgery.

So separating gender from sex (the adjective from the noun as I see it) is what we need, instead of confusing the two.

Btw she can now, with no additional legislation, simply with a deed poll and a letter from her gp confirming her intention to live in her preferred gender, get the sex on her passport changed from female to male.

So yes it is gender non-conformity which needs to be protected from prejudice and harassment.

Keep biological sex unchanged, (since it can't be changed), for those areas of life where it really matters but don't put obstacles in the way of those who want to change their gender. Continue to dismantle those laws and constructs which constrict human beings from doing what they want because of their sex. Then I might be able to sleep at night.

This is very interesting and exactly the sort of discussion i was hoping for on wednesday night before we were thrown out of the venue. It should be possible to have laws that protect trans rights while maintaining basic protections for women. For example i understood that decisions on putting trans women in female prisons is still made on a case by case basis, there's no absolute entitlement (in england anyway) which seems sensible to me although clearly in Ponting's and some other cases the decision was wrong. Can anyone confirm that's how it works?

I disagree that feminists and TAs should be natural allies.

Feminists want to dismantle gender but many TAs fetishise it.

BetsyM00

Or a biologist.

Or a biologist.

There was an elderly transwoman on here a year or two ago who said she was shocked, but pleased when she found out she could legally be a woman. It hadn't stopped her prior, though. She hadn't asked for it, either.

It was legislation designed for a specific purpose which is being exploited. Whoever wrote it certainly wasn't a feminist. Or a realist.

Gender identity is recognised as a protected characteristic, separate from sex, under the Equality Act (i.e. you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity)

No, it isn't. Gender reassignment is the protected characteristic. Miller's failed bill sought to change this to gender identity but ran out of time, thank fuck. It would have meant we had to accept a far wider variety of non-binary, genderqueer and non-men type males in female spaces than we currently do. It would basically have protected a feeling in a man's head.

The idea that gender non-conformity should be the protected characteristic instead of either gender reassignment or gender identity has legs I reckon.

• It would protect trans people from discrimination without them ever having to claim to be the opposite sex, unlike gender reassignment

• gender non-conformity is visible. Unlike gender identity, protecting it doesn't present the problem of trying to make laws around feelings in people's heads

• Protection of gender non-conformity would protect ALL gender non-conforming people from discrimination, not just trans people.

Part of the reason I think it has legs is because on Wednesday night I actually discussed this idea with a couple of young TAs at Speaker's Corner (before everything kicked off) and they were quite amenable! We fell out again shortly afterwards because they would not accept that we also needed some spaces to remain sex segregated.

Heartbreakingly, one of the TAs I was talking to about this was then violently shoved and intimidated by one of Maria's attackers when she tried to stop him hitting Maria. From about 0:25 in . Looks like she's learning the hard way, poor lass

That's certainly my view jelly.

I keep meaning to trawl through the records to see how far (if at all) it was recognised during the passage of the GRA that we were shifting from sex to gender for classification. I suspect it wasn't.

Sorry- addendum on the human rights case law. The case law deals entirely (I think I'm correct here) with post operative MtF transsexuals and it's important to remember that. I think the human rights argument that you should allow legal transition is much much stronger in relation to an individual who has had full GRS and has lived as the acquired gender for a number of years, than in relation to a self identified transwomen who make no attempt to pass. For example, the individuals who brought the legal cases wanted (for example) to not have to disclose their previous sex to their employer. There's a strong claim to privacy in relation to that information if you've lived as the acquired gender for a decade. If you have a beard and have only self-identified as a woman for a week- that interest isn't there.

The European Court of Human Rights was concerned about the lack of recognition of transition on official documents such as passports and driving licences. They also felt there was a problem where there is a disconnect between a person's legal status (birth sex) and 'social reality' (where gender reassignment surgery has taken place paid - especially where it's paid for by the state).

As to disentangling sex and gender in the legal framework, it's tricky. Gender identity is recognised as a protected characteristic, separate from sex, under the Equality Act (i.e. you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity). However this (important) exception aside, I don't think there is scope for gender identity and sex to legally co-exist because they're two alternative mechanisms of categorisation which are necessarily in conflict. The purpose of legal/official recognition of sex (or gender is the current rather confused conflation) is to allow us to segregate people for various purposes (i.e. the prison estate). For this purpose, you've got to use either sex or 'gender'- you can't use both.

Hypothetically you could include both sex and gender identity on passports and other official docs but I don't see that it serves any purpose. We have to pick one to use for legal categorisation. Once you do that, the other isn't really relevant, is it? If we operate categorisation by biological sex, then gender identity is as irrelevant to the state as sexual orientation. I guess if you categorise by 'gender' then biological sex might remain relevant for identification purposes, but this is probably a bit old hat in a world with biometrics!

Disclaimer: I haven't thought about it from quite this angle before (and I'm posting while putting the DC to bed ) so I don't rule out the possibility that I've missed a legal angle from which sex/gender identity disaggregation would be helpful!